> internationally recognized as one of the most important intellectuals alive.<p>Honestly not. It's been a long time since he made some interesting remarks that never panned out (there is no brain structure that corresponds to his ideas, and linguistics has gone past him). this is simply a journalistic parroting
Hmm... <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noam_Chomsky" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noam_Chomsky</a> ...from a quick skim, I'd say he believes WWII to be the only justified war that the US has fought in the past century. So "Chomsky advises against war" is barely more newsworthy than "warm water is wet".<p>Throw the article's heavy Hagiographic slant on Dr. Chomsky himself (<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hagiography" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hagiography</a>)... It sure looks like the article is a sermon aimed straight at the choir of the One True Church of Chomsky.
Who will be the victors if there is <i>no</i> intervention?<p>The question is not whether we should intervene or not. We already are.<p>We are already intervening, albeit ineffectively. Supplying weapons is not the act of a neutral party.<p>Continuing to buy oil from Russia, only sanctioning 25% of their banks, not sanctioning Belarus. These are not the actions of people who are serious.