Is Russia a rapacious tiger or a paper tiger?
Noam Chomsky's challenge remains unaddressed
Back in 2022, Noam Chomsky pointed out a fundamental contradiction in rhetoric around what NATO’s response should be to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.
The following two arguments were made to endorse large-scale NATO support for Ukraine:
‘Russia is a powerful threat to all of Europe and if succeeds in Ukraine it will invade other European countries’
‘Ukraine is on the verge of defeating Russia, which is clearly a paper tiger, and European military support can help it achieve that victory.
These are evidently contradictory, since if Russia struggled to defeat Ukraine, it cannot be a threat to the better-equipped European countries that are protected by NATO and nuclear treaties.
At this pivotal moment as European leaders (who I just argued are effectively still serving as proxies for the ‘deep state’ in the US) push for further military support for Ukraine, both arguments continue to play a major rhetorical role.
Almost three years later, Chomsky’s challenge remains entirely unaddressed.
And, as he also suggested then, the fact that two such obviously contradictory positions can remain simultaneously influential — even being used unchallenged by the very same people — is a sign of the effectiveness of propaganda and the failure of democratic institutions.