[chevill]

>That's a frame, that Chomsky knowingly pushes forward, and it sweeps a number of significant issues under the rug (trusting the Russians, freedom, future deportations, threats to other countries, all of which are addressed in the open letter).

This isn't really fair to the context in which he's saying a negotiated settlement is the best option. Its more like he's saying its the least bad option.

Russia has not been doing well, but they are not on the verge of defeat and if they fully committed to it they could probably continue fighting for a year or more. The entire time they would continue their scorched earth policy that has already done so much damage that it will likely take decades to recover from.

Chomsky seems to believe that because Russia was considered a formidable opponent on the world stage before this conflict and many assumed they would win in a few days, that Putin is going to come to the conclusion that his only option for remaining in power is to keep fighting and escalating. Chomsky thinks that this will lead to the destruction of Ukraine without intervention from powerful allies.

He also thinks that the intervention of a nuclear power would significantly increase the chance of a nuclear war. He thinks that if a nuclear war happens that it is very possible for it to spiral out of control into a global nuclear annihilation.

So a more honest assessment of his promotion of a "negotiated settlement" is that he simply thinks that its preferable to the near total destruction of either just Ukraine or the entire world.

Note that I'm not saying his three imagined possibilities are infallible, just pointing out that he isn't ignoring all of the things that make a negotiated settlement a bad option.