Kind: captions
Language: en
will there be a war between us and china
in the 21st century
if there is
we're finished
a war between
the us and china
would destroy the possibilities of
organized life on earth
the following is a conversation with
noam chomsky his second time in the
podcast
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
gnome is a strong and healthy 93 year
old but this conversation is remote to
be cautious
it is brief only one hour
it is more of an interview than a
conversation due to the limitations of
our audio and video connection
i decided it's best to get gnome'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
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
because of that i've been really
struggling to edit the videos i recorded
i hope to finish it soon
i'm sorry for these delays and i'm
especially sorry to the people there who
gave me their time their story
their heart
please be patient with me
i hope you understand
this is the lex friedman podcast to
support it please check out our sponsors
in the description
and now dear friends
here's noam chomsky
you have studied and criticized powerful
leaders and nations
in times of global conflict and
struggles for power
so let me ask you
what do you think motivates vladimir
putin
is it power legacy fame geopolitical
influence or the flourishing of a nation
he loves
and represents
i have no
particular insight into
putin's mind
i can only
watch the actions over the last
20 25 years
and read the statements
took power
about
almost 25 years ago has
held it since this
prime minister or president
his first task
was to try to
overcome the
chaos and disarray
of the 1990s
during the 90s uh
gorbachev
had a proposal
he uh
called for
a cooperative
enterprise with the west
they would share
an effort to rebuild what he called a
common european home
in which there would be no military
alliances
just
russia
western u.s accommodation
with a move towards social democracy in
a former
ussr and
comparable moves in the united states
well that was quickly smashed
the united states had no interest in
that
clinton came along pretty soon early 90s
russia was
induced to
adopt
what was called shock therapy
harsh
quick
market transformation
which devastated the economy
uh created enormous social or disarray
uh
rise of
what are called oligarchs kleptocrats
high mortality
and clinton started the policy of
expanding
nato to the east
in violation of
firm unambiguous promises
to gorbachev not to do so
uh yeltsin
putin's friend opposed it to
other russian leaders opposed it but
they didn't react
they
accepted it when putin came in he
continued that policy
meanwhile didn't
reconstruct the russian economy russian
society became a
viable deeply authoritarian society
under his
tight control
he himself was
organized a major
kleptocracy with him in the middle he
apparently became very wealthy
on the international front it pretty
much continued the former policies
as
u.s
diplomats practically every diplomat who
had any
contact with russia
had been dispatched there knew about it
as they all warned from the 90s
that what clinton was doing expanded by
his
bush bush ii afterwards
was reckless and provocative
uh that
russia did have a
clear red line before putin which he
adhered to
namely no nato membership for
ukraine and georgia
this is pretty much how things
went on
through the
2000s
uh 2014
george bush president bush did invite
ukraine to join nato that was vetoed by
france and germany
but under u.s pressure it was kept on
the agenda
the russians continued to object western
diplomats
including the
present current head of the cia and his
predecessors
warned that this was
reckless provocative shouldn't be done
continued
uh
putin didn't do much he stayed with it
until pretty recently
after 2014
the uprising that uh
throughout the
former president who was pro-russian
uh instituted
anti-russian laws
the united states and nato began to
a policy of
moving to effectively
integrate ukraine
into the nato command
joint military exercises
training
sending weapons and so on
uh
putin
objected other russian leaders objected
their unit unified on this but
didn't do much
continued with the
proposals that uh
nato that ukraine be
excluded from nato
and that uh there be some form of uh
autonomy for the
dunbas region meanwhile in reaction to
the
uprising the maidan uprising 2014
russia moved in and took over crimea
protecting its
one warm water base and a major naval
base
us objected and recognized it but
things continued without
notable conflict
won't go through all the details when
joe biden came in he
expanded the
program of uh
what
u.s military journals call a
de facto integration of
ukraine within nato
uh
developed proposed
september
2021 proposed
enhanced program of preparation for
the
nato admission uh
extended with a
formal statement in november
we're now practically up to the invasion
putin's position hardened
france
mainly france to an extent germany
did make some
moves towards
possible negotiations
uh putin
dismissed them
moved on to the
direct invasion
uh
that's
what what are his to get back to your
question what motivates him
i presume
what he's been saying all along
uh
namely
establishing his legacy as a
leader who
uh
overcame the
extensive destruction of russia and
massive weakening over it restored its
position as a world power
prevented ukraine from entering nato
it may have
further ambitions as to
dominating and controlling ukraine very
likely
uh there is a
theory in the west that he suddenly
became a
total madman who wants to
restore the great russian empire
this is combined with uh
gloating over the fact that the russian
military is a
paper tiger that
can't even conquer
cities a
couple of kilometers from the border but
uh
defended
not even by a regular army
but somehow along with this
he's planning to
attack nato powers conquer europe
who knows what
it's impossible to put all these
concepts together they're totally
internally contradictory
so
what's my judgment
i think what motivates him is what he's
been demonstrating in his actions
restore
russia as a great power
restore its economy
control it
as a
total dictatorship
enrich himself and his cronies
uh establish a
legacy as a
major figure in russian history
uh
make sure that ukraine does not join
nato
and
probably by now he's pardoned the
position
maintain
crimea and the southeastern quarter of
russia
and
some ambiguous agreements about the
dunbas region
that looks like his motivation
there's much speculation that goes
beyond this but
it's very hard to reconcile with the
uh
the assessment of the real world by the
same people who are making the
uh
grandiose uh
speculations
putin has been in power for 22 years do
you think power has corrupted him
i don't think anything's changed
it seems to me as well his policies
are about the same as what they were
they've
changed in response to changed
circumstances
so very recently right before the
invasion
a few weeks before
for the first time
putin
announced
recognition of the independence of the
unbest region
that's a stronger position than before
much stronger
up till then he had pretty much kept to
the
long-standing position of
some kind of accommodation within a
federal structure in which the
donbest region would have considerable
autonomy
so that's a portioning of the position
so even the human mind
of vladimir putin the man
i can't read his mind i can only see the
policies that he's pursued
and the statements that he's made
there are many people speculating about
his mind
and as i say these
speculations are
first of all not based on anything
never said anything about trying to
conquer nato and but more importantly
they are totally inconsistent
with the analyses of russian power
by the same people who are making the
speculations
so we see
the same individual
speculating about
uh putin's
grandiose plans to
become peter the greats and
conquer
start attacking the nato powers
on the one hand saying that
on the other hand including over the
fact that his military powers
so miniscule he can't even
conquer
the
towns a couple miles from the border
well it's impossible to make sense of
that position
why did russia invade ukraine on
february 24th
who do you think is to blame
who do you place the blame on
well who's to blame
any power that commits aggression is to
blame
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
acts of aggression as
the u.s invasion of iraq
the stalin
hitler invasion of poland
other acts of
uh
supreme international crime under under
international law aggression of course
he's to blame the us committed 6.9
billion in military assistance to
ukraine since the russian invasion
should us keep up with this support
there are two questions
one has to do with providing support for
defense against the invasion
which is certainly legitimate
the other
is seeking ways to end the crime
before even worse disasters
arise now that second part
is not discussed in the west barely
discussed
anyone who dares to discuss it is uh
immediately subjected to a
flood of invective and hysterical
condemnation
but if you're serious about ukraine
there are two things you ask
one
what can we do
to support ukraine in defense against
aggression
second
how can we end move to end the war
before it leads to even
worse destruction of ukraine
more starvation worldwide
reversing the
efforts of limited efforts to deal with
global warming possibly moving up an
escalation adder to war
the nuclear war that's the second
half
of the borrower
phrase attributed to winston churchill
uh
there's a lot of war war
but no joy jaw joy
and there ought to be a joy if you care
about ukraine and the rest of the world
can it be done we don't know
official u.s policy
is
to reject a diplomatic settlement
to move to
weaken russia severely
so that it cannot
carry out further aggression
but not
do anything on the
georgia side
not think of
how to bring the crimes and atrocities
to an end
that's the second part of the question
so
yes the u.s should continue with the
kind of
calibrated support that's been given
the pentagon wisely
has vetoed
the
initiatives to
go well beyond
support for defense up to attack on
russia
so for
the pentagon which seems to be the
dovish component in the u.s
administration has
vetoed plans which very likely would
lead on to nuclear war
which would destroy everything
so calibrated provision of weapons to
blunt the offensive
allow ukraine to defend itself
uh 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
that would be all instead the u.s only
dealing with the first
and all of our discussions limit
themselves to the first
in the united states and in britain not
in europe
do you worry about nuclear war in the
21st century how do we avoid it
anyone who doesn't worry about nuclear
war
doesn't have a grey cell functioning
of course everyone is worried about
nuclear wars or friday
it's very easy to see how
steps could be taken they've even been
recommended that would lead the nuclear
war
so you can read articles even by
liberal commentators who say we should
uh drop all the pretenses just go to war
against russia they have to be destroyed
uh
you can see proposals coming from
congress
the other leading figures saying we
should establish a no-fly zone
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
we don't know that russia
won't react
even the coal
now almost universal
to ensure that ukraine wins drives out
all the russians
drives them out of the country
sounds nice on paper
that notice the assumption
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
the
military means that of course he has to
destroy ukraine one of the interesting
comments that came out in
today's
long
article i think washington post
reviewing
a lot of leaks from
uh actually
not leaks actually presented by
us intelligence and u.s leaders about
the long build up to the war
one of the points that made was
surprised on the part of
british and u.s leaders about putin's
strategy
and his failure
to adopt to fight the war the way the
u.s and britain would
with real
shock and awe destruction of
communication facilities of
energy facilities and so on they can't
understand why he hasn't done all that
well could
if you want to
make it very likely that that'll happen
then insist on uh fighting until
somehow russia faces total defeat
then
it's a gamble you know but if he's just
crazy and insane as you claim presumably
will use weapons that he hasn't used yet
to
destroy ukraine
so the west is taking
an extraordinary gamble
with the fate of ukraine
gambling 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
it's quite a gamble
how much propaganda is there in the
world today in russia in ukraine in the
west
it's extraordinary
in russia of course it's total
ukraine is a different story they're at
war
expect propaganda
in the west
well let me quote
graham fuller
very highly placed in u.s intelligence
one of the top officials for
decades
dealing mostly with russia and
central asia
he recently said that in all the years
of the cold war he's never seen
any
extreme
rustophotrus russiaphobia
to the extent that he sees today
that's pretty accurate
i mean the us has
even
cancelled
the
russian outlets
which means if you want to
find out what
sierra lover of
the russian officials are saying
you can't look it up on their own
outlets you have to
go through
all jazeera
indian
state television or some place where
they still
allow
russian positions to be expressed
and of course the propaganda is just
outlandish i think fuller is
quite correct on this
and russia of course you expected
total propaganda there's nothing
any uh independent outlets
such as there were have been crushed
if the media is a source of inaccuracies
and even lies
then how do we find the truth
i don't regard the media as a source of
as a
source of inaccuracies and lies
they do exist
but by and large
media reporting is
reasonably accurate
uh reporters
the journalists themselves does
in the past do
courageous
honest work
i've
written about this for 50 years my
opinion hasn't changed
but
they do
pick certain things and not other things
there's selection
there's framing
there's ways of presenting things
uh
all of that
forms a kind of
propaganda system which you have to work
your way through but it's
rarely a matter of straight outright
lying
so there's a difference between
propaganda and lying of course
a propaganda system
shapes and limits
the material that's presented
it may tell the truth within that
framework
so let me give you a concrete example
which i
wrote about extensively
have a book called
manufacturing consent jointly with
edward herman
it's about the
his term which i had accepted the
propaganda model of the media
a large part of the book is defense of
the media
defense of the media against
harsh attacks
by freedom house
several volumes they published attacking
the media
charging that the media were so
adversarial and dishonest
that they lost the war in vietnam
well i took the trouble of reading
through the two volumes
one volume is charges the next volume is
evidence
turns out that all of the evidence is
lies
they had no evidence
they were just lying
the media in fact were doing 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 all
but the idea of questioning
that the united states was engaged in a
major
war crime
that's off the record
so unfortunately there was this crime
and that crime which
uh
harmed their
effort to do good and so on well that's
not lying it's propaganda
so how do we find the truth
how do we find the truth
that's what you have a brain for
it's not deep
it's quite shallow
it's not quantum physics
put a little effort into it
think about
uh look for other sources
think a little about history
look at the documentary record
uh
they're all pretty well fools together
you can get a reasonable
understanding of what's happening
if you could sit down with vladimir
putin
and ask him a question or talk to him
about an idea
what would you say
i would walk out of the room
just as with almost any other leader
i know what he's going to say i read the
party line i read his pronouncements
doesn't want to hear from me
am i going to say
why did you carry out a crime that's
comparable to the u.s invasion of iraq
and
the stalin-hitler invasion of poland am
i going to ask that
question uh if i met with uh
john f kennedy today would i ask
why did you radically escalate the war
in vietnam
launch the u.s air force start
authorizing a bomb
drive
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 the
defending would have asked him then
of course not
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
i mean
it's very hard to be in a position of
leadership
of a
violent aggressive power
without carrying out evil acts
are the people evil
i mean
i'm not their moral advisors
i don't know anything about them i look
at their actions their statements
their policies
evaluate those
their families can evaluate their
personalities
will there be a war between us and china
in the 21st century
if there is
we're finished
okay
a war between
the u.s and china
would destroy the possibilities of
organized life on earth
in fact we can put it differently
unless the us and china
reach an accommodation
and work together and cooperatively
it's very unlikely that
organized human society will survive
we are facing
enormous problems
problems
of the environment
endemics
uh threat of nuclear war
none of these
uh decline of
democratic functioning of an arena for
rational discourse
and none of these things have boundaries
we either work together to overcome it
overcome them which we can do or will
all sync together
that's the real question we should be
asking
what the united states is doing
is not helping
uh
so the current u.s policy which is
perfectly open nothing secret about it
is to what's called encircle china
it's the official word
with
sentinel states
uh south korea
japan
uh
australia uh
which will be heavily armed
uh provided by biden with
precision weapons
aimed at china
backed by
a
naval operations huge naval operation
just took place
in the pacific
many nations participating rim bank
didn't get reported here as far as i
know but an enormous operation
threatening china
all of this to
encircle china
uh
to
continue with policies like that
uh
somebody like pelosi
just to
probably to
make her look more
i don't know what
what her motives are
taking a highly provocative
stupid act
opposed
by the military opposed by the white
house well yes acts like that which of
course
called forth the response
of highly dangerous
uh we don't have to do that we don't
have to increase
the threat
i mean right now the last
nato summit
take a look at it
for the first time
it invited
uh to attend
the countries
that are in the the sentinel states
surrounding china encircling china from
the east
uh
and it in fact extended
the range of nato
to what's called the indo-pacific region
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
fortunately we might ask exactly what
the china threat is
it's done sometimes
so
former prime minister of
australia full heating
well-known international diplomat
i had an article a while ago in the
australian press
that's right in the clause of the dragon
asking
going through what the china threat is
he ran through the various claims
finally concluded
the china threat is that china exists
it exists it does not follow u.s orders
it's not like europe
europe does what the united states tells
it to do
even if it doesn't like it
china just ignores what the us is
now there's a
formal way of describing this
there are
two versions of the international order
one version
is the un-based international order
which
theoretically we subscribe to but we
don't accept
the un-based international order is
unacceptable to the united states
because it bans u.s foreign policy
literally
it explicitly bans the threat or use of
force in international affairs
except under circumstances that almost
never arise
well that's u.s foreign policy
try to find the president who isn't
engaged in the threat or use of force in
international affairs
okay so obviously we can't accept the
un-based
uh
international system
even though under the constitution
that's the supreme law of the land that
doesn't matter
so the united states has
what's called a rule-based international
order
that's acceptable
because it's the united states that sets
the rules
so
we want a rule-based international order
where the u.s hits the rules
in commentary in the united states
even in scholarship
almost 100
calling for a rule-based international
order
is that false no it's true
is it propaganda of course it's
propaganda
because of what's not said not because
of what's presupposed
an answer to an earlier question
well
china does not accept the rule-based
international order
so when the u.s
imposes demands
you may not like them but they follow
them
china ignores them
so take for example the uh
u.s sanctions on iran
the u.s has to punish iran
because the united states pulled out of
the unilaterally pulled out of the
ukraine the iran nuclear agreements
so in order to punish
the
for error wrecking the agreements
in violation of security council orders
we impose very harsh sanctions
the europe
strongly opposes the sanctions
condemned them harshly
but it
it adheres to them
because
you don't
disobey u.s orders that's too dangerous
china ignores them
they're not keeping to the
rule-based international order
well
that's unacceptable
in fact it's said pretty openly
you can hear
the secretary of state and others saying
china is challenging our global hegemony
yes they are
they don't accept u.s global hegemony
especially in the waters of china
so
that's the training through they do a
lot of rotten things china
i mean internally there's all kind of
repression violence and so on
but first of all that's not a threat to
us and second the u.s doesn't care about
it because it easily accepts and
supports
comparable crimes and atrocities
internal to allies
so yes we should protest it but without
hypocrisy
we have no standing to protest it we
supported comparable things and
all sorts of other places
and just take a look at the
us foreign aid
the leading recipient is uf foreign aid
is israel
which is engaged in constant
terror violence and repression
constant almost daily
second leading recipient is
egypt
under the worst dictatorship in egypt's
history
about 60 000
people in jail
political prisoners tortured and so on
do we care no
second leading recipient
i mean
what are we talking about that's why the
most of the world just laughs at us
you go to there's a lot of
uh
failure to understand here about why the
global south doesn't join us
in our uh proxy war against russia
fighting russia until it's severely
weakened
they don't join us
here the question is what's wrong with
them
they look into their minds to figure out
what's wrong
and they have a different attitude
they say yes we
oppose
the invasion of ukraine
terrible crime but what are you talking
about
this is what you do to us all the time
you don't care about crimes like this
that's most of the global self
we can't comprehend that
because we're so insulated
that we are just obviously right and
everyone who doesn't go along must be
wrong
do you think the united states as a
global leader as an empire
may collapse in this century
why and how will it happen and how can
we avoid it the united states it
can certainly
harm itself severely
that's what we're doing right now
right now the greatest threat to the
united states is internal
countries
tearing itself apart
uh
i mean
i really don't have to run through it
with you
take a look at something
as elementary as mortality
the united states the only country
outside of
war life expectancy is declining
mortality is increasing
this doesn't happen anywhere
you take a look at health outcomes
generally
they're among the worst
among the developed societies
and health spending
is about twice as high as the developed
societies
you look at the charts
all of this starts around the ninth late
1970s early 80s
to that if you go back to that point
the united states was
pretty much a normal developed country
in terms of mortality
incarceration
health expenses other measures
since then the united states has fallen
off the chart
it's gone way off the chart
well
that's the neoliberal assault of the
last 40 years
it's had a major effect on the united
states
it's left a lot of
anger resentment
violence meanwhile the republican party
has
simply drifted off the spectrum
it's not a normal political party in any
usual sense not what it used to be
its uh main policy is
block anything
in order to regain power that's its
policy
you know stated almost openly by
mcconnell
followed religiously by the entire
leader the entire
congress it's not it's that's not the
act of a political party
it's uh
so of course democracies declined the
violence is increased
the judgments the
decisions of the supreme court very
the court's the most reactionary court
in
memory to go back to the 19th century
uh decision after decision is
an effort to
create a country of
white supremacist christian nationalists
i
mean scarcely hidden if you read the
opinions of
alito
thomas
gorsuch and others
what's uh
so yes we can destroy ourselves within
and in fact the ways we're doing it are
almost astonishing
so it's well known for example everybody
knows that u.s infrastructure
bridges
subways and so on is in terrible shape
it needs a lot of repair
the american association of engineers
gives it a
failing mark every year
all right finally congress did pass a
limited infrastructure bill
say rebuild bridges and so on
it has to be called a china competition
act
we can't
rebuild their bridges because they're
falling apart
we have to rebuild their bridges to beat
china
it's pathological
and that's
what's happening inside the country
uh take
good thomas's
uh decision
in the recent case in which he
invalidated a new york law
this is last october a couple one couple
weeks ago and validated a new york law
going back to 1913
that required people to have some
uh justification if they wanted to carry
concealed weapons in public
he was through that with a very
interesting decision
he said
the united states he said is such
a decaying collapsing
hateful society that people just have to
have guns
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
it's essentially what he said
those weren't his words but they were
the imports
what gives you hope
about the united states about the future
of human civilization
human
civilization will not survive
unless the united states
takes a lead
the leading position
in
dealing with and overcoming
the very severe crises that we face
the united states the most powerful
country
not only in the world but in human
history there's nothing to compare with
it
what the united states does
has an
overwhelming impact on what happens in
the world
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
and dismantling
the regulatory apparatus that provides
some mitigation
when the united states does that as it
did under trump
it's a blow to the future of
civilization
when republican states
today
right now
say they're going to punish
corporations
that seek to take
climate change into account in their
investments
the u.s is telling the world
we want to destroy all of us
again not their words but their import
that's what they mean
so as long as
we have a
political organization
dedicated to gaining power at any cost
maximizing profit
no matter what the consequences
no future for human civilization
noam
thank you for talking today thank you
for talking once again
and thank you for fighting for the
future of human civilization
again thank you
thank you
thanks for listening to this
conversation with noam chomsky to
support this podcast please check out
our sponsors in the description
and now let me leave you some words from
voltaire
it is forbidden to kill
therefore all murderers are punished
unless
they kill in large numbers and to the
sound of trumpets
thank you for listening and hope to see
you next time
you