Asklemmy

Right, because being America's whipping boy (yeah, I said it) is really working out for Ukrainians.

America needs Ukraine to buy obsolete weapons now, use them against Russia's current military capacity so that there's real-world applications for next generation weapons. Also, all the strategies designed to contain a more militant Russia needed to be gamed out. Ukraine will be paying this war back for generations. Think Haiti's reparations to France, but with bigger numbers.

A years-long conflict also "softens" Russia up for the next round of sanctions — maybe they'll be effective this time!

Chomsky said, in effect, 'Nope, that's dumb' (not a quote). Also, there were months and months of Russian build-up on the border. Before that, years of signals, comments, and overt actions showing that they are legit pissed that NATO came knocking. There should've been diplomacy, dialogue, deal making. 'Nope, that's dumb. War is profitable.'

NATO (read: USA) wasn't about to be told who can be in their little club. Russia wasn't about to be told that ICBMs would be parked on their doorstep. So, conflict.

So, what else has Chomsky said?

"the U.S. seems to be fighting Russia to the last Ukrainian, reiterating the conclusion of Diego Cordovez and Selig Harrison that in the 1980s the U.S. was fighting Russia to the last Afghan."

"It is, surely, worthwhile to think seriously about the history of the past 30 years since Bill Clinton launched a new Cold War by violating the firm and unambiguous U.S. promise to Mikhail Gorbachev that “We understand the need for assurances to the countries in the East. If we maintain a presence in a Germany that is a part of NATO, there would be no extension of NATO’s jurisdiction for forces of NATO one inch to the east.”

"Those who want to ignore the history are free to do so, at the cost of failure to understand what is happening now, and what the prospects are for preventing “much worse.”

Sources: Chomsky.info and Truthout