That Corbyn fella...

https://adamtooze.substack.com/p/chartbook-68-putins-challenge-to

https://www.thenation.com/article/world/putin-ukraine-peace/

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.

only 26 references to putin in will's posted article and it has the gall to articulate the russian perspective - clearly written by a pro-kremlin stooge

(really interesting article, thanks for the link)

Sanders article was good and he only really needed one reference to Putin.

It's almost like the number of times you reference Putin shouldn't be used as a metric for your opposition to him.

This whole thing is a mix of semantics and PR.

But this;

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

is not what Starmer is referencing. The context is;

His comments, in an article for The Guardian, came as Corbyn addressed a Stop The War rally in London titled “No war in Ukraine - Stop NATO expansion.”

It's in the Corbyn thread because it's a slight derail from Corbyn speaking at the rally and because he's the deputy president of the Stop the War coalition.

I guess you could also say it forms part of one of the many problems with Corbyn. Personally I voted for him based on the manifesto - in particular the green policies and small business policies. However, to be frank, I was always concerned by his risk to national security. Ironically, I weighed up Johnson as likely to be a greater risk.

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.

is not what Starmer is referencing. The context is;

Sorry, posted another response before yours, but I dropped in a couple of Starmer quotes that seem to be insinuating opposition to war is support for Russia in one form or another.

It's in the Corbyn thread because it's a slight derail from Corbyn speaking at the rally and because he's the deputy president of the Stop the War coalition.

Anyone actually heard/seen/read what he said? I've not. Instead we've got a guilty by association situation (not a new criticism of Corbyn, tbf). But in this case, I don't think being affiliated with STW is anything anyone should be embarrassed about (at the moment - if they did come out supporting Russian aggression I'd reformulate my position).

from will's second linked piece - really warms the cockles and reinforces my view that british sabre rattling (principally to distract from political travails at home [johnson] or to show you like to shag flags too [starmer]) is not helpful.

The consequences of a direct US-Russian clash in Ukraine would be catastrophic. A full-scale conventional war would have the strong potential to escalate into nuclear war and the annihilation of most of humanity. Even a limited war would cause a ruinous global economic crisis, necessitate the dispatch of huge US armed forces to Europe, and destroy for the foreseeable future any chance of serious action against climate change. China might well seize the chance to conquer Taiwan, leaving the United States to face a war with the world’s other two greatest military powers simultaneously. Finally, given the huge superiority of Russia’s armed forces over Ukraine’s, the very limited number of US forces in Europe, and the deep unwillingness of European countries to confront Russia militarily, the strong likelihood is that Russia would win a limited war in Ukraine, seizing much more Ukrainian territory and imposing a shattering humiliation on the US and the West.

Thanks for posting that Adam Tooze article Will. I now feel like I have a vague understanding of the issues, which I had absolutely no grasp of before.

I guess each of Starmer, Truss and Johnson just use this issue as domestic positioning because they know the UK has basically no role to play in resolving the crisis.

I'd recommend reading any and all of Tooze's books. Whatever the subject matter he will make you realise how little you actually know and open up huge and deep areas of scholarship.

thread on corbyn's unwavering "neither washington nor moscow" record on russia and his many condemnations of putin's russia over the last 20 odd years. JC has a longstanding liberal commitment to international institutions’ capacity to constrain military conflict - a position that contrasts starkly with many so-called "liberal centrists’" eagerness to unilaterally bomb, invade, occupy and devastate entire countries and regions on the flimsiest of geopolitical pretexts
https://twitter.com/MrBenSellers/status/1492587344947470338

https://twitter.com/fio_edwards/status/1492444755300651011

While the thread isn't wrong, it does show why his stances on so many topics is problematic politically.

He basically speaks a different language.

He often seems to be so naive to the point of trolling. It sometimes reminds me of the way Jordan Peterson redefines and narrows his point after making some generalisation that is picked apart.

his stances on so many topics is problematic politically

from what I remember labour's polling went up during the 2017 GE after this intervention - war isn't popular ! (quick check: LAB polling in low 30s at beginning may, this rose to 38-40 by end-may)

important not to let all the tumescent bombast in the press cloud this fact (though appreciate there are wider issues at stake in the current scenario, beyond domestic polling figures)

You know what, maybe stance wasn't the right choice of word.

Basically how he presents the position he is taking.

Take the examples give of the poisoning of the Skripals. His basic point made sense. But his delivery and need to balance all statements ends up weakening his message.

his stance on the skripal affair (his actual stance, not the rw caricature rooted in baseless smears that eventually took hold in the press and parliament) struck me as eminently reasonable - not sure what you mean about his delivery.

if your political opponents (including many in your party and the so-called progressive press) are going to outright lie about your positions and propagate endless snide innuendos which suggest you (and your milieu) are "pro-putin", you're on a hiding to nothing regardless how you deliver this

That article was written after his original statements on Salisbury, where amongst other things he asked if the UK was going to hand over samples so the Russians could analyse them.

[post deleted because I'm going to spend my sunday watching the scottish cup and not relitigating the corbyn years :)]

No need to punish yourself.

That article was written after his original statements on Salisbury, where amongst other things he asked if the UK was going to hand over samples so the Russians could analyse them.

This is the thing people miss about the Skripal thing and Corbyn's take on it. His eventual position was reasonable, which is what many of his supporters claim now, but they forget to mention that he ONLY came to that position after an enormous outcry.

People might disagree with how the story is framed in Left Out but they cannot disagree with the timeline. https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/jeremy-corbyns-stance-on-skripals-was-political-poison-at-the-polls-3hnbj7hpb

His eventual position was reasonable

+1

Also if you take the effort to go through to the links in the thread and watch the video interview, you see what I mean.

life's too short

So they are trying to have Corbyn de-selected and replaced in his safe Islington seat. I despair. It's so obvious how much anger and division this will cause, votes it will lose, and what a massive distraction from important issues Starmer needs to address. Fucking idiots. Sorry for paywall, other options were telegraph and Mail

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/labour-wants-corbyn-out-of-commons-to-fury-of-union-paymasters-25xpmmctv