Chomsky is the very last person I'd go to for any "research", YouTube or not. His relationship with facts is practically non-existent. "USA Bad" and whatever facts need to be cherry-picked, massaged, or ignored, whatever history needs to be rewritten, whatever motives need to be speculated about to support that position is fair game as far as he is concerned. He regularly cites sources while stating something completely different than what they say and his tone frequently suggests this is not even a consideration of fact, but merely an exercise in interpretation as one might treat a work of fiction or artistic work.

Fun exercise for your research, do a search on "Chomsky genocide denial"

OK. Then, try listening to some of the other guys?

Yes, Chomsky is an ideologue. I disagree with him on many issues.

More importantly, it is surprising that you're just attacking him in general rather than specifically on what he said with regards to Russia/Ukraine. His thoughts on the matter seem perfectly reasonable to me.

And, can you please point me to where he denied genocides? I'd love to know. Like I said though, I don't worship him. He's wrong on many issues, IMO.

Chomsky literally said that the ethnic cleansing in Kosovo was US/NATO's fault. He's not an ideologue, he's just an old asshat way too many naive leftists put on a pedestal. Nothing positive about the west can get into his head.

Chomsky was wrong on aspects of the Khmer Rouge in the 70s due to lack of information, but he absolutely does not deny it as genocide.

I know there were issues about the genocides in the Balkans in the 1990s. But, in that case, he wasn't saying that there weren't massacres taking place -- he was saying that the US was selectively engaging for geopolitical reasons, not humanitarian ones.

He did say that, ignoring the fact that the real reason for this change was the election of Bill Clinton, and he also repeatedly, even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, denied that Omarska was a concentration camp, he uses mocking language suggesting things like "because there's barbed wire and some people were thin people call it Auschwitz" (as it, in fact, was). He's been called on repeatedly to correct his previous statements and only doubles down.

I listened to all of these and didn't hear anything concerning: https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=chomsky+yugosla...

Do you have a source for this?

Youtube is great for fixing a chair or a wheel but it is a blazing trash fire for anything involving politics.

Notice how he did not even bother talking about the experts I cited. He just jumped to attacking the medium. I'm well aware that you have to be careful with YouTube. But, ignoring it as a video hosting site is just ignorant.

Exactly, I keep trying to make people watch a talk from John Mearsheimer [1] from 2015 right after Crimea was invaded and I've been only met with aggressive retorts for a week, like I'm some kind of Russian government shill...

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrMiSQAGOS4

These are all PhDs or experts in some fashion that I just cited. You could just read their books too.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Mearsheimer

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Friedman

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Zeihan

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Hitchens

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noam_Chomsky

Does this being on YouTube make it any less meaningful?: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nbj1AR_aAcE

Are these all lies?: https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=peter+zeihan+ru...

What about this?: https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=peter+hitchens+...

And, here: https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=noam+chomsky+uk...

Is this unreasonable?: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hXsq0Z30ppA

> Does this being on YouTube make it any less meaningful?

The professor is clueless.

Before the war has started in 2014, Ukrainians din't want NATO expansion. Overwhelmingly, they wanted to stay neutral.

In 2008 NATO summit in Romania, Ukraine and Georgia were denied from getting NATO membership plan, not invited: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7328276.stm

The orange revolution of 2004 has nothing to do with the west. Ukrainians did it for internal reasons.

I am for keeping Ukraine as a neutral buffer separating Russia and the US.

NATO proposed Ukrainian and Georgian membership of NATO in 2005-2008, in the clear knowledge that this would destabilize the situation.

France, Germany, and others were against this. The proposal began the issue. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SJBQikfYyKs

We then openly backed the 2014 putsch in Kiev, an open act of aggression just as irresponsible as a military incursion. CIA John Brennan, Senator John McCain, and Diplomat Victoria Nuland were there in Ukraine when Yanukovych was being overthrown. There is also evidence to show that we were involved through NGOs in overthrowing and promoting an atmosphere desiring the overthrow of Yanukovych.

> I am for keeping Ukraine as a neutral buffer separating Russia and the US.

US is on another continent. It doesn't needs that buffer, Atlantic ocean is rather wide and deep.

You seems to ignore what Ukrainians want. NATO is an open alliance (open https://www.nato.int/ and read what they wrote there), not an American empire.

> We then openly backed the 2014 putsch in Kiev

That backing was limited to verbal expressions of support. Technically you're not wrong and this might count as "backing", but I don't believe that changed anything at all in the outcome.

> 2014 putsch in Kiev

WARNING: Troll factory catchphrase ["putsch"].

>NATO is an open alliance, not an American empire.

NATO is an excuse for America to have their colonising army in Europe while making it look like something else. America can brainwash Europeans by using the media of these compromised nations and their own peasants via their corrupt corporate media... but don't expect outsiders, include Russia, to fall for this nonsense.

Do you not recall the Victoria Nuland tape that leaked? "F** the EU" she said -- knowing full well that the Germans and French would be against a coup in then-neutral Ukraine.

>These are all PhDs or experts in some fashion that I just cited.

And it just happens that they all have pro-Kremlin views. You just selected experts which say things that you personally like.

How are they "pro-Kremlin"?

They are pro-peace pro-realpolitik. Not "pro-Kremlim".

Peter Zeihan is openly not pro-Kremlim. He predicts that Russia will collapse. As does George Friedman.

Please think before you type?

Most of those people are academics who's lectures are hosted on youtube.