0
SPEAKER_00
The following is a conversation with Noam Chomsky, his second time on the podcast.
0
SPEAKER_00
This episode is focused on the war in Ukraine, and it is a departure from the way I usually do this podcast in several ways.
0
SPEAKER_00
Noam is a strong and healthy 93 year old, but this conversation is remote to be cautious.
0
SPEAKER_00
It is brief, only one hour.
0
SPEAKER_00
It is more of an interview than a conversation due to the limitations of our audio and video connection.
0
SPEAKER_00
I decided it s best to get Noam s clear thoughts on this war and the complicated geopolitics of today and the rest of the 21st century that is unrolling before us, with our decisions and actions fully capable of either helping humanity flourish or unleashing global destruction and suffering.
0
SPEAKER_00
As a brief aside, perhaps you know this, but let me mention that I traveled to Ukraine and saw, heard, felt things that are haunting and gave me a lot to think about.
0
SPEAKER_00
Because of that, I ve been really struggling to edit the videos I recorded.
0
SPEAKER_00
I hope to finish it soon.
0
SPEAKER_00
I m sorry for these delays, and I m especially sorry to the people there who gave me their time, their story, their heart.
0
SPEAKER_00
Please be patient with me.
0
SPEAKER_00
I hope you understand.
0
SPEAKER_00
And now, a quick few second mention of each sponsor.
0
SPEAKER_00
Check them out in the description as the best way to support this podcast.
0
SPEAKER_00
We ve got Skiff for email, Insight Tracker for longevity, Onnit for supplements, and Blinkist for nonfiction.
0
SPEAKER_00
Choose wisely, my friends.
0
SPEAKER_00
And now, onto the full ad reads.
0
SPEAKER_00
As always, no ads in the middle, because I hate those.
0
SPEAKER_00
They break the flow of the conversation.
0
SPEAKER_00
Some of my favorite podcasts do them.
0
SPEAKER_00
It is what it is, that s life.
0
SPEAKER_00
I deal with it.
0
SPEAKER_00
But now, because I have some control over where the ads, or a lot of control over where the ads on this podcast go, even if I lose money, I care not, my friends.
0
SPEAKER_00
I am first and foremost just a fan of podcasts, so.
0
SPEAKER_00
I get to do this podcast in the way that I like to listen to podcasts as a fan.
0
SPEAKER_00
So there it is.
0
SPEAKER_00
But if you skip the sponsors, which I make super easy for you, apparently, please still check out the sponsors.
0
SPEAKER_00
I enjoy their stuff.
0
SPEAKER_00
Maybe you will too.
0
SPEAKER_00
It really is the best way to support this podcast.
0
SPEAKER_00
This show is brought to you by Skiff, a private end-to-end encrypted email.
0
SPEAKER_00
I just read like a blog post about them somewhere.
0
SPEAKER_00
This is not a very kind of informative ad read.
0
SPEAKER_00
I read a blog post about Skiff, how they re revolutionizing a lot of aspects of email, that they re doing an incredible job.
0
SPEAKER_00
I ve been using Skiff for a while for document collaboration, for email, they got all kinds of features, fast search, you can do custom domains for the email, and you can migrate from whatever the email service you use, like Gmail, ProtonMail, or Outlook,
0
SPEAKER_00
Man, it s been a while since I opened up Outlook.
0
SPEAKER_00
I used it for a while for the most shady of emails.
0
SPEAKER_00
But I think Outlook is used quite a lot in the sort of business sector and the professional sector.
0
SPEAKER_00
So if you re one of those folks, you should move, upgrade to the end-to-end encryption and the really easy, powerful, accessible interface of Skiff.
0
SPEAKER_00
So sign up at skiff.com slash lex.
0
SPEAKER_00
That s S-K-I-F-F dot com slash lex.
0
SPEAKER_00
This show is also brought to you by InsideTracker, a service I use to track biological data.
0
SPEAKER_00
They got blood data, DNA data, fitness tracker data, all that kind of stuff.
0
SPEAKER_00
They shove it all in into a machine learning algorithm and then make predictions for what you should be doing with your life.
0
SPEAKER_00
Of course, in a way that protects your privacy, in a way that gives you control over that data.
0
SPEAKER_00
I would love it if some of the aspects of my life were all integrated to where I could have an advisor, how I should allocate my effort throughout the day in order to be most optimal, how to maximize my well-being, how to manage things like social media access.
0
SPEAKER_00
I just feel like my body has a lot of data.
0
SPEAKER_00
about my well-being, and the software I use doesn t have access to any of that data.
0
SPEAKER_00
It just seems like those two things should be connected.
0
SPEAKER_00
And Insight Tracker is really pushing towards that direction of using data from your body to give lifestyle changes advice.
0
SPEAKER_00
For you, it s personalized.
0
SPEAKER_00
Get special savings for a limited time when you go to insighttracker.com slash Lex.
0
SPEAKER_00
This episode is also brought to you by Onnit, a nutrition, supplement, and fitness company.
0
SPEAKER_00
They make AlphaBrain, a nootropic that helps support memory, mental speed, and focus.
0
SPEAKER_00
When my life is going great, the thing I start with every single day is a deep work session.
0
SPEAKER_00
So I spend several hours just really focusing on a difficult task.
0
SPEAKER_00
Now some part of that is coffee, some part of that is just the clarity in the morning with water, with some electrolytes in it.
0
SPEAKER_00
And then if I just need an extra boost, whether the session is difficult or I didn t get enough sleep, I just need that extra boost, I ll take an Alpha Brain.
0
SPEAKER_00
right before to give me that extra mental clarity and focus.
0
SPEAKER_00
I think the start, I would say the first 15 minutes is the hardest.
0
SPEAKER_00
If you can achieve focus over the first 15 minutes, the world starts to dissipate away and all it is is just you and the task.
0
SPEAKER_00
Anyway, you can get a special discount on AlphaBrain at lexfreeman.com on it.
0
SPEAKER_00
This show is also brought to you by Blinkist, my favorite app for learning new things.
0
SPEAKER_00
It takes key ideas from thousands of nonfiction books and condenses them down into 15 minutes that you can read or listen to.
0
SPEAKER_00
Sapience is on there, Meditations by Marcus Aurelius is on there, Beginning of Infinity by David Doche is on there.
0
SPEAKER_00
I really have to talk to David Doche.
0
SPEAKER_00
I was in London briefly to hang out with DeepMind folks and that fell through.
0
SPEAKER_00
But yeah, I definitely wanna talk to him.
0
SPEAKER_00
Such a brilliant human being.
0
SPEAKER_00
Anyway, if you don t know any of his work, this is a good way to get into it.
0
SPEAKER_00
You get a quick summary, you get to see if you want to read the whole thing.
0
SPEAKER_00
Also, if you already read Beginning of Infinity, you can use Blinkist to remind yourself of the key sort of ideas in there.
0
SPEAKER_00
And sometimes not even just remind, maybe your mind was focused on particular aspects of that book and totally missed
0
SPEAKER_00
the key central ideas.
0
SPEAKER_00
So that kind of integrative summarization of a text is really, really useful no matter what.
0
SPEAKER_00
You can claim a special offer for savings at blinkist.com slash Lex.
0
SPEAKER_00
This is the Lex Riedman podcast.
0
SPEAKER_00
To support it, please check out our sponsors in the description.
0
SPEAKER_00
And now, dear friends, here s Noam Chomsky.
0
SPEAKER_00
You have studied and criticized powerful leaders and nations in times of global conflict and struggles for power.
0
SPEAKER_00
So let me ask you, what do you think motivates Vladimir Putin?
0
SPEAKER_00
Is it power, legacy, fame, geopolitical influence, or the flourishing of a nation he loves and represents?
0
SPEAKER_01
I have no particular insight into Putin s mind.
0
SPEAKER_01
I can only
0
SPEAKER_01
watch the actions over the last 20-25 years and read the statements.
0
SPEAKER_01
He took power about almost 25 years ago.
0
SPEAKER_01
He s held it since as Prime Minister or President.
0
SPEAKER_01
His first task was to try to overcome the chaos and disarray
0
SPEAKER_01
of the 1990s.
0
SPEAKER_01
During the 90s, Gorbachev had a proposal.
0
SPEAKER_01
He called for a cooperative enterprise with the West.
0
SPEAKER_01
They would share an effort to rebuild what he called a common European home, in which there would be no military alliances.
0
SPEAKER_01
just Russia, Western US accommodation, with a move towards social democracy and former USSR, and comparable moves in the United States.
0
SPEAKER_01
Well, that was quickly smashed.
0
SPEAKER_01
The United States had no interest in that.
0
SPEAKER_01
Clinton came along pretty soon, early 90s.
0
SPEAKER_01
Russia was induced to adopt what was called shock therapy, a harsh, quick market transformation which devastated the economy, created enormous social disarray, a rise of what are called oligarchs, kleptocrats, high mortality,
0
SPEAKER_01
And Clinton started the policy of expanding NATO to the east in violation of firm, unambiguous promises to Gorbachev not to do so.
0
SPEAKER_01
Yeltsin, Putin s friend, opposed it.
0
SPEAKER_01
Other Russian leaders opposed it, but they didn t react.
0
SPEAKER_01
They accepted it.
0
SPEAKER_01
When Putin came in, he continued that policy.
0
SPEAKER_01
Meanwhile, did
0
SPEAKER_01
reconstruct the Russian economy.
0
SPEAKER_01
Russian society became a viable, deeply authoritarian society under his tight control.
0
SPEAKER_01
He himself organized a major kleptocracy with him in the middle.
0
SPEAKER_01
He apparently became very wealthy.
0
SPEAKER_01
On the international front, he pretty much continued the former policies.
0
SPEAKER_01
As US
0
SPEAKER_01
Diplomats, practically every diplomat who had any contact with Russia had been dispatched there and knew about it, as they all warned from the 90s that what Clinton was doing, spanned by Bush, Bush too afterwards, was reckless and provocative, that Russia did have a clear red line before Putin, which he adhered to.
0
SPEAKER_01
namely no NATO membership for Ukraine and Georgia.
0
SPEAKER_01
This is pretty much how things went on through the 2000s.
0
SPEAKER_01
In 2008, George Bush, President Bush, did invite Ukraine to join NATO.
0
SPEAKER_01
That was vetoed by France and Germany.
0
SPEAKER_01
but under US pressure, it was kept on the agenda.
0
SPEAKER_01
The Russians continued to object to Western diplomats, including the present current head of the CIA and his predecessors warned that this was reckless, provocative, shouldn t be done, continued.
0
SPEAKER_01
Putin didn t do much.
0
SPEAKER_01
He stayed with it until pretty recently.
0
SPEAKER_01
After 2014,
0
SPEAKER_01
uprising that threw out the former president who was pro-Russian, instituted anti-Russian laws.
0
SPEAKER_01
The United States and NATO began a policy of moving to effectively integrate Ukraine into the NATO command.
0
SPEAKER_01
Joint military exercises, training,
0
SPEAKER_01
sending weapons and so on.
0
SPEAKER_01
Putin objected, other Russian leaders objected.
0
SPEAKER_01
They re unified on this, but didn t do much.
0
SPEAKER_01
Continued with the proposals that Ukraine be excluded from NATO and that there be some form of autonomy for the Donbass region.
0
SPEAKER_01
Meanwhile, in reaction to the Maidan uprising in 2014, Russia moved in and took over Crimea, protecting its warm water base and major naval base.
0
SPEAKER_01
The US objected and recognized it, but things continued without notable conflict.
0
SPEAKER_01
I won t go through all the details when
0
SPEAKER_01
Joe Biden came in, he expanded the program of what U.S.
0
SPEAKER_01
military journals call a de facto integration of Ukraine within NATO, proposed September 2021, proposed enhanced program of preparation for NATO admission, extended with a
0
SPEAKER_01
position hardened.
0
SPEAKER_01
France, mainly France, to an extent Germany, did make some moves towards possible negotiations.
0
SPEAKER_01
Putin dismissed them, moved on to the direct invasion.
0
SPEAKER_01
To get back to your question, what motivates him?
0
SPEAKER_01
I presume
0
SPEAKER_01
he s been saying all along.
0
SPEAKER_01
Namely, establishing his legacy as a leader who overcame the extensive destruction of Russia, a massive weakening over it, restored its position as a world power, prevented Ukraine from entering NATO.
0
SPEAKER_01
It may have further ambitions as to
0
SPEAKER_01
dominating and controlling Ukraine, very likely.
0
SPEAKER_01
There is a theory in the West that he suddenly became a total madman who wants to restore the great Russian Empire.
0
SPEAKER_01
This is combined with gloating over the fact that the Russian military is a paper tiger that can t even conquer cities.
0
SPEAKER_01
couple of kilometers from the border, but defended not even by a regular army.
0
SPEAKER_01
But somehow along with this, he s planning to attack NATO powers, conquer Europe, who knows what.
0
SPEAKER_01
It s impossible to put all these concepts together.
0
SPEAKER_01
They re totally internally contradictory.
0
SPEAKER_01
So what s my judgment?
0
SPEAKER_01
I think what motivates him is
0
SPEAKER_01
what he s been demonstrating in his actions.
0
SPEAKER_01
Restore Russia as a great power, restore its economy, control it as a total dictatorship, enrich himself and his cronies, establish a legacy as a major figure in Russian history, make sure that Ukraine does not join NATO, and
0
SPEAKER_01
probably by now he s hardened the position, maintain Crimea and the southeastern corridor to Russia, and some ambiguous agreements about the Donbass region.
0
SPEAKER_01
That looks like his motivation.
0
SPEAKER_01
There s much speculation that goes beyond this, but it s very hard to reconcile with
1
SPEAKER_02
assessment of the real world by the same people who were making the grandiose speculations.
1
SPEAKER_02
I don t think anything s changed.
1
SPEAKER_02
It seems to me his policies are about the same as what they were.
1
SPEAKER_02
They ve changed in response to changed circumstances.
1
SPEAKER_02
So very recently, right before the invasion, a few weeks before, for the first time, Putin announced recognition of the independence of the Donbass region.
1
SPEAKER_02
That s a stronger position than before, much stronger.
1
SPEAKER_02
Up till then, he had pretty much kept to the long-standing position of some kind of accommodation within a
1
SPEAKER_02
federal structure in which the Donbass region would have considerable autonomy.
1
SPEAKER_02
So that s a portioning of the position.
1
SPEAKER_00
So even the human mind of Vladimir Putin, the man?
1
SPEAKER_02
I can t read his mind.
1
SPEAKER_02
I can only see the policies that he s pursued and the statements that he s made.
1
SPEAKER_02
There are many people speculating about his mind.
1
SPEAKER_02
And as I say, these speculations are
1
SPEAKER_02
first of all, not based on anything, never said anything about trying to conquer NATO.
1
SPEAKER_02
But more importantly, they are totally inconsistent with the analyses of Russian power by the same people who are making the speculations.
1
SPEAKER_02
So we see the same individual speculating about Putin s grandiose plans to
1
SPEAKER_02
become Peter the Great and conquer, start attacking NATO powers.
1
SPEAKER_02
On the one hand, saying that, on the other hand, gloating over the fact that his military powers so minuscule he can t even conquer towns a couple miles from the border.
1
SPEAKER_02
It s impossible to make sense of that position.
1
SPEAKER_00
Why did Russia invade Ukraine on February 24th?
1
SPEAKER_00
Who do you think is to blame?
1
SPEAKER_00
Who do you place the blame on?
1
SPEAKER_02
Well, who s to blame?
1
SPEAKER_02
Any power that commits aggression is to blame.
1
SPEAKER_02
So I continue to say, as I have been for many months, that the invasion, Putin s invasion of Ukraine, is on a par with such
1
SPEAKER_02
acts of aggression as the US invasion of Iraq, the Stalin-Hitler invasion of Poland, other acts of supreme international crime under international law, aggression.
1
SPEAKER_02
Of course, he s to blame.
1
SPEAKER_00
The U.S.
1
SPEAKER_00
committed $6.9 billion in military assistance to Ukraine since the Russian invasion.
1
SPEAKER_00
Should U.S.
1
SPEAKER_00
keep up with this support?
1
SPEAKER_02
There are two questions.
1
SPEAKER_02
One has to do with providing support for defense against the invasion, which is certainly legitimate.
1
SPEAKER_02
The other is seeking ways to end the crime before even worse disasters arise.
1
SPEAKER_02
Now that second part is not discussed in the West, barely discussed.
1
SPEAKER_02
Anyone who dares to discuss it is immediately subjected to a flood of invective and hysterical condemnation.
1
SPEAKER_02
But if you re serious about Ukraine, there are two things you ask.
1
SPEAKER_02
One, what can we do to support Ukraine in defense against aggression?
1
SPEAKER_02
Second, how can we end
1
SPEAKER_02
moved to end the war before it leads to even worse destruction of Ukraine, more starvation worldwide, reversing the efforts, the limited efforts, to deal with global warming, possibly moving up an escalation ladder to war, the nuclear war.
1
SPEAKER_02
That s the second half of the borrower phrase attributed to Winston Churchill.
1
SPEAKER_02
There s a lot of war, war, but no joy, joy, joy.
1
SPEAKER_02
And there ought to be joy, joy, if you care about Ukraine and the rest of the world.
1
SPEAKER_02
Can it be done?
1
SPEAKER_02
We don t know.
1
SPEAKER_02
Official US policy is to reject a diplomatic settlement, to move to weaken Russia severely so that it cannot carry out further aggression, but not
1
SPEAKER_02
do anything on the jaw-jaw side, not think of how to bring the crimes and atrocities to an end.
1
SPEAKER_02
That s the second part of the question.
1
SPEAKER_02
So yes, the U.S.
1
SPEAKER_02
should continue with the kind of calibrated support that s been given the Pentagon wisely
1
SPEAKER_02
has vetoed initiatives to go well beyond support for defense up to attack on Russia.
1
SPEAKER_02
So far, the Pentagon, which seems to be the dovish component in the US administration, has vetoed plans which very likely would lead on to nuclear war, which would destroy everything.
1
SPEAKER_02
So calibrated
1
SPEAKER_02
provision of weapons to blunt the offensive, allow Ukraine to defend itself, if sensible, combined with efforts to see if something can be done to bring the crimes and atrocities to an end and avert the much worse consequences that are in store.
1
SPEAKER_02
That would be all.
1
SPEAKER_02
Instead, the U.S.
1
SPEAKER_02
only dealing with the first
1
SPEAKER_02
and all of our discussions limit themselves to the first in the United States and in Britain, not in Europe.
1
SPEAKER_00
Do you worry about nuclear war in the 21st century?
1
SPEAKER_00
How do we avoid it?
1
SPEAKER_02
Anyone who doesn t worry about nuclear war doesn t have a gray cell functioning.
1
SPEAKER_02
Of course, everyone is worried about nuclear war, nor should they be.
1
SPEAKER_02
very easy to see how steps could be taken, even been recommended, that would lead to nuclear war.
1
SPEAKER_02
So you can read articles even by liberal commentators who say we should drop all the pretenses, just go to war against Russia, they have to be destroyed.
1
SPEAKER_02
You can see proposals coming from Congress,
1
SPEAKER_02
the leading figures saying we should establish a no-fly zone.
1
SPEAKER_02
Pentagon objects, they point out correctly that to establish a no-fly zone, you have to have control of the air, which means destroying Russian air defense systems, which happen to be inside Russia.
1
SPEAKER_02
We don t know that Russia won t react.
1
SPEAKER_02
Even the call
1
SPEAKER_02
now almost universal, to ensure that Ukraine wins, drives out all the Russians, drives them out of the country.
1
SPEAKER_02
Sounds nice on paper, but notice the assumption.
1
SPEAKER_02
The assumption is that Vladimir Putin, this madman who just seeks power and is out of control, will sit there quietly, accept defeat, slink away, not use
1
SPEAKER_02
the military means that, of course, he has to destroy Ukraine.
1
SPEAKER_02
One of the interesting comments that came out in today s long article, I think, Washington Post reviewing a lot of leaks from, actually, not leaks, actually, presented by U.S.
1
SPEAKER_02
intelligence and U.S.
1
SPEAKER_02
leaders about the long build-up to the war.
1
SPEAKER_02
One of the points it made was
1
SPEAKER_02
prized on the part of British and U.S.
1
SPEAKER_02
leaders about Putin s strategy and his failure to fight the war the way the U.S.
1
SPEAKER_02
and Britain would, with real shock and awe at the destruction of communication facilities, of energy facilities, and so on.
1
SPEAKER_02
They can t understand why he hasn t done all that.
1
SPEAKER_02
Well, he could, if you want to make it very likely that that ll happen.
1
SPEAKER_01
than insist on fighting until somehow Russia faces total defeat, then it s a gamble.
1
SPEAKER_02
But if he s as crazy and insane as you claim, presumably we ll use weapons that he hasn t used yet to destroy Ukraine.
1
SPEAKER_02
So the West is taking an extraordinary gamble with the fate of Ukraine, gambling
1
SPEAKER_02
that the madman, lunatic, mad Vlad won t use the weapons he has to destroy Ukraine and set the stage for escalation of the latter, which might lead to nuclear war.
1
SPEAKER_02
It s quite a gamble.
1
SPEAKER_00
How much propaganda is there in the world today, in Russia, in Ukraine, in the West?
1
SPEAKER_02
It s extraordinary.
1
SPEAKER_02
In Russia, of course, it s total.
1
SPEAKER_02
Ukraine is a different story.
1
SPEAKER_02
They re at war.
1
SPEAKER_02
Expect propaganda.
1
SPEAKER_02
In the West, let me quote Graham Fuller, very highly placed in U.S.
1
SPEAKER_02
intelligence, one of the top officials for decades, dealing mostly with Russia and Central Asia.
1
SPEAKER_02
He recently said that in all the years of the Cold War, he s never seen
1
SPEAKER_02
any extreme Russophobia to the extent that he sees today.
1
SPEAKER_02
That s pretty accurate.
1
SPEAKER_02
I mean, the US has even cancelled Russian outlets, which means if you want to find out what Sergey Lavrov or the Russian officials are saying, you can t
1
SPEAKER_02
look it up on their own outlets.
1
SPEAKER_02
You have to go through Al Jazeera, Indian state television, or someplace where they still allow Russian positions to be expressed.
1
SPEAKER_02
And of course, the propaganda is just outlandish.
1
SPEAKER_02
I think Fuller is quite correct on this.
1
SPEAKER_02
In Russia, of course, you expect total propaganda.
1
SPEAKER_02
There s nothing
1
SPEAKER_02
any independent outlets, such as there were, have been crushed.
1
SPEAKER_00
If the media is a source of inaccuracies and even lies, then how do we find the truth?
1
SPEAKER_02
I don t regard the media as a source of inaccuracies and lies.
1
SPEAKER_02
They do exist.
1
SPEAKER_02
But by and large, media reporting is reasonably accurate.
1
SPEAKER_02
reporters, the journalists themselves, as in the past, do courageous, honest work.
1
SPEAKER_02
I ve written about this for 50 years.
1
SPEAKER_02
My opinion hasn t changed.
1
SPEAKER_02
But they do pick certain things and not other things.
1
SPEAKER_02
There s selection, there s framing, there s ways of presenting things.
1
SPEAKER_02
All of that
1
SPEAKER_02
forms a kind of propaganda system, which you have to work your way through.
1
SPEAKER_02
But it s rarely a matter of straight outright lying.
1
SPEAKER_00
So there s a difference between propaganda and lying?
1
SPEAKER_00
Of course.
1
SPEAKER_02
A propaganda system shapes and limits the material that s presented.
1
SPEAKER_02
It may tell the truth within that framework.
1
SPEAKER_02
So let me give you a concrete example, which I wrote about extensively.
1
SPEAKER_02
I have a book called Manufacturing Consent, jointly with Edward Herman.
1
SPEAKER_02
It s about his term, which I accepted as a propaganda model of the media.
1
SPEAKER_02
A large part of the book is defense of the media, defense of the media against harsh attacks by Freedom House,
1
SPEAKER_02
several volumes they published attacking the media, charging that the media were so adversarial and dishonest that they lost the war in Vietnam.
1
SPEAKER_02
Well, I took the trouble of reading through the two volumes.
1
SPEAKER_02
One volume is charges, the next volume is evidence.
1
SPEAKER_02
Turns out that all of the evidence is lies.
1
SPEAKER_02
They had no evidence.
1
SPEAKER_02
They were just lying.
1
SPEAKER_02
The media, in fact, the journalists were doing an honest, courageous work, but within a certain framework, a framework of assuming that the American cause was basically just, basically honorable, making mistakes, doing bad things, but the idea of questioning that the United States was engaged in a
1
SPEAKER_02
major war crime.
1
SPEAKER_02
That s off the record.
1
SPEAKER_02
So unfortunately, there was this crime and that crime which harmed their effort to do good and so on.
1
SPEAKER_02
Well, that s not lying, it s propaganda.
1
SPEAKER_00
So how do we find the truth?
1
SPEAKER_02
How do we find the truth?
1
SPEAKER_02
That s what you have a brain for.
1
SPEAKER_02
It s not deep.
1
SPEAKER_02
It s quite shallow.
1
SPEAKER_02
It s not quantum physics.
1
SPEAKER_02
Put a little effort into it.
1
SPEAKER_02
Think about, look for other sources.
1
SPEAKER_02
Think a little about history.
1
SPEAKER_02
Look at the documentary record.
1
SPEAKER_02
It all pretty well falls together and you can get a reasonable understanding of what s happening.
1
SPEAKER_00
If you could sit down with Vladimir Putin and ask him a question or talk to him about an idea, what would you say?
1
SPEAKER_02
I would walk out of the room, just as with almost any other leader.
1
SPEAKER_02
I know what he s going to say.
1
SPEAKER_02
I read the party line.
1
SPEAKER_02
I read his pronouncements.
1
SPEAKER_02
He doesn t want to hear from me.
1
SPEAKER_02
Am I going to say, why did you carry out a crime that s comparable to the US invasion of Iraq and the Stalin-Hitler invasion of Poland?
1
SPEAKER_02
Am I going to ask that question?
1
SPEAKER_02
If I met with John F. Kennedy,
1
SPEAKER_02
say, would I ask, why did you radically escalate the war in Vietnam, launch the US Air Force, authorize an A-bomb, launch programs to drive villagers who you know are supporting the National Liberation Front, drive them into concentration camps to separate them from the forces they re defending?
1
SPEAKER_02
Would I have asked them that?
1
SPEAKER_02
Of course not.
1
SPEAKER_00
Do you think the people who led us into the war in Vietnam, the war in Afghanistan and Iraq, the war in Ukraine, are evil?
1
SPEAKER_02
I mean, it s very hard to be in a position of leadership of a violent, aggressive power without carrying out evil acts.
1
SPEAKER_02
or the people evil.
2
SPEAKER_01
I mean, I m not their moral advisors.
2
SPEAKER_01
I don t know anything about them.
2
SPEAKER_01
I look at their actions, their statements, their policies, evaluate those.
2
SPEAKER_01
Their families can evaluate their personalities.
2
SPEAKER_00
Will there be a war between US and China in the 21st century?
2
SPEAKER_01
If there is, we re finished, okay?
2
SPEAKER_01
A war between the US and China
2
SPEAKER_01
would destroy the possibilities of organized life on earth.
2
SPEAKER_01
In fact, we can put it differently.
2
SPEAKER_01
Unless the US and China reach an accommodation and work together and cooperatively, it s very unlikely that organized human society will survive.
2
SPEAKER_01
We are facing enormous problems, problems
2
SPEAKER_01
destruction of the environment, pandemics, threat of nuclear war.
2
SPEAKER_01
None of these decline of democratic functioning of an arena for rational discourse.
2
SPEAKER_01
None of these things have boundaries.
2
SPEAKER_01
We either work together to overcome them, which we can do, or we ll all sink together.
2
SPEAKER_01
That s the real question we should be asking.
2
SPEAKER_01
What the United States is doing is not helping.
2
SPEAKER_01
So current US policy, which is perfectly open, nothing secret about it, is to what s called encircle China, the official word, with sentinel states, South Korea, Japan, Australia,
2
SPEAKER_01
which will be heavily armed, provided by Biden, with precision weapons aimed at China, backed by major naval operations.
2
SPEAKER_01
A huge naval operation just took place in the Pacific.
2
SPEAKER_01
Many nations participating.
2
SPEAKER_01
RIMPAC didn t get reported here, as far as I know, but an enormous operation threatening China.
2
SPEAKER_01
All of this to
2
SPEAKER_01
encircle China to continue with policies like that.
2
SPEAKER_01
Somebody like Pelosi, just probably to make her look more, I don t know what her motives are, taking a highly provocative, stupid act opposed by the military, opposed by the White House.
2
SPEAKER_01
Yes, acts like that, which of course called for the response of highly dangerous.
2
SPEAKER_01
We don t have to do that.
2
SPEAKER_01
We don t have to increase the threat.
2
SPEAKER_01
I mean, right now, the last NATO summit, take a look at it.
2
SPEAKER_01
For the first time, it invited to attend countries that are in the sentinel states.
2
SPEAKER_01
surrounding China and circling China from the east.
2
SPEAKER_01
And it in fact extended the range of NATO to what s called the Indo-Pacific region.
2
SPEAKER_01
So all of us, by now, the North Atlantic includes the whole Indo-Pacific region to try to ensure that we can overcome the so-called China threat.
2
SPEAKER_01
we might ask exactly what the China threat is.
2
SPEAKER_01
It s done sometimes.
2
SPEAKER_01
So, former Prime Minister of Australia, Paul Keating, well-known international diplomat, had an article a while ago in the Australian press, that s right in the claws of the dragon, asking, going through what the China threat is.
2
SPEAKER_01
ran through the various claims, finally concluded.
2
SPEAKER_01
The China threat is that China exists.
2
SPEAKER_01
It exists.
2
SPEAKER_01
It does not follow US orders.
2
SPEAKER_01
It s not like Europe.
2
SPEAKER_01
Europe does what the United States tells it to do, even if it doesn t like it.
2
SPEAKER_01
China just ignores what the US says.
2
SPEAKER_01
There s a formal way of describing this.
2
SPEAKER_01
There are two versions
2
SPEAKER_01
of the international order.
2
SPEAKER_01
One version is the UN-based international order, which theoretically we subscribe to, but we don t accept.
2
SPEAKER_01
The UN-based international order is unacceptable to the United States because it bans US foreign policy, literally.
2
SPEAKER_01
It explicitly bans
2
SPEAKER_01
the threat or use of force in international affairs, except under circumstances that almost never arise.
2
SPEAKER_01
Well, that s US foreign policy.
2
SPEAKER_01
Try to find a president who isn t engaged in the threat or use of force in international affairs.
2
SPEAKER_01
Okay, so obviously we can t accept the UN-based international system, even though under the Constitution, that s the supreme law of the land.
2
SPEAKER_01
matter.
2
SPEAKER_01
So the United States has what s called a rule-based international order.
2
SPEAKER_01
That s acceptable because it s the United States that sets the rules.
2
SPEAKER_01
So we want a rule-based international order where the US sets the rules.
2
SPEAKER_01
In commentary in the United States, even in scholarship,
2
SPEAKER_01
based international order.
2
SPEAKER_01
Is that false?
2
SPEAKER_01
No, it s true.
2
SPEAKER_01
Is it propaganda?
2
SPEAKER_01
Of course it s propaganda, because of what s not said and because of what s presupposed.
2
SPEAKER_01
In answer to an earlier question, well, China does not accept the rule based international order.
2
SPEAKER_01
So when the US imposes demands, Europe may not like them, but they follow them.
2
SPEAKER_01
China ignores them.
2
SPEAKER_01
So take, for example, the US sanctions on Iran.
2
SPEAKER_01
The US has to punish Iran because the United States unilaterally pulled out of the Iran nuclear agreements.
2
SPEAKER_01
So in order to punish Iran for wrecking the agreements in violation of Security Council orders,
2
SPEAKER_01
We impose very harsh sanctions.
2
SPEAKER_01
Europe strongly opposes the sanctions, condemned them harshly, but it adheres to them because you don t disobey U.S.
2
SPEAKER_01
orders.
2
SPEAKER_01
That s too dangerous.
2
SPEAKER_01
China ignores them.
2
SPEAKER_01
They re not keeping to the rule-based international order.
2
SPEAKER_01
Well, that s unacceptable.
2
SPEAKER_01
In fact, it s said pretty openly.
2
SPEAKER_01
You can hear the Secretary of State and others saying China is challenging our global hegemony.
2
SPEAKER_01
Yes, they are.
2
SPEAKER_01
They don t accept U.S.
2
SPEAKER_01
global hegemony, especially in the waters off China.
2
SPEAKER_01
So that s a China threat.
2
SPEAKER_01
They do a lot of rotten things, China.
2
SPEAKER_01
I mean, internally, there s all kind of repression, violence, and so on.
2
SPEAKER_01
But first of all, it s not a threat to us.
2
SPEAKER_01
And second, the U.S.
2
SPEAKER_01
doesn t care about it because it easily accepts and supports comparable crimes and atrocities internal to allies.
2
SPEAKER_01
So yes, we should protest it, but without hypocrisy.
2
SPEAKER_01
We have no standing to protest it.
2
SPEAKER_01
We support comparable things in all sorts of other places.
2
SPEAKER_01
Just take a look at the U.S.
2
SPEAKER_01
foreign aid.
2
SPEAKER_01
The leading recipient of US foreign aid is Israel, which is engaged in constant terror, violence and repression.
2
SPEAKER_01
Constant, almost daily.
2
SPEAKER_01
The second leading recipient is Egypt, under the worst dictatorship in Egypt s history.
2
SPEAKER_01
About 60,000 people in jail, political prisoners, tortured and so on.
2
SPEAKER_01
Do we care?
2
SPEAKER_01
No.
2
SPEAKER_01
The second leading recipient
2
SPEAKER_01
I mean, what are we talking about?
2
SPEAKER_01
That s why most of the world just laughs at us.
2
SPEAKER_01
There s a lot of failure to understand here about why the global South doesn t join us in our proxy war against Russia, fighting Russia until it s severely weakened.
2
SPEAKER_01
They don t join us.
2
SPEAKER_01
Here, the question is, what s wrong with them?
2
SPEAKER_01
look into their minds to figure out what s wrong.
2
SPEAKER_01
They have a different attitude.
2
SPEAKER_01
They say, yes, we oppose the invasion of Ukraine.
2
SPEAKER_01
Terrible crime.
2
SPEAKER_01
But what are you talking about?
2
SPEAKER_01
This is what you do to us all the time.
2
SPEAKER_01
You don t care about crimes like this.
2
SPEAKER_01
That s most of the global South.
2
SPEAKER_01
We can t comprehend that because we re so insulated.
2
SPEAKER_01
that we are just obviously right and everyone who doesn t go along must be wrong.
2
SPEAKER_00
Do you think the United States as a global leader, as an empire, may collapse in this century?
2
SPEAKER_00
Why and how will it happen and how can we avoid it?
2
SPEAKER_01
The United States can certainly harm itself severely.
2
SPEAKER_01
That s what we re doing right now.
2
SPEAKER_01
Right now, the greatest threat to the United States is internal countries tearing itself apart.
2
SPEAKER_01
I mean, I really don t have to run through it with you.
2
SPEAKER_01
Take a look at something as elementary as mortality.
2
SPEAKER_01
The United States is the only country, outside of war, life expectancy is declining.
2
SPEAKER_01
Mortality is increasing.
2
SPEAKER_01
It doesn t happen anywhere.
2
SPEAKER_01
You take a look at health outcomes generally, they re among the worst among the developed societies.
2
SPEAKER_01
And health spending is about twice as high as the developed societies.
2
SPEAKER_01
You look at the charts, all of this starts around the late 1970s, early 80s.
2
SPEAKER_01
If you go back to that point, the United States was
2
SPEAKER_01
pretty much a normal developed country in terms of mortality, incarceration, health expenses, other measures.
2
SPEAKER_01
Since then, the United States has fallen off the chart.
2
SPEAKER_01
It s gone way off the chart.
2
SPEAKER_01
Well, that s the neoliberal assault of the last 40 years.
2
SPEAKER_01
It s had a major effect on the United States.
2
SPEAKER_01
It s left a lot of anger, resentment,
2
SPEAKER_01
violence.
2
SPEAKER_01
Meanwhile, the Republican Party has simply drifted off the spectrum.
2
SPEAKER_01
It s not a normal political party in any usual sense, not what it used to be.
2
SPEAKER_01
Its main policy is block anything in order to regain power.
2
SPEAKER_01
That s its policy, stated almost openly by McConnell, followed
2
SPEAKER_01
religiously by the entire Congress.
2
SPEAKER_01
That s not the acts of a political party.
2
SPEAKER_01
Of course, democracy has declined, violence has increased, the judgments, the decisions of the Supreme Court.
2
SPEAKER_01
The Court is the most reactionary court in memory, to go back to the 19th century.
2
SPEAKER_01
Decision after decision is an effort to create a country of white supremacist Christian nationalists.
2
SPEAKER_01
I mean, scarcely hidden, if you read the opinions of Alito, Thomas, Gorsuch, and others.
2
SPEAKER_01
So yes, we can destroy ourselves within.
2
SPEAKER_01
In fact, the ways we re doing it are almost astonishing.
2
SPEAKER_01
It s well known, for example, everybody knows that U.S.
2
SPEAKER_01
infrastructure, bridges, subways, and so on, is in terrible shape, needs a lot of repair.
2
SPEAKER_01
The American Association of Engineers gives it a failing mark every year.
2
SPEAKER_01
Finally, Congress did pass a limited infrastructure bill
2
SPEAKER_01
say rebuild bridges and so on.
2
SPEAKER_01
It has to be called a China competition act.
2
SPEAKER_01
We can t rebuild their bridges because they re falling apart.
2
SPEAKER_01
We have to rebuild their bridges to beat China.
2
SPEAKER_01
It s pathological.
2
SPEAKER_01
And that s what s happening inside the country.
2
SPEAKER_01
Take Thomas s
2
SPEAKER_01
decision in the recent case in which he invalidated a New York law.
2
SPEAKER_01
This is last October, a couple of weeks ago.
2
SPEAKER_01
He invalidated a New York law going back to 1913 that required people to have some justification if they wanted to carry concealed weapons in public.
2
SPEAKER_01
He was through that with a very interesting decision.
2
SPEAKER_01
He said the
2
SPEAKER_01
The United States, he said, is such a decaying, collapsing, hateful society that people just have to have guns.
2
SPEAKER_01
I mean, how can you expect somebody to go to the grocery store without a gun in a country as disgusting and hideous as this one?
2
SPEAKER_01
It s essentially what he said.
2
SPEAKER_01
Those weren t his words, but they were the impulse.
2
SPEAKER_00
What gives you hope about the United States, about the future of human civilization?
2
SPEAKER_01
Human civilization will not survive unless the United States takes a lead, a leading position in dealing with and overcoming the very severe crises that we face.
2
SPEAKER_01
The United States is the most powerful country
2
SPEAKER_01
not only in the world, but in human history, is nothing to compare with it.
2
SPEAKER_01
What the United States does has an overwhelming impact on what happens in the world.
2
SPEAKER_01
When the United States pulls out alone, pulls out of the Paris agreements on dealing with climate change, and insists on maximizing the use of fossil fuels
2
SPEAKER_01
and dismantling the regulatory apparatus that provides some mitigation when the United States does that, as it did under Trump.
2
SPEAKER_01
It s a blow to the future of civilization.
2
SPEAKER_01
When Republican states today, right now, say they re going to punish corporations that seek to take
2
SPEAKER_01
the climate change into account in their investments.
2
SPEAKER_01
The US is telling the world, we want to destroy all of us.
2
SPEAKER_01
Again, not their words, but their import.
2
SPEAKER_01
That s what they mean.
2
SPEAKER_01
So as long as we have a political organization dedicated to gaining power at any cost, maximizing profit, no matter what the consequences,
2
SPEAKER_01
no future for human civilization.
2
SPEAKER_00
Noam, thank you for talking today.
2
SPEAKER_00
Thank you for talking once again.
3
SPEAKER_01
And thank you for fighting for the future of human civilization.
3
SPEAKER_01
Again, thank you.
3
SPEAKER_00
Thank you.
3
SPEAKER_01
Thanks for listening to this conversation with Noam Chomsky.
3
SPEAKER_01
To support this podcast, please check out our sponsors in the description.
3
SPEAKER_01
And now, let me leave you with some words from Voltaire.
3
SPEAKER_01
It is forbidden to kill.
3
SPEAKER_01
Therefore, all murderers are punished unless they kill in large numbers and to the sound of trumpets.
3
SPEAKER_01
Thank you for listening and hope to see you next time.