Noam Chomsky Favored a U.S. War to Conquer Russia


Eric Zuesse

[NOTE: Wherever a reader disagrees with or doubts an allegation that is made in the following, the evidence behind that allegation can immediately be found by merely clicking onto the link where the given allegation is being stated.]

Noam Chomsky, who in a 2005 global poll was voted as the “world’s top public intellectual”, told Qatar’s Al Jazeera television, in a November 24th interview, that Hillary Clinton’s “positions are much better than Trump’s on every issue that I can think of”, so that Americans who didn’t vote for her to become the next President were “making a bad mistake.”

One of those issues (on which he preferred her “position”) was whether to go to war against Russia — an issue on which her statements were remarkably consistent (unlike her positions on most other issues) — namely, that we should engage in a hot war against Russia, and that as the U.S. President she would do so. Trump was opposed to her position that supported each one of the three ways in which she argued for hot war between Russia and the United States (1: establishing a no-fly zone in Syria; 2: responding by physical warfare means — including bombs — against any Russian espionage that entails ‘cyber’ elements which harm U.S. interests or affect a U.S. federal election; and, 3: forcing Russia to restore Crimea to Ukraine). Trump opposed her on each of those three “issues”: he stood against her on each one of those three pathways toward a war against Russia; he opposed each one of the three paths. This was one of the clearest differences between him and her.

Huffington Post, as part of its continuing campaign for Hillary Clinton against Donald Trump, headlined the next day about this AJ interview, “Noam Chomsky: People Who Didn’t Vote For Clinton To Block Trump Made A ‘Bad Mistake’,” and linked there also to a 20 May 2016 interview of Chomsky by Britain’s Guardian“Noam Chomsky on Donald Trump: ‘Almost a death knell for the human species’,” in which Chomsky alleged that Trump was unacceptable especially because of the effect he would have on climate-change:

“What effect would electing Donald Trump have? It’s hard to say because we don’t really know what he thinks. And I’m not sure he knows what he thinks. He’s perfectly capable of saying contradictory things at the same time. But there are some pretty stable elements of his ideology, if you can even grant him that concept. One of them is: “Climate change is not taking place.” As he puts it: “Forget it.” And that’s almost a death knell for the species – not tomorrow, but the decisions we take now are going to affect things in a couple of decades, and in a couple of generations it could be catastrophic.”

On October 2nd, I provided evidence that whereas Hillary Clinton has never verbally denied the reality of global warming, her actual record as a public official (and also the sources of her political funding — both of those factors) point consistently to her being at least as much of a threat against the survivability of this planet’s atmosphere and environment as Trump is. Chomsky pays attention only to words not deeds, and so ignored all of that evidence, which I provided under the sub-head: “5:  Sanders has been consistently opposed to fossil fuels. Hillary has aggressively supported them.”

That issue, of global warming, seems to have been #1 for Chomsky, whereas for me it was #2, after the issue of whether or not the U.S. should engage in a hot war against Russia, either in Syria, or in Ukraine, or in Russia itself (which surely would mean a nuclear war).

However, my main disagreement with Chomsky regarding the U.S. Presidential contest is that whereas he implicitly trusted the honesty of — and based his views and made his selection of the candidate to prefer, upon — the merely verbal statements that were made by the candidates, I rely always as much as possible (which in Clinton’s case was 100%) upon the given candidate’s actions not words. Whereas Chomsky invites liars to persuade him, I simply do not; only the choices that a candidate has actually made in his or her official capacity — actions not words — affect my electoral preferences.

One might therefore say that my basic disagreement with Chomsky is epistemological: He arrives at his opinions on the basis of people’s words, whereas I arrive at my opinions on the basis of people’s actions and decisions — not what they say, but what they actually do in the context of the circumstances in which they do it. I do not invite liars to persuade me, whereas he does — and that’s the difference.

But, in any case, Hillary’s consistent — in both her actions and her words — support of the U.S. government imposing a no-fire zone in Syria (or any other country whose government is being actively protected by Russian military forces) was the overwhelming reason why I considered her to be presenting the greatest threat to the continuance of life on Earth of anyone in history, and why I was therefore greatly relieved to learn that she won’t be the U.S. President. The difference between myself and Chomsky on this goes deeper than to political issues, and it reaches to epistemological issues, which is the bedrock of all beliefs.


Investigative historian Eric Zuesse is the author, most recently, of  They’re Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010, and of  CHRIST’S VENTRILOQUISTS: The Event that Created Christianity.

  • khazar hunter

    just another khazar pretending to be an intellectual.

    • Fiutek

      … a circumcised jew with missing body parts.

  • L Garou

    Noam would also have everyone believe the Romans crucified Jesus for oil..

    • plamenpetkov

      yes and Bush would lead you to believe Saddam had weapons of mass distraction, and that Russia has invaded Ukraine over 30 times with 30.000 invisible solders. Oh and don’t forget the babies taken out of incubators lies too.

      • L Garou

        Glad you agree..

  • plamenpetkov

    Opinion are like assholes, everyone got one. It;s facts that matter. And the fact is you set a task to smear Chomsky (without him being able to defend himself) somebody who can tie you up in 5 minuted if he ever has an argument with you is obvious what your’e aiming at: a smear job on somebody who can wipe the floor with you in a real debate.
    It’s easy to write articles loser, invite CHomsky to debate you, pussy. You aint got the guts nor the intellectual capacity.

    • Eric Zuesse

      What evidence do you have to support his statement that Hillary’s “positions are much better than Trump’s on every issue that I can think of”?

      Can you defend that statement referring only to her actions and not to her (self-contradictory) statements?

    • SOIA

      Thinking that someone’s position is wrong based on facts is not smearing.
      Chomsky can write an article or comment in which he refutes Eric Zuesse‘s points.
      The point you make about ” who can tie you …real debate” is just conjecture.
      A debate is about who is the most clever (‘intellectual’) at that moment or who can shout the hardest to press their points (which not necessarily have to be fact based) as opposed to a (civilised) discussion where different opinions are weighted against facts.
      Being intellectual is not the same as being intelligent , although the two are related.
      That someone writes books read by millions doesn’t mean he’s right. That someone hasn’t written books sold by the millions doesn’t mean he is wrong compared to the one who has.
      Reading articles “on some obscure web site that nobody hardly reads.” (as you did) says more about you than about the writer of those articles.
      Writing a comment using the word smear (job) several times and using words like loser , pussy ,stupid to describe the writer of the article you comment on , without bringing up one single fact to counter the points made in the article sounds like a (attempted) smear job to me.
      Your comment is nothing more than an emotional outburst (based on nothing more than reading information that conflicts with your existing beliefs).

  • I’ve always regarded Chomsky as a very mixed person, actually a bit two-faced.

    There is the “official persona” of left-wing critic and accomplished intellectual.

    And then there is an underside, as I would describe it, which has always highly qualified my ability to embrace him as a critic.

    His expressed views on Israel are of this nature in my opinion.

    Clearly, here is another instance.

    • Fiutek

      this is the very nature of being a quantum jew. A jew and an antijew at the same time.

    • Edward

      A BIT two faced? He’s the master of two faces.

  • yep

    i never trusted this zionistjew bast*d, he talks a good talk, but do homework on this person, his loyaty is for israel only, coming out as a maybe or maybe not mentally, on war, Chomsky is a traitor , watch out

  • Mitko Tasev

    I wonder, how much they pay him to say this bullshit. Bastard !!!

    • Edward

      Not much. It’s not worth very much if anything at all.

  • heretickle

    Eric thank you for this article, but man-made global warming ?
    With GeorgeH=>Bill=>GeorgeW=>Barak=>maybeHillary we have had twenty-eight years (some could easily argue longer) of fraudulent democracy propagated by lightweight prostitutes pretending to be politicians. In 2016 we can add publicly funded scientists to the subclass of prostitutes. Man-made global warming is a farce. In the end we are no different then cockroaches on this multibillion year old planet that will not remember us when we are gone.

  • Dave Mende

    Russia is a free and independent country. America is not. Chomsky wants war with Rus because Putin jailed Khordokofsky. Follow the money. Clinton is a Globalist whore. So is Bill.
    Independence is the issue. War will be the result.

  • Johnny Canuck

    “Global Warming”, later changed to the innocuous and meaningless “Climate Change”, is a hyper-scam, designed to give certain people huge fortunes by taxing the very air we exhale. The Caron Tax BS was thought up by Al Gore’s buddy, Ken Ley of Enron fame.

    Various organizations like the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and NASA have been busted for skewing Data, making the results total garbage. These are Criminal acts done by conniving interests and should be tossed in the slammer.

    All Data from these organizations should be tossed out and redone, otherwise we are all at risk, not from “Climate Change”, but Liars who may have twisted any information about our Planet that may have value.

    These creatures disgust me with their deceptions.

  • Nitupsar

    Has too much learning made him mad? Is it so hard to understand that with Hillary, both the US and the rest of the World would be 100 times worse off? What’s his problem?!

  • Edward

    The Chomp. The zio gatekeeper. Who takes this guy seriously. Intellect.

  • bananasmoothie

    This is misleading to say the least. Chomsky has stated several times that Hillary’s foreign policy is horrific and that Trump’s foreign policy could possibly be better than Hillary’s, but it could also be much worse. The problem with Trump is that he is not clear about it, is inconsistent with his ideas, and we have no past foreign policy experience to give us any clue. Also, Chomsky’s main issue anymore is global warming, and even though Hillary has a shitty record on it, the Republicans in general are much worse. With all this Russia hysteria bullshit though, I’m relieved Trump won ATM though.

  • Mitko Tasev

    100% Satanist.

  • Newton Finn

    The “tell” on Chomsky is his knee-jerk dismissal of any possible deep state involvement in 9/11. While there is much promiscuous speculation in certain sectors of the 9/11 truth movement, anyone who automatically rules out inside government involvement on some level just hasn’t done their homework or chooses to remain in denial. If the deep state continues its war against Trump, will he fight back by calling for a new investigation of the major world-altering event of our time? I have long maintained that it is the loose thread of 9/11 which, if pulled hard enough, could unravel the entire neoliberal new world order.