That Corbyn fella...

Thanks. Just got through it. I agree with you. The second article is largely analysis, so you get some sense of his view on Russia (and, thankfully, he offers references) which is great.

His opinion comes at the end

"On Ukraine, I would not condone Russian behaviour or expansion. But it is not unprovoked, and the right of people to seek a federal structure or independence should not be denied."

The claim of provocation is where people may have an issue, but the first 2/3rds of the article attempt to highlight what that provocation was in regard to global politics (Nato) and regional (anti-Russian sentiment in Ukraine). There is room to debate this. There isn't a lot of room to call it "support of Russia."

He concludes:

"Would it not be better if when the four powers sit down together they looked at agreeing on a neutral, nuclear-free Ukraine, the possibility of de-escalating the crisis and cut out the hypocrisy of feigned moral outrage from a country that has invaded many others, has military bases scattered worldwide and whose arms industry has made billions from the death and destruction of so much life in Afghanistan and Iraq."

As you said, it's a bit of a leap to see how this can be seen as support for Russia. The Cohen article doesn't hesitate though. The line before the one you quoted (about Poland) is a quote from Corbyn which, presumably, it meant to be Cohen's evidence: "The expansion of Nato into Poland and the Czech Republic has particularly increased tensions with Russia." This is simply accepted fact. It is not a shout out to Russia.

This kind of stuff is important. I'm not trying to be contrary or a Corbyn fan boy, I just really want to see honest journalism/reporting based on fact. That Cohen article is pretty damning in tone, but it's not making much in way of fact-based claims. As a potential supporter of Corbyn, if there are real issues I want them to be made crystal clear.