That Corbyn fella...

They're saying membership to and international organisation is not something one has a democratic right to.

Even if that's correct, surely the people of Ukraine have a democratic right to seek membership of NATO. It's up to NATO to decide whether to allow them to join, but surely it's up to the people of Ukraine whether or not they try to join.

Ukraine don't have a right to join unilaterally, but do they have the right under international law to join by agreement with existing members?

Yes.

Even if that's correct, surely the people of Ukraine have a democratic right to seek membership of NATO.

Of course. And I think for a lot of Ukrainians it makes a fuck load of sense. (Although some of Russia's other neighbors are not members of NATO. Finland, for example).

It's up to NATO to decide whether to allow them to join, but surely it's up to the people of Ukraine whether or not they try to join.

I certainly hope I never said otherwise. Definitely never intended to.

I'm not sure I exactly follow, but I think there's a definitional issue here that's maybe caused some confusion. Not sure though. But here I go anyway: Ukraine, and anyone else, obviously could join NATO. But they don't have a sovereign right to membership by nature of being a sovereign state. It's essentially a club and the club decides who gets in. However, Ukraine obviously has the right to request membership (in fact, they did long ago). And the people of Ukraine have the right to push their government to join.

Even the UN gets to decide who it lets in, and geopolitics has left some states out (Taiwan and Palestine for example). Because there's no sovereign right to be a member of the UN, it turns out.

geopolitics has left some states out (Taiwan ... for example).

Better be careful where you call Taiwan a state. Not on Weibo, for example.

I certainly hope I never said otherwise. Definitely never intended to.

I don't think you did either! But given that Ukraine has applied to join NATO and NATO has so far said 'not yet' (at most) it seems odd for STW to be fixating upon NATO expansion rather than the more obvious cause for concern - 180,000 Russian troops on the Ukrainian border.

I can't speak for them, but I suspect there's a few things going on.

1) You're right Nato has been kicking the can of Ukrainian membership. And I think it's for the same reason that STW (and numerous others of various political persuasions) oppose it. It'll just piss Russia off. They (STW) probably see not-pissing-Russia-off as essential for de-escalation.

2) Where they go further than a lot of other people may like (especially those who are still posting "gotchyas" on here for some reason) is arguing that Nato isn't a defensive alliance at all: "We refute the idea that NATO is a defensive alliance, and believe its record in Afghanistan, Yugoslavia and Libya over the last generation, not to mention the US-British attack on Iraq, clearly proves otherwise." If you don't accept Nato as a defensive alliance, it moving into Ukraine is a bit of a frightening proposition.

3) Finally, on rhetoric rather than policy (this seems to be what most people find offensive about STW): Why is STW fixating on Western policy rather than Russian? It's a British-based anti-war group that is attempting to frame the discussion in Britain, to impact British policy, as a pressure group. To do this, they are attempting to enlarge the discussion around the potential conflict to allow more than one perspective to be seen (i.e., more than just "Russia bad"). That is, they're completely unnuanced attempt to pull the West and the West's actions into the heart of the debate around the conflict aims to do this. Importantly, I would argue, it's a position you're not getting (or I'm not seeing) in general. And to be honest, I think that's both important and healthy in a democracy. I worry what the outcome could be if the discussion is continually framed as a simplistic moral problem of "Putin evil, us good."

You're right Nato has been kicking the can of Ukrainian membership. And I think it's for the same reason that STW (and numerous others of various political persuasions) oppose it. It'll just piss Russia off.

It's definitely one of the considerations that NATO member states (which must ALL approve membership) are reticent, not to mention the fact that Biden is clearly less intervention-y than his predecessors so there'd be an element of making a promise you had to keep (to defend Ukraine) which isn't naturally something you would want to do.

But there's also the fact that Ukraine isn't yet eligible to join - members need to demonstrate that they have a functioning democratic political system based on a market economy, and Ukraine is incredibly corrupt by western standards. Plus, it's flipflopped on whether it wants to join in the past, so members of NATO aren't necessarily convinced this is a long term proposition, which once again leads to reticence. But not pissing Russia off is definitely part of the calculation.

Yeah, good points and all important and definitely part of the calculation, as you say.

https://mobile.twitter.com/corbyn_project/status/1495821565296058368

The most charitable reading of this position is that the Corbyn project intends to advocate for the avoidance of war at all costs, even if that means letting aggressive countries expand their borders at the barrel of a gun.

https://labourlist.org/2022/02/11-labour-mps-pull-signatures-from-stop-the-war-statement-after-whip-request/

Regardless of the ethical rights/wrongs I think it was probably the right move politically.

Weird overlap between stop the war and Farage's views though. Can't imagine either would be keen on that.

I agree. I think Labour has to be a broad church but focussing on 'NATO aggression' at a time like this is like blaming public transport for the drunk driver who ploughed into a load of pedestrians at a bus stop. Sure, the bus stop contributed to the problem but it's hardly the primary cause.

more broad church developments
https://mobile.twitter.com/YoungLabourUK/status/1497149945123647498

…

1 Attachment

That's harrowing.

That's harrowing.

There will be people out there that consider themselves eminently moderate, that regard inciting this kind of attack on Sultana as a win.

Awful. I might disagree with Zarah's politics but no-one should go through that for expressing what is ultimately a justifiable view.

I'm not sure whether Momentum still has Corbyn as a figurehead or it has morphed away into something different but this seemed relevant as it's the local councillor who's been key in pushing for LTNs, school streets and the like
https://www.onlondon.co.uk/haringey-council-deputy-leader-de-selected-by-momentum-supporters/

I disengaged with my local Labour party when I realised every meeting was dominated by internecine bickering. I was initially welcomed in a friendly way, and even got the Stop Silvertown Tunnel motion passed unanimously. Apart from the occasional local issue, most of the conversation revolved around votes, past allegiances and current loyalties.

This silliness runs right through the party from members up to MPs, constant tit for tat, inward looking nonsense from both sides. Woke up to this from Diane Abbot

I mean, there have been calls for Stringer to be booted out of the party (I agree), but Abbot presents it as though he gets a free pass. Whole thing is tedious

1 Attachment

This silliness runs right through the party from members up to MPs, constant tit for tat, inward looking nonsense from both sides.

Totally agree. I've indulged in my share of it (and your share, and his share, and her share) but it's totally counterproductive. It doesn't get Labour in power. It doesn't even change any minds. It's just venting.

It all seems murky as shit. Tales of threatening phone calls, disqualified members running campaigns, anti-semitism (obviously), GDPR breaches, etc.

Good to hear that Jeremy answering the tough questions around the Russian invasion of Ukraine.

“I don’t blame Nato for the fact that Russia has invaded Ukraine"

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/apr/20/jeremy-corbyn-would-like-to-see-nato-ultimately-disband