Imaging the same scenario that the USSR went through but situated in the USA. Imagine Texas seceded from the US to become part of the former USSR military alliance. The moment the USSR would open the first military base in Texas would mean WW3, nothing less nothing more.
Somebody has to do killings in the world...there are too many bad people in world...wait for chinese army..they will not kill bad people..they will put families of suspected bad people into camps 1000 km away from hometown...then u will thank usa
@@jagatdave Who made you the judge of who"s bad and who's not? Before the US killed Gadaffi, Libya was one of the richest and most developed nations in Africa, close to Europeans levels. These people had free healthcare(something the US can only dream of)..poor people used to get free houses when they got married....Now Libya is completely destroyed, breeding nest for terrorists, civil war, people are openly auctioned as slaves.. I dare you to go to Libya and tell those people to thank you...Nobody in Africa or middle east will thank you, more likely you will get beat up or killed for talking dumb shit like that...
@@jagatdave I know about his history, fact is there's no denying life in Libya was a 1000x better before you "liberated" Libya...doesn't matter what you think about Gaddafi.. People in Libya used to be able to have a future, that's gone now. It will take decades to get back to the same level as before... Nobody is thanking you, trust me.. You destroy their homes, kill their people, take away their futures and believe that these people should thank you for it...At the same time you wonder, why there are so many terrorists who want to kill you...
@@jagatdave Well, you don't even know how to spell his name, so i'm not sure how credible your opinion is...Gaddafi was a bad guy, i'm not defending him...But is life in Libya better now? It used to be one of the richest and most developed nation in Africa, look at it now....It's been almost 10 years, what has Libya achieved since the death of Gaddafi? Libya has turned into a shithole.. Can you enlighten me, how this is better?
And NC is older and still at it in 2023. i don't have a problem with that because he is still has a few history lessons to teach, although incoherent as ever. Note that if he is asked a tough question he will expound off on a tangent until people either fall asleep or forget the question.
Despite Clinton's expansion of NATO in the late '90s, after 9-11 Putin was one of the first to offer Bush assistance in Afghanistan. What did Bush do to show thanks? He continued to expand NATO.
I don't like Putin at all, but he is not (yet) a war criminal, like Bush and Cheney. I remember how Bush basically threatened the whole world in his infamous speech in front of the UN, when saying, "who is not with us, against us".
Ukrainians (non-Russian Ukrainians) and Finns would like to join NATO too, because Russia violates their territory all the time. Ukraine had some of its territory just stolen, which would never have happened if they were a part of NATO. Now many countries which were unsure if they want to be a part of NATO, know that they do. Russians are making sure of it and then they complain.
Romans also did say so. These primitive German tribes endangering them, who now control half of the planet and represent the most developed civilization..
@@evan2173 Please I lives in many countries in Balkan (for now)and I can tell you that Montenegro is forced to join. They forced president to push that country in NATO against peoples will.He is extremely corrupted and he rules more then 20 years. But it is acceptable soon as he works for NATO amd USA interest. North Macedonia have similar problems. Huge part of citizens didn't want to change a name of the state (that was condition set up from Greece )just to be part of NATO and after SO suspicious referendum and with votes of Albanians (who works everything what USA demand soon as they -USA are quite about biggest drugs smuggling in all Europe). Come on friend just take a look closely and be realistic. Even western countries more and more publicly showing displeasure because constant presure of USE in NATO (buying wapens, all time searching for some enemies, teasing Russia, half fucking Earth are in war and guess what in almost every USA have a roll. Becouse they have NATO behind they back, and NATO have USA.Now days they openly treating to international court in Hague just becouse that court wanted to investigate USA war crimes in Auganistan...just to take a look and they forbidden to do a job.What a fuck! !
@@evan2173 "Remember it is a defensive pact. " What fucking BS. Ask this from Libya, how well the so called "model intervention" went. NATO has grown like cancer despite that Russia was told that it would not move an inch closer after the end of the cold war. www.indy100.com/article/the-history-of-nato-in-europe-in-one-gif--e1gnLLdbVg NATO is also responsible for creation massive amounts of refugee problems, it's utterly inept up to the top. In Sweden there is a lot of be scared of the Russian propaganda and most rightwing parties already have their pants down ready to take it up the ass if uncle Sam asks.
@@artruisjoew5473 Which our do you mean? Who? No, not everyone hates Russia, but I'm bloody sure that many did not like to be forced behind the iron curtain by some imperialist with another color. As for voluntarily, how gullible are you? There's pretty much always pressure from the big countries to force others to do this or that.
@@artruisjoew5473 voluntarily? Utterly laughable. USA is for instance now pushing, or since Obama many countries to increase their military budgets. You have a quite surface level understanding of things, it's not really a nice club you simply join. By economic measures, risk of sanctions, business deals etc are used to pressure countries into this and that. Turkey for instance didn't want USA and others use its land to start the war on Iraq from its soil, but it was pressured into doing so. If you have any skills for google then you will find answers. Understand that USA has been involved in at least 81 coup efforts too.
Chomsky 1:50 onwards: "President Bush and the Secretary of State James Baker did promise that... NATO would become a more political organization, it would not extend one inch to the east. However Gorbachev made a serious error... he only got a verbal promise, it was, he thought it was a gentlemen's agreement." Here comes: "you don't make gentlemen's agreements with savage violent powers." The promise was minuted but not codified. Nonetheless, a promise is a promise and it was broken, whether it was codified was besides the point, because integrity, trust and goodwill have been breached.
This really shows the Americans are power-thirsty ones. Gorbachev and other Russians are the true victims. America ironically arguing for global peace when in fact it itself is the main underlying source for disorder in the international realm goes to show how cynical and evil America really is. Then many wonder why non-Americans hate America?
Here is a paragraph from the a.rticle he talks about at the end " European political culture has evolved in ways that make it harder to field militaries willing to bear the cost in blood; the US secretary of defence describes this as “the demilitarisation of Europe - where large swaths of the general public and political class are averse to military force and the risks that go with it”. All this limits Nato’s future role, as Nato mostly makes sense as an expeditionary force in an unstable world, not as a standing army on a stable continent."
the source link in the description is defunct, therefore there is no indication of the original date, and therefore the context, of this presentation. such basic information should be included in the description. few youtube descriptions are adequate: this is just one example of failure.
IMPORTANT MISSED FACT: The purpose for the creation of the NATO alliance was, and i quote General Hastings Lionel Ismay: "To keep the Russians out, the Americans in, and the Germans down", i repeat, "THE GERMANS DOWN"
Quit living in a fantasy world. Every country has different interests. Russia needs strategic depth to prevent itself from being invaded, and the US can't live in a world with a single power dominating a good portion of the European peninsula and a large part of the Russian mainland because that could threaten them.
Human nature and the low state of our collective consciousness precludes the possibility of real, lasting peace. Humans- especially those in power- simply cannot be trusted. If it weren't for America's nuclear umbrella and treaty organizations, etc.- the "Pax Americana", we would have already seen at least one more world war. I'm all for peace, but we have to be realistic about the harsh realities of our cold, dark world. It's the ultimate catch-22 of human history- the majority desperately desire peace, but that peace can only be maintained through strength; however, that very strength necessarily invites the kind of great power competition that leads to war. Our species has placed itself into a double-bind of epic proportions. Until our leaders in every country and every company become as enlightened and compassionate as Buddha or Jesus or something, we're stuck with the reality of endless conflict. And we all know such a thing is never going to happen: one does not acquire or keep global influence by being compassionate or pacifistic. Those few leaders who sincerely try to live according to the highest ideals and refuse to play according to the devil's rules usually end up being taken off the board, in one way or the other.
@@artruisjoew5473 but that's the problem... U only live in peace if u follow all steps from the USA... If u don't accept their positions or don't deliver oil u get destroyed.... Cool What about ww1 and ww2? Why did they happen? Who supported Hitler 🤔😁 So shut up with ur USA keeps Europe peaceful...
He didnt state either on purpose. This way you remember the rule, not who the bad guy is supposed to be right now. So both. But if you had to pick one out of context it was clearly the US.
It’s redundancy made me laugh. Savage is pure propaganda - a meaningless and subjective moralism. All powers are violent, all states even. It is part of the definition.
The more I listen to Mr. Chomsky, the more I hear an opinion. Well articulated, yet still an opinion from someone who is not under duress from making decisions. Joy to all.
The fact that nobody is talking about it but going along. And that my country prides itself(Poland) as one of the few that meets NATO requirement for 2% GDP spend on military is shocking to me. How everyone is unaware, propagandized and at the USA leash.
I talked with the father of my best friend, a polish dude who came to france 30 years ago. He told me propaganda today is even worse than during communist poland, both in france and especially poland xD he said back then people understood what was happenning, everyone sane had enough critical thinking to see clearly. Today he doesn't see these characteristics in most people
He told me he understood usa game after seeing what happened in Yougoslavia, he didnt elaborate and i havent checked myself what the story was all about
@@pianospeedrun Its true, propaganda is spread so widely that you dont even see it. If you say something critical about NATO and USA you are crazy, how can you say that. On the one hand NATO is keeping us save, and not being in it is crazy. But on the other hand some people dont believe that NATO would protect us in case of aggression. I say that we should be armed properly, but not have big standing army. Everyone should have some basic training after school so that he can grab weapon in case of war. But in the first place you need to have a country you want to fight for. And in my case, I dont see that. I despise our political class today. They buy votes by social programs that dont even work. They print money, they ban wind farms and destroy the environment, and still fund coal. They are crazy, and people in my country still vote for them. Its not the country I would fight for. There is no point.
@@michasosnowski5918 Hi. Out of curiosity: how seriously would you assess the Polish claims that they will intervene if things look hopeless for Ukraine? As an American with much love for Poland and Polish culture, this talk scares me. I also find it interesting that anti-NATO sentiment appears much more tolerated in the US than in other member states.
@@Mike-jz9hr i think its unrealistic for now, because we dont have big army. They wanted to do bigger draft, but people dont want it. I think they are posing. Its like a chicken fight on both sides.
I'm always in two minds with NATO. The idealist in me believes that we should have wrapped up NATO when the Warsaw Pact fell apart, but the realist in me knows that the UN is utterly impotent and that NATO is the only reason none of our nations have been attacked by another (or attacked each other, as was the European norm for 1,000 years). I do think that the non-NATO countries should create their own alliance though as we Brits and Americans might be less inclined to "bring freedom" to people if they have allies.
@@AJWRAJWR Considering that it has caused Russia to slaughter countless Ukrainians I would have to say yes. Only a fool would argue otherwise. When the US announced in 1997 that they planned to expand NATO east after promising Moscow they would never do that Mikhail Gorbachev addressed the UN and told them that if NATO went ahead with such an expansion it would lead to a war eventually. Evidently he was correct. In 1962 the US almost started a world war to stop Russians building a base in Cuba within 1,300 miles of Washington DC, did you seriously think that Russia would be fine with Americans moving troops into a NATO-aligned Ukraine and building bases within 700 miles of Moscow? Use your common sense FFS! I don't condone the atrocities that Russians are committing in Ukraine but I completely understand why they went to war, under no circumstances whatsoever can they let Americans (or Brits or French) station troops within 700 miles of their capital. Russia's biggest weakness is that the vast majority of their infrastructure is directly on their western border and twice in recent history (Napoleon and Hitler) they have been invaded along that border. Any non-US military expert worth their salt could tell you that the Russians would never tolerate an adversary like America getting so close to their largest cities. NATO caused this, you may not like that fact but a fact it is. The cold war was over, both military alliances should have been shut down, but removing troops from a country is not the American way.
thts a very simplistic sentence from you, yet very interesting, mentioning LOTR , the fellowship did crack up, due to corruption if u must know, so will NATO i hope, boromir kind of symbolizes usa, the powerhungry country tht has his own agenda for participating in the fellowship......BOROMIR IS USA so-t-speak....hes very strong physical, but inside he is a mess , weak-minded dependent fool!! A STRONG COUNTRY dont need friends u moron, they can make their own decisions, make business with whomever country they like to bargain with, making healthy relations, based on trust and intelligence, just like SWITZERLAND , they keep for themselves, but has NO enemies, due to their intelligent leadership, making strong relations, YET maintain their BORDERS to show strenght, IN CONTRARY to my country NORWAY, we are bitching under USA, WE do not make our own decisions, we are controlled both by EU and NATO ...we dont dare to speak against those idiot bullies, cos we think we need their "protection" , we have only weak leaders in our country...with no INTEGRITY!!
If NATO wasn't an imperialist institution, why would NATO seek to expand in the first place?
4 года назад
The countries which had been conquered by Russia, and brutally oppressed by Russia, wanted some protection against the now resurgent Russian imperialism. Who can blame them? Just look at Putin's aggression in the Ukraine.
@ many of these people don't understand that joining NATO happens because the countries apply and request it and not because the NATO needs them. Russia has been toying with their neighours and using them as bufferstates, the horros of the ussr are present in the history of said countries. NATO is necessary.
initially maybe. expanding means more power. especially if you lead it. it also means less resistance. it also means you weaken your enemies. take a look at USA policy. there you have your motives. also the fact that others come to you to join, doesnt mean anything. its also very pleasant
@@psobbtutorials6792l, until now NATO only attacked and never defended. It's natural for weaker realities to join the most prone to attacks to avoid being on the other side of the line. It's not freely joining it's more likely a protection payment to Mafia. It's the old "you can join our organization or your shop could be the next".
NC is totally wrong about all NATO issues. For a beginning he talk about Garbatjov and Russia. He suddenly "forgot" the Sovjet Union - the ting that rottend inside and fell apart. Nato didint expent in east as a active colonial act. This was a result of eadtern countries "begging" for nato-membership. Thats something different. If nato - some 20 western democtratis at that time - all dropped the open door policy - then Poland, Balicum +++ would not have hd the protection they wnted ( and needed). NCh is just telling the totally false Russian narrative. Shame.
I still don't see the European part of NATO as ever having been much other than a defensive organization. That Gorbachev acquiesced suggests to me he thought it would have little tendency to empower collective or any individual member's adventurism. Whatever some US hawks envision, NATO presides over a group of member nations that have not warred on each other for 80 + years and have not annexed territory anywhere. While those who thought Russia might yet want to keep separate from Europe and expand again as the Soviet Union did, have been proved right.
If you see it from the side of the opponent (Russia in this case) things might become more clearly. NATO has been expanding (military) ever since the Berlin wall came down (that is an uncontested fact). The result is new US military bases next to the border of Russia in the North/West: Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia and the South/West: ex DDR and Poland. Only the South (Ukraine) was not yet integrated in the military alliance. The south is of strategic importance because it has the only ice free port of Russia. Now imaging the same scenario that the USSR went through but situated in the USA. Imagine Texas seceded from the US to become part of the former USSR military alliance. The moment the USSR would open the first military base in Texas would mean WW3, nothing less nothing more.
"Gorbachev thought[...]" "Gorbachev made an error [...]" Yeah, but did he? Hearing these things perhaps we should take a closer look at Gorbachev as well as NATO. NATO modern day is into electromagnetic weapons, nanotechnology, biological and chemical warfare, etc. Some of this one might say "well naturally, the Soviet threat, the [...] threat!" From a broader scope, a different picture comes into view and the possibility of a more long term agenda must be considered.
I haven't seen those technologies in Bosnia, Yugoslavia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Yemen, Ukraine... But I have seen bombs with depleted uranium, cascade bombs and other weaponry that is prohibited by Geneva conventions...
He was a leader from the next generation, believing in concepts like cooperation and win-win. Russian people often see him as a weak leader, the US saw him as an opportunity to expand their interests.
I don’t understand how, if there is no written evidence of the agreement made between bush and gorbachev, could Noam know about it, let alone anyone can be sure that happened at all? Genuinely interested...
You can read the transcripts online. Not only gorbachev but even Yeltsin believed that there was a agreement that NATO wouldn't expand one inch east of a reunited germany. This promise has already been proven to bw true beyond doubt.
They are certain classified documents that prove this but actually they didn't sign anything Gorbachev thought that The us was REALLY meaning what they were saying but....
Imagine the same scenario that the USSR went through but situated in the USA. Like Texas seceded from the US to become part of the former USSR military alliance. The moment the USSR would open the first military base in Texas would mean WW3, nothing less nothing more.
NATO should not have gone. Though it should not have expanded, either. It should have remained as insurance against Russian resurgence, and to protect the rights of the liberated. In time, hopefully, it would have proven outdated and dissolved. It should not have become an enforcer or a bully.
You seem to forget that the second most important reason for the existence of NATO is to control the EU block. Which NATO does remarkably well. So whether or not NATO should have ceased to exist depends on which interests you are inclined to.
NATO's annual weapons purchasing budget is the main reason it continues to exist. The choice of enemy is incidental and bogus. At one point in the '90s, because the Russians had stopped playing, it was Saddam Hussein.
My sacrifice 🙏🏼, it’s my idea NATO is by USA, for USA rules the westerners and lobbying people apartheid from Western and Eastern. We are within world 🌎 society with UNITY, please.
This is where I really disagree with Chomsky. Russia didn’t ‘disappear’ like he states. I’m with Chomsky on domestic issues and I was against the Iraq War, etc., but I think he’s just wrong on NATO and the geopolitical situation.
Russia was reduced to an economic wasteland after Yeltsin took over. The disintegration of the USSR on all levels following this event is a historical fact. So indeed you can say then then and there the "mighty" bear died. Mighty between brackets because the bear was only a worthy adversary for quite a short period.
This didn't age well. The Russia threat didn't just disappear and NATO is more relevant than ever and everyone wants to join. Whatever made him think NATO needed to be dismantled? Because it would give Russia an excuse to invade its neighbors? It never needed an excuse to invade anywhere, much less Ukraine a year ago. In his more recent discourse he minimizes the China threat as well, waving it off as a bunch of pundits blowing smoke. China won't need an excuse either to take Taiwan and we will need all the allies we can get in the Pacific.
If you see it from the side of the opponent (Russia in this case) things might become more clearly. NATO has been expanding (military) ever since the Berlin wall came down (that is an uncontested fact). The result is new US military bases next to the border of Russia in the North/West: Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia and the South/West: ex DDR and Poland. Only the South (Ukraine) was not yet integrated in the military alliance. The south is of strategic importance because it has the only ice free port of Russia. Now imaging the same scenario that the USSR went through but situated in the USA. Imagine Texas seceded from the US to become part of the former USSR military alliance. The moment the USSR would open the first military base in Texas would mean WW3, nothing less nothing more.
@@haveaseatplease There is no equivalence in talking about Texas. Texas has enough problems fighting off border invasions other than Russia, and you think there is a snowball's chance they would secede? I am talking about blatant Russian military aggression, like Crimea, under the pretense of returning old Russian speaking territories, while violating international laws and breaking treaties. Not Nato rattling its sword on the borders.
As someone from a country that was destroyed by NATO, I couldn't agree more. It is now nothing more than a force of imperialism, a US empire. I hope to see it fall in my time but we will have to wait and see.
If you see it from the side of the opponent (Russia in this case) things might become more clearly. NATO has been expanding (military) ever since the Berlin wall came down (that is an uncontested fact). The result is new US military bases next to the border of Russia in the North/West: Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia and the South/West: ex DDR and Poland. Only the South (Ukraine) was not yet integrated in the military alliance. The south is of strategic importance because it has the only ice free port of Russia. Now imaging the same scenario that the USSR went through but situated in the USA. Imagine Texas seceded from the US to become part of the former USSR military alliance. The moment the USSR would open the first military base in Texas would mean WW3, nothing less nothing more.
Germany almost destroyed Russia several times? Once, in WWII. Germany defeated Russia in WWI, though the Germans did not and could not try to conquer or destroy Russia. Prior to WWI, Germany and Russia got along fairly well for six hundred years.
World War II losses of the Soviet Union were about 27,000,000, both civilian and military from all war-related causes, although exact figures are disputed. The post-Soviet government of Russia puts the Soviet war losses at 26.6 million, on the basis of the 1993 study by the Russian Academy of Sciences, including people dying as a result of effects of the war.This includes 8,668,400 military deaths as calculated by the Russian Ministry of Defence, leaving around 18 million civilian victims. Every person with a minimum of cognitive ability and intellectual fairness would call this at least a major loss.
I think his right,except,we must work together,even if that be NATO,and does he not think that if Russia or China were as powerful as US,would they be better or worse ?
00:52 -- Gorbachev let Germany do this and that, says Chomsky, as if Gorbachev had the right to decide either way. 1:09 -- "Germany had almost destroyed Russia several times in the preceding century." Once, actually, unless you count Germany's helping the communists take over, which Chomsky surely doesn't. 1:16 -- West Germany was already armed. Had been for decades. 1:32 -- the West used the Soviet trick of making an empty promise (if it really did), and Chomsky's mortified. 5:31 -- Europe is vanishing for reasons that have nothing to do with Chomsky's claims, reasons I imagine he supports. All in all, if this guy said the sun was shining, you'd be wise to look out the window.
@ST I All quite relevant, of course, particularly to the fact that Chomsky is incapable of seeing anything minus his loathing of the U.S. He's like the kid who criticized everything and couldn't understand why his shorts ended up around his ankles every gym class.
@@brachio1000 Chomsky's bias reminds me of my russian parents in law. Ignoring the fact that any NATO member joined through request to protect themself from a country that has a long history of interference in european countries and is openly anti-western. Putin talks all day about western decadence and russian superiority, but hey... that doesn't matter. NATO bad.
Was this speech *before* Russia invaded Ukraine? Chomsky is incredibly smart, well-read, and inciteful -- but his ideas are not always right, and generally reflect one side, the under-publicized side, of a continuum of attitudes, values, and opinions.
The question is: would there be a need for Russia to invade Ukraine if not for NATO setting ties with Ukraine, Poland, Baltics and other Eastern countries? The goal of invading Crimea for Russia were not for the sake of simple territorial expansions, but strategical - to protect a port in Black Sea. If say, Ukraine joins NATO and cancels Russia's access to one of the only leased warm ports it has, it would hurt Russia's interests big time.
nato has threatened what russian considers its natural zone of influence (former USSR republics) and its frightened bc it thinks nato and EU enchroachment means a real threat to russian security the russian federarion is just acting in self interest, just like americans did when they invaded iraq, afghanistan, intervened in libya, syria, yemen, and their latin american backyard
@@XavierbTM1221 Moreover, some leaders of the coup in Kiev directly stated (before the annexation) that they would "throw the Russians and their fleet out of the Crimea", they also openly declared that they would gladly transfer these bases to NATO. I do not know if it was an empty threat, a provocation, or these morons simply told their future plans, but I have seen such statements more than once. These threats and the general anti-Russian attitude of the Kiev “authorities” strongly influenced the population of Crimea, for some reason the “civilized and very democratic West” tried not to notice any of these threats, as well as the fact that Crimea had its own government (elected long before the coup in Kiev) and this Crimean government took the side of Russia, just like some Ukrainian military bases in Crimea.
@@MrSkoresh Still a ukranian decision that was violated by the russians. The west hasn't invaded any former soviet country, it was the baltic states and polands decision to request joining the nato due to their horrible history under the USSR. Why shouldn't a sovereign state be able to make such decisions? Russias interest is not in line with it's people. Prosperity is low in russia, even most balkan states offer a better life for their people and those states also were ravished by communism and the 90s were full of war for them. They don't even have remotely the amount of natural resources russia has. Russia has always sold the wellbeing of it's people under the guise of national interest. Investing more money than what they can afford in military and making political decisions that keeps isolating the country will bring it to it's knees again. Ukraine was suffocated by russian interest, not a single ex-ussr state that remained under russian influence made any noteworthy progress. Meanwhile a country like germany lost it's entire male youth population and it's infrastructure during ww2. 20 years later in the mid 60s germany was already booming again and within top 3 world economies, bringing prosperity to it's people along with a high birthrate. After the fall of the USSR, Russias infrastructure was still intact, albeit in need of maintenance, and they had vast resources available and still 30 years later it remains a shithole. Russians don't understand diplomacy, hence why they trace diplomacy all the way back to single individual and reduce the beneficial gains to that individual. The US is what russians would like to be.
Definitely, there are different angles to consider. It all comes down to the time frame we're looking at. If we take a view of the ten years after the USSR fell apart, Russia might have seemed harmless. But let's say NATO wasn't in the Baltics. Wouldn't those three countries have ended up like Belarus today? And here's another thing, why doesn't anyone think about NATO's purpose? Noam Chomsky sees it as this hostile organization. I get it, it's a military alliance, but let's dig into its history. Did NATO ever attack or even try to attack Russia? I'm all ears, because I might be missing a piece of the puzzle. Just don't hit me with the Cuba crisis comparison, because that was a clear provocation, whereas NATO expansion is more of a response to the USSR/Russia's expansion. We could also take into account how NATO expanded and how the USSR/Russia expands. One is by request/invitation, the other seems to be more in terms of invasion.
If you see it from the side of the opponent (Russia in this case) things might become more clearly. NATO has been expanding (military) ever since the Berlin wall came down (that is an uncontested fact). The result is new US military bases next to the border of Russia in the North/West: Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia and the South/West: ex DDR and Poland. Only the South (Ukraine) was not yet integrated in the military alliance. The south is of strategic importance because it has the only ice free port of Russia. Now imaging the same scenario that the USSR went through but situated in the USA. Imagine Texas seceded from the US to become part of the former USSR military alliance. The moment the USSR would open the first military base in Texas would mean WW3, nothing less nothing more. Also quite important: in its early years Russia has proposed multiple times to become a member of NATO (if you can't beat them, join them), but that was refused over and over. The same happened for the economic integration of Russia, multiple efforts were made from the side of Russia to be more integrated in the EU block, also those requests have been ignored (to put it mildly). It's multiple decades that Russia has been feeling that it has been put away like the unwanted child in the West.
@@haveaseatplease Yes, Gorbachov made his efforts and unfortunately there was no response in that regard. Again, comparing Ukraine to Texas would be historically wrong. Ukraine experimented the Russian leadership and decided its future. We will need to come to a point where another Gorbachov appears along a USA president that can respond likewise. It might take centuries. Who knows!
Weird....I always saw NATO as a balance to US foreign policy A sober, calm hand on the tiller Something to be said for a bunch of countries that HAD empires....and lost them Saying....."ya...I know it seem like a good idea now....but....think it through"
If you see it from the side of the opponent (Russia in this case) things might become more clearly. NATO has been expanding (military) ever since the Berlin wall came down (that is an uncontested fact). The result is new US military bases next to the border of Russia in the North/West: Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia and the South/West: ex DDR and Poland. Only the South (Ukraine) was not yet integrated in the military alliance. The south is of strategic importance because it has the only ice free port of Russia. Now imaging the same scenario that the USSR went through but situated in the USA. Imagine Texas seceded from the US to become part of the former USSR military alliance. The moment the USSR would open the first military base in Texas would mean WW3, nothing less nothing more.
where did the Russian hordes disappeared, Mr Chomsky? Please educate me...let me give you a reason for NATO expansion: Russian hordes are here, if I look on the window I can almost see the Russian hordes ...02-Jan-2023
Did you watch the video? Everything he states is simply an historical fact. Russia was reduced to an economic wasteland after Yeltsin took over. The disintegration of the USSR on all levels following this event is a historical fact: - economic -40% during almost a decade (read up on this catastrophe) - militarily: breakdown of the forces, material that is held together with spit and chewing gum - civil: the rise of oligarchs, collapse of infrastructure So indeed you can say then then and there the "mighty" bear died. Mighty between brackets because the bear was only a worthy adversary for quite a short period. The fact that the Russian army lost half of its operable military equipment during the first 6 month of the Russia/Ukraine war is a testament to the weakness of the "Russian Bear'.
If you see it from the side of the opponent (Russia in this case) things might become more clearly. NATO has been expanding (military) ever since the Berlin wall came down (that is an uncontested fact). The result is new US military bases next to the border of Russia in the North/West: Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia and the South/West: ex DDR and Poland. Only the South (Ukraine) was not yet integrated in the military alliance. The south is of strategic importance because it has the only ice free port of Russia. Now imaging the same scenario that the USSR went through but situated in the USA. Imagine Texas seceded from the US to become part of the former USSR military alliance. The moment the USSR would open the first military base in Texas would mean WW3, nothing less nothing more.
Russia is and has always been a threat to central and estern European countries (2008 Georgia, 2014 Ukraine, 20?? who's next?) therefore NATO is still needed. Separately we are very weak comparing to Putin's hordes. Noam Chomsky is very wrong this time. EDIT: 2022 it’s Ukraine again.
@@BuGGyBoBerl The problem with his argument is that it is (weirdly enough for Chomsky) formulated from an entirely imperialist perspective. He completely passes over the fact that the Eastern European countries joined the alliance willingly, and had their reasons to do so. Had he paid enough attention to the perspective of, say, the Baltic states or Poland and the wider historical context (Russia's influence shrinking and swelling periodically), he could have predicted the later developments. Without the NATO accession the whole region would have sunk into the Russian sphere of influence again. Consider Belarus.
@@jakubgruchalski3363 the overall problem here is that we simply cant predict the future so all we say here is speculation. ofc countries joined willingly and had good reasons to do so. however that doesnt mean you cant question the way you went. in a perfect world its very easy and clear. they want to join, they can and have all right to do so. however the question how russia acts and thinks of that is important, even if its unreasonable. predicting the situation is hard, considering most didnt even predict the attack properly and we simply dont know. belarus surely went towards russias influence but that can also be attributed to an increasing gap which in the end just means countries chose one side.
Noam Chomsky is completely wrong on NATO and Russia. The Soviet Union has dissapeared, but Russia has not. It is still a big country with a very aggressive and dangerous leadership. They have attacked neighbour countries Georgia and Ukraine, and recently upgraded their arsenal of nuclear weapons. There is still a need for a strong NATO. NATO has expanded, yes, but the new members are countries that has chosen to join NATO. Unlike the Sovitet Union with their old Warzaw pact, NATO has not forced any country to join the alliance. The countries of Western Europe cannot afford to lower their guard and disarm.
@Kat the contrarian You have no real arguments relating to the issue. I am not surprised that you hide behind a fake name and do not dare to show your face.
I heard some people in Georgia wanted to be independent and spoke a different language then other Georgians. They've been wanting independence from Georgia since the collapse of the Soviet Union. And the Georgian government was trying to kill them. He then admitted on tv. Thats why Russia invaded Georgia.
Chomsky's logic is all over the place, as usual. What gives Gorbachev the right to "allow Germany into NATO"? The Soviet Union was occupying half of Europe through force not legitimacy. They were captive nations or hostages. Second, its a good job NATO did expand because if it didnt Russia would probably have had another go at coercing these nations again, especially the Baltics which they have a large Russian population. A population that they exported to ethnic cleanse the region to form a loyal Russian ethnicity. Seems odd to me how Chomsky is so wary of US power but is so trustworthy of Russia, a country that has never been a democracy but tyranny.
Are you braindead or something? The Warsaw pact was the same as NATO is. Both USA and Russia occupy Europe to this day. The Warsaw pact had the same legitimacy NATO has you utter moron. Stop spreading desinformation and read what happened to Greece when they wanted to become communist. USA started a civil war to stop them from turning communist. You think USA isnt occupying Western Europe and now half of Eastern Europe?
@@robotube7361 Good for the Greeks! Hungary never wanted to be a communist state, but it was thrown into stalin's arms instead of Greece after the war. We even started a revolution im 1956 against the regime and the west promised help. That never came. Instead, there were collectivisation, secret police,red terror, slave labor camps and torture cells in the "house of terror". Communism isn't fun, it sucks.
Nobody feared Russian expansion back then, we specifically (Hungary) joined because there was a war and a genocide in Yugoslavia, basically a couple of km-s from Hungary. The Serbian expansion was a much greater threat than Russia.
@@Alex-hu5eg and what about killing 30% of a country's population for the fear of Communism? That was in Korea? What about dropping napalm on civilians, that was in Vietnam! What about supporting dictatorships in whole of Latin America, South Korea and Taiwan because of the fear of Communism? What about having concentration camps on Malaysia for Chinese and Communists? What about killing 300.000 people in the Island of Jeju in Korea for the same fear if Communism? Permitting the genocide of Mayan Indians in Guatemala for this same reason. While most of this Happened, the USA capitalism supported apartheid, Jim Crow laws, imprisoned Civil Rights activists for the right of treated as mere human beings in the country they were born into. While allowing KKK to exist (you know, freedom of association) The USA supported lands being taken forcibly into private property from more than 400.000 families in countries such as Colombia making those people crawl living slums without the land they grow up with.
he doesnt justify it. he doesnt say russia is morally right to allow it. however its simply reality. reality of power. "would probably have had" total speculation while we can see now he invades despite NATO policies. he isnt trustworthy of russia.
Thank good for NATO. Thanks to NATO I can enjoy peacefull civilian life insted of fithing and living in poverty as people in Ukraine. Joining NATO was probably oner of the best things that happened to my country.
:)))) yeah right, is your salary close to any western country? Where are your resources going? Where are you buying your gas and what price? How is going with the corruption any improvement?
@Anonymous Bosch The was nice saying during soviet times "Vilnius musu, o mes rusu" it rimes weary nicely and it translates to "we own Vilnius and rusians own us". Return of Vilnius would be a nice gesture and would have been remembered as kind and friendly act towards our country if USSR didin't occupied us for 50 years immediately after that
