[continued from previous message]   
      
   20th century, it was [crosstalk] essentially a neo colony.   
      
   Noam Chomsky: Austria wasn’t anybody’s satellite. Finland wasn’t   
   anybody’s satellite state. Unlike Mexico, they were neutral. Austria   
   was neutral by treaty. Finland neutral by treaty. They could be as   
   much part of the West as they liked. They became Western oriented and   
   what we call capitalist democracies, integrated totally into the   
   Western system. They had constraints. They could not enter into a   
   hostile military alliance run by the United States which carried out   
   military maneuvers on their territory and placed offensive weapons   
   aiming at Russia. Is that an infringement of sovereignty? In some   
   sense, but it certainly had no effect on the life and practice of   
   Austria, Finland, Switzerland, Mexico, and so on. That’s the status   
   that could have been, that might have been achieved for Ukraine if the   
   United States had been willing. Well -   
      
   Bill Fletcher Jr.: But why the United States? When you place the   
   responsibility on the United States, and I keep wondering about 2014.   
   If the Budapest accord said Russia would not attack Ukraine in   
   exchange for the nuclear weapons, and in 2014, the Russians,   
   disenchanted with what was happening in Ukraine, seize Crimea and   
   promote a secessionist movement in the East, how does that lead the   
   Ukrainians to even believe that the Russians could stand by a treaty?   
   If they broke one. They broke a major one. So I understand what you’re   
   saying about Austria and Finland. I mean, it makes perfect sense when   
   you have that kind of neutralization, but this was after Ukraine had   
   been the subject of Russian abuse.   
      
   Noam Chomsky: Certainly Ukraine could not assume that Russia would   
   abide by treaty anymore than dozens of countries around the world   
   which have been subjected to US military intervention could have faith   
   that the United States would observe a treaty. Remember what the   
   Russians did in Ukraine is, of course, criminal. I have to applaud The   
   New York Times editors a couple of days ago for quoting the Nuremberg   
   principles and pointing out that Russia violated them by committing   
   “the supreme international crime,” which differs from other war crimes   
   in that it includes the accumulated evil of the whole, everything that   
   follows.   
      
   Yes, good for the New York Times editors to recognize, to quote that,   
   as far as I know for the first time in response to Russia’s violating   
   it. But of course the US violates it routinely, just constantly. The   
   US violated it when it invaded Iraq, when it bombed Serbia, when it   
   overthrew the government of Chile, Guatemala, Iran, just go on. I   
   don’t have to go on with this.   
      
   Bill Fletcher Jr.: No.   
      
   Noam Chomsky: It violates it constantly.   
      
   Bill Fletcher Jr.: Correct.   
      
   Noam Chomsky: It constantly violates the UN charter, the supreme Law   
   of the Land according to the Constitution, which bans the threat or   
   use of force in international affairs. Can you think of a single US   
   president who’s lived up to the US Constitution? Well, I can’t. Of   
   course, they all violate the supreme Law of the Land and nobody trusts   
   them. The question is, are the circumstances such that the great   
   powers will live up to their commitments? Not because they’re nice   
   guys, they aren’t, but because those are the circumstances.   
      
   So let’s suppose that the United States, since the 1990s, suppose it   
   had abided by the warnings of a whole host of US senior statesmen:   
   George Kennan, Ambassador Jack Matlock, Reagan’s ambassador to Russia,   
   leading Russian specialist Chas Freeman, who I quoted, another   
   ambassador. Directors of the CIA including the current director. Not a   
   long list of other high-level diplomats and government advisors who   
   had made it clear and explicit that though Russia would tolerate a   
   violation of Bush’s commitment and regular humiliation up to a point,   
   they did have a red line. The red line was, again, Georgia and   
   Ukraine, which are deep within the Russian geostrategic heartland, as   
   recognized on all sides. So that was the red line.   
      
   Well, suppose the United States had agreed with these high-level   
   advisors and diplomats and world opinion, and Germany and France, for   
   example, and had recognized the Russian red lines, and agreed to a   
   status for Ukraine that was comparable to Austria, Switzerland,   
   Finland, Mexico, and so on. Would Russia have invaded? We don’t know   
   for sure, but I think there was a way to find out. That would be by   
   withdrawing the September 2021 policy statement which I quoted, and   
   agreeing to enter into negotiations to see if the general agreed   
   guidelines could be met. Only one way to find out, to try. The US did   
   the opposite. To quote Ambassador Freeman again, the US has chosen,   
   quoting him, to “fight to the last Ukrainian.”   
      
   In other words, to abandon any hope for a peaceful settlement and to   
   ensure that the worst will happen. Well, I think Ambassador Freeman is   
   quite accurate. Now, would the Russians have committed the supreme   
   international crime anyway? We don’t know. I don’t know. Nobody knows.   
   But there were ways to try to avert it, and those ways were not taken   
   and are not being taken now. If you take a look at the current   
   situation, there are two major countries that could do something to   
   try to alleviate the horrors in Ukraine. One of them is China. China   
   could certainly do more to try to move towards alleviating the crisis,   
   press towards negotiations. And I think China should be criticized for   
   not doing that. But the criticisms cannot come from the United States   
   without ridicule because China is following US official policy.   
   [inaudible] on the US side, it’s fight to the last Ukrainian and block   
   the prospects for peace.   
      
   When President Bush says to Putin, you’re a war criminal, we’re going   
   to bring you to war crimes trials, that’s saying, you have no escape.   
   The only choice for you with your back to the wall is either commit   
   suicide or use the capacity that you have to destroy Ukraine and to   
   move on to nuclear war. Again, I’m paraphrasing Ambassador Freeman and   
   others who have any concern for the welfare of Ukrainians. Those are   
   the options. With Ukraine we don’t know until you try.   
      
   Bill Fletcher Jr.: So I hear you. The part of my concern though is… So   
   you’re attributing a lot to the role of the US, but every NATO country   
   has a veto over the entry of another country into NATO. So despite   
   what the United States was pushing, there were at least two NATO   
   countries, Germany and France, that were against the introduction of   
   Ukraine into NATO. Putin knew this. He knew this. How do I know he   
   knew it? Because I know it. And if I know it, Putin knew it. So the   
   question then is if Putin knew that there were vetos against Ukraine   
   going into NATO, despite all of the hoopla from the United States,   
   there’s something that’s missing here. And then you add onto this, the   
   claims by Putin that this campaign is about denazifying Ukraine. I   
   mean, it’s almost laughable when you look at the fascist character the   
   Kremlin. I mean, maybe we disagree, or I’m not sure. But what am I   
   missing?   
      
   Noam Chomsky: You’re missing the nature of international affairs. In   
   international affairs, the fact of the matter is that the United   
   States has overwhelming power. Other countries exist, they can do   
   something, but when the United States lays down the law, they follow   
   it. We know that, Russia certainly knows it. Take our actions. Take   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-DOS v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)