-
Why does opposing a war in Ukraine/calling for all parties to work towards de-escalation mean you support Putin?
It doesn't.
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).
Because he has spoken at an even that was advised as being focused on NATO and not both parties or Putin which is suggestive of a view to casual observers.
Starmer is in full-on cynical mode with the flags, attacking stwc, JC but the US will make the decision to intervene not NATO. Starmer is just more noise, bit noise that plays less into the hands of Putin.
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 think (and my thoughts may only be half formed) that not making sure you show perspective by acknowledging Putin's role in this as you criticise the west undermines (good) arguments as it leaves too much ambiguity. No real moralising here and I'd rather not have a war.
dst2-
It doesn't.
That's not what Starmer has said, nor what - I think - is being insinuated here (people seem pretty guarded of their own beliefs/ideas).
From Starmer:
the Stop the War coalition are not benign voices for peace. At best they are naive; at worst they actively give succour to authoritarian leaders who directly threaten democracies. There is nothing progressive in showing solidarity with the aggressor when our allies need our solidarity and – crucially – our practical assistance, now more than ever.
Somehow opposing war becomes solidarity with Russian aggressors (i.e., Putin).
He goes on to argue that taking part in anti-war movements enables Russia to commit political crimes.
Moscow’s hard-line leadership won’t see a rally on the streets of Britain as a reason to pull its tanks from Ukraine’s borders. All it will see is naivety and weakness – virtue signallers in the west providing a smokescreen so it can go on beating up and jailing those brave individuals who dare to stand up to its despotism on the streets of Russia.
..
I think (and my thoughts may only be half formed) that not making sure you show perspective by acknowledging Putin's role in this as you criticise the west undermines (good) arguments as it leaves too much ambiguity.
I agree with this. But that doesn't seem to be what's being asked for here. Instead, Starmer is telling anti-war activists to shut up or take the blame for Russia's actions. People on here seem to be linking Corbyn being affiliated with STW (shocking news) with support of Putin.
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.