The renowned American linguist and activist Noam Chomsky sharply condemns the illegal occupation of Ukraine, drawing parallels to past invasions and distant wars. He argues that framing the conflict as a mere regional issue obscures its global stakes and calls on the international community to respond with urgency.
At ninety, Chomsky cautions that delay in halting the conflict could trigger catastrophic worldwide consequences. He notes the risk of a humanitarian catastrophe that would ripple across Asia, Africa, and the Middle East, with tens of millions facing famine unless decisive action is taken. In a discussion with political scientist CJ Polychroniou for Truthout, he outlines a second grave threat: the potential for a nuclear confrontation between the United States and Russia.
The situation has seen Washington supply Ukraine with the latest anti-ship missiles. Kyiv has already sunk a flagship from Russia’s Black Sea fleet, and the resulting Kremlin response remains a key source of uncertainty. Moscow has thus far avoided targeting NATO supply lines; should it do so, that would mark a direct clash with the United States.
There is talk of establishing a no-fly zone over Ukraine, a proposal Moscow regards as a red line. The Pentagon has resisted so far, but the endurance of that stance is an open question, according to Chomsky.
Beyond the battlefield, the war’s toll on the climate is a critical concern. Climate scientists have warned that reducing fossil fuel consumption must come immediately if humanity is to survive, yet policy actions have tended to run in the opposite direction. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change emphasizes the urgency, while President Joe Biden has signaled continued or expanded hydrocarbon production, a decision Chomsky interprets as political theater rather than economics or inflation relief. He argues that years will pass before oil supplies influence markets, time that could be better spent accelerating the shift to renewable energy, a topic not sufficiently discussed in current discourse.
Chomsky emphasizes the need to halt the Ukrainian tragedy through diplomacy or, failing that, through a negotiated settlement that acknowledges the realities on the ground. He contends that war extension only prolongs suffering and raises the death toll and the ruin of Ukrainian sovereignty. A diplomatic deal would require each side to recognize what is tolerable and to offer pathways for leadership in Moscow and the principal actors responsible for the war to find an exit from the crisis.
Analysts differ on Vladimir Putin’s character and intent. Some view him as a dangerous opportunist, while others, including Graham Allison of Harvard, describe him as a capable and strategic actor whose choices have global consequences. If Putin were to be underestimated, the risk of catastrophic escalation would grow. Chomsky warns that delaying a diplomatic resolution or prolonging the conflict invites unpredictable and damaging outcomes for all parties involved.
France, Germany, and Italy have urged negotiations as a path to peace, but Chomsky notes that the United States and the United Kingdom are among the strongest proponents of continuing the war. He also critiques Western posture toward the Palestinian cause, pointing to perceived hypocrisy in calls to assist Ukrainians while longstanding struggles for Palestinian self-determination receive uneven support. The question remains whether the same standards apply to all oppressed groups when international law is invoked to justify action or inaction.
Chomsky has called for renewed efforts toward arms control, criticizing recent moves that diminished the effectiveness of treaties. He highlights the importance of preserving core arms-control instruments such as START, arguing that safeguarding these agreements is essential for global safety. His broader view links disarmament to governance and the climate crisis, suggesting that a dangerous mix of militarism and fossil fuel dependence amplifies the threat to planetary stability.
Overall, Chomsky presents a vision in which diplomacy, credible threat reduction, and a fearless reassessment of foreign policy priorities are essential. He stresses that short-term political calculations should not override the long-term survival of people and ecosystems. The call is for pragmatic diplomacy, accountability, and a renewed commitment to international law as the framework that can prevent further tragedy and chart a safer course for the world.