Noam Chomsky: "yeah, maybe the Russians tried to interfere in the election"

[Werewolf]

This is so ridiculous it’s scary. How the hell are you a mod?

Tell me again how Trump will become dictator for life???

 

[Procrastinator35]

Well, that's the counter-view, isn't it? Is Nato still necessary in 2018?

That is a separate question to whether Nato has been a good or bad thing over its history.

The Soviet Union might have collapsed but some of those former Soviet states are still quite happy to have the security guarantees. That's why is has expanded. Countries like Estonia want to join.

Yeah, nah....It's expanded because so many of the establishment are invested $$$$$$ in the continued maintenance & escalation of the production of munitions & war......That's why they so desperately need us all to buy the fact that Russia is an existential threat...….Ebven when the Soviet Union collapsed they continued to expand it.

Your narrative & defence of it unfortunately doesn't marry-up with the facts.....Twas also the C.i.A who initiated the coup in Kiev & tried to start a civil war in both Georgia & Chechnya…..Only 1 country & I country alone is fully invested in war & chaos my friend......I'd usually say do the maths at this point, but instead I'll say, do the history.

 

[smokingjacket]

Well, that's the counter-view, isn't it? Is Nato still necessary in 2018?

That is a separate question to whether Nato has been a good or bad thing over its history.

The Soviet Union might have collapsed but some of those former Soviet states are still quite happy to have the security guarantees. That's why is has expanded. Countries like Estonia want to join.

Yeah which is fantastic for Estonia to free ride on the US military guarantee but it creates an enormous security dilemma by having the combined might of Germany, France and the US creeping towards the Russian border each year, to solve what security problem? The Russian military is not the Soviet Union and the Ukrainian example shows just how hard it is for a state to invade/annex another country in 2018, even against a country with such a weak armed forces ala Ukraine, even when invading a region that shares language, culture, religion and previous institutional ties.

 

[hirdy_is_champ]

If the us industrial complex is all about creating war and killing people it must be close to being one of the biggest institutional failures in world history as the amount of wars has collapsed to basically nothing in the past 60 years. Virtually no one dies in war anymore.

Haha, yeah no wars going on at the moment.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

Yeah, nah....It's expanded because so many of the establishment are invested $$$$$$ in the continued maintenance & escalation of the production of munitions & war......That's why they so desperately need us all to buy the fact that Russia is an existential threat...….Ebven when the Soviet Union collapsed they continued to expand it.

Your narrative & defence of it unfortunately doesn't marry-up with the facts.....Twas also the C.i.A who initiated the coup in Kiev & tried to start a civil war in both Georgia & Chechnya…..Only 1 country & I country alone is fully invested in war & chaos my friend......I'd usually say do the maths at this point, but instead I'll say, do the history.

You seem to have a view of Russia as a totally benign actor in global affairs.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

Yeah which is fantastic for Estonia to free ride on the US military guarantee but it creates an enormous security dilemma by having the combined might of Germany, France and the US creeping towards the Russian border each year, to solve what security problem? The Russian military is not the Soviet Union and the Ukrainian example shows just how hard it is for a state to invade/annex another country in 2018, even against a country with such a weak armed forces ala Ukraine, even when invading a region that shares language, culture, religion and previous institutional ties.

Yeah, I'm not discounting this view. But nor does it necessarily answer the broader question.

 

[Procrastinator35]

You seem to have a view of Russia as a totally benign actor in global affairs.

Your question pertained to NATO, did it not?

Tis only the U.S who have broken the accord & now sit upon Russias' doorstep all along it's Eastern border & has a fleet in the Black Sea.....That's called intimidation 101.

It is America who have broken all these pacts all around the world as a means to illegally & unconstitutionally invade & destroy other countries....And as we saw with WMD, always on false pretences.

They are not the worlds police & the defenders of Democracy, they are Global robber baron pirates.....Nothing more, nothing less.

 

[smokingjacket]

Yeah, I'm not discounting this view. But nor does it necessarily answer the broader question.

What is the broader question?

Can you have the simultaneous view that NATO was a necessary alliance during the Cold War but its primary aim is now the incorporation of new states under the US military-industrial complexes alliance umbrella for weapon sales? Because plenty of very distinguished international relations scholars, ex-diplomat/bureaucrats and journalists have made that argument persuasively.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

Your question pertained to NATO, did it not?

Yes indeed.

Tis only the U.S who have broken the accord & now sit upon Russias' doorstep all along it's Eastern border & has a fleet in the Black Sea.....That's called intimidation 101.

It is America who have broken all these pacts all around the world as a means to illegally & unconstitutionally invade & destroy other countries....And as we saw with WMD, always on false pretences.

They are not the worlds police & the defenders of Democracy, they are Global robber baron pirates.....Nothing more, nothing less.

How does this justify your view of Russia as an essentially benign actor?

 

[Procrastinator35]

How does this justify your view of Russia as an essentially benign actor?

I never said any such thing.....All I did was stipulate that upon the fall of the Soviet empire, Russia has no longer been communist, nor sought to expand it's territories through conquest, other than in the Ukraine in reaction to the cop & civil war there, as a means to protect its' fleet in the Crimea....The Donblast region is principally Russian residents, up to 80% I believe, who democratically voted to join Russia & leave the Ukraine after the illegal & unconstitutional coup.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

What is the broader question?

Whether Nato has, on balance, been a good or bad thing since its inception.

Can you have the simultaneous view that NATO was a necessary alliance during the Cold War but its primary aim is now the incorporation of new states under the US military-industrial complexes alliance umbrella for weapon sales?

You can by all means have those views. The debate about whether Nato is obsolete is a live one.

Because plenty of very distinguished international relations scholars, ex-diplomat/bureaucrats and journalists have made that argument persuasively.

Yes, champ. You are not the only one to be aware of the discussion about the role of Nato.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

I never said any such thing

Well, that was my question – or my prompt, if you like. Instead of answering it, you pivoted to lambasting the US, as is your habit whenever asked a question about Russia.

All I did was stipulate that upon the fall of the Soviet empire, Russia has no longer been communist, nor sought to expand it's territories through conquest, other than in the Ukraine in reaction to the cop & civil war there, as a means to protect its' fleet in the Crimea....The Donblast region is principally Russian residents, up to 80% I believe, who democratically voted to join Russia & leave the Ukraine after the illegal & unconstitutional coup.

Is it your view that Russia is an essentially benign actor in global affairs?

Do places like Estonia or Ukraine have no cause for concern whatsoever about Putin's designs?

 

[Procrastinator35]

Well, that was my question – or my prompt, if you like. Instead of answering it, you pivoted to lambasting the US, as is your habit whenever asked a question about Russia.

Is it your view that Russia is an essentially benign actor in global affairs?

Do places like Estonia or Ukraine have no cause for concern whatsoever about Putin's designs?

Sure, I always defend the victim & go after the bully....As is my want in all things.

Russia is no longer benign on the world stage as the U.S has essentially forced it's hand with it's provocations on it's borders & in the Middle East.

Russia hasn't threatened to invade or destroy any of the Baltic countries so far as I'm aware.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

Sure, I always defend the victim & go after the bully....As is my want in all things.

Russia is no longer benign on the world stage as the U.S has essentially forced it's hand with it's provocations on it's borders & in the Middle East.

Laying it on a bit thick, even by your standards.

Russia hasn't threatened to invade or destroy any of the Baltic countries so far as I'm aware.

Well, interference doesn't necessarily take the form of invasion.

 

[smokingjacket]

Whether Nato has, on balance, been a good or bad thing since its inception.

You can by all means have those views. The debate about whether Nato is obsolete is a live one.

Yes, champ. You are not the only one to be aware of the discussion about the role of Nato.

The *? What's the point of asking if its been good or bad on balance over its inception? Is there some sort of cut off point that after a while we say its used up all its credit points? Its a stupid way of approaching a problem.

It's either still a relevant organisation that serves a real purpose in making the region more secure, or it doesn't. Currently the huge gulf in military capability between NATO and Russia is creating more serious security challenges than it solves and making the European states bad neighbours.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

The ****? What's the point of asking if its been good or bad on balance over its inception?

Is there some sort of cut off point that after a while we say its used up all its credit points? Its a stupid way of approaching a problem.

Don't get your knickers in a knot, mate.

That was the question I posed to the other fellow, to gauge his overall view of the alliance, dating back to its establishment. There's no point getting snarky because you don't like it.

If your view is that Nato was vital at one point but isn't any more, that's fine too.

It's either still a relevant organisation that serves a real purpose in making the region more secure, or it doesn't. Currently the huge gulf in military capability between NATO and Russia is creating more serious security challenges than it solves and making the European states bad neighbours.

Yeah, that's one view. Are you expecting me to vehemently disagree or something?

If people are going to make the case that Nato creates more problems than it solves, they should also present the counterfactual. What would happen if Nato simply ceased to exist?

 

[Procrastinator35]

Well, interference doesn't necessarily take the form of invasion.

Indeed....and as we've seen from the C.I.A, it can take the form of coups, assassinations, paid terrorist proxy's or just all out bombardment, as we saw in Libya.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

Indeed....and as we've seen from the C.I.A, it can take the form of coups, assassinations, paid terrorist proxy's or just all out bombardment, as we saw in Libya.

And there's the pivot.

 

[Procrastinator35]

And there's the pivot.

You set the pin up & I'll knock it down for you matey.

 

[smokingjacket]

Don't get your knickers in a knot, mate.

That was the question I posed to the other fellow, to gauge his overall view of the alliance, dating back to its establishment. There's no point getting snarky because you don't like it.

If your view is that Nato was vital at one point but isn't any more, that's fine too.

Yeah, that's one view. Are you expecting me to vehemently disagree or something?

If people are going to make the case that Nato creates more problems than it solves, they should also present the counterfactual. What would happen if Nato simply ceased to exist?

I'm simply following your logic. Maybe I've misunderstood that you actually had a point to make instead of circular question loops.

Yeah, I'm not discounting this view. But nor does it necessarily answer the broader question.

What is the broader question?

Whether Nato has, on balance, been a good or bad thing since its inception.

I say NATO's utility in the 60's is completely irrelevant to its purpose today, which we are discussing in this thread on Russia, not the Soviet Union.

In my opinion, if NATO ceased to exist, the EU would get behind a big push for internal military reforms and developing a new accord with Russia. This would result in a much less hostile relationship due to the EU's strong economic partnership with Russia and fewer nuclear weapons and the extraordinary conventional military capability the US has. Whether it would be possible to do in a reasonable time frame with the amount of nuclear-nuclear deterrent and military assets the US has stationed in Europe is another question. Other possible benefits would be more strident European involvement in global affairs so that all security problems aren't solved by the US military.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

You set the pin up & I'll knock it down for you matey.

Yeah I'm not sure that's what's happening here.

 

[Procrastinator35]

Yeah I'm not sure that's what's happening here.

From my perspective it is.

You remind me of young kids in the back seat of the car who keep on asking "Are we there yet"; "Are we there yet"?

 

[hirdy_is_champ]

Some food for thought in the video below. Say what you like about Trump, but this is why the media are trying to railroad him.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

I'm simply following your logic. Maybe I've misunderstood that you actually had a point to make instead of circular question loops.

Or maybe you've wandered into the wrong cinema and started throwing popcorn at the screen because you were expecting a different movie.

I say NATO's utility in the 60's is completely irrelevant to its purpose today, which we are discussing in this thread on Russia, not the Soviet Union.

We?

I asked the other guy a question and you interjected. If you want to have a discussion about Nato today, then that's well and good. But there was a discussion predating your arrival and its term weren't set by you.

But let's set that aside.

In my opinion, if NATO ceased to exist, the EU would get behind a big push for internal military reforms and developing a new accord with Russia. This would result in a much less hostile relationship due to the EU's strong economic partnership with Russia and fewer nuclear weapons and the extraordinary conventional military capability the US has. Whether it would be possible to do in a reasonable time frame with the amount of nuclear-nuclear deterrent and military assets the US has stationed in Europe is another question. Other possible benefits would be more strident European involvement in global affairs so that all security problems aren't solved by the US military.

Isn't this slightly ahistorical? I mean, the norm for Europe over the journey has not been peace and friendship and accords with Russia. Nato has helped underwrite relative peace in Europe for 70 years but that peace has not been the norm for Europe historically. So should we assume that if you took Nato out of the equation, that historically atypical peace would remain? You have to be determined in your glass-half-full approach to propose that, don't you? I am open-mined but I am cognizant that peace in Europe may be the exception, thanks partly to Nato, rather than the rule.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

Some food for thought in the video below. Say what you like about Trump, but this is why the media are trying to railroad him.

But that is straight from the Kremlin's propaganda script.

To have the US president sit there and say that maybe the US is no better than Russia is their wet dream.