A community for discussing events around the World
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
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.
News !news@lemmy.world
Politics !politics@lemmy.world
World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/
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.
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?
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.
And who says the war will be endless? That's another Russian talking-point intending to sow defeatism.
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:
Russia’s full-scale armed attack on Ukraine, which is about to enter its third year with no end in sight, continues to cause serious and widespread human rights violations, destroying lives and livelihoods
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.
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.
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 BUTS. That's IT. Russia is IN THE WRONG.
No argument from me. I wasn't condoning the Russian invasion so much as explaining what Russia's grievances were.
How do you ensure a tyrant doesn't regroup under a ceasefire and strike again after he gained a prize?
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.
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.
You won’t hear this often in mainstream media but NATO expansionism
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?
the involvement of neo-nazi far right paramilitary groups in the Maidan revolution in Ukraine were legitimate grievances for Russia.
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’s resources are vast and they are supported by China. Ukraine is backed by the deep pockets of NATO.
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.
Over half a million troops on both sides have been killed
Casualties are not dead. It is dead+injured.
A diplomatic solution three years ago could have possibly prevented all that.
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.
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.
In the beginning, Russia pledged never to invade Ukraine in exchange for all of the nuclear weapons.
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.
Former U.K. Labour Leader Corbyn: Ukraine War Is 'Disgraceful' And Russia's 'Wrong At Every Level'
really parroting Putin's talking points there
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.
perpetuating endless war
Meaning Ukraine should stop resisting its efforts to throw out the Russian invaders of their country. Literally parrotting Russian propaganda on the war.
Exactly what does he say that was "shilling for Russia"? Send us a link.
Not surprising. He was sadly too divisive to be a widely-popular Labour leader, but afaik he’s well-liked by his actual constituents, and this backs that up.
If someone being consistent with Labour's values is too divisive to lead Labour, there can't be Labour at all. I disagree with some of his stances, but what this man suffered wasn't internal opposition, it was political assassination.
As an American looking in, Corbyn has always been the face of UK's Labour Party.
Why was he ousted? The article says something about an antisemitism statement, but surely that's not the whole of it.
They basically did something similar to what happened to Bernie with the DNC. they did a full court press antisemitism campaign against him, but like many of the charges of antisemitism in the US right now, it was largely based on criticism of Israeli policy AFAIK.
Edit: to clarify—they ousted him because labor was looking ascendant, and the more centrist and corporatist elements of labor could not stomach the idea of actually having a PM that wanted to do left wing things that aligned with the theoretical purpose of the labor party, so they took him out by getting enough articles published in the famously above-board uk media to force him from leadership.
Just to illustrate the nature of that campaign, at one point and in order to accuse Corbyn of being anti-semitic, they said that he had sat on a panel in a conference where one of the members of the same panel compared the actions of Israel to those of the Nazis, "hence" (by association) Corbyn was an anti-semite.
The thing is, said member of the panel who compared the actions of Israel to those of the Nazis was a Jewish Holocaust Survivor.
If such words made Corbyn an anti-semite by association then, having said such words, said panel member would even more so have to be an anti-semite.
In other words, the anti-Corbyn campaign was so rabid ragingly extremist and sleazy that they were accused a Jewish Holocaus Survivor of being an anti-semite in order to try to taint Corbyn by association.
PS: And, by the way, this very newspaper - The Guardian - was an active participant in that campaign and published this slander, amongst others.
Yup, this pretty much sums it up.
To add, the vast majority of the antisemitism complaints involved other Labour ministers liking and posting anti-Israel Tweets that were consider too extreme. These ranged from ones that "crossed the line" of criticism against Israeli policy and the Israel lobby in the UK (some of which you can read in the report on pages 27-30) to ones that allegedly blamed Jewish members of the Labour party for making false complaints, or even tried to dimish the Holocaust (although I can't find the exact details of those).
Either way, none of the complaints involved Corbyn himself but his reputation was tarnished and it made him an easy target for his opponents.
By "antisemitism" they mean not licking Israeli arse while they keep murdering Palestinians.
In 2017, under Corbyn, Labour got over 40% of the vote compared to about 34% yesterday. Even in 2019 under Corybyn, Labour got like 32%. The narrative in Britain might be that Corbyn was too divisive and Starmer is a unifier but the real issue is that the right wing was split this time in ways it wasn’t under Boris Johnson.
I mean, say what you want about Corbyn — lord knows the garbage UK media will — but his Labour Party did very well once and about average the next time. The main issue is that using a “first past the post” system in a country with more than 2 parties is silly and undemocratic.
FPTP is undemocratic, full stop. Doesn't matter how many parties.
He was sadly too divisive to be a widely-popular Labour leader
Bullshit. He was elected leader because people wanted to go back to the party's left wing roots.
The Blairite Neoliberal wing of the party didn't like that, so they ousted him with a smear campaign calling him "divisive" (read: agrees more with the broader population than with the neoliberal establishment and their rich owner donors) and "antisemitic" (read: isn't in the pocket of the fascist apartheid regime, has empathy for their Palestinian victims)
His victory ends a tradition of Islington North voting for Labour since a 1937 byelection.
Which is good, because voting for stealthy Tories disguised as Labour would've been bad.
Corbyn grew the Labour party to the top. Then israel coup'd the Labour party and forced him out. Now israel controls the Labour and by extension the UK.
Democracy btw.
Fascinating. I think he summarizes the expectations on Starmer in a pretty useful way.
Excellent news. Even if he made a few too many vital blunders in debates to be the PM, he's a really good leftist politician and he absolutely deserves that seat.
Jeremy has managed to get far for someone so ahead of his time.