In Defense of Chomsky on Ukraine

Noam Chomsky remains undefeated and undisputed

Noam Chomsky has recently sparked outrage from all sides of the political spectrum with his calls for a negotiated diplomatic settlement in Ukraine. Despite the magnitude of this backlash, he is probably correct. In this article, I will articulate what I take to be Chomsky’s position (and his argument for it) with respect to how we should react to the invasion of Ukraine, and respond to the major criticisms which I’ve seen levelled at Chomsky’s view.

What Chomsky’s Position Isn’t

If you ask the average neoliberal critic of Chomsky what Chomsky’s view on the invasion of Ukraine actually is, the chances are you will hear something like “Chomsky wants us to let Ukrainians get mass slaughtered and supports the Russian invasion because he hates the US and wants Russia to be stronger”. This has been more or less expressed, for instance, by prominent neoliberals such as Noah Smith, and by this popular meme which has been posted by about half of political Twitter (including the aforementioned Noah Smith):

Of course, this perception of Chomsky derives from 1) the average neoliberal’s refusal to read, and 2) a pervasive wave of old fashioned, unthinking, “if you don’t support the US and its allies whole heartedly, it’s because you love the enemy” style jingoism, which has accompanied the onset of the Russian invasion of Ukraine.

Back in reality, Chomsky has explicitly stated that Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is unjustifiable:

The Russian invasion of Ukraine is a major war crime, ranking alongside the U.S. invasion of Iraq and the Hitler-Stalin invasion of Poland in September 1939, to take only two salient examples. It always makes sense to seek explanations, but there is no justification, no extenuation.

Ironically, Chomsky has even explicitly repudiated attempts at justifying Russia’s invasion by appeal to the crimes of the US, a move which the aforementioned popular meme portrays him as endorsing:

There is nothing to say about Putin’s attempt to offer legal justification for his aggression. Its merit is zero. Of course, it is true that the U.S. and its allies violate international law without a blink of an eye, but that provides no extenuation for Putin’s crimes.

Contrary to the propaganda, Chomsky’s views on Russia’s invasion of Ukraine are not rooted in a support for Russia, a hatred for the US, or a disregard for the lives of Ukrainians- rather, as we will see, they are rooted precisely in a concern for the lives of Ukrainians (as well as for the lives of every human being on Earth), and a corresponding desire to see this destructive war come to an end.

Chomsky’s Basic Argument

I take it that Noam Chomsky’s basic argument for why the US and its allies should be pushing for a negotiated settlement in Ukraine is the following:

• When it comes to how we might deal with the war in Ukraine, there are essentially two options: We can pursue a negotiated settlement, and essentially offer to give Russia some minor concessions in exchange for them agreeing to end the invasion. This would, in effect, provide Putin and his circle with a way of ending the war while largely saving face, and without having to wipe out Ukraine in order to do so. Alternatively, we can refuse to do this, and, in effect, signal to Putin that the only way in which he can exit the war while saving face is to completely obliterate Ukraine.

• So long as we opt for the second option, Putin and his circle are likely to continue pursuing the destruction of Ukraine indefinitely, until they are successful or until Russia is incapable of continuing the invasion. This means the indefinite continuation and escalation of war, destruction, and death, in addition to the continued escalation of the threat of a terminal nuclear war.

• So, of these two options, offering relatively minor and inconsequential concessions to Russia (I will discuss what those concessions would look like briefly) is clearly preferable to mass death, destruction, and the heightened possibility of extinction.

• So, we should pursue a diplomatic settlement with Russia.

Now, in terms of why the US doesn’t pursue a negotiated settlement, Chomsky’s answer is very simple and compelling: the US wants to weaken Russia, its long time geopolitical enemy, as much as possible, and we are willing to waste the lives of millions of Ukrainians in order to do so. As a result, we allow (and, indeed, encourage) the war to drag on as long as possible. Of course, this is nothing new: seeking to expand our power and influence while displaying a complete lack of regard for human life is more or less the entire history of US foreign policy .

What Does a Diplomatic Solution Look Like?

So, Chomsky thinks that rather than increasing the probability of extinction and ensuring the indefinite continuation of mass death and destruction, we should pursue some sort of diplomatic settlement that would put an end to the conflict while involving only minor concessions from Ukraine (radical, I know). But what does a settlement of this kind involve? The basic framework of what we should be pursuing, according to Chomsky, is along the lines of what was laid out in the Minsk 2 agreement:

• Neutralization of Ukraine (ie, Ukraine and NATO come to an agreement that Ukraine will not, at any point, become a member of NATO).

• Accommodation for the Donbas region (ie, Donbas exists with a high level of autonomy within some federal structure in Ukraine, like what you see in Switzerland or Belgium).

• Russia is allowed to keep Crimea, which they previously took via an illegal invasion in 2014.

It’s worth noting that none of these are very major concessions. Ukraine formally ceding territory that they effectively lost 8 years ago does not appear to me to be a great loss- nor does granting autonomy to separatist territories that seem to want their own sovereignty, or refraining from joining an alliance that Ukrainian leadership has already said that they weren’t going to be allowed to join anyways. All things considered, an agreement of this variety, which already has historical precedent, seems like a very small price to pay for peace.

Counter Arguments

People have raised a number of counter arguments to Chomsky’s position. Here, I will address a few of the most common counter arguments that I have seen people make.

Objection 1: but if we give concessions to Putin in response to his immoral and illegal invasion, this will set a precedent that encourages Russia to engage in further aggression down the road.

Responses:

1. This thinking does not seem applicable to the diplomatic solution which Chomsky is proposing, which basically amounts to an honorable defeat for Russia. Even if they were to be granted the concessions which I have mentioned, the costs of the invasion for Russia will still have massively exceeded the benefits, and so it is unlikely that this result would encourage future aggression.

2. To the extent that this is a risk which is associated with the solution that Chomsky advocates for, it is possible to mitigate this risk through diplomacy. For instance, the US can credibly signal that there will be more vigorous resistance if Russia plays us for fools, and such signaling would make standing by politically unpalatable in the West if Russia were to do so.

3. This argument seems to rely on false assumptions about Russia’s motivations for invading Ukraine in the first place. Russia’s aggression against Ukraine does not come from a general desire to aggress against other countries, or to expand their empire, or whatever- rather, it seems as though Ukraine is a unique red line for Russia, and that Russia is more so motivated by status seeking considerations rather than revisionist ones. On this picture, it’s not clear what reason Russia would have to initiate further aggression against other countries, even if the invasion of Ukraine turned out really well for them. (Russia’s motivations for invading is a matter of much debate, so I will likely elaborate on this in a future post).

4. It is quite likely that, even if the invasion of Ukraine were to end today, Russia would lack the will and the capability for significant further aggression, as Russia has learned many lessons from this invasion, will have to cope with the fallout from it, etc. At the very least, it seems likely that Russia will need a substantial cooldown period before engaging in any further aggression, in which case, by the time Russia is thinking about engaging in further aggression, Western leadership will have rotated, and the “credibility” of previous leadership, and the precedents set by their actions, won’t matter as much.

Objection 2: but Ukraine doesn’t want to make concessions, and since it is their country which is at stake, it should be up to them how they respond to the invasion, what concessions they make in order to end it, etc.

Responses:

1. While it might very well be true, I haven’t heard many people who raise this objection actually offer compelling evidence for the premise that Ukrainians would rather continue to be killed, displaced, have their cities destroyed, etc. than agree to the kinds of concessions which Chomsky has proposed.

2. We all agree that it’s ultimately Ukraine’s decision whether they make concessions to Russia and so on- Chomsky’s point is not to contest this claim. Rather, Chomsky’s point is that the diplomatic settlement which he’s proposed would be better than the status quo, and he would like for the US and its allies to do what’s in our rights to try and sway Ukraine and its leadership into agreeing with that point of view.

3. I don’t buy the ethical principle that underlies this objection, according to which a country’s leadership, or even the majority of its population, has a moral right to cause needless civilian deaths, to cause economic devastation, to raise the probability of a terminal nuclear war, to conscript its citizens, etc. all in the name of jingoistic nationalism. National self defense is not as straight forward as something like individual self defense- it is an inherently coercive enterprise, especially in the nuclear age.

Objection 3: but Russia would never agree to a diplomatic settlement of the sort that Chomsky proposes- they will settle for nothing less than a complete annexation of all of Ukraine.

Responses:

1. Maybe, but there’s only one way to find out. At worst, Russia rejects the deal and we wind up back at the current status quo. At best, we save millions of lives and avert the growing potential of nuclear annihilation. It seems obvious what the right move is.

2. It seems decently plausible that Russia would accept such a deal- as already noted, the deal that Chomsky proposes has historical precedent, and the continuation of the war (which turned out to be much more difficult than expected) is very damaging and costly for Russia. Putin and his circle might very well welcome an opportunity to cut their losses while saving face.