Interview / Noam Chomsky, Zain Raza / Version 6

Zain Raza: Professor Noam Chomsky, thank you so much for joining us today. How are you?

Noam Chomsky: Oh, I have to ask you to talk slowly and clearly because I‘m not hearing very well.

Raza: I will talk very slowly and clearly. I would like to start with the situation in Ukraine. The war in Ukraine has been going now for 111 days and Russia is focusing mainly on the eastern regions. Western countries led by the United States are supporting Ukraine financially and militarily with more than missile launchers, helicopters, armored personnel carriers, anti-aircraft missiles. Even Germany decided, in April, to break with its policy of only sending defensive weapons and is now supplying Ukraine with offensive weapons. How do you assess the policy of the US and its allies so far?

Chomsky: There‘s a very simple fact that we have to keep in mind. A war ends in one of two ways, either one side or the other capitulates, or else there‘s some kind of diplomatic settlement. That‘s a truism—can‘t debate it. What‘s a diplomatic settlement? A diplomatic settlement is something that each side tolerates, even if they don‘t like it. That‘s the nature of a diplomatic settlement. Now let‘s look at policy. US policy, which guides NATO, is to refuse a diplomatic settlement. That‘s very explicit. It was recently reinforced at the Ramstein Air Base in Germany, where the United States called together the NATO powers and others, called the Contact Group, and basically laid down the directive. The war must continue until Russia is severely harmed. In fact, harmed so severely that it will not be able to undertake any such aggression again. Now, think about that for thirty seconds. It means Russia must be harmed more than Germany was at the Versailles Treaty because that obviously wasn‘t enough to stop Germany from returning to aggression. So that means Russia has to basically be—can‘t even describe it—maybe something like the Morgenthau Plan, which was not accepted, but it was an effort to turn Germany into an agricultural society. Well, that so much is logic.

Let‘s turn to fact. Fact is, Russia is never going to accept this. Never. If that‘s the position that NATO is taking, then Russia will certainly use the weapons that we all know it has to devastate Ukraine and set the stage for a possible nuclear war, which may wipe out everything. That’s official policy. Official US policy. Well, there is an alternative. Try to seek a diplomatic settlement. Now, before the invasion, that was quite possible. But as the US, the State Department, publicly stated, we will not take into consideration any Russian security concerns, no concerns about joining NATO in particular. In fact, US policy was to move toward what was called an enhanced program for laying the stage for Ukrainian integration into NATO. Every high US official who knows anything about Russia for the last thirty years, long before Putin, has made it very clear to Washington that Ukraine joining NATO is a red line that no Russian leader will ever accept: Yeltsin, Gorbachev, Putin, anyone. Well, George Bush the First lived up to that. The second George Bush dropped it when he invited Ukraine into NATO. That was vetoed at the time by France and Germany, sensibly. But US power was so overwhelming that it stayed on the agenda and now it‘s moving forward. This in turn means: no diplomacy.

That alternative is what I just said. Russia, if the need comes to that for them, may not use the weapons that, of course, they have—we all know that—to devastate Ukraine to set the stage for international war. That‘s basically the situation as it now stands. So just talking about sending weapons is okay. Ukraine needs weapons to defend itself, but it‘s missing the major point. Can we prevent total devastation? And there‘s only one way to do that. That‘s by pursuing diplomatic options. They have narrowed now. They were broader before the invasion. Now, of course they‘ve narrowed, but still there‘s some openings.

Raza: The war has also driven up military spending in Western countries and increased calls for other countries such as Sweden, Finland, etc., to join NATO. Germany is now investing 
a hundred billion euros in its own military, including buying American F-35 stealth fighter jets that can also carry nuclear bombs capable of attacking Russia. Can you tell us about the impact that military spending at home and abroad has? And will NATO expansion serve to protect the West?

Chomsky: Well, there‘s an interesting situation developing in the Western European countries, Sweden, Finland, Germany, and others. On the one hand, they are gloating over the fact that the Russian military, who was demonstrated to be a paper tiger, couldn‘t even conquer cities a couple of kilometers from the border, defended by a mostly citizen‘s army. So, all the talk about Russian military power was exposed as empty and they are all now gloating about this, how wonderful it is. That is one idea. The second idea is that we have to be so terrified of the paper tiger that we have to vastly increase military spending. Germany alone will, under current projections, probably spend as much as Russia does on military spending and it is a far more advanced society, of course. That is Germany alone, not the rest of NATO and not of course the United States, which overwhelms everyone by a huge margin in military power.

So, there are at least two ideas. One, the Russian military is totally incompetent, can‘t conquer cities a couple miles from the border. Two, we have to be terrified of the paper tiger and rearm to the teeth. Actually, George Orwell had a name for that: he called it “doublethink,” the capacity to have two contradictory ideas in mind and believe them both. He thought that was a property of ultra-totalitarian societies and obviously was wrong. [It] seems to be perfectly possible in free, democratic societies. If you can think of any other explanation for that, I would like to hear it. There is no conceivable possibility that Russia will attack anyone. They can barely handle this. They had to back off without NATO involvement. But we can ask ourselves why. Why believe this?

Well, in Sweden it is perfectly obvious. Sweden has a very substantial military industry. [The] Saab industry is a major producer. They‘d love to have a bigger market. Furthermore, for both Sweden and Finland a further militarization and deeper integration into NATO 
is important. Sweden and Finland are already integrated into the NATO command, joint exercises and so on. But if they move towards joining NATO totally, that means accepting US domination—that‘s what NATO is—then that helps move them further to the right to dismantle what‘s left of social democracy. And of course, powerful business forces and rightwing forces in both countries are delighted with this. I should say the United States is ultra-delighted. Putin, apart from the criminal aggression, also acted very stupidly. What he did was drive Europe into Washington‘s pocket, the greatest gift he could give to the United States. All through the Cold War there have been basically two options for NATO. One was what‘s called the Atlanticist option: [They] joined NATO to become subservient to the United States, kind of a vassal community. The second option was for Europe to become an independent force, sometimes called a “third force” in international affairs. That‘s de Gaulle, Willy Brandt‘s „Ostpolitik,“ and Gorbachev‘s “Common European Home.”

Actually, George Bush the First proposed a “Partnership for Peace,” which was not very different from this. Clinton dismantled it when he violated Bush‘s promise not to expand NATO to the east. And then the second Bush violated it radically, when he invited Ukraine into NATO. But these options were still available before the invasion. Emmanuel Macron had made some tentative gestures towards approximation. Putin, in his stupidity, totally rejected them and instead drove Europe into the hands of NATO. From the Russian point of view, [this is] utter imbecility apart from the criminality of the invasion. But the United States is utterly delighted. If you go to the offices of Lockheed Martin they are euphoric. Finally, they‘ve been trying for years to get Europe to raise its military spending. They wouldn‘t do it. Now the fossil fuels. They‘ve also been trying to get Germany to end Nord Stream. But it didn‘t get anywhere. Now Russia has handed it to the United States on a silver platter. I mean, from Russia‘s point of view, apart from the criminality of the aggression, it‘s completely stupid. But that‘s the way small groups of autocrats behave. Russia is now apparently run by a little clique of tough guys in Putin‘s close circle. They‘re interested in themselves. It’s a kleptocracy. They are robbing the country blind. That‘s all they‘re thinking about. And they couldn‘t think through the fact that they‘re handing the United States a major gift. The United States is euphoric. Fossil fuel companies are delighted. They can now increase fossil fuel production, wrecking the environment, destroying the prospects for human life, and they‘re even praised for it. What could be better? So, Putin just … it‘s almost unbelievable the stupidity.

Raza: Understanding the situation in a historical context like you are attempting to do, or even talking about the dangers of nuclear war, is quickly dismissed as whataboutism or peddling Putin talking points or justifying the Russian war. This has been happening on the mainstream media as well as social media. It seems that the only answer we can give here at the moment is to escalate it. How can we overcome these debates trying to justify the Russian invasion, while, for example, you and many others try to simply present the context and the role that the West played?

Chomsky: One of the very striking features of the modern age is the serious decline in simply rational discourse. The kind of commentary that you hear across the board is just unbelievable. So, one of the leading figures in … apart from official US policy, you find people like Richard Haas—a major figure in foreign policy, the Council on Foreign Relations and so on—making speeches in which he says we have to ensure that Ukraine wins the war. You hear the same from people in Germany. What does that mean? How does Ukraine defeat Russia? You can pour all the arms you want into Ukraine; it‘s not going to defeat Russia. Everybody with a brain knows that. The same in Germany. What you hear on social media, that you‘re referring to, is another form of total nonsense. There is no way to justify the invasion. None. You can say correctly that there was provocation. Yes, [the] kind of provocation that I mentioned. When the US says it‘s not going to consider Russian security concerns when it‘s been moving to integrate Ukraine into the NATO military command—against the advice of just about every high US official that knows anything about this, including the current and past CIA directors—that‘s all provocation. But provocation does not yield justification. There is nothing that can justify criminal aggression, a kind of crime that ranks with the US invasion of Iraq, the Hitler and Stalin invasion of Poland. These are what the Nuremberg Tribunal called the “Supreme International Crime,” different from other war crimes in that it includes the totality of evil that follows. That‘s the Russian invasion. No justification. Plenty of provocation. No justification. Now again, it takes a few minutes of thought to understand this.

But a few minutes of thought is apparently beyond the capacity of much of the social media, just as it is beyond the capacity of the leading figures in Germany, the United States, and others who are talking perfect nonsense. When you ask, “How do you proceed to get Ukraine to defeat Russia, short of Ukraine being totally devastated?” [It’s] perfectly obvious, but apparently beyond the capacity of thought. I should mention maybe something else here. I‘m sure you‘re familiar with the famous Doomsday Clock of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, now saying 100 seconds to midnight. They give three reasons. One is the growing threat of nuclear war. Two is failure to deal with the crisis of climate destruction, both made worse by the Russian invasion. And the third is the collapse of an arena of rational discourse. That was before the invasion. Now, it‘s worse. […]

Raza: I want to examine some socioeconomic issues. Inflation is running high in Western nations. The US experienced the highest rate in forty years at 8.6% in May, whereas Germany experienced 7.9%. What, in your assessment, is driving this? Is it the war in the Ukraine? Western sanctions, workers’ wages, or the fossil fuel cartels‘ grief of profitability? Some even claim that social spending during COVID is now causing inflation. What can be done to protect the public and how do you assess inflation?

Chomsky: Well, first of all, the high inflation was prior to the Ukraine invasion. That exacerbated it, but not by very much. [When] you look at the figures, it was almost as high before. There‘s a lot of debate, amongst the economists, of what‘s causing it. But the basic consensus, I think, is that the main factor that‘s causing it is supply chain disruptions. The globalization, the neoliberal globalization project, followed business principles. That means: try to be as efficient as possible. Don‘t waste anything. Well, that‘s a program for disaster. It means if anything goes wrong, everything collapses. We‘re seeing that dramatically in the United States with the health system, not so much in Germany. The United States has a scandalous health system, it is run on business principles. No excess capacity, no excess beds, because that‘s not efficient. So, what happens when COVID comes? No beds in the hospitals. No resources for testing. You work by business principles, you can be efficient as long as nothing goes wrong, as soon as it does it is a disaster. You have container ships piled up in the Los Angeles harbor and cannot unload them. Well, all of this is combining with the fact that during the worst of the pandemic, people were cutting down on spending. Now there‘s a tremendous amount of demand, supplies aren‘t coming in. Yes, you get inflation. There‘s another factor: monopolization. That was the result of the neoliberal programs and their German equivalents and so on. Austerity. These have all led to sharply reduced regulation and increased concentration of economic power in almost every domain. Agriculture, manufacturing, energy. Sharp moves towards monopolization. Well, monopolization means you have the capacity to raise prices and they‘re doing it. There’re tremendous corporate profits in the last couple of years. [A] large part of it is just, they’re free to raise prices as much as they want. That‘s a major factor in inflation: energy, agriculture, just about every area. Well, all of these things combined, you have serious economic problems. […]

Raza: I‘m not sure if you heard about this because I read that you don‘t look at Hollywood a lot, but there was a big trial with this Hollywood actor, Johnny Depp, and his ex-wife, Amber Heard. The trial was followed by millions, and even billions, of people worldwide. Almost all major media outlets gave razor sharp coverage of the trial. By contrast, however, the freedom-of-the-press trial of the century, the case of Julian Assange, who may be extradited to the US soon, has not received even a fraction of this coverage. Can you explain why people are so disinterested in the case of Assange? And why the media ignores it and gives something like a Hollywood scandal much more coverage than a scandal involving freedom of the press and democracy.

Chomsky: Well, Julian Assange committed a major crime. He acted as an honest journalist. Can‘t have that. There are things that systems of power want to be concealed from the population. Assange violated that. He brought to the general population information that they have every right to have and that power systems don‘t want them to have. Information about war crimes, for example. That‘s a crime. You have to be punished for that. So, he‘s been kept in conditions of virtual torture for six years now. First isolated in an apartment, the Ecuadorian embassy is a small apartment. I visited him there. He had fewer rights than a prisoner on death row who can at least walk outside and see the sun; not Assange. Then the British put him in a high security prison for the crime of not paying bail. The UN Rapporteur on Torture simply described this as torture. He is personally frankly destroyed.

Now he‘s facing extradition to the United States where he could spend the rest of his life, such as it is, in a high security prison. Well, that‘s punishment for a major crime. You don‘t tell citizens things they ought to know but the powerful don‘t want them to know. The failure of most journalists to defend him is outrageous. They‘re the ones who should be right in the front defending him. Some are, very good ones, but too many are not. It‘s a real scandal. Also, a scandal in Australia. He is an Australian citizen. Australia should have been pressing hard for him to be released to Australia at the very beginning of this. Everyone in the world is afraid of stepping on the toes of the United States. Might as well face it the world is … you know, international relations specialists can publish their essays, but the fact is that the world is run very much like the Mafia. If the Godfather lays down orders, you better follow them or you‘re in trouble. We see this all over.

Like take the Iran situation. The United States pulled out of the joint agreement, the nuclear agreement, in violation of Security Council orders. It imposed very harsh sanctions to punish Iran for the fact that the United States is violating the agreement. Europe doesn‘t like it. Europe opposes the sanctions and it‘s spoken out strongly against them, but it follows them. It adheres to them. Because you don‘t anger the Godfather. Pretend whatever you like, but that‘s the way the world works. Same on the Cuba sanctions; sixty years of the torture of Cuba. The whole world is against it. You look at the UN votes, 184 – 2, United States and Israel, but everyone adheres to it. The same reason: you don‘t anger the Godfather, he has plenty of weapons to punish you. More weapons, thanks to Putin‘s stupidity.