Noam Chomsky’s Astute Take On Russia and Ukraine

The history is 30 years old and while it was happening in the early 1990s, I was a US Navy officer on exchange with the French Navy.

Here’s how it sorts out from my recollections.

I was attending Defense Language Institute in Monterey, CA in the spring, summer, and fall of 1989 before taking up duties with the French, one of the 30 members of NATO (L’OTAN—l’organisation du traité de l’Atlantique Nord) when toward the end of the French course, the Berlin Wall came tumbling down in November.

After a month of R&R in Thailand I began a gauntlet that would put me in Washington DC at the Pentagon and French Embassy, then the US Embassy in Paris to get all checked in an situated, then NATO HQ in Belgium. This wasn’t high-level stuff. I was a junior officer just doing the rounds, being briefed, and taking it all in.

In those early times, the really big deal was the reunification of Germany. In fact, the German-Navy exchange officer was the navigator of Duquesne’s sister ship, Suffren, right across the pier from us. I talked with him a good deal about that. It was costing the west Germans a shit ton, but they basically felt it was worth it.

But what’s interesting is that after the Wall fell and the collapse of the Soviet Union seemed somewhere on the horizon, Gorbachev conceded to let the unification go forth unopposed. Germany had devastated Russia twice already in the 20th Century. Chomsky makes the cogent point that this was a big concession on the part of the Soviets, 30 years ago.

We had lots of chats dans le carre des officiers on both Colbert and Duquesne over the two years I was the navigator and undefeated chess champion of both. Clearly, the unstabilizing breakup of the Soviet Union would put all of their satellite states of the previous 4 decades up for grabs and what they didn’t want was for them to become NATO countries. NATO was already a big and powerful alliance and the Russians had no interest in having it get bigger and more powerful without opposing such an expansion.

So the reunification of Germany was their grand offer. And it was a good one. In return, they wanted no further NATO encroachment eastward. Perfectly reasonable, and what’s more important is that the powers that be, agreed.

It was a beautiful and delightful win-win that did eventually see the breakup of the Soviet Union and the economic and business development of all of those eastern-bloc nations in all of their various and diverse ways. Lovely. This blog has been hosted and tech-supported by Bulgarians for years and it’s hands down the best host I’ve ever had and I’ve had a lot.

And Russia too—though the long-established Nomenklatura of the Soviet Union was first out of the gates creating oligarchies that cover all raw and essential materials.

Over the passage of time, it’s our side that began violating the original agreement, encroaching eastward. A little bit here, a little bit there.

So, it would be like Russia massing forces in Brazil. In another decade, it’s Colombia or Venezuela. Then Cuba is next. All over again.

The point is, it’s Putin who’s really the more stabilizing influence over his tenure, and that goes for his predecessors over the last 30 years. They don’t want threatening shit on their doorstep. They have not been adventurous. They seek to secure their borders and have a decent buffer zone.

It’s we who have been creeping slowly east in myriad ways.

Of course, you can’t stop cultural and economic/business development, but NATO alliance was supposed to be off the table since that’s what was traded away in the early 1990s to provide for the unhindered reunification of Germany and a peaceful breakup of the Soviet Union back to nationalist borders.

In my view, it’s our side who fucked it up. A deal is a deal. Prove me wrong.

Here’s the two Chomsky clips.

I almost wrote this for paid members only; then I thought, no, free member. Then I thought no again, public.

My writing is member supported, never corporate sponsored and when I see that the narrative is almost identical on Fox, CNN, and MSNBC, it probably means they’re all completely fucked up. Why is everyone under the same narrative? Corporate sponsorship; and the one thing corporate-sponsored media cannot do anymore in America is criticize America making war or financing it, or getting involved is it and it’s endless and continual, always some contrived crisis. And hell, half the shit is simply about beating at hornets’ nests in order to keep crisis alive.

So, no matter whether I’m right or wrong, I owe nobody anything except to tell supporting members my truly honest assessment, never beholden to anyone.


The price for membership is $10.00 per Month.


$10 billed monthly.



The price for membership is $20.00 every 3 Months.


$6.66 per month, billed quarterly.


The price for membership is $65.00 per Year.


$5.42 per month, billed annually.


The price for membership is $350.00 now.


Never pay again.

Memberships are $10 monthly, $20 quarterly, or $65 annually. The cost of two premium coffees per month. Every membership helps finance the travel to write, photo, and film from interesting places and share the experiences with you.


  1. Eddie Osh on March 1, 2022 at 15:56

    The arrogance of the military-industrial complex will be its undoing.

  2. Gat Huckle on March 1, 2022 at 19:58

    Fook, Chomsky. This was his reply when asked about the idiotic vax. If a guy is this pathetically stupid on a subject such as a no-possible-chance-of-working-injection then I would never take him seriously on anything.

    “People who refuse to accept vaccines, I think the right response for them is not to force them to, but rather to insist that they be isolated. If people decide, ‘I am willing to be a danger to the community by refusing to vaccinate,’ they should say then, ‘Well, I also have the decency to isolate myself. I don’t want a vaccine, but I don’t have the right to run around harming people.’ That should be a convention,” said Chomsky.
    “Enforcing is a different question. It should be understood, and we should try to get it to be understood. If it really reaches the point where they are severely endangering people, then of course you have to do something about it,” he added.
    “How can we get food to them?” Chomsky told YouTube’s Primo Radical on Sunday. “Well, that’s actually their problem.”

    He’s a moron.
    It sounds like he would agree that the only sensible solution to NATO encroachment is to kill Ukrainians and maybe several thousand of your own guys. That’ll show NATO. That makes as much sense as ‘isolating’ the unvaxxed. Where’s the harm? It’s for the common good after all. Dick.

    • Richard Nikoley on March 1, 2022 at 20:12

      Well, I’ve never thought much good about Chomsky. OTOH, watched a documentary about a year ago, Manufacturing Consent, and I had to admit that he made quite a lot of good points in that, in spite of my general disdain for him. Much like the two podcast clips I included.

    • Dora Ray on March 2, 2022 at 15:42

      Gat Huckle, thank you for your comment. I was about to say something similar.
      I used to appreciate his points of view and thought that he was brave to say what others thought but didn’t articulate. And then the jabs came and he lost me.

      • Richard Nikoley on March 2, 2022 at 15:46

        You don’t make any logical sense. How does him being wrong or even evil about the jabs make him wrong about this when you can hear and evaluate it word for word?

        That’s completely sloppy and subjective thinking, do you not understand that?

  3. Dora Ray on March 2, 2022 at 16:32

    Richard Nikolay, I not sure if your comment right under mine refers to me as you failed to address it to anyone in particular.
    Chomski at one time was the man and the scholar that I truly appreciated. His opinion about starving the un-jabbed people was a shock to my system. How a man who could see through so much crap can be so mistaken about this?

    I am not sure I follow you and see what is sloppy and subjective in my comment. Perhaps you are reading much into it.

  4. Roderick West on March 2, 2022 at 18:28

    The past cannot be a determinant of the future. We have to look to underlying principles. Peaceful free democratic countries have the right to self determination. There will always be a movement to a higher consciousness from a lower state over a long enough period of time. Western Europe will be more attractive to associate with over a long enough period as it has better established democracy, freedom, rule of law and social structures. Trying to force people will never work in the long term. Russia’s better defence is to become a country that other people want to associate with. In any case I think the war is better understood by Putin’s 8cm booster shoes than anything else.

    • Christina M. on March 2, 2022 at 20:57

      A yes on Putin’s speech. A big No on Glenn Greenwald, (Mr. Sockpuppet-eer Extraordinaire) and Leftist Noam Chomsky. You may get something of value from Leftists. I do not.

      • Richard Nikoley on March 2, 2022 at 21:02

        Why not just take what people say at face value. If a leftist says 2+2=4, not 5, are you going to dismiss that because they say other things you abhor?

        I just watched this Greenwald bit with Calson a bit ago and as usual, Greenwald (at least when on Tucker) says things that are dead on lately.

Leave a Comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.