Ummm ... Thanks for confirming exactly what I said

"Chomsky supports Biden supplying arms to Ukraine, but also wants him to negotiate with Putin to end the war. He has also called Putins action despicable but predictable. People get their panties in a bunch because he said it was predictable which is blasphemy for those following the religion of the state. He also points out American aggression elsewhere, which is considered evil by folks like you."

Nothing you have cited contradicts what I have said and confirms several of the points I made. Chomsky wants Biden to negotiate for peace. An advice which Biden has apparently heeded -

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/12/01/us/politics/biden-macron-...

"Biden Says He Is Willing to Talk to Putin About Ukraine, With Conditions"

Are you going to call Biden anti-american now that he has heeded Chomsky's advice.

Of course not!

The real crime of Chomsky has always been and will be "the act of blasphemy" against "the religion of state power". Which must be heeded without questioning at all costs. The sermons will be delivered via CNN and must be hastily adhered to. If Biden negotiates with Putin in the future this wouldn't be anti-American (unlike Chomsky) because CNN and WSJ will inform us that it is so - after all Biden is the representative of the state.

You already confirmed several of the points I made. Thanks for digging up the citations. You did not provide a citation for when Noam Chomsky called Putin's acts despicable. So, I will provide you with one.

https://chomsky.info/20220616/

"On February 24th, Putin invaded, a criminal invasion. These serious provocations provide no justification for it. If Putin had been a statesman, what he would have done is something quite different. He would have gone back to French President Emmanuel Macron, grasped his tentative proposals, and moved to try to reach an accommodation with Europe, to take steps toward a European common home."

In fact, I will go further and elaborate more on the quotes that you have excerpted.

"The U.S., of course, has always been opposed to that. This goes way back in Cold War history to French President De Gaulle’s initiatives to establish an independent Europe. In his phrase “from the Atlantic to the Urals,” integrating Russia with the West, which was a very natural accommodation for trade reasons and, obviously, security reasons as well. So, had there been any statesmen within Putin’s narrow circle, they would have grasped Macron’s initiatives and experimented to see whether, in fact, they could integrate with Europe and avert the crisis. Instead, what he chose was a policy which, from the Russian point of view, was total imbecility. Apart from the criminality of the invasion, he chose a policy that drove Europe deep into the pocket of the United States. In fact, it is even inducing Sweden and Finland to join NATO — the worst possible outcome from the Russian point of view, quite apart from the criminality of the invasion, and the very serious losses that Russia is suffering because of that.

So, criminality and stupidity on the Kremlin side, severe provocation on the U.S. side. That’s the background that has led to this. Can we try to bring this horror to an end? Or should we try to perpetuate it? Those are the choices.

There’s only one way to bring it to an end. That’s diplomacy. Now, diplomacy, by definition, means both sides accept it. They don’t like it, but they accept it as the least bad option. It would offer Putin some kind of escape hatch. That’s one possibility. The other is just to drag it out and see how much everybody will suffer, how many Ukrainians will die, how much Russia will suffer, how many millions of people will starve to death in Asia and Africa, how much we’ll proceed toward heating the environment to the point where there will be no possibility for a livable human existence. Those are the options. Well, with near 100% unanimity, the United States and most of Europe want to pick the no-diplomacy option. It’s explicit. We have to keep going to hurt Russia.

"

> nothing about the Ukrainians' right to self-determination and self-defence.

Of course, they have a right to self defence. Why do you think Chomsky called Ukrainian invasion criminal? But they don't have a right of admission in to EU or NATO or arms supply from the US. That is up to EU and NATO (aka Joe Biden).

For those religious fanatics worshipping the state religion - pulverizing Putin is the immediate thirst and you will use the Ukranian people as fodder for this. Any deviations , however minor, from state policy is heretical and blasphemous. Its high time you stopped pretending that you care about Ukrainians, because that would imply opening talks with Putin - which is blasphemy as per state religion - unless CNN issues a sermon changing course.