و :ضاف: "The alternative to the previous scenario is to proceed to a negotiated diplomatic settlement. This kind of compromise would undoubtedly be ugly. This is because it means presenting some kind of escape plan to President Vladimir Putin. And if this settlement did not provide him with an escape plan, then Putin was left with no choice but to use his full strength and drag the world for nuclear war Inclusive".
Duration: "Any settlement should provide an escape plan of some kind Russian PresidentEveryone knows what the plan is. It is a settlement that ensures that Ukraine remains a neutral state, some diplomatic way out for freezing the status of Donbass and Crimea for discussion at a later stage, a ceasefire, and the withdrawal of Russian forces. This is basically a possible settlement framework. As both sides know, these are the only two options available".
And the position of the United States on Ukrainian crisisChomsky said: "Washington’s position is to continue the war until the last Ukrainian is killed. These are not my words, but a sentence that I borrow from one of the respected diplomatic figures in America, the former US ambassador to Saudi Arabia Charles Freeman. He described in detail the US strategy towards the conflict, and said that it consists in (continuing to fight until the last Ukrainian falls), but without resorting to a political settlement, and without offering any way out of this conflict. The option to fight until the fall of the last Ukrainian does not stop at its literal meaning, but rather indicates a strong possibility of a transition to a clash between the major nuclear powers, that is, the end of the world in its current form, in another form".
The American thinker considered that there was a great opportunity at the end cold War During the term of President Bush Sr., explaining: "When President Mikhail Gorbachev presented his vision for managing the post-Cold War era, he proposed that Europe and Asia should be united, stretching from Lisbon to Vladivostok without any military alliances, or what was then called “the Common House of Europe”, was one of the proposed options.".
Regarding the American proposal at the time, Chomsky said: "The choice of President Bush Senior was not very different from the proposal of his Soviet counterpart at the time. He suggested what he called (Partnership for Peace). And Ambassador Charles Freeman, whom I quoted, said that that choice was necessary to run that system in which Russia was located.".
And he continued: "Partnership for Peace, did not exclude the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), but maintained its relationship with it. It was possible to expand the circle of that partnership to include Russia. The establishment of a public partnership for peace may thus lead to the erosion or disappearance of military alliances. This was a possibility".
Chomsky repeated Ambassador Freeman’s speech on the matter, saying: "In 1994, when Bill Clinton became President of the United States, he started talking about (Partnership for Peace) when he was addressing the Russians, but he says that he will expand NATO to reach the Russian borders, when he addresses the world! At that time, he received a strong condemnation from the President Boris Yeltsin In 1996 when he presented an expanded map of NATO, and also in 1997 when he invited Poland, Slovenia and Hungary to join NATO, thus making it touch the Russian borders. This was a flagrant violation of a firm promise made by former President Bush Sr Gorbachev That NATO will not expand an inch in the direction of the east, that is, east of Germany".
He went on to explain: "Bush the father fulfilled his promise, and Clinton respected that promise for a few years and then broke it. The Russians objected to America’s breaking of its promise, but they coexisted with it reluctantly. And when George W. Bush took power in the White House, he threw that promise away and invited a string of former Soviet Union countries to join NATO. In 2008, America went further, inviting Ukraine to join NATO. And every American diplomat, such as George Kenin, Henry Kissinger, Jared Matlock, and the directors of the Central Intelligence Agency, were well aware that Georgia and Ukraine were red lines. The Russians may bear a lot, but not the entry of an aggressive military alliance into the heart of their strategic sphere of influence".
And he showed that "No Russian leader would have accepted that! Not Boris Yeltsin, Gorbachev, or anyone else. However, George Bush Jr. went ahead with his decision, which France and Germany opposed by veto because they realized the danger of it, but they continued the approach of NATO expansion despite everything".
Chomsky noted that "After the coup square in Maidan Ukraine, America rushed directly and began to publicly involve Ukraine in NATO military missions, arms deals, and so on. In September 2021, a few months ago, President Biden made an official statement regarding his foreign policy, the text of which is available on the website for the white house A similar statement was preceded by him in 2001, and the US media did not report its content internally, but I am sure that the Russians saw it. That letter calls for a program to strengthen Ukraine’s membership in NATO, demands new shipments of advanced weapons to Ukraine, talks about joint military exercises involving Ukraine and the United States, and refers to training for military officers Ukrainian army and more".
He concluded his speech by saying: "The current situation leaves us with two options: to continue the US policy that it started in 2001 and to continue to involve Ukraine in NATO activities such as joint military exercises, which means destroying Ukraine, and then a devastating nuclear war after that. The second option is to give up America About its current position and the approach taken by the French President Emmanuel Macron By intensifying the discussion with Putin in order to reach a political settlement in the narrow sense that would provide an escape plan or a way out for Putin from this conflict.".
“>
وقال Chomsky In an interview with the Emirati newspaper, The National, there are two possibilities regarding the end of Ukrainian war“The first possibility is to continue facilitating the destruction of UkraineAnd then move on to a possible nuclear war. This is a possibility. And when you read a headline in a prominent newspaper in the United States that says (we must destroy Russia) and demands it, it means the desire to eliminate everyone in Ukraine and then move to a nuclear war that may end human life on Earth.”
He added, “The alternative to the previous scenario is to go to a negotiated diplomatic settlement. That kind of settlement would undoubtedly be ugly. Because it would mean presenting some kind of escape plan to President Vladimir Putin. No choice but to use his full power and drag the world for nuclear war Inclusive”.
He continued, “Any settlement should provide an escape plan of some kind Russian PresidentEveryone knows what the plan is. It is a settlement that ensures that Ukraine remains a neutral state, some diplomatic way out for freezing the status of Donbass and Crimea for discussion at a later stage, a ceasefire, and the withdrawal of Russian forces. This is basically a possible settlement framework. As both sides know, these are the only two options available.
And the position of the United States on Ukrainian crisisChomsky said, “Washington’s position is to continue the war until the last Ukrainian is killed. These are not my words, but a sentence that I borrow from one of the respected diplomatic figures in America, the former US ambassador to Saudi Arabia Charles Freeman. He described in detail the US strategy in the conflict, and said that it is In (Continue to fight until the fall of the last Ukrainian), but without resorting to a political settlement, and without offering any way out of this conflict.The option to fight until the fall of the last Ukrainian does not stop at its literal meaning, but rather indicates a strong possibility of a transition to a clash between the major nuclear powers, That is, the end of the world in its current form, in another form.
The American thinker considered that there was a great opportunity at the end cold War During the term of President Bush Sr., explaining: “When President Mikhail Gorbachev presented his vision for the post-Cold War era administration, he proposed that Europe and Asia should be united, extending from Lisbon to Vladivostok without any military alliances, or what was called at the time (the Common House of Europe), was That is one of the suggested options.”
Regarding the American proposal at the time, Chomsky said: “The choice of President Bush, the father, was not very different from the proposal of his Soviet counterpart at the time. He proposed what he called (Partnership for Peace). And Ambassador Charles Freeman, whose words I quoted, said that this option was necessary to manage that regime. at the center of which was Russia.
He continued, “Partnership for Peace, did not exclude the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), but maintained its relationship with it. It was possible to expand the circle of that partnership to include Russia. The establishment of a public partnership for peace may thus lead to the erosion or disappearance of military alliances. That was a possibility.”
Chomsky repeated the conversation mentioned by Ambassador Freeman on the issue, saying: “In 1994, when Bill Clinton became President of the United States, he started talking about (Partnership for Peace) when he was addressing the Russians, but he said that he would expand NATO to reach the Russian borders, when he was addressing the world! At that time, he received a strong condemnation from the President Boris Yeltsin In 1996 when he presented an expanded map of NATO, and also in 1997 when he invited Poland, Slovenia and Hungary to join NATO, thus making it touch the Russian borders. This was a flagrant violation of a firm promise made by former President Bush Sr Gorbachev That NATO will not expand an inch to the east, that is, to the east of Germany.”
He went on to explain: “The elder Bush kept his promise, and Clinton respected that promise for a few years and then broke it. The Russians objected to America’s breaking of its promise, but they coexisted with it reluctantly. And when George Bush Jr took power in the White House, he threw that promise away and called a chain In 2008, America went further, inviting Ukraine to join NATO. Every American diplomat, such as George Kenin, Henry Kissinger, Jared Matlock, and CIA directors, was well aware that Georgia and Ukraine were red lines. The Russians bear a lot, but not the entry of an aggressive military alliance into the heart of their strategic sphere of influence.”
And he stated that “no Russian leader would have accepted this! Neither Boris Yeltsin, nor Gorbachev, nor anyone else. However, George Bush Jr. went ahead with his decision, which France and Germany opposed through the veto because they realized the danger of it, but they continued the approach of NATO expansion despite everything.” .
Chomsky pointed out that “after the coup of Maidan Square in Ukraine, America rushed directly and began to publicly involve Ukraine in NATO military missions, arms deals, and so on. In September 2021, a few months ago, President Biden made an official statement regarding his foreign policy, the text of which is available on the website for the white house A similar statement was preceded by him in 2001, and the US media did not report its content internally, but I am sure that the Russians saw it. That letter calls for a program to strengthen Ukraine’s membership in NATO, demands new shipments of advanced weapons to Ukraine, talks about joint military exercises involving Ukraine and the United States, and refers to training for military officers Ukrainian army And so on.”
He concluded his speech by saying: “The current situation leaves us with two options: to continue the US policy that it started in 2001 and to continue to involve Ukraine in NATO activities such as joint military exercises, and this means the destruction of Ukraine, and then a devastating nuclear war after that. As for the option Second, it is giving up America About its current position and the approach taken by the French President Emmanuel Macron By intensifying the discussion with Putin in order to reach a political settlement in the narrow sense that would provide an escape plan or a way out for Putin from this conflict.