Ukraine

[drfchound]

Hindsight eh Syd.
When he was Labour leader you backed him to the hilt.
As did some others on here.

not wanting another lazy corrupt racist tory government lazy is a little different though aye Dot?

Does that comment even make sense?
Fourth can maybe?

[SydneyRover]

                                              .

[River Don]

Corbyn today in the Morning Star.

"There must be an immediate ceasefire in Ukraine, followed by a Russian troop withdrawal and agreement between Russia and Ukraine on future security arrangements."

Reading between the lines and given that he's been cool about Zelensky and the idea of Ukraine defending itself... I think he's basically suggesting Ukraine surrenders and Russia withdraws. Future security arrangements would obviously be dictated by Putin.

And for Corbyn that would be just fine because in his world Putin's Russia is apparently still preferable to the US.

[glosterred]

Hindsight eh Syd.
When he was Labour leader you backed him to the hilt.
As did some others on here.

not wanting another lazy corrupt racist tory government lazy is a little different though aye Dot?

And to think if Comrade Corbyn had won we would have got anti-Semite government that would have let Ukraine die under the Russian boot. A government that would have not have given weapons to Ukraine to defend their land with a government that would have made the current German government look generous in their support for Ukraine.

[wilts rover]

Corbyn today in the Morning Star.

"There must be an immediate ceasefire in Ukraine, followed by a Russian troop withdrawal and agreement between Russia and Ukraine on future security arrangements."

Reading between the lines and given that he's been cool about Zelensky and the idea of Ukraine defending itself... I think he's basically suggesting Ukraine surrenders and Russia withdraws. Future security arrangements would obviously be dictated by Putin.

And for Corbyn that would be just fine because in his world Putin's Russia is apparently still preferable to the US.

And reading the actual lines:

There must be an immediate ceasefire in Ukraine, followed by a Russian troop withdrawal and agreement between Russia and Ukraine on future security arrangements.

All wars end in a negotiation of some sort, everyone knows that, so why not now?

Everyone knows this is what will happen at some point. There is no reason to delay it for bombing and killing, more refugees, more dead and more grieving families in Ukraine and Russia.

But instead of urging peace, most European nations have taken the opportunity to ramp up arms supplies, feed the war machine and boost the share prices of weapons manufacturers.

It is also the time to talk about our humanity, or lack of it, to people in deep distress as a result of armed conflict, abuse of their rights or the grinding poverty that many face as a result of the global economic system.

Almost 10 per cent of the population of Ukraine are now in exile, suffering trauma, loss and fear.

The effects of this war on the politics and hopes of our society are going to be huge, not least for the world’s institutions.

The United Nations was established after World War II to “save succeeding generations from the scourge of war.”

Since then we can reel off the long and lengthening list of conflicts and proxy wars the world has endured which have taken the lives of millions.

A huge question must be asked of the UN in the Ukraine conflict. When Russia brutally and illegally invaded Ukraine, that was the moment for the UN to send its secretary-general to Moscow to demand a ceasefire.

The UN has been too slow to act and too much of the inter-state system has pushed for escalation, not negotiation.

The call for more effective and proactive international institutions to support peace was powerfully made yesterday in Madrid at a conference hosted by Podemos, following a dialogue initiated by Progressive International.

Every one of the 17 speakers condemned the war and occupation and called for a ceasefire and a future of peace for the people of Ukraine and Russia.

https://morningstaronline.co.uk/article/f/now-let-us-talk-peace

Corbyn is a pacifist and an indealist. He belives in negotiation over conflict. Always has done.

Here he seems to think he can appeal to Putin's better side and make him see sense through the UN. It's not favouring Russia over the US (he quite clearly condems Russia) it's just naivety - he is just plain wrong.

Putin has no better side, he'a murderous dictator. No negotiations will stop him until he is defeated militarily - whatever Corbyn thinks - but its best to read what he says rather than what he doesn't to know what he thinks.

[River Don]

If Ukraine had followed Corbyns doctrine from the off, it would have capitulated in the first couple of days. Putin would have quickly installed a compliant government.

Moldova would most likely have fallen too.

Right now Putin would probably be threatening the Baltic's, or the Fins, or the Poles.

Does Corbyn not understand this? I think he does and would not have minded.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Hindsight eh Syd.
When he was Labour leader you backed him to the hilt.
As did some others on here.

not wanting another lazy corrupt racist tory government lazy is a little different though aye Dot?

And to think if Comrade Corbyn had won we would have got anti-Semite government that would have let Ukraine die under the Russian boot. A government that would have not have given weapons to Ukraine to defend their land with a government that would have made the current German government look generous in their support for Ukraine.

That couldn't be more wrong. If he'd reused to assist Ukraine, he would have been overuled by the Shadow Cabinet. If they'd not overruled him, there would have been a vote of no confidence by the Parliamentary Labour Party. He'd have had to put his 4th Form morals on the shelf, or be turfed out.

That was the reason I was prepared to vote for a Corbyn-led Govt over a Johnson-led one in 2019. Because Corbyn's wilder ideas were opposed by the majority of Labour MPs, whereas Johnson's were embraced by most Tory MPs.

[wilts rover]

If Ukraine had followed Corbyns doctrine from the off, it would have capitulated in the first couple of days. Putin would have quickly installed a compliant government.

Moldova would most likely have fallen too.

Right now Putin would probably be threatening the Baltic's, or the Fins, or the Poles.

Does Corbyn not understand this? I think he does and would not have minded.

There is a bit more in the actual article on what he sees as 'effective and proactive international institutions to support peace' - I didnt think they were relevant so didn't post them - but its free to read from the link.

Corbyn is a pacifist idealist. He believes that with effective negotiation there would have been no invasion. If he had won in 2019 he would have acted very differently towards the Russian oligarchs and their money in the UK - and towards the EU. Would this have stopped Putin - I sincerely doubt it - but we will never know.

Anyone trying to guess what Corbyn would have done in the face of an invasion wont know from what he has said here - because as I say, Corbyn believes with him in charge there would have been no invasion.

He's just wrong.

[River Don]

I just find it difficult to believe that someone with Corbyns long experience in politics is really that naive.

[BillyStubbsTears]

I've never got my head round where Corbyn is a naive idealist or a cynical ideologue when it comes to foreign policy. Either way, he works directly in Putin's interests.

[BillyStubbsTears]

I just find it difficult to believe that someone with Corbyns long experience in politics is really that naive.

You need to factor in a very germane point. He's really not very intelligent.

Today's article where he distinguishes between "tactical" and "nuclear" weapons, while appearing to have no comprehension of how tactical nuclear weapons would be used is one example of how intellectually limited he is.

[Bristol Red Rover]

And to think if Comrade Corbyn had won we would have got anti-Semite government that would have let Ukraine die under the Russian boot. A government that would have not have given weapons to Ukraine to defend their land with a government that would have made the current German government look generous in their support for Ukraine.

Apart from being off the mark, antisemitism has got nothing to do with this.

The remains of Ukraine has been further pulled into being a western surfdom by having more debt, It was already beholden to the corporate monsters before the war, now they are doomed to being taken over by bloody war on the one side and the corporate bankers on the other. Pawns, and exactly why they had Zelensky put in power.

A more peaceful solution would have been the only positive route for Ukraine even if there were losses in that. The time for positive action in this has long gone.

[Bristol Red Rover]

I just find it difficult to believe that someone with Corbyns long experience in politics is really that naive.

You need to factor in a very germane point. He's really not very intelligent.

Today's article where he distinguishes between "tactical" and "nuclear" weapons, while appearing to have no comprehension of how tactical nuclear weapons would be used is one example of how intellectually limited he is.

Not sure where you get that?

[BillyStubbsTears]

I just find it difficult to believe that someone with Corbyns long experience in politics is really that naive.

You need to factor in a very germane point. He's really not very intelligent.

Today's article where he distinguishes between "tactical" and "nuclear" weapons, <b>while appearing to have no comprehension of how tactical nuclear weapons would be used </b>is one example of how intellectually limited he is.

Not sure where you get that?

Read the article.

Tactical nuclear weapons are battlefield weapons. With (compared to strategic weapons) generally limited yield. Because you don't want to wipe out your own forces while nuking the opposition.

It is beyond any sensibly credible scenario for a single battlefield tactical warhead to kill hundreds of thousands of people. Because armed forces are rarely if ever concentrated in such vast numbers that a single tactical warhead could eliminate that number.

It's (yet) another example of Corbyn basically displaying his lack of knowledge.

[drfchound]

Hindsight again by BST who would have obviously voted for Corbyns Labour Party in the GE but now ridicules the man who would have been our PM had they won.

Hindsight eh Syd.
When he was Labour leader you backed him to the hilt.
As did some others on here.

not wanting another lazy corrupt racist tory government lazy is a little different though aye Dot?

And to think if Comrade Corbyn had won we would have got anti-Semite government that would have let Ukraine die under the Russian boot. A government that would have not have given weapons to Ukraine to defend their land with a government that would have made the current German government look generous in their support for Ukraine.

That couldn't be more wrong. If he'd reused to assist Ukraine, he would have been overuled by the Shadow Cabinet. If they'd not overruled him, there would have been a vote of no confidence by the Parliamentary Labour Party. He'd have had to put his 4th Form morals on the shelf, or be turfed out.

That was the reason I was prepared to vote for a Corbyn-led Govt over a Johnson-led one in 2019. Because Corbyn's wilder ideas were opposed by the majority of Labour MPs, whereas Johnson's were embraced by most Tory MPs.

There is no way you can know for certain that there would have been a vote of no confidence.

[Branton Red]

Essentially Corbyn is as thick as a brick. If the Western democracies all had people of his views in power the whole of Eastern Europe would lay open to Putin.

One thing Johnson deserves credit for is the high level and swiftness of military aid being sent to Ukraine. Hence the praise he received from President Zelensky - a man not afraid to criticise world leaders in strong terms.

If Corbyn had won in 2017 (he was hobbled internally in 2019) this simply wouldn't have happened.

For a start he would have cut defence spending see the vid "Money spent on weapons is money not spent on health, education and housing." Therefore the same level of military aid would simply not have been available to be provided.

Also his pacifism would have meant he would have dragged his feet on sending weaponry and certainly wouldn't have led on this from the front as Johnson has. UK military aid would not have got to Ukraine as swiftly under Corbyn - and swiftness was vital in the defence of Kyiv.

[drfchound]

In a perverse sort of way, it’s a good job they aren’t all the same.   

[BillyStubbsTears]

BR.
You're ignoring the fact that a PM Corbyn would have been constrained by the Parliamentary Labour party. That was why he never floated the policy dearest of all to his heart - leaving NATO. Because the party wouldn't have worn it. PM Corbyn would have had to work within the confines of what the party would have required of him. And only half a dozen Labour MPs would have supported him not supporting Ukraine.

A perfect example of how constrained he was is that Nia Griffiths was the shadow defence secretary for most of his time. Even though she was very far from the Left of the party and had voted for the ineffectual Owen Smith in the leadership election. No way on earth would she have agreed to blocking arms to Ukraine.

[BillyStubbsTears]

But I agree, a PM Corbyn would have been far from ideal in this situation. He was at best a useful idiot for Russia.

That's why I said repeatedly in both 2017 and 2019 that we had a horrendous choice. A party led by at best a naive fool on Russia. Or a party fully bought out by Russia and prepared to ignore direct Russian meddling in our elections.

Here's hoping we never have such an awful choice again.

[Branton Red]

Billy

I agree with you that a Labour government would still have sent arms to Ukraine, perhaps against Corbyn's personal wishes, for exactly the reason you give.

Read my post again - I'm arguing that the weaponry wouldn't have been sent as swiftly due to Corbyn's pacifism (he'd have dragged his feet and not led from the front on this) and the UK would not have had the capability to send as much military aid as defence spending from 2017 under Corbyn's Labour would inevitably been much lower due to his ideals.

[River Don]

It's all hypothetical, what if he'd won stuff. We can see Corbyn usually has a hard time ever condemning Russian aggression, whilst finding it very easy to blame everything on the west and the States in particular.

[Bristol Red Rover]

I just find it difficult to believe that someone with Corbyns long experience in politics is really that naive.

You need to factor in a very germane point. He's really not very intelligent.

Today's article where he distinguishes between "tactical" and "nuclear" weapons, <b>while appearing to have no comprehension of how tactical nuclear weapons would be used </b>is one example of how intellectually limited he is.

Not sure where you get that?

Read the article.

Tactical nuclear weapons are battlefield weapons. With (compared to strategic weapons) generally limited yield. Because you don't want to wipe out your own forces while nuking the opposition.

It is beyond any sensibly credible scenario for a single battlefield tactical warhead to kill hundreds of thousands of people. Because armed forces are rarely if ever concentrated in such vast numbers that a single tactical warhead could eliminate that number.

It's (yet) another example of Corbyn basically displaying his lack of knowledge.

I did read the article. Seems you don't have a grasp of tactical v strategic nukes. They are in many cases interchangable, just used in different contexts. And then there are smaller weapons that can still end up being used near ;arge populatoins - ie as evidenced in the Ukraine where both sides, particularly the Ukraines, are using human shields.

[Bristol Red Rover]

.....One thing Johnson deserves credit for is the high level and swiftness of military aid being sent to Ukraine. Hence the praise he received from President Zelensky - a man not afraid to criticise world leaders in strong terms.....

Johnson has been creaming for some military action, of course he'd pile in with arms, and manpower if he could. This is due to his personality, his championing of the corporate friends and backers, and of course his desperate plight needing a distraction. Hardly the safest hands in a crisis.

Zelensky is desperate to save his skin having been dropped in pace by the west due to the coup. He only has hardline statements including inviting in NATO to create WW3. He's bananas not fearless, there is a difference.

[wilts rover]

Corbyn would have persued a different path to May/Johnson if he had won in 2017 or 2019 both towards Putin's money in the UK and our relationship with the EU. No-one knows where that would have led.

The path May and Johnson followed led to Russia invading Ukraine because under them and their policies Russia invaded Ukraine. Johnson has done well since the invasion but what, if any, part his policies towards Russia (remember the suppressed Russia Report) had in Putin believing he could attempt it, only the history books and the files in the Kremlin will tell us.

Those are the facts anything else is hypothetical.

[BillyStubbsTears]

I just find it difficult to believe that someone with Corbyns long experience in politics is really that naive.

You need to factor in a very germane point. He's really not very intelligent.

Today's article where he distinguishes between "tactical" and "nuclear" weapons, <b>while appearing to have no comprehension of how tactical nuclear weapons would be used </b>is one example of how intellectually limited he is.

Not sure where you get that?

Read the article.

Tactical nuclear weapons are battlefield weapons. With (compared to strategic weapons) generally limited yield. Because you don't want to wipe out your own forces while nuking the opposition.

It is beyond any sensibly credible scenario for a single battlefield tactical warhead to kill hundreds of thousands of people. Because armed forces are rarely if ever concentrated in such vast numbers that a single tactical warhead could eliminate that number.

It's (yet) another example of Corbyn basically displaying his lack of knowledge.

I did read the article. Seems you don't have a grasp of tactical v strategic nukes. They are in many cases interchangable, just used in different contexts. And then there are smaller weapons that can still end up being used near ;arge populatoins - ie as evidenced in the Ukraine where both sides, particularly the Ukraines, are using human shields.

I know very well the difference between tactical and strategic nuclear policy thanks BRR. A nuclear weapon of any size used against a densely populated area away from the battlefield is a strategic one.

You'd be better off lecturing Corbyn. He seems to think the division is between "tactical" and and "nuclear" weapons. 

[BillyStubbsTears]

Another gem of a line from that Corbyn article that I'd missed.

"A huge question must be asked of the UN in the Ukraine conflict. When Russia brutally and illegally invaded Ukraine, that was the moment for the UN to send its secretary-general to Moscow to demand a ceasefire."

Even for someone as intellectually limited as Corbyn, this is a humdinger.  The SG of the UN has no authority to demand anything of anyone unless authorised to do so by the Security Council. Russia has a veto  over any Security Council decision.

This reminds me of when Putin oversaw Assad's use of poison gas in Syria. Corbyn screamed that the proper process was for the UN to send its own investigation team to establish the facts. He said this immediately after Russia had vetoed such an investigation.

I DO think he's to thick to understand the consequences of what he says. But there's a fair argument to be made that he can't actually be that stupid, and he's deliberately acting as a Russian asset.

[Bristol Red Rover]

I know very well the difference between tactical and strategic nuclear policy thanks BRR. A nuclear weapon of any size used against a densely populated area away from the battlefield is a strategic one.

You'd be better off lecturing Corbyn. He seems to think the division is between "tactical" and and "nuclear" weapons. 

He was talking tactical battlefield nukes and the big nuke missiles, A tactical one can  wipe out hundreds of thousands as he said, and as I said, with military using human shields this is not unlikely.

[Bristol Red Rover]

...This reminds me of when Putin oversaw Assad's use of poison gas in Syria. Corbyn screamed that the proper process was for the UN to send its own investigation team to establish the facts. He said this immediately after Russia had vetoed such an investigation....

The poison gas being Assad and not a White Helmet set up is questionable at best. Having the US judging this is of course lunacy given their support of the White Helmets/Jihadis. Theoretically a UN investigation stands the best chance of getting some clarity. But yes, as it stands then Russia would need to agree to that and maybe they don't trust that institution to investigate that, and maybe that is for a valid reason, maybe not.

[Bristol Red Rover]

What is relevant to investigate thoroughly are the US/Ukrainian biolabs. I suspect the US would veto that.

[BillyStubbsTears]

You may well interpret that as being what he meant. But it isn't what he wrote. He said one "tactical" weapon WOULD kill hundreds of thousands. And one "nuclear" bomb would kill several million. No context. No separation of "tactical" and "strategic". It's his usual slapdash of half thought out ideas that he writes for a Morning Star readership that will lap it up uncritically.

I shouldn't need to say this but of course I'm not minimising the horror of nuclear weapons. The point is that this is typical of Corbyn's quality of thought and writing.

The idiotic comments about the supposed failing of the UN, and the idea that Putin would just say "yeah let's talk" in any way that wouldn't mean the destruction of Ukraine as an independent nation are classic additional examples. As is the total disregard of what would have happened had Ukraine not been armed to repulse the invasion. Occupation of Kiev. Installation of a puppet Govt. Jumping to the Kremlin's commands.