259
Jeremy Corbyn re-elected as independent in Islington North after expulsion from Labour
(www.theguardian.com)
this post was submitted on 05 Jul 2024
259 points (99.2% liked)
World News
38977 readers
2840 users here now
A community for discussing events around the World
Rules:
-
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
-
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
-
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
-
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
-
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
-
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
-
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
-
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
Lemmy World Partners
News [email protected]
Politics [email protected]
World Politics [email protected]
Recommendations
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/
- Consider including the article’s mediabiasfactcheck.com/ link
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Good for him. I've never seen Jeremy Corbyn be anything other than decent and honest, and frank about his policies and why they are needed, even as he was treated terribly by the media. Hopefully he can be an effective voice in Parliament during this Labour government.
I'm not from the UK but when I last watched something with Corbyn he was shilling for Russia, how is that not an absolute deal-breaker?
Edit: I was completely right and got downvoted for it. He wanted to stop arms to Ukraine. He sucks and can go and die in a volcano. No left-wing politicians in Poland are like this when it comes to Russia, why are western lefties so brain-dead and conciliatory to this horrible regime? Telling Ukraine to roll over and give up its land. Fuck you tankie POS.
The UK 'Reform' party are Russia shills and racists and they got 15% of the vote. I think a lot of the UK's people are misguided by the media.
Pretty well established that Russian misinformation had a part to play in Brexit, yes?
Russian and American, though in the latter it was very wealthy individuals funding Leave rather than the State.
The money for Cambridge Analytica came from the US, not Russia.
Well that’s fucking disgusting
The reason he fell from favor was a coordinated and relentless media attack and smear campaign because he was beholden to Old Labour values, and not New Labour's brand of limp dick neoliberalism.
That may sound overly simplistic and vulgar, but it's accurate, and if anything, less vulgar than the smear campaign that was used to gun down his political career as party leader.
I don't care. I watched an interview with him and his foreign policy takes were so horrid he would be laughed out of the room if he said something like this in my country. Guess some people in the UK don't really give a crap about Ukraine.
Certain parts of the media/political establishment certainly tried to paint him that way, but really he was only guilty of not being hawkish enough on Russia.
He was always in favor of a ceasefire and a diplomatic solution to the Ukraine conflict instead of perpetuating an endless war.
So... Touting the Russian narrative.
Anyone who's been following the Ukraine conflict from the start knows this is a Russian talking-point.
And who says the war will be endless? That's another Russian talking-point intending to sow defeatism.
What will Corbyn say and do when Ukraine commits to a ceasefire, loses 17% of its landmass, allows Russia to regroup its forces, and strikes again?
He's arguing that the West should have been tougher on Putin sooner and the UK should have admitted more Ukrainian refugees. I don't see any clear sign of Russian influence here.
really parroting Putin's talking points there
Cute but it's the "...but" following that softening blow, obviously.
So why is Corbyn speaking on behalf of the victim and telling them what they should be okay with giving up?
Can you point to the quote where he says Ukraine should give up and what they should give up to make peace?
I'll do one better:
Corbyn called for withdrawal of aid for Ukraine by the West.
Corbyn expects Ukraine to cede Crimea - 17% of Ukrainian Sovereign territory
the first one
He is critical of supplying arms and not looking for a peaceful solution, but that is not calling for a withdrawal of Aid despite the Guardian's framing.
The second is from 2014 in which he says:
Nowhere in that second article does he say Ukraine should cede Crimea, he just gives a factual account of if being transferred from the Russian to the Ukrainian SSR. I'm really not seeing any simping for Putin here.
To be clear, I dont agree with Corbyn's stance personally, I believe Russia is an expansionist imperialist power than needs to be stopped by force now that it has overstepped the line and launched a military invasion of a neighbor. But having a different view (as he does does that more effort should be put onto brokering a peace deal) not equate to being a patsy for a dictator.
Translation for #1: He's telling them to give up because resistance is futile. Every conflict in history could find a peaceful solution if the oppressed simply gave up at the first sign of trouble with the oppressors. Clearly, that tends to be a losing strategy.
Translation for #2:
Obviously, without question, establishing a finders-keepers narrative.
I'm sorry but I do not buy either argument. It does not detract from the notion that Corbyn is trying to tell the defender, the victim, how they should be willing to fight back and how much they should be willing to lose.
I just want to know if Corbyn would volunteer for the front-line should Russia simply regroup following a ceasefire and attack again.
Ugh, embarrassing take. Do you think somebody talking about ending a war is betraying…yeah, what again?
Ending a war by... Giving up? Conceding land? Letting the aggressor regroup and attack again?
... What?
All I want to know is if Corbyn is so confident in his ceasefire plan that he'd put himself on the Frontline if he's wrong. If he's right, then he has nothing to fear... Riiiighhht?
this war has been going on for 10 years now. do you think more people should die for…again, what?
How about a peace treaty with western countries giving real guarantees to Ukraine instead of trying to weaken Russia by proxy, aka the Ukrainian population, providing lacklustre military support.
What does duration have to do with anything? Why are you speaking on behalf of Ukrainians who are actually the ones defending their families and doing the fighting and who know what Putin is like from personal experience?
Real guarantees of protection like a pathway to NATO? Yeah, Russia kind of interrupted that my guy.
I say again: All I want to know is if Corbyn is so confident in his ceasefire plan that he'd put himself on the Frontline if he's wrong. If he's right, then he has nothing to fear... Riiiighhht?
The Russia/Ukraine conflict is a lot more complex than people in the West generally think.
You won't hear this often in mainstream media but NATO expansionism and the involvement of neo-nazi, far right paramilitary groups in the Maidan revolution in Ukraine, along with US State Department involvement, were legitimate grievances for Russia. (There's a great interview with a Ukrainian sociologist here that I think explains things in a fairly even handed way).
Russia was wrong to invade Ukraine, no question, but in the beginning there was a potential diplomatic resolution on the table if the US and NATO were willing to back off Ukraine. Support for joining NATO was always mixed in Ukraine anyway - Before the war, less than half of Ukrainians wanted it.
Russia's resources are vast and they are supported by China. Ukraine is backed by the deep pockets of NATO. Over half a million troops on both sides have been killed (edit: or wounded). A recent UN report said:
and stated that over 30,000 civilians have already died. A diplomatic solution three years ago could have possibly prevented all that.
Whew, lots of half-truths and misinformation to unpack here, but I take it the gishgallop is the intent. Perhaps you should consider a ceasefire now because this argument will never end and you will slowly hemorrhage down-votes.
For starters, since you distinguish yourself from "people in the West," I'm curious from where you reside? People from the West don't normally say, "People in the west."
NATO is primarily a defensive organization with a voluntary membership. Its bolstering is a direct reflection of the outside aggressive risks. In fact, prior to Putin's invasion NATO was largely collecting dust. To be clear, Russia could just as easily reinstitute the Warsaw Pact -- but the problem is nobody wants to join because there is no legitimate risk of NATO suddenly attacking a sovereign peaceful and stable nation. "nAtO EXpAnSioNism" is therefore utterly irrelevant and in fact, Russia is invoking a self-fulfilling prophecy. (Jn before pointing to fringe outlier incidents that are contextually much more complicated, or events where Russia could've vetoed but permitted on the UNSC).
As for far right neo-nazi groups, pro-tip: Azov doesn't account for even 1% of the total UAF. Talk about pointing to outliers. But I'm sure Zelenskyy -- who is Jewish and whose ancestors were in the Holocaust -- is really neo-nazi.... Just stop and think about it for a second :)
Let's not forget that Putin has since backpedaled on the Budest Memorandum and like Hitler invading Poland, invaded a sovereign nation under the false pretenses of protecting ethnic groups. How awfully convenient.
Thus far you are drinking the Russia Vodka. I encourage you to stop being so gullibly duped.
Incorrect. What Putin actually stated was that so long as Ukraine didn't join NATO, then he wouldn't attack. Ukraine pledged to not join NATO, and yet Putin attacked them anyway. But you know, it sure is funny how all those nations under the NATO banner HAVEN'T been attacked by Russia. It's almost like... That's kind of the... Point of NATO? Golly!
Russia is using second-hand ammunitions from North Korea that are blowing up in the faces of Russian troops. Russia is seeking help from 2-bit nations like Iran, and sure, some help from China. But China's economy is wholly dependent on its economic relations with USA, and so will not overextend.
Russia itself has an economy smaller than California. Aid will continue to Ukraine and Ukraine can easily out-pace Russia. After all, the smaller Soviet-Afghan War brought down a stronger USSR.
"No End in Sight" doesn't mean endless war. People enter tunnels for which they cannot see the end; but that doesn't mean it's endless...
So I repeat what was dodged; What will Corbyn say and do when Ukraine commits to a ceasefire, loses 17% of its landmass, allows Russia to regroup its forces, and strikes again?
I took the time to explain a nuanced alternative viewpoint and support it with reliable sources. It's pretty unfair to just dismiss it as a gish gallop or misinformation.
I don't have time to sit down and fully respond to your points now, but hopefully I'll have time later today.
I do appreciate sources, but you should know better by now that the majority of these points have been thoroughly debunked.
Instead of meandering on this wild goose-chase, why don't you just respond with the two most relevant things:
(1) You said yourself, "Russia was wrong to invade Ukraine, no question, but--"
NO BUTS. That's IT. Russia is IN THE WRONG.
(2) How do you ensure a tyrant doesn't regroup under a ceasefire and strike again after he gained a prize? In what realm do you believe dictators just suddenly stop without being smacked down? Did Hitler stop after he got Poland?
No argument from me. I wasn't condoning the Russian invasion so much as explaining what Russia's grievances were.
It was not Putin's intention to stay in Ukraine for long and the war has proven to be very costly. What he really wanted was to show the world that he would stand up to what he saw as the bullying of NATO, the EU, and the US.
A diplomatic solution that would have given Putin a chance to save face while also ensuring a ceasefire would have likely been enough for him, since he knew that Russia didn't have the military strength to beat NATO and Euro forces in an outright ground war. This, incidentally, is why I don't buy the direct comparison to Hitler, who actually had both the will and the military / economic might to take over Europe.
As to the very reasonable question of how: One suggestion I remember liking the sound of was the idea to establish a de-militarized zone along the Russian-Ukrainian border in the contested Donetsk-Luhansk region under the joint supervision of Kiyv, Moscow and the European Union.
Either way, I'm not saying it would have definitely worked out, but it seemed to me that not enough effort was given to trying to find a relatively peaceful alternative to a war that was always going to last years and costs tens of thousands of lives.
Thanks for the response. As a hypothetical: If we could go back in time, was there ever a point you believe the world or specific nations should've reached out to Hitler to negotiate a ceasefire and to let him have whatever piece of land he gained at that point in time? What are the long-term consequences of permitting such blitzes for territorial control only to be slapped on the wrist and permitting said tyrant to remain in power?
The problem with peace is that it's not without precedent; and that precedent is to say, "the bully gets rewarded." Ultimately, isn't it the victim who has every right to decide how much they're willing to bleed to fight back against the bully? Hence why every voice from NATO has been, "it's up to Ukraine to decide for how long they wish to continue this war."
At this point I don't believe Ukraine is desperate enough to take that bargain. I think they know the wind is in their sails. I also think both sides are holding their breath and long-term decision-making based on the outcome of the US Presidential election. If things somehow went very south for Ukraine and they were at risk of losing significantly more territory (not a +1% gain) and Trump gets reelected and the alliance fragments, then perhaps they'd try to negotiate such a DMZ on the condition that they also get into NATO to ensure Russia will not re-arm and attack refreshed.
Shouldn't it be obvious that at that point, Russian high command would see no point in negotiating much of anything? The best time for Ukraine to negotiate and sue for peace is when they have the initiative due to some technical/strategic innovation that leads to short term battlefield success (at least until the Russians adapt). The gains following the introduction of HIMARS back in 22 are one example. But himars is a child's toy compared to real military innovation, which was already done in 1945 and we've been living in low key terror ever since.
But besides jokes about letting Ukraine have nukes again, I cannot see them ever winning a conventional war of attrition. They simply lack the manpower.
True but it's also true that if Ukraine high command believes they have good odds at pushing Russia back and crippling Russia akin to what Afghans did to the USSR, then they will maintain the fight.
It seems self-evident that the victim shall decide what cards they want to play in this moment, and they're resolved to fight. That's nobody's decision but theirs.
I'll add that Ukraine has clearly shown what Intelligence and Technological Superiority can do to offset manpower advantages.
One immediate difference is that the mountains of Afghanistan are very ill suited to fighting a conventional artillery centered war, unlike the steppes of eastern Ukraine.
Also I disagree with the second paragraph. As our (inshallah) future president says, "you exist in the context of all in which you live and what came before you". Ukraine's decision making is dependent on the internal politics of the US and to a lesser extent the EU. I kinda doubt the EU by itself could handle supplying Ukraine if America elects trump and tells them to take a hike). Shit, we are seeing europe turning to fascism before our very eyes now that they're experiencing real inflation since the Russians cut off their cheap gas.
I am very worried about how that will affect Ukraine aid as europe turns inward and starts focusing on rooting out the evil immigrants who are apparently to blame for all their problems.
Despite all that, as a Russian and a socialist I do hope Ukraine isn't conquered and the Russian pseudo monarchy has a revolution and is replaced with something more democratic. I just don't see a clear path to there with how things are going in the world.
Sorry for the delay in response. That you are Russian yourself, I figured it worth giving pause to what you say and myself tie to process and sufficiently respond, as it's not every day an American gets to speak to a Russian in these times.
I completely agree that a huge part of Ukraine's future is dependent upon continued aid from the West. But I think it's self-evident that Zelenskyy feels -- at least for the moment -- that there are now long-standing agreements both with Europe and the USA that can ensure something of long-term planning. Of course, we are ALL -- Europe, America, Zelenskyy, Putin, the world -- holding our collective breaths to see what the outcome of the US Presidential election will be. Thus far it's a mixed max on the world stage in terms of leadership. I hope that Germany maintains some semblance of sanity; and it looks like the UK certainly will. The big question is whether the USA can. I think that will determine major decision-making for both Zelenskyy and Putin.
As a Russian, what do you see as the most probable course for change in Russia? I understand Putin is drafting from ethnic minority groups far away from St. Petersburg and Moscow to ensure the upper middle-class isn't impacted too greatly... But do you think there will come a time he does? What is the tipping-point?
Honestly, I'm not full on Russian. I haven't lived there since 2022 and when I did I was not meaningfully politically active, nor do I personally know many people who are. All I really have is the language and a view of Russian social media.
However Russia still has free and open Internet access, with the notable exception of Facebook Instagram and Twitter (and lots of people evade those blocks as well- laws on firewall evasion are harsh but enforced pretty selectively, like for content piracy in the West).
Unfortunately many politically opinionated Russians seem to have very right wing politics only occasionally dressed up in "liberal" language (hey, kinda like America). For example, a prevailing opinion among "liberal" opposition is that Gaza should be annexed and/or turned into a parking lot by Israel (possibly because Putin himself has expressed lukewarm verbal support for Palestine). And also like America this is a generational thing with the youth seeming to be more left wing/anticapitalist, but that position is locked out of politics. But even on e.g. reddit you still have plenty of people on /r/askarussian. Same for YouTube and telegram. Those are all proper social media with sizeable Russian populations and relatively lax censorship. I'm sure there are some on the fediverse too, but they can't get too uppity lest they invoke the wrath of roskomnadzor (fedi is more vulnerable to selective censorship than centralized networks like yt/tg). I'll compile and link to a list of English speaking public figures I like in a followup comment.
As for the future changes, it's very hard to predict, but I think the most probable change in Russia will start after something happens to the physical health of one very paranoid man. The war is so clearly against the objective interests of a very large portion of Russia's ruling class that I'm amazed it was allowed to happen at all, but so far it seems like an effective method/excuse to tighten the screws on internal opposition. Seems like that's really the only thing the regime excels at and how they stay in power. The tipping point (as it was all the other times) is a physically unbearable economic crisis, to the point people start experiencing real hardship such as famine. At that point people start looking around for alternative answers to their political questions.
Again, while there are definitely some parallels between Putin's annexation of Crimea and Hitler's of the Sudetenland, there are also plenty of differences that make a direct comparison complicated and not altogether helpful. Hitler's goals were obviously more wide-ranging, proactive, and expansionist, whereas Putin's were much more localized and reactive to a perceived threat. A diplomatic solution didn't work with Hitler but it might have for Putin.
I understand and sympathize with Ukrainians who want to fight to the bitter end, but how much longer will that take? How many more lives will be lost? Is a military victory even likely?
With Ukraine recently being given access to long-range US missiles with which they have conducted strikes within Russian territory, the war seems to be gradually escalating with neither side willing to back down.
Sorry, but Russia has no legimitate grievances on anything that takes place inside of Ukraine.
Ditto on the NATO expansion and all that "argumentation" line you're parroting: Russia and Ukraine are different soverign nations and none of them has any right to force the other to do anything, which does mean that it's not up to Russia and never was the way Ukraine runs their government including which alliances they join, same as, for example, it was never up to the United States how Iraq was run (and why the American invasion of Iraq was just as immoral as Russia's invasion of Ukraine and the "Saddam was a murderous dictator" is a totally bollocks excuse).
Up and until the point one of those nations actually harms the other, none of the has any right to do anything to the other and as it so happens, it was Russia that harmed Ukraine by invading it, so the only nation there with any legitimate grievances is Ukraine.
In fact since the Russian invasion and occupation of Crimea, Ukraine and Ukraine alone is the one nation of the two with legitimate grivances against the other.
Your whole "argument" is predicated on the notion that Russia as the large neighbouring nation has a say in the affairs of its smaller neighbouring nation Ukraine, which is just a nakedly imperialist view of the relations between states straight out of XIX century political thinking.
Dont sovereign countries have the right to join alliances? Would you support the US invading Mexico if Mexico joins a chinese led alliance? Would you support a cuban invasion during the Cold War for similar reasons?
Putin is also supported by neo-nazis. The premiere russian military organization in Ukraine was named Wagner. What is your argument here? Shitty people follow shitty ideologies. You fight with the people you have, not with the people you want to have. This is problematic but it isnt as if Ukraine was left with many alternatives.
Ukraine is not that different to Russia in the end. Both have insane corruption issues and both have neonazis. Neither is an excuse to invade anyone or to not help the victims of an invasion.
Russia has the gdp of Italy. Russia is big in terms of geographical area but not really in terms of economy. If you think Russia has vast resources, wait till you find out about the resources the West has. It's all about political will.
And China doesnt really support Russia, at least not in terms of military help, at least not for the moment. China supports Russia as much as Turkey supports it, ie it facilitates trade and takes advantage of Russia's lack of alternatives when it comes to trading.
Casualties are not dead. It is dead+injured.
What diplomatic solution would have prevented Russia from invading? Should have the West pre-emptively sanctioned and cut off Russia from the world economy in order to prevent the invasion? Should the West have said "ok, we wont let Ukraine join NATO and EU"? Should countries not have the right to choose what they do?
Even during the early stages of invasion, Macron legitimately thought he could stop it, he still wanted to keep the bridge with Russia alive. Go back and read some articles. Now Macron is one of the most anti-Russia politicians in the world? Why? Because he eventually realized that there was no alternative and that Putin was bullshitting him the whole time.
In Russia's mind there are 2 types of countries, sovereign countries where rules do not apply to (the US, China, Russia) and minor countries that are just following what their "master" country tells them. It is inconceivable to the russian mind that 2 countries could freely associate with each other. Hence the whole "NATO expansion" narrative. As if NATO tanks marched in and forced those countries to join it.
The exact opposite happened actually. Eastern Europe was so afraid even after the USSR collapse, that some of them blackmailed NATO to let them join. Poland literally threatened to get their own nukes if they werent allowed to join NATO.
Ask yourself, why would all eastern european countries want to join NATO? Your answer is the Ukraine invasion. They wanted to join because they didnt want to be like Ukraine is now.
Those are only a problem for Russia's ambitions to conquer Ukraine. I.e. a problem for Putin's ambitions, not Russians. NATO won't even step into Ukraine to save an ally let alone invade a nuclear power like Russia.
Putin could've maintained good relations with gas importers, spent all this massive military funding on economic and infrastructure investments, and everyone but Putin would be happier for it.
In the beginning, Russia pledged never to invade Ukraine in exchange for all of the nuclear weapons.
So invade your country, grab a few parts, then we have a ceasefire and a diplomatic solution where i keep the land that i already got. And then i repeat it. Is this a "pro-peace" stand? Or is it a "pro-conquering" stance, that enables this behaviour?
Would he have the same opinion about nazi Germany invading and conquering other countries? Maybe a peace for our time kind of deal?
See my comment here as a response.
That reply is pure Russia propaganda drivel.
It’s hit every made up Russian talking point “Oh it’s NATO expanding, we had to attack someone else because how dare they want to think about defending from us. Oh and they were all totally Nazis, now excuse us as we wipe out the Ukrainians as a peoples”
I explicitly said the Russian invasion was not justified
Propaganda is often a kernel of truth wrapped in a lie. That's true of US & EU propaganda as well.
No.
The best propaganda is that which is true.
That doesn’t mean all propaganda is true.
And you can “say” what you want, your actions show an attempt to justify it.
I replied there.
Meaning Ukraine should stop resisting its efforts to throw out the Russian invaders of their country. Literally parrotting Russian propaganda on the war.
See my comment here as a response.
Exactly what does he say that was "shilling for Russia"? Send us a link.