r/chomsky • u/InTheEndEntropyWins • 4d ago
Video Why Putin really started the Ukraine war.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3dy4L7RBWNU5
u/Daymjoo 4d ago edited 4d ago
I just watched the entire speech. This is wildly taken out of context. The question was 'why is the world going to shit?'. And this answer was an intro to his take that progress is best measured in economics, and Russia's economy is improving steadily despite western sanctions.
Not that I agree with his statement or that I support (or don't support) it in any way. It's just what was said and meant.
Edit: just finished the entirety of this short video. In addition to the fact that it's silly how uneducated and devoid of nuanced it is, full of strawmen against all of these supposed American apologists for Putin who claim that he is benevolent or altruistic, which I for one have never heard of, it neglects the fact that Occam's razor isn't the swiss-army-knife of answers to difficult questions that this guy thinks it is. Imagine trying to apply Occam's razor to quantum physics, psychology or biology.
And there's even studies on the matter which specifically single out history and international relations as examples where Occam's razor is an inffective tool. I quote:
Historical events and societal trends are shaped by a multitude of interacting factors—economic, cultural, political, and individual—that resist simple explanations.
Arguing that 'there can't possibly be any complex explanations for Russia's invasion of Ukraine because the principle of Occam's razor needs to apply' is idiotic. And even if you want to insist on that, why not apply Occam's Razor to reach the conclusion that NATO expansion was the simple and intuitive reason for which Russia invaded? After all, we have literal quotes of high-ranking Russian officials telling the world, and various US officials, that if they try to integrate Ukraine and/or Georgia into NATO they will invade. Since as early as 2008.
All in all, a really, really stupid analysis. Good job.
2
u/finjeta 4d ago
And even if you want to insist on that, why not apply Occam's Razor to reach the conclusion that NATO expansion was the simple and intuitive reason for which Russia invaded? After all, we have literal quotes of high-ranking Russian officials telling the world, and various US officials, that if they try to integrate Ukraine and/or Georgia into NATO they will invade. Since as early as 2008.
The problem with that logic is that it leaves out basically everything that goes against the idea that NATO expansion was why Russia invaded Ukraine. For starters, in 2010 Ukraine passed laws making it a neutral nation that couldn't join any military alliances. And before you mention anything about 2014, those laws were passed by the same parliament that would rule after Yanukovich fled Ukraine so the new government wasn't interested in joining NATO or abandoning neutrality. The true occam's razor is to just hear what the messaging from Russia was in the months leading to the initial invasion which was almost universally focused on the EU-Ukraine trade agreement which was the whole reason why Euromaidan happened in the first place. Also, as a cherry on top, some extremely accurate threats from Russia.
Seems pretty definitive to me and this line of logic doesn't require any mental gymnastics to explain why representatives who voted in favour of neutrality would suddenly go all in on joining NATO, why Russia's continued attempts to keep Ukraine from signing the EU Association Agreement weren't actually important and why invading Ukraine in 2014 was enough to prevent them from joining NATO but somehow wasn't enough in 2022.
Also, the Russian economy is anything but fine. Interest rate has been increased to a 20 year high of 21% and inflation went from ~6% to ~9%.
3
u/Daymjoo 4d ago
The problem with that logic is that it leaves out basically everything that goes against the idea that NATO expansion was why Russia invaded Ukraine.
I agree. Just like the notion that Russia started the war just because economy was stagnating, as suggested by the author of this video, leaves out basically everything that goes against the idea that economic stagnation was why Russia invaded Ukraine. Like the NATO expansion argument. And about 6 more which I could get into, but the conversation is about to get long even without.
I wasn't arguing that RU invaded UA just because of NATO expansion, just pointing out his incredibly stupid attempt to use Occam's Razor in this scenario.
those laws were passed by the same parliament that would rule after Yanukovich fled Ukraine so the new government wasn't interested in joining NATO or abandoning neutrality.
W... what? Virtually the entire ministry fled during peak Euromaidan, including numerous MP's. And every MP from the Party of Regions that stayed was forced to jump ship and join pro-Western parties instead. The Verkovna Rada after mid-2014 has nothing to do with the one in 2010. It was a complete and utter overhaul of the Ukrainian political system. The Party of Regions which ruled in 2010 was entirely outlawed following the Euromaidan. And the Euromaidan was a purely pro-Western revolution, it would be insane to attempt to deny that. It was sparked by Yanukovych's refusal to sign the EUAG, so obviously, the revolution stood on rapprochement with the West. And it would also be silly to ignore the outstanding overlap between EU and NATO membership, which is almost universal.
Yes, I've had the Glazyev quote thrown in my face before. He was an advisor. He had no official role in the Kremlin. Do you have any idea how many batshit insane comments advisors to the white house have made?
But there is something notable in your argument though. I've actually read the EUAG that was on the table in 2014, bc I wrote my MSc thesis on the topic. Not all 2000 pages, I skimmed ngl, but enough. Now, burried in there, towards the end, is the clear notion that UA would henceforth align itself with EU foreign and security policy. I won't bore you with the details, but what do you think that means exactly? What do you think 'EU foreign and security policy' is? I'd love it if you could explain to me how and where it diverges from NATO foreign policy, and I'd subsequently appreciate an explanation of how and where NATO foreign policy diverges from US foreign policy.
The issue here is that, thanks to the usual propaganda, we've been told that the EUAG was about trade, when, in reality, it was a wholesale integration of Ukraine into the Western sphere of influence. And also, it was wildly incompatible with Ukraine's numerous pre-existing treaties and trade deals with Russia. And perhaps most significantly, it was only desired by about 50% of the country even at the peak of the Maidan movement.
Also, the Russian economy is anything but fine. Interest rate has been increased to a 20 year high of 21% and inflation went from ~6% to ~9%.
Don't care. That was never part of my argument.
5
u/BriefTravelBro 4d ago
The CIA being in Ukraine since the 1950's, keeping the Bandera Nationalist and Nazi collaboration movement alive and well, for an eventual conflict with Russia, is why Russia launched the SMO.