a rickety bridge of impossible crossing

Content warning: this is about the Russian invasion of Ukraine

Erratum Apr 20 22: this interview has been nagging me. It's a view of war which is grossly oversimplified, which initially I read as just cutting through the bullshit to get to "how does this end?", but now I wonder if too much has been glossed over. I don't know if it would change the conclusions, but I think there are other issues worth talking about. Trying to put my thoughts together, and I may make a second post about it, but I'll leave my original take here for posterity

I read the transcript of the Intercept's Chomsky interview and I thought it was pretty reasonable, but apparently I'm the only one who did?

Obviously liberals are mad that he's not calling Putin a mad dictator who needs to be stopped at all costs, fash and tankies are mad that he's not defending Putin, but I've seen anarchists who are mad at him and I don't get it. I have no idea what they were expecting. You might not like Chomsky or the Intercept in general, god knows they've fucked up before, but this interview is completely what I expected. There are no easy answers to the conflict and Chomsky isn't going to pretend otherwise. To me his assessment of our options is pretty straightforward:

There are some simple facts that aren’t really controversial. There are two ways for a war to end: One way is for one side or the other to be basically destroyed. And the Russians are not going to be destroyed. So that means one way is for Ukraine to be destroyed.

The other way is some negotiated settlement. If there’s a third way, no one’s ever figured it out. So what we should be doing is devoting all the things you mentioned, if properly shaped, but primarily moving towards a possible negotiated settlement that will save Ukrainians from further disaster. That should be the prime focus.

I guess one third option he didn't talk about would be escalating until we're all wiped out in nuclear war, but I don't think that's a productive road to go down

Now, am I happy with the idea of negotiated settlement, or optimistic it'll happen? No, but I'm not mad at Chomsky for being realistic¹

He's also correct in pointing out the hypocrisy of the US calling out war crimes while officially threatening to invade the Hague if anyone ever tries to hold the US accountable for their own war crimes, and in pointing out that the US/NATO's hubris is going to make things worse for Ukraine. It sucks. I don't like it. But he's not wrong

I get that emotions are heated. It's difficult to process the horrors we see in Ukraine. People want some hope, and Chomsky isn't offering any. Maybe anarchists think the interview shouldn't have happened at all, that Chomsky should just shut up if he doesn't have anything helpful to say, and I definitely sympathize with that. Sometimes we have to accept our limitations, focus on other things for the sake of our own mental health. And if you come away from the interview depressed and wishing you didn't watch/read it, I totally get it. Take a break, you don't need to follow everything that's happening, the events are largely out of our control and it sucks to feel powerless. But I think it's good to have voices in the media who aren't just repeating state talking points

If you're not interested in the question of how states should be responding (and I don't blame you), I recommend Russia: Waiting for the Wheel of History to Turn (Reflections on the First Phase of the Russian Anti-War Movement) on Crimethinc. It also doesn't find much hope with regards to the current conflict, but focuses on what the future of antiwar activism in Russia might look like. It's bleak, but it does at least imagine a future in which organized resistance can make a difference 🦝

#unlisted