That Corbyn fella...

For ages Corbyn sat in the backbenches and repeatedly voted against is own government but essentially harmlessly did his own thing. Leave him alone. This reeks of paranoia, control freakery and I'm completely dis-illusioned. We need a labour government and the longer Labour spend fucking around with this internecine bullshit the less likely it will happen. Aargh. Fucking Starmer. I was trying to be positive about him but I always knew it should have been Lisa Nandy.

edit, I've obviously been someone generally critical of Corbyn on this thread, but I believe it's fine for these disagreements to bubble away in a party, and we actually need the "left vs centrist" push and pull of ideas. It keeps the debate alive. Trying to remove it from the party is both impossible and self destructive.

He’s too toxic now. I like the guy tbh, but he needs to go for the greater good.

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).

Sorry for double reply to this but I foudn a better example of this: https://www.stopwar.org.uk/article/if-we-have-to-pick-a-side-over-crimea-let-it-be-russia/

Thanks for the links. I wrote a longer response to this (this ended up being quite long anyway), but I'm not sure it's worth it.

The twitter account is uncomfortably proactive on numerous points, but I don't' have a Twitter account myself so am limited to what I can actually read. But, I'll put it this way: if I did have a Twitter account I wouldn't be following them. The second article is 8 years old and covers a very different event and situation. It's provocative and uncomfortable reading. But I've not seen any evidence for STW supporting Russian aggression in either. Instead, they're (somewhat unsurprising) left-wing criticisms of Western politics in international conflict. The second frames this in a lens of domestic Crimean politics and Nato expansion, while remaining critical of Putin to come to this conclusion: "Vladimir Putin may run a vicious regime but the people of Crimea have a right to be accepted as Russian if that’s what they want..." I'm guessing most people don't think we should go to war with with Russia to return Crimea to Ukraine, in spite of the local population, either? Even if what Russia did was fucking awful.

On the whole we don't have to agree with them but:

1) it's important they're out there (the points about Obama being a menace to world peace and a serial international law breaker are important)

2) twisting the meaning to pretend that they're something that they're not (support for Russian aggression) is a bit dishonest. We should either engage them on their substance, or ignore them.

If you want you can give me more specific examples of where STW does support Russian aggression. But a criticism of NATO/the US is not the same as actively supporting a Russian invasion of a foreign state - despite what Starmer says.

This should probably be in a different thread.

2) twisting the meaning to pretend that they're something that they're not (support for Russian aggression) is a bit dishonest. We should either engage them on their substance, or ignore them.

I think this is the only bit we really disagree on. Their position of 'neither Moscow nor Washington' works in practice as a framing device to draw moral equivalence between NATO 'expansion' and Russian expansion. Russia expands by rolling tanks into provinces it thinks it should own; NATO 'expands' by democratic consent of the countries involved. There is no moral equivalence between the two. By attempting to draw a moral equivalence they accept the Kremlin's framing and this amounts - for me - to de facto support for Russian belligerence.

By attempting to draw a moral equivalence they accept the Kremlin's framing and this amounts - for me - to de facto support for Russian belligerence.

I don't think they were trying to draw moral equivalence so much as provide a picture of the geopolitical history and situation from a perspective that was not generally being reported. That position was politically motivated as they are anti-war/anti-imperialist (whatever they want to call themselves) activists. But that doesn't mean it was an attempt to draw moral equivalence. If you can't address the moral failings on both sides you can't discuss the issues. And, on the flip side, if what they said was inaccurate (or morally problematic) then it should be called out and corrected, not reframed as a political weapon to shut them down/up.

https://yougov.co.uk/topics/travel/survey-results/daily/2022/02/16/9f7d7/3

https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/survey-results/daily/2022/02/16/9f7d7/2

Yeh Starmer was on C4 news last night and basically said he see's no way back for Corbyn

Starmer's right. Even if everything the Corbynite left said is true and Corbyn never had any problem with Jewish people and it was all smears and he got the big calls right on Brexit and no-one would listen to him and it was that nasty Starmer all along - even if all that is right, there is absolutely no political calculus that means Starmer defending him will gain us votes. It's a sunk cost.

Defending him from the things he's doing? Could just not do them instead.

this needs to happen:

1 Attachment

Stop The War statement on Ukraine - it calls for NATO to stop its expansionism, but does not call for Russia to do the same: https://www.stopwar.org.uk/article/add-your-name-stop-the-war-statement-on-the-crisis-over-ukraine-2/

Stop The War statement on Ukraine - it calls for NATO to stop its expansionism, but does not call for Russia to do the same

The statement literally says:

Stop the War believes that Russia and Ukraine should reach a diplomatic settlement of the tensions between them, on the basis of the Minsk-2 agreement already signed by both states.

Minsk II calls for (amongst other things):

Restore full control of the state border by the government of Ukraine.

Withdrawal of all foreign armed formations, military equipment and mercenaries.

But this is probably just a mealy mouthed secret invitation for Russia to invade Ukraine.

There's no need to be silly about it. The statement explicitly calls for the halting of NATO expansionism and calls absolutely nowhere for Russia to do the same. Imo this tips the balance over from well-meaning but stupid both sidesism and moves it into a space where they're prepared to criticise NATO more than the actual aggressors in this conflict. You're of course welcome to your own opinion, and I'm in no way silencing Stop The War or think they should be proscribed or anything like that. I just think they're idiots and that's a belief I'm entitled to hold on what I think is fairly solid evidence. Full statement:

Stop the War opposes any war over Ukraine, and believes the crisis should be settled on a basis which recognises the right of the Ukrainian people to self-determination and addresses Russia’s security concerns.
Our focus is on the policies of the British government which have poured oil on the fire throughout this episode. In taking this position we do not endorse the nature or conduct of either the Russian or Ukrainian regimes.
The British government has talked up the threat of war continually, to the point where the Ukraine government has asked it to stop.
Unlike the French and German governments, it has advanced no proposals for a diplomatic solution to the crisis, and has contributed only sabre-rattling.
Indeed, Defence Secretary Ben Wallace has even accused those seeking a peaceful settlement of preparing “another Munich.”
Instead, the British government has sent arms to Ukraine and deployed further troops to Eastern Europe, moves which serve no purpose other than inflaming tensions and indicating disdain for Russian concerns.
It has also declared that Ukraine has a “sovereign right” to join NATO, when no such right exists to join it or any other military alliance.
Britain needs to change its policy, and start working for peace, not confrontation.
Stop the War believes that Russia and Ukraine should reach a diplomatic settlement of the tensions between them, on the basis of the Minsk-2 agreement already signed by both states.
It believes NATO should call a halt to its eastward expansion and commit to a new security deal for Europe which meets the needs of all states and peoples.
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.
We support all efforts to reach new arms control agreements in Europe and to move towards nuclear disarmament across the continent.
We urge the entire anti-war movement to unite on the basis of challenging the British government’s aggressive posturing and direct its campaigning to that end above all.

I just think they're idiots and that's a belief I'm entitled to hold on what I think is fairly solid evidence.

Sure. I'm not going to argue with you on this and I'm happy for you to think they're idiots. I'd be a bit more generous to a group of anti-war campaigners.

But you're misconstruing what they've written when you write that they are not calling for Russia to end its expansion into Ukraine ("absolutely nowhere for Russia to do the same"). There is literally a statement - before the line where they call for an end of an Eastern expansion of Nato - that makes that clear.

Stop the War ... recognises the right of the Ukrainian people to self-determination

But not including the democratically elected Ukrainian governments desire to join NATO?

I think the wording on Russian expansion is a lot more bland than on NATO expansion.

I've no idea whether that is intentional or not but I don't think it is helpful if they want to come across as balanced.

But not including the democratically elected Ukrainian governments desire to join NATO?

Nato (i.e., the existing members of Nato) decides who joins Nato, not potential members. It's not hugely dissimilar from joining the EU.

I think the wording on Russian expansion is a lot more bland than on NATO expansion.

Entirely fair and I agree (that it's much more focused on the actions of the West). That's an honest critique. There's a discussion that could be had about why STW may come out with more strongly worded statements to the West than the East, but that's not the discussion reekblefs decided to have.

I get that, but they can't compel a country to join. I think Stop the War are ignoring the recorded desire of the Ukrainian government to join NATO (and indeed the EU). If Ukrainians stopped electing governments that seek this goal, Russia wouldn't be threatening to invade. Isn't the Stop the War position effectively ignore the democratic will of the Ukrainian people?

I get that, but they can't compel a country to join. I think Stop the War are ignoring the recorded desire of the Ukrainian government to join NATO (and indeed the EU).

I don't think they're ignoring it. They're taking a pretty firm position: that Ukrainian Nato membership should not be something the West should support as it's (in their estimation) more likely to result in war/further conflict than peace. Whether they're right or wrong is up for debate.

There was an edit after I responded, so I'll add to this:

Isn't the Stop the War position effectively ignore the democratic will of the Ukrainian people?

Yes. They state: "It has also declared that Ukraine has a “sovereign right” to join NATO, when no such right exists to join it or any other military alliance." They're saying membership to and international organisation is not something one has a democratic right to. If every country that wanted to join something only needed to express a democratic desire to do so things like Nato (and the EU) would look very, very, different.

What is the position under international law where a third party wants to join an alliance, and the existing members willingly agree their membership? I don't know, so I am interested to know if there any legal constraints to this.

Trying to clarify the point, 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?

I don't know what rights countries have to join (by agreement) military, political or economic organisations, but I would be surprised if these rights were constrained, subject to the organisations themselves being legal?

Just clarifying I don't have a position and asking questions by way of learning.

If Ukrainians stopped electing governments that seek this goal, Russia wouldn't be threatening to invade.

One could also argue that if Russia hadn't already unlawfully invaded Ukraine (Crimea), annexed part of its territory and kept threatening to invade again with massive and provocative troop deployments, the people of Ukraine wouldn't be quite so keen about joining a military alliance, the primary purpose of which is to protect its members against Russian military aggression.