Noam Chomsky, thinker, linguist, writer, philosopher and activist, is one of the most prudent voices to understand the world today. Through numerous interviews, Zergatik Ukraina offers a broad view of his thinking and his way of understanding the war between the US and Russia in Ukraine. The media El Salto has brought this passage from the book.

In eight interviews, including confidential documents, they explain the most complex dynamics of relations between Russia EE.UU, the Atlantic Alliance (NATO), the UN and China, and offer the reader how difficult the media is to understand the deeper causes of the conflict and what is at stake, also reflecting on the economic, political and military consequences and reactions of the world.

Chomsky explains the causes of the Russian invasion of Ukraine in February 2020, based on two fundamental premises: “We are facing a serious war crime and we must seek explanations, but there is no justification or palliative”; on the other hand, we are seeing an expansion movement towards the east of NATO, which must be highlighted and analysed.

The Russian invasion is a clear violation of Article 2(4) of the UN Charter, which prohibits the threat or use of force to combat the integrity of another State. However, Putin has tried to give legal justifications for the invasion in the speech of 24 February. Russia cites Kosovo, Iraq, Libya and Syria as proof that EE.UU. And their allies have committed a repeated violation of international law. Can you talk about Putin’s argument and explain what international law is like in the aftermath of the Cold War?

There is nothing to say about Putin’s attempt to seek legal justification for the attack, the value of which is the same as zero. Yes, it is true EE.UU. And their allies contravene international law without curtailing, but this does not serve to alleviate Putin's crimes. It is undeniable, however, that Kosovo, Iraq and Libya have had direct consequences for the conflict in Ukraine.

The Iraqi invasion has been the case with the handbooks, a sign of the crimes that caused the Nazis to sneak into Nurenberg: an unprovoked attack. In addition, a stab at Russia.

In the case of Kosovo, the NATO attack, i.e. the USA, was described as an “illegal but justified” attack. This was defined, for example, by the Independent International Committee of Kosovo, chaired by Richard Goldstone, which bombed to curb the atrocities being committed in the region. To draft this ruling, it was necessary to change the order of the facts: there is evidence that it was a wave of violence, as expected, as a consequence of the invasion. In addition, there were diplomatic avenues that could be followed, but they were discarded (as always) to follow the path of force.

Top positions of EE.UU. claim that it was above all a bombing in Serbia, an ally of Russia but that it was not even warned, that it made the Russians change their mind, that they were willing to cooperate with EE.UU. to create a new European security structure after the Cold War. This change of opinion accelerated with the invasion of Iraq and the bombing of Libya, as Russia acknowledged that a UN Security Council resolution, which was immediately violated by NATO, was not vetoed.

Everything it does has consequences, although actions can be concealed under the interests of the dominant doctrine.

International law has not changed, even verbally, after the Cold War, let alone in acts. President Clinton clarified that in his day EE.UU. I had no intention of respecting it. The Clinton doctrine provided for the EE.UU. they would retain the possibility of resorting to “unilaterally, if necessary” action, including “unilaterally using military power” to defend their vital interests, such as “ensuring unlimited access to the market, energy sources and strategic resources”. And their descendants followed the same path, and anyone who could break the law without punishment.

I do not mean that international law is worthless. It allows its application and, in a sense, it is a useful model.

It seems that the Russian invasion seeks to bring down the Zelenski Government and to set up one in favour of Russia. In any case, Ukraine is facing a tragic future, because it seems that it will become a pawn of Washington’s geostrategic games. What is the possibility that economic sanctions will change Russia’s position on Ukraine, or that sanctions will have a broader objective, such as weakening Putin’s power in Russia and its relations with countries such as Cuba, Venezuela or China?

Ukraine may not have taken the most sensible decision, but perhaps it did not have many options in front of the imperialist states. I suspect that the sanctions will make Russia more dependent on China. In the absence of drastic changes, Russia is a Clocratic petrostate, and the use of the energy resource on which it is based must be drastically reduced, otherwise ours has done so. It is not clear that the Russian financial system can sustain permanent aggression, either through sanctions or other measures. One more reason for offering an escape route, albeit involuntarily.

Do you think the invasion has ushered in a new era of conflict between Russia (perhaps allied with China) and the West?

Perhaps it is early to say where the ashes will be collected, and that may not be a metaphor. For the time being, China is playing its cards well, and it is possible that its global expansion programme will carry out the economic integration project in much of the world. A few weeks ago he included the initiatives of the New Silk Road to Argentina, while enemies are being destroyed among them.

As I said before, this conflict is a death sentence for humanity, no one will win. We are at a critical moment in human history. We cannot deny it, we cannot ignore it.