That Corbyn fella...

I know, but the central theme of a lot of his work is still strident support of a kind of interventionism that hasn't yet been proved to do anything other than create further human misery.

I get what you mean. I wasn't in favour of the Iraq war, and generally think military action is a blunt instrument that shouldn't be used much. But I shared Cohen's disquiet that quite a few people who opposed the war sounded like they were defending things that the left really shouldn't be defending. I think he still has a point on that.

But I shared Cohen's disquiet that quite a few people who opposed the war sounded like they were defending things that the left really shouldn't be defending. I think he still has a point on that.

me too

Honest question - I couldn't find it in the article - what is it that Corbyn has done to support Russia? (He also mentioned Cuba and Venezuela, but most of the article seems to be directed towards Russia).

He wears that hat.

Corbyn has said that by encouraging states like Ukraine to join Nato, there is a risk that Russia will feel cornered and start to lash out, and that maybe this isn't a good thing.

Is that all? Surely not. The one quote (from Corbyn) in the article I did note was this: “The expansion of Nato into Poland and the Czech Republic has particularly increased tensions with Russia.” But that's just a well-documented fact.

http://www.morningstaronline.co.uk/a-972b-Nato-belligerence-endangers-us-all

I read the first one after reading the Cohen article (googling Corbyn and Russia). Wasn't much there, but will take a look at the second one.

deleted the first one as it wasn't much (as you say). second one is written by corbyn. More anti Nato (tool of the US etc) than pro Russia, if you are that way inclined you can make the logical jump that cohen did..."We have a politician at the forefront of one of Europe’s great parties telling Poles that their country has no right to defend itself against an expansionist Russia."

It's a bit of a leap but kind of follows...ish...but not quite. Depends if you think Russia set off expansionist or they are just reacting to Natos presence.

this mabe me lol tho

On Tuesday night the Stop the War Coalition hosted an extraordinarily well-informed public meeting on the crisis at the Wesley Hotel in Euston, London.
Jonathan Steele, a former Guardian Moscow correspondent, outlined the situation expertly....

So he didn't sing the national anthem? That means he wants to over throw the royal family and he has disrespected all of the British soildiers ever!!!

Or maybe he just forgot the words and tried to play off a "respectful silence" or maybe, who cares?

Yeah, I wouldn't call him an apologist for Russia myself - the opposing narrative is simply 'Russia barged into Ukraine out of nowhere and we need to show them who the real boss is!!!' and start going off on tangents about how awful Putin is and all the rest. None of which Corbyn denies - he seems to simply be advocating taking a pragmatic approach rather than heading towards inevitable worsening of the tension.

All that said I think it's his foreign policy that will make him near un-electable, rather than being too left-wing. He's too subtle in how he discusses things, so I think the masses response is likely to be "U wot m8? We shouldn't bomb ISIS to oblivion?"

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 intervention in Syria to remove Assad and the subsequent power vacuum managed? No-one really knows. Some times I feel that this is a central message of the stop the war campaign.

Just like no one can say what Iraq would be like now if Saddam had been left to his own devices. I recognise that that war was a mistake in both implementation and reasoning but I'm open to the fact that, however bad Iraq is now, it may actually be a better place than if no one intervened. I am suspicious of anyone who will tell me with certainty that Iraq is better or worse off because of the intervention.

Thanks. Just got through it. I agree with you. The second article is largely analysis, so you get some sense of his view on Russia (and, thankfully, he offers references) which is great.

His opinion comes at the end

"On Ukraine, I would not condone Russian behaviour or expansion. But it is not unprovoked, and the right of people to seek a federal structure or independence should not be denied."

The claim of provocation is where people may have an issue, but the first 2/3rds of the article attempt to highlight what that provocation was in regard to global politics (Nato) and regional (anti-Russian sentiment in Ukraine). There is room to debate this. There isn't a lot of room to call it "support of Russia."

He concludes:

"Would it not be better if when the four powers sit down together they looked at agreeing on a neutral, nuclear-free Ukraine, the possibility of de-escalating the crisis and cut out the hypocrisy of feigned moral outrage from a country that has invaded many others, has military bases scattered worldwide and whose arms industry has made billions from the death and destruction of so much life in Afghanistan and Iraq."

As you said, it's a bit of a leap to see how this can be seen as support for Russia. The Cohen article doesn't hesitate though. The line before the one you quoted (about Poland) is a quote from Corbyn which, presumably, it meant to be Cohen's evidence: "The expansion of Nato into Poland and the Czech Republic has particularly increased tensions with Russia." This is simply accepted fact. It is not a shout out to Russia.

This kind of stuff is important. I'm not trying to be contrary or a Corbyn fan boy, I just really want to see honest journalism/reporting based on fact. That Cohen article is pretty damning in tone, but it's not making much in way of fact-based claims. As a potential supporter of Corbyn, if there are real issues I want them to be made crystal clear.

William Hague offering a, surprisingly sympathetic, warning on the horribleness of politics to Corbyn: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/Jeremy_Corbyn/11866883/There-are-countless-sworn-assassins-waiting-to-knife-Jeremy-Corbyn-in-the-back.-Is-he-ready-for-them.html?fb_ref=Default

This kind of stuff is important.

very

honest journalism/reporting based on fact.

Cohen wears his bias on his sleeve but it is still an interesting article. It would be more palatable if he just eased back on the Corybn rhetoric/logical leaps.

going to be tuning in to pmq's later - that's a good thing as i've been apathetic for too many years

I don't recall ever watching it before, i'm pushing a lunch meeting back to tune in today though.

I found that listening to pmqs made me more apathetic.

Today's papers:

Oh, and the Tories just cut the working tax credit yesterday

Prince Harry's turning into Corbyn. Same scowl, same beard.

This PMQ's is great. Corbyn's 'phone in' means Cameron can't criticise the questions when they come from voters - it's making him look pretty weak and it's all gone a bit 'I agree with nick'.

Killer winter on the way?

Fucking Corbyn! Is there no limit to his evil?!

I actually cannot suppress the rage I feel about this national anthem bullshit. I need to stop being so easily trolled by the fascist media I think.