That Corbyn fella...

You forget how the far left always manage to ensure NATO are at fault when it comes to Russian aggression.

This thread has changed!

Anyone check to see if the "banner" is real? Who's produced it? What organisation is this?

https://actionnetwork.org/events/no-war-in-ukraine-stop-nato-expansion?source=direct_link&

Cheers. I really didn't know. There was just a bit of a "starmer is a pedo" vibe going on. To be fair, I'm still not sure it's that different, but this isn't a reasonable place to discuss these things.

Oh neither did I, just thought I’d have a Google to see what it was about.

thanks - signed up

Well, the blurb about it says:

As the clouds of war continue to gather over Ukraine, the British government, alongside the US, is ramping up the threat of war. Even the Ukrainian foreign minister is calling for calm. Yet in the most cynical move of his career so far Boris Johnson has used the threat of war to distract from the implosion of his premiership. To find out what is really going on join us this Thursday evening (10 Feb).

The government is using the crisis as an opportunity to prove itself as America’s most loyal European ally. This is in stark contrast to other European countries - France and Germany in particular - who are keen to see a diplomatic solution prevail rather than a new European war. The British media, in its usual gung ho fashion, has barely mentioned the concerted efforts of our European allies to prevent war, but on Thursday we will be joined by politicians from Europe keep to share an alternative view.

Not sure why there's something about NATO when this suggests that the main targets of the protest are the US and UK. Germany and France are both members of NATO, too. Sorry if I've missed something. (I miss coppiThat.)

I imagine that Jeremy Corbyn is likely to share (most of/all of) Bernie Sanders' view:

Putin may be a liar and a demagogue, but it is hypocritical for the United States to insist that we do not accept the principle of “spheres of influence”. For the last 200 years our country has operated under the Monroe Doctrine, embracing the premise that as the dominant power in the western hemisphere, the United States has the right to intervene against any country that might threaten our alleged interests. Under this doctrine we have undermined and overthrown at least a dozen governments. In 1962 we came to the brink of nuclear war with the Soviet Union in response to the placement of Soviet missiles in Cuba, 90 miles from our shore, which the Kennedy administration saw as an unacceptable threat to our national security.

And the Monroe Doctrine is not ancient history. As recently as 2018, Donald Trump’s secretary of state, Rex Tillerson, called the Monroe Doctrine “as relevant today as it was the day it was written”. In 2019, Trump’s former national security adviser, John Bolton, declared “the Monroe Doctrine is alive and well”.

To put it simply, even if Russia was not ruled by a corrupt authoritarian leader like Vladimir Putin, Russia, like the United States, would still have an interest in the security policies of its neighbors. Does anyone really believe that the United States would not have something to say if, for example, Mexico was to form a military alliance with a US adversary?

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/feb/08/we-must-do-everything-possible-avoid-enormously-destructive-war-ukraine

Back in 2014 Corbyn's future director of communications defended Russian aggression in Ukraine as "not as bad as the Iraq war" and as a move against fascists who had positions in government in Kiev. Basically, Russians are benevolent left wing teddy bears defending Eastern Europe against the imperialist west so it's fine. There'll be a similar vibe at the Stop The War meeting.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/mar/05/clash-crimea-western-expansion-ukraine-fascists

I imagine that Jeremy Corbyn is likely to share (most of/all of) Bernie Sanders' view:

Unlikely, given that Sanders thinks Putin is the most responsible:
"We should be clear about who is most responsible for this looming crisis: Vladimir Putin."

The enemy of my enemy Etc.

Putin gets an entire 10 words in this piece

What's funny about the article's critique of Starmer is the opening gambit is his questioning of the legality of Iraq.

There is nothing inconsistent about being against illegal wars while being pro legal ones.

That said I agree with a lot of the points made. So classic centrist dad really.

Just throwing a penny in the pot then running away quickly…

How can any war be a ‘legal war’?

How can any war be a ‘legal war’?

How can any war be an "illegal war"?

Okay. Fine.

There is nothing inconsistent about being against wars which you don't believe to be correctly authorised under the UN charter while being for ones which you do.

thanks for the link - good article

I suppose if you want to define something illegal you are acknowledgeing the framework that makes it so. That framework may also make it legal in some cases.

The problem for casual observers of the stop the war message is that they seem to fail to acknowledge that Putin is the main cause of this escalation. Without it is too easy for me to make the logical jump that they think that Putin is in some way would be justified in any invasion.

Sanders has done it.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/feb/08/we-must-do-everything-possible-avoid-enormously-destructive-war-ukraine

We should be clear about who is most responsible for this looming crisis: Vladimir Putin.

I realise that stw will have a more nuanced argument.

here's a further article from StWC

StWC has been clear that we oppose any military action in or against Ukraine and we are for a diplomatic resolution.

it seems ironic to me that starmer's demonisation of anti-war activists as essentially traitors is exactly the type of pernicious smear his allies have spent the last week gnashing their teeth about

Can someone explain a couple of things to me?

Why does opposing a war in Ukraine/calling for all parties to work towards de-escalation mean you support Putin?

Why is this debate being had in the Corbyn thread? Starmer is the one who's attacked STW, and the post above was their response to him (perhaps that's why there's "only ten words" on Putin in the piece).

It feels like a sign of the postmodern/post-truth era that failure to show moral relativism and pragmatism is, ironically, taken to be a moral failing.

I don't know the answer to these points.

Why does opposing a war in Ukraine/calling for all parties to work towards de-escalation mean you support Putin?

Isn't this the position of Starmer, and indeed the UK government? Reading the Guardian piece from the stop the war convenor, you could be under the impression that Starmer is calling for war.