[chevill]

If you read this letter I encourage you to read the Chomsky interviews they linked. These interviews were my first experience reading things he wrote or said. After reading those it seems like the authors of this letter didn't really understand his statements.

I don't agree with everything Chomsky said, but he seems to try and understand all of the opposing viewpoints in this conflict as a way to figure out what the possible outcomes are. It didn't come across as blatantly or negligently pro-Russian to me.

For example, I think its pretty reasonable to hold the opinion that Ukraine probably isn't getting Crimea back without forcibly taking it (and I have no idea if they are capable of it). Chomsky and I could be wrong about this but I don't think it makes either of us pro-Russian shills. He's not attempting to predict what ought to happen in the fantasy world that we want to exist, he's trying to predict what may happen in the deeply flawed world that we actually have.

[rich_sasha]

I think Chomsky’s original sin here is his treatment of Russia as a sensible actor who will negotiate in good faith. Russia showed time and time again this is not the case, and that it responds only to strength.

His 2 ways of ending the war are of course correct, but in his follow-up he misses an possibility: weaken and tire your opponent before negotiating in earnest, to provide a better negotiation position. Russia is still in a mindset to plough ahead at any cost, and won’t settle for reasonable concessions. They want Ukraine beaten, humiliated and subdued to Russia.

What I’d imagine US “no negotiation” stance means is to call this game of strength, support Ukraine so that Russia’s continued war becomes untenable and then settle.

Is that pig-headed, arrogant or cavalier? I don’t think so. I think it’s just a recognition that right now Russia doesn’t respond to reason, only strength. So strength and resolve must be served up in copious amounts.