-
What do you read into it?
From watching the interview, I thought Chomsky was giving a hypothetical answer to a hypophetical question.
I also noticed that the newsweek article title is incorrect. Chomsky did not say Ukraine does not want heavy weapons. Chomsky basically asks "what if the ukrainian people" do not want heavy weapons? What happens if there's a separation between the people and their leadership?
-
He is just stuck in his own obsessions and has nothing meaningful to add.
has "repeatedly" called for a "pretty sensible" political settlement in which Ukraine would "commit itself to neutralization," give up NATO membership prospects, postpone the Crimea issue, and "move towards some kind of accommodation on Donbas."
"That's what you don't hear in the U.S.-British propaganda system," he added.
To boil it down that’s also how I understand it (similar to how Davidual summarised).
It literally says in the title that ‘Ukraines desire for heavy weapons is western propaganda’
Therefore he’s saying Ukraine doesn’t want them, The West is telling them and everyone else they do.
And that more weapons fuel fighting - will lead to their destruction.
So therefore you can read into it that they should capitulate if they want to survive.
What do you read into it?