Noam Chomsky says NATO “most violent, aggressive alliance in the world”

Transcript:

Noam Chomsky:

It’s not Ukraine, it’s Ukraine as a part of NATO.

NATO is the most violent, aggressive alliance in the world.

Here we talk about it as a peacekeeping Alliance, really, Serbia, Iraq, Libya, was the peacekeeping Alliance.

This is just recent years, matters of violent, aggressive alliances.

Remember that the NATO is the North Atlantic has recently been expanded to the Pacific and the Indian Ocean.

They’re part of the North Atlantic now.

Last NATO Summit.

Its mission was extended the Indo Pacific region.

The idea is to enlist Canada, Europe, in the US campaign against China, actually, because Vladimir Putin, apart from the criminality of the invasion of Ukraine, was also an act of brutal stupidity, from his point of view, drove Europe into the pocket of the United States.

Europe has other options, the natural commercial trading partners of Europe are to the east, the German based industrial system in Europe, which has been very successful, high they rely on resources from the Russia’s doesn’t have much of an economy.

It’s about the level of Mexico but as enormous, rich resources, not just petroleum, but also minerals, also as a path to the huge China market, the US largest market, that’s their natural Alliance alliances, and along issue rights to the Cold War, whether Europe should become an independent force in world affairs was interactions with the east or should it be in Washington’s pocket.

NATO couldn’t solve that problem.

Gave the United States its fondest gift on a silver platter, Europe’s suffering for it.

They’re declining may even de industrialized.

United States is doing fine.

I mean, it’s Ukraine wars, immense gift to the United States.

It’s so plain that it’s even discussed and I circles a small fraction of the colossal US military budget.

It’s seriously degrading, it’s only a military competitor.

That’s a bargain.

The Russian military is severely harmed by the cost the United States almost nothing.

Europe back in Washington’s pocket and fossil fuel industry, its military industry are just ecstatic over the huge profits that they’re gorging with military industry has new markets opening up as they show off their weapons and Ukraine.

from every point of view, it’s a huge bonanza for the United States for the rest of the world.

Quite different Ukraine itself has been devastated with partially Russia.

The countries of the global south are suffering from the curtailment of grain and fertilizer resources from one of the main producers, the Black Sea region, the whole world is suffering from the fact that the limited steps towards dealing with the climate crisis are being reversed.

Dru Oja Jay:

For years, it’s been a standard demand on the left that we should disband NATO or Canada should pull out of NATO.

But recently, it’s become much more difficult to to make that case.

I mean, elite opinion in Europe and Canada has shifted even more dramatically in favor of the Alliance.

And even in long term NATO holdouts like Finland and Sweden, the tide has turned and there’s a big push join the Alliance and as you said, join all that the military spending to join the NATO activities to join the expansion and so on and to sort of submit to the the US leadership as it were.

So I guess my question is, what do you think that activists or anti war groups should be saying about NATO in the present context?

Noam Chomsky:

Well, they should be telling the truth.

That’s what the left should be doing.

Truth is that Putin did give Washington tremendous gift.

He gave a pretext for NATO to not only exist but expand.

The Finland Sweden case is quite interesting.

Finland and Sweden are under absolutely no threat.

I mean, they’re just gloating over the fact that the Russian military is so weak, it can’t conquer cities a couple of kilometers from the border, all of a sudden they’re going to attack major military powers like Finland and Sweden.

It’s beyond comical.

What’s actually happening in Finland, Sweden.

Here’s what the left should be talking about here.

They both have quite advanced military industries, sophisticated, advanced military industries.

They’re already partially integrated into NATO.

They join the NATO exercises and so on.

Fully join NATO, great market and prospects for advanced military industry in Finland, Sweden, they can move on towards becoming more militarized right wing societies.

Now integrated with the military military base NATO system, big shot in the arm for the right wing and military in both countries, that Sweden and Finland join NATO is Canada being defended by who’s being defended by NATO?

Nobody.

I mean, in fact, one very good East European historian, Richard Sakwa, England British historian, pointed out a couple of years ago that NATO exists mainly to deal with the consequences of its existence.

It’s the NATO expansion to the borders of Russia.

That worthy provocation that led to the invasion of Ukraine didn’t expand, you wouldn’t have invasion.

In fact, the crucial issue up till almost days before the invasion, was can Ukraine be neutralized, no Russian leaders going to accept Ukraine, right in a geopolitical heartland of Russia, to be a couple couple 100 kilometers from Moscow over an open plane scene of invasions are not going to allow it to be heavily armed as part of a hostile military alliance, not a single Russian leader would ever tolerate.

And it was the insistence up to the end, Putin was saying insist on a neutral Ukraine move towards the Minsk agreements, no ranch and from Washington, not our business will expand as we like, if China wants to bring Mexico and Canada into hostile military alliances aimed at the United States. That’s fine.

No objection. I’m sure.

Dru Oja Jay:

I’m curious.

Do you think it’s silly for Russia to feel threatened by Ukraine on its border? I mean, given that it’s a nuclear power.

Noam Chomsky:

That’s the nuclear power.

It’s not Ukraine.

It’s Ukraine is a part of NATO.

NATO is the most violent, aggressive alliance in the world.

Here.

We talk about it as a peacekeeping Alliance, really, Serbia, Iraq, Libya, was the peacekeeping Alliance.

This is just recent years, NATO’s violent aggressive alliance of heavy weapons in this century 2001 things that the United States did, which isn’t discussed enough, is starting with George W. Bush, the second Bush has been dismantling the arms control regime, which was steadily established this difficulty over 60 years.

Bush dismantled the ABM Treaty, it’s very serious for Russia means putting in ballistic missile defenses, so close to the Russian border, Romania and so on.

The pretext was you have to defend Europe against non existent Iranian missiles.

While you’re Canadian Intellectual, you can maybe buy that story and everybody else in the world laughed.

But these ABM installations are first strike weapons.

Every strategic analyst knows that they have no conceivable possibility of defending against the first strike.

Conceivably, they could deter a second strike or retaliatory strike, which makes them first strike Bevan’s.

Furthermore, they can easily be reconfigured to have missiles that nuclear missiles and erosion just right near the Russian border that’s the ABM Treaty, then comes along Trump.

Eliminate the INF Treaty the Reagan Gorbachev treaty.

That means short range missiles in Europe 10 minutes flight from Moscow.

It moves Ukraine traditional invasion recruiting.

Take a look at a map flat terrain right to Moscow and St. Petersburg.

Church Germans went through Do twice in the last century.

Of course, no Russian leaders going to allow it to be part of US military alliances.

Dru Oja Jay:

So in the past, you’ve said that obviously you support the right of Ukrainians to defend their territory.

And you’ve said that the military aid is on the one hand provocative, but on the other hand, justified to an extent and that it has to be carefully calibrated, I think was your words.

Where do you feel like the calibration is at right now?

Noam Chomsky:

Well, I think up until recently, it’s been pretty reasonable.

It was defensive weapons, but it’s not going up.

I mean, now it’s been acknowledged by and public Washington Post had a long story about it.

But it’s been acknowledged by the US military that the US so called advisors and personnel, in other words are at the directing much of the buyer of the advanced missiles like high Mars and so on. It’s now going up to tanks.

It’s now just recently moved up to jet planes.

Where’s it going to go next?

Russia recently, you’ve read about this announced that they might consider putting tactical nuclear weapons in Belarus.

That’s very dangerous, but why are they doing it?

I think it’s almost certainly a warning to NATO, to the United States saying if you keep escalating, we’re gonna react.

I mean, notice that Russia has not yet seriously hit Western Ukraine.

Joe Biden went to visit Kyiv, Janet Yellen went to visit Kyiv.

How many foreign leaders do you remember going to visit Baghdad, when in the United States and Britain were smashing into pieces?

They didn’t.

Peace activists were pulled out of the country, inspectors were pulled out of the country so they had a chance to survive.

This is a very different thing.

It’s not a British American kind of war.

Doesn’t go after destroy everything.

It could, it could expand to Kyiv to Western Ukraine.

To supply lines. Run into NATO supply lines.

You’re moving up the escalation ladder.

You can move up to terminal war with not much difficulty.