Sentiments are all good but how anyone expects diplomacy and anti-war rhetoric to stand against a Russian invasion I have no idea. Dialogue only works when both sides are willing to cooperate and it’s clear that Putin is not.
[deleted]
>He said: “It’s very easy for politicians in any Parliament in the West to get up and say ‘go to war’. It’s always easy to vote for somebody else’s children to go to war and die.”
What reality is Corbyn living in? Does he genuinely believe this is what is happening?
I say this all honesty.
Shut your damned mouth you no good traitor.
Blames the West yet again and then says all wars end in a diplomatic or political situation.
Like the Second World War did you absolute fucking clown?
He needs to be expelled from Labour today never mind removing the whip or suspension. Gone now.
How is this man suggesting that it in “the West’s” ability to stop the fighting right now?
Go back to the Minsk agreement? Fucking how? Putin doesn’t want to, mate.
There are some people who would class Corbyn as , what Lenin used to call, a useful idiot. If you think this then, please, get lost and think again.
He’s clearly a useless idiot.
He’s saying it as if Ukraine and Russia mutually decided to start fighting
The title says Corbyn hits out at Russia but actually doesn’t at all. All the fault of the West. No surprise- he is still in his masters pay.
>He said: “An attack on Russia isn’t gonna bring about peace, it’s gonna bring about a worse situation and another war and more hatred and more of the world’s precious resources taken up in manufacturing arms and weapons of mass destruction rather than dealing with the environmental crisis that everyone faces.
I’m actually sympathetic to a degree with Corbyn tbh…
What we are doing right now is, in effect, “cancelling” Russia (only for legitimate reasons that I agree with). We are banning their football teams, their banks, their ships, their millionaires etc.
But what I’ve been thinking the past few days is whether this is strictly a good thing or not… And I frame it in relation to how we, for example, dealt with the cold war in the past. Were politicians like this back in the day (we obviously didn’t have internet so maybe less information knocking around)? Or did we basically avoid war by making some concessions on occasion?
It sucks, and as I said I’m actually in agreement with the “cancelling” of Russia here, but I can’t help but wonder if the path we have chosen is much more destructive than it is helpful. Sort of like prodding a bear until it freaks out and mauls you.
Oh, so they should stop fighting to end the fighting? Man’s a genius.
This sums Corbyn up pretty well: it’s not that he’s wrong, it’s just totally completely impractical and relies on there never being any arseholes anywhere in the world.
I’m not even sure what point he is trying to make, let alone what strategy he might be pointing at – and even less any concrete actions. ‘War is bad’? Yeah, we know that. So that’s not exactly fucking news.
FTA:
>Corbyn said no solution to the current conflict involves a war with Russia, but getting Kremlin’s forces out of Ukraine.
>He said: “An attack on Russia isn’t gonna bring about peace, it’s gonna bring about a worse situation and another war and more hatred and more of the world’s precious resources taken up in manufacturing arms and weapons of mass destruction rather than dealing with the environmental crisis that everyone faces.
The solution is simple: Ukraine should stop attacking/invading Russia
He’s a nice enough bloke, and I do think his heart is in the right place, but this seems like words that ultimately amount to nothing of use.
I’m no historian, so happy to be proven wrong, but surely history has proven time and time again that nice words and peaceful rhetoric just don’t cut it with violent psychopaths. They need to be exterminated, preferably literally, or if not then via other means (extreme sanctions, overthrown from the inside etc).
He claims all he is saying is that he doesn’t like the war in Ukraine… then claims that he’s ‘dissenting’ from popular opinion.
The guy is an utter moron.
Corbyns out of touch, they tried to revive the Minsk agreement but Russia wasn’t interested.
I’ve gone from quite liking Corbyn, to mild disappointment, to dislike, to now abject and total hatred.
The man is irrelevant. Why does anyone listen to him?
But I though Corbyn was a commie, a red? So how did we end up with a Russian puppet running our country when we didn’t vote for Corbyn, I don’t understand…..
A cardigan wearing, jam-making pussy. A shell of a man.
His signature is still on the letter that 95% blames NATO for Russia’s actions.
> He said: “It’s very easy for politicians in any Parliament in the West to get up and say ‘go to war’. It’s always easy to vote for somebody else’s children to go to war and die.”
>He said every war ends with a political solution and dialogue, and urged political leaders to move from fighting to talking.
The First World War ended with “Here’s the peace treaty. Sign it or else.”
The Second World War in Europe ended with Eisenhower saying “Here’s the unconditional surrender. Sign it or we’ll lose our lines to surrendering troops, so you’re have to surrender to The Red Army. Who don’t like you very much for obvious reasons.”
Then, after a couple of weeks of [a rump government](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flensburg_Government), the next bit of dialogue was “right, we’re arresting you for war crimes” followed by quite a few of them being tired and executed.
The article contains little. It does link to the video that is its source. That video is . . ah, not linkable here, because it is on Facebook.
Even the video contains little elaboration of Corbyn’s view about what the West should do about the Russian war, and little substantial defence of that view. Or so it seems to me. Indeed / that said: Corbyn seems in the video to be arguing against the UK attacking Russia. Yet, no major politician is proposing that the UK attack Russia. Strange.
I am disappointed in Corbyn; it seems that one of the points long-made by his detractors, namely that were he to have been Prime Minister he would be a capitulator in foreign policy, is correct.
> Corbyn hit out at the West and said they should “go back to the original agreements” on Ukraine made in Budapest and Minsk, which he said were “designed to bring along a long-term ceasefire”.
It was the bloody Russians who broke the Minsk agreements you fool.
> “I get accused of being pro-Russian and pro-Putin, I’m pro-human rights, that’s my position.”
And yet he managed to do an entire article about a warzone *without ever once* blaming the people doing the murdering.
Every day that passes makes me more certain he should never have been anywhere near #10.
And I say that as someone who loathes Boris and the corrupt Tories.
25 comments
Sentiments are all good but how anyone expects diplomacy and anti-war rhetoric to stand against a Russian invasion I have no idea. Dialogue only works when both sides are willing to cooperate and it’s clear that Putin is not.
[deleted]
>He said: “It’s very easy for politicians in any Parliament in the West to get up and say ‘go to war’. It’s always easy to vote for somebody else’s children to go to war and die.”
What reality is Corbyn living in? Does he genuinely believe this is what is happening?
I say this all honesty.
Shut your damned mouth you no good traitor.
Blames the West yet again and then says all wars end in a diplomatic or political situation.
Like the Second World War did you absolute fucking clown?
He needs to be expelled from Labour today never mind removing the whip or suspension. Gone now.
How is this man suggesting that it in “the West’s” ability to stop the fighting right now?
Go back to the Minsk agreement? Fucking how? Putin doesn’t want to, mate.
There are some people who would class Corbyn as , what Lenin used to call, a useful idiot. If you think this then, please, get lost and think again.
He’s clearly a useless idiot.
He’s saying it as if Ukraine and Russia mutually decided to start fighting
The title says Corbyn hits out at Russia but actually doesn’t at all. All the fault of the West. No surprise- he is still in his masters pay.
>He said: “An attack on Russia isn’t gonna bring about peace, it’s gonna bring about a worse situation and another war and more hatred and more of the world’s precious resources taken up in manufacturing arms and weapons of mass destruction rather than dealing with the environmental crisis that everyone faces.
I’m actually sympathetic to a degree with Corbyn tbh…
What we are doing right now is, in effect, “cancelling” Russia (only for legitimate reasons that I agree with). We are banning their football teams, their banks, their ships, their millionaires etc.
But what I’ve been thinking the past few days is whether this is strictly a good thing or not… And I frame it in relation to how we, for example, dealt with the cold war in the past. Were politicians like this back in the day (we obviously didn’t have internet so maybe less information knocking around)? Or did we basically avoid war by making some concessions on occasion?
It sucks, and as I said I’m actually in agreement with the “cancelling” of Russia here, but I can’t help but wonder if the path we have chosen is much more destructive than it is helpful. Sort of like prodding a bear until it freaks out and mauls you.
Oh, so they should stop fighting to end the fighting? Man’s a genius.
This sums Corbyn up pretty well: it’s not that he’s wrong, it’s just totally completely impractical and relies on there never being any arseholes anywhere in the world.
I’m not even sure what point he is trying to make, let alone what strategy he might be pointing at – and even less any concrete actions. ‘War is bad’? Yeah, we know that. So that’s not exactly fucking news.
FTA:
>Corbyn said no solution to the current conflict involves a war with Russia, but getting Kremlin’s forces out of Ukraine.
>He said: “An attack on Russia isn’t gonna bring about peace, it’s gonna bring about a worse situation and another war and more hatred and more of the world’s precious resources taken up in manufacturing arms and weapons of mass destruction rather than dealing with the environmental crisis that everyone faces.
The solution is simple: Ukraine should stop attacking/invading Russia
He’s a nice enough bloke, and I do think his heart is in the right place, but this seems like words that ultimately amount to nothing of use.
I’m no historian, so happy to be proven wrong, but surely history has proven time and time again that nice words and peaceful rhetoric just don’t cut it with violent psychopaths. They need to be exterminated, preferably literally, or if not then via other means (extreme sanctions, overthrown from the inside etc).
He claims all he is saying is that he doesn’t like the war in Ukraine… then claims that he’s ‘dissenting’ from popular opinion.
The guy is an utter moron.
Corbyns out of touch, they tried to revive the Minsk agreement but Russia wasn’t interested.
I’ve gone from quite liking Corbyn, to mild disappointment, to dislike, to now abject and total hatred.
The man is irrelevant. Why does anyone listen to him?
But I though Corbyn was a commie, a red? So how did we end up with a Russian puppet running our country when we didn’t vote for Corbyn, I don’t understand…..
A cardigan wearing, jam-making pussy. A shell of a man.
His signature is still on the letter that 95% blames NATO for Russia’s actions.
> He said: “It’s very easy for politicians in any Parliament in the West to get up and say ‘go to war’. It’s always easy to vote for somebody else’s children to go to war and die.”
What the fuck Corbyn?
He really is a complete and utter moron.
https://media2.giphy.com/media/PYEGoZXABBMuk/giphy.gif
>He said every war ends with a political solution and dialogue, and urged political leaders to move from fighting to talking.
The First World War ended with “Here’s the peace treaty. Sign it or else.”
The Second World War in Europe ended with Eisenhower saying “Here’s the unconditional surrender. Sign it or we’ll lose our lines to surrendering troops, so you’re have to surrender to The Red Army. Who don’t like you very much for obvious reasons.”
Then, after a couple of weeks of [a rump government](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flensburg_Government), the next bit of dialogue was “right, we’re arresting you for war crimes” followed by quite a few of them being tired and executed.
The article contains little. It does link to the video that is its source. That video is . . ah, not linkable here, because it is on Facebook.
Even the video contains little elaboration of Corbyn’s view about what the West should do about the Russian war, and little substantial defence of that view. Or so it seems to me. Indeed / that said: Corbyn seems in the video to be arguing against the UK attacking Russia. Yet, no major politician is proposing that the UK attack Russia. Strange.
I am disappointed in Corbyn; it seems that one of the points long-made by his detractors, namely that were he to have been Prime Minister he would be a capitulator in foreign policy, is correct.
> Corbyn hit out at the West and said they should “go back to the original agreements” on Ukraine made in Budapest and Minsk, which he said were “designed to bring along a long-term ceasefire”.
It was the bloody Russians who broke the Minsk agreements you fool.
> “I get accused of being pro-Russian and pro-Putin, I’m pro-human rights, that’s my position.”
And yet he managed to do an entire article about a warzone *without ever once* blaming the people doing the murdering.
Every day that passes makes me more certain he should never have been anywhere near #10.
And I say that as someone who loathes Boris and the corrupt Tories.