That Corbyn fella...

Yesterday: "WHAT DO YOU MEAN YOU'RE OFFENDED ABOUT [insert instance of racism/sexism/homophobia] THIS IS POLITICAL CORRECTNESS GONE MAD"

Today: "HOW DARE JEREMY CORBYN NOT SING A SONG I'M OUTRAGED AND OFFENDED"

Tomorrow: etc etc etc fuck off

Regarding Poland/Czech Republic - there's the argument that if they want to join NATO or the EU, they should as sovereign states be free to do so. Russia may not like it but in an international system of sovereign states, Moscow should have no say in what these countries do of their own volition.

Saying that their joining Nato/the EU is a provocation is an acceptance of a Russian narrative in which the FSU states form either part of a buffer zone or, worse, part of Russia's sphere of influence.

That's a view some in the west hold - like Kissinger, for example, and some other aged foreign policy wonks (Mearsheimer is another although he's not as well known).

It's not a very liberal view as it says the sovereignty of these countries is secondary to great power politics.

NATO invited the FSR states to join. They discussed but decided against asking Russia to join. Considering the reason NATO was formed, this is fairly antagonistic towards Russia.

An invitation isn't an obligation, and everyone should be free to do what they want so long as it doesn't impinge on others' sovereignty.
Maybe if the Soviets hadn't trampled on the Czechs and Poles they wouldn't have been so keen to join the club.
Edit to add - I will be forever confused as to why Russia's invasion and occupation of Poland and Czechoslovakia is seen as an insufficient reason for these countries to want to join NATO compared to Russia's hurt feelings that they've joined an alliance that has never attacked Russia.

An invitation isn't an obligation

But if you don't accept, you can be sure to be taken off the Christmas card list.

Corbyn is setting out his election strategy early, I see. He's already aliented 90% of the electorate refusing to sing the national anthem.

Always a popular figure in the UK and many other countries, opinion polls have regularly shown that she has an excellent approval rating.[3] Coinciding with her Diamond Jubilee, the Queen experienced an approval rate in the United Kingdom of 90% in 2012.[4] According to a YouGov poll in January 2014, the Queen was the most admired person in the United Kingdom with 18.74%.

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

It doesn't really matter if, for example, I refuse to recognise the Queen or sing the anthem. But it doesn't matter what anyone thinks of me. It'll be very popular with young people in london, but unfortunately that doesn't really help him.

I thought he was very good in PMQs though, more confident and articulate than I expected. It was a nice change from all the jeering you usually get.

Ally Fogg on Anthemgate: http://freethoughtblogs.com/hetpat/2015/09/16/why-corbyns-silent-national-anthem-does-actually-matter/

Yes,
Callmedave was all revved up and ready to be 'bloody pumped',
Corbyn disallowed him that option,
so Cameron Flashmanned all over some SNP MP.

Don't forget the USA deciding it'd be sending a really nice message to park missile systems in ex-soviet bloc countries.

Because if you're not going to attack anyone why should you mind if I'm pointing a gun at you!?

Cameron got an easy ride with no follow up questions. Cameron is well briefed and competent. If every week is like that all that will happen is cameron will get his message out. Corbyn needs to hold him to account. He only performed well if your expectations are already low. I expect him to improve.

I have seen him miss-speak, forget parts of speeches and stumble over words, so yes my expectations were fairly low for what can be a quick fire exchange.

dst
I think his foreign policy may be his undoing. Especially if he is a non-interventionist in all situations. Just because it was a mistake to go into the 2 wars 15 years ago, doesn't mean it will be correct to not intervene in other situations in the future. Could the ISIS have been headed off if there was an interven

I see what you did there.

That's so pathetically one-sided it's laughable. Sure, you can argue missile defence systems undermine MAD doctrine and therefore make the world less safe. But the Russians have ICBMs pointed at us and have for a long time. So complaining that we're pointing missiles at them and saying therefore we're the bad guys is just silly.

But surely taking the pointed missiles closer to Russia borders could be seen as unhelpful if not, provocative, no?

I've not got a good grasp on economics at all but the comments section here is a good read:

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/sep/13/jeremy-corbyn-labour-leadership-victory-vision

[did I post a granuaid link? Jeez...I've come over all corny.]

The missiles in question are a missile defence shield. The Russians complain that this will weaken their nuclear deterrent because it means that Europe would be more likely to survive a counter strike if it launched a first strike. The Americans claim it is needed because of the threat from Iran and North Korea (they don't officially say Pakistan, but that too). CZ and PL remain scared of Russia.

So... The Russians are taking as a provocation CZ and PL hosting missiles that mean Russia could turn less of Europe into a nuclear wasteland. Yay for MAD doctrine.

Personally I'd rather the START disarmament talks were restarted and widened to include other nuclear powers, but given how hard it has been just to reduce the US and Russian stockpiles I suspect herding cats could be more successful.

Unilateral disarmament I think is not a great idea. You have no chips left with which to persuade other countries to give up their nukes.

It's a thorny one but not quite this cut and dried NATO=provocateur thing that people keep arguing.

I'm not saying it's one sided-I'm just saying it's like the USA casually flopping their cock on Russia's shoulder and daring them not to complain about the strong smell of parmesan emanating off it.

Yes, Russia has a nuclear arsenal that defies logic and purpose, but at least they keep it under an old tarp in the back garden and their (visible) foreign military intervention over the last few decades is more like an alcoholic nonce having a stroke in the bushes rather than USA/UK gadding about the globe toppling so called dictators on a whim and a prayer.

Also, Putin is a mental. Why would you want to go messing with someone who does photo ops wrestling bears when all your elected representatives can't even muster the challenge of eating a bacon sandwich on tv?

...but at least...

I don't ever really understand this logic.

The US invaded Iraq. Yes, bad idea. I was against it. But you're seriously saying that means the Czechs and the Poles aren't allowed to have a view about how they'd like to protect themselves from their surly neighbour with previous?

The Poles at least (I haven't been following the debate in CZ so closely) are quite keen to host the shield, so much so they've been offering to pay for some of it.

Also, Putin is a mental. Why would you want to go messing with someone who does photo ops wrestling bears when all your elected representatives can't even muster the challenge of eating a bacon sandwich on tv?

And that's why some of the FSU states are quite fond of Nato. And why Ukraine has been talking about joining. Admittedly unlikely to happen while there's a civil war (curiously involving large numbers of holidaying off-duty Russian troops) in the east of the country.

If Russia decided to invade Poland do you think the States or Nato for that matter would do anything apart from tut loudly from a safe location? They're obviously not going to nuke them, and their missile defence isn't going to stop a few hundred thousand tanks rolling in either... Given weak Nato response to Russian aggression in Chechnya, Ossetia and the Ukraine what's the value of futile pretence? You've got to wonder if what's happening in Ukraine would be going on if Nato wasn't flopping their cock out-Russia already had it's naval base and Ukraine's been a corrupt sinkhole since forever so it's not like it would get EU membership (well, given the creative accounting that's been done to get Romania and Greece in...) so other than the cheap gas pipeline...

Putin's a mental yes, but he's mostly just projecting a political image to control his domestic power-a large aspect of which lies in perceived indemnity against western threats to Russian statehood and trying to mask the shitness of their economy with angry rhetoric so I don't think a need to piss on the proverbial beehive with missiles you'd never dare fire...

Nato is a mutual defence pact, so basically if Russia invaded Poland, the rest of the alliance would be obliged to come to Poland's defence. This obviously raises the risk of nuclear war with the U.S., which the Russians don't want either. So they don't invade Poland. That's the logic, and thus far it has worked. The Russians don't seem mental enough to want to test it.

Countries outside Nato, however, Russia fucks with because Nato doesn't want to run the risk of nuclear war either. So they tut from afar when Russia invades Georgia, and when Russia annexes Crimea they impose financial sanctions that don't threaten the energy trade with Europe and refuse to send Ukraine lethal aid.

That's the basis of Europe's security architecture. Yeah it's fucked up. But that's the reality of it.

This was amusing:

It is rather ironic that after all the dire warnings about Jeremy Corbyn taking us back to the eighties, it has actually been the media doing that, recreating a ridiculous moral panic over Michael Foot’s choice of coat at the Cenotaph with all the enthusiasm and attention to detail of a chapter of the Sealed Knot.

Nick Cohen is not a journalist I can ignore - his take on Corbyn and the new left here:

http://www.spectator.co.uk/features/9637452/why-ive-finally-given-up-on-the-left/