Forum menu
Would he stay in a NATO as PM?
I think he almost certainly would have for the simple reason that he's a democrat and would know that the vast majority of the public wouldn't want to leave.
That's a very different issue as to whether we need to be in NATO though. I'm sure as a peace campaigner he and others view NATO not as an instrument of peace, but quite the opposite. As with many 'defence' organisations it seems to exist largely to keep the arms industry in business. Could we do without it? I don't know, but it doesn't seem to be very effective at preventing wars as current events would suggest.
Do you not watch RT?
I've never watched RT in my life. Should I?
Would it be some kind of appealing beardy communist peacenik betrayal to suggest that NATO should stop expanding and/or even go back to what it used to be?
Seems to be one of those things you're not allowed to say because apparently it's not possible to simultaneously realise that Putin is a nasty piece of work and that NATO expansion has been a mistake.
Corbyn doesn't argue that we shouldn't be part of a "defence" organisation, just that we shouldn't be in one that doesn't include Russia on the inside.
suggest that NATO should stop expanding
Why? Why shouldn't any country join that promises peace and mutual defence of all other members? What would be wrong with as many countries as possible being a party to such agreements?
Would it be some kind of appealing beardy communist peacenik betrayal to suggest that NATO should stop expanding and/or even go back to what it used to be?
Last change that advanced east was 2004, 18 years ago.
Only 4 NATO countries border Russia, are you going to throw out Norway?
Corbyn doesn’t argue that we shouldn’t be part of a “defence” organisation, just that we shouldn’t be in one that doesn’t include Russia on the inside.
Does he? Maybe it would work. It's difficult to argue our current strategy has been very successful isn't it.
Last change that advanced east was 2004, 18 years ago.
Guess you must have missed all the talk about Ukraine joining NATO
Ukraine is not a Nato member, but was promised in 2008 that it would eventually be given the opportunity to join, a move that would bring the US-led alliance to Russia’s border. In 2019, an amendment was adopted that enshrined the ultimate goal of Nato membership in the country’s constitution.
NATO expansion has been a mistake.
The question everyone should be asking is why they wanted to expand? Could it have had anything to do with the fact that NATO expects member states to spend a certain percentage of their annual budgets on weapons and other defence supplies from an arms and defence services industry based in NATO states?
Why? Why shouldn’t any country join that promises peace and mutual defence of all other members? What would be wrong with as many countries as possible being a party to such agreements?
Why do people ask obtuse questions?
Does he?
Yes.
And rather than dig up old quotes that could result in "that was back then, what about now"... here's a quote from yesterday's Stop The War update...
...there now needs to be a unified effort to develop pan-European security arrangements which meet the needs of all states, something that should have been done when the Warsaw Pact was wound up at the end of the Cold War. The alternative is endless great power conflict with all the attendant waste of resources and danger of bloodshed and destruction.
Hard to disagree with that. Does Putin agree though? An agreement that meant he couldn't march in and take over regions in other countries, and expand the RF? In return for what? Russia not being invaded by any of the countries already not interested in invading it?
The question everyone should be asking is why they wanted to expand?
Because if Putin (or a successor) pushes the RF borders Eastward.. where does he (or they) stop? It is entirely in the selfish interests of Western European countries to help those in Eastern Europe stay independent from the RF if they want to.
It is entirely in the interest of Western European countries to help those in the East stay independent from the RF if they want to.
You think being part of NATO is 'independent'?
Yes. In that countries can choose to join, or leave, without having tanks outside their parliament buildings making them.
Yes so the military organisation is constantly expanding for defence, got it. I wonder if Putin might make the same argument.
If NATO was invading the Ukraine, in the name of "defence", I'd be in Westminster right now protesting against UK involvement... and I hope millions of others would join me. Allowing new voluntary members is not the same as invading countries to make them (or bits of them) members. Not that NATO has let Ukraine become members anyway.
Guess you must have missed all the talk about Ukraine joining NATO
Which everyone including Putin and contributors on here know is so far away from becoming reality as to be not relevant. Unless you want to use it to justify an anti NATO narrative
The question everyone should be asking is why they wanted to expand? Could it have had anything to do with the fact that NATO expects member states to spend a certain percentage of their annual budgets on weapons and other defence supplies from an arms and defence services industry based in NATO states?
daft bit is that nearly all the countries in NATO have been either below the 2% or have been fiddling the numbers like the UK to make it look like we do.
Could you enlighten on the %of GDP the Russians spend on defence sourced from russian defence services industry?
Could you enlighten on the %of GDP the Russians spend on defence sourced from russian defence services industry?
I've no idea, and don't really care. Why is it relevant?
I heard that Corbyn personally sponsored a Mil Mi-24 helicopter gunship, but only after Vlad promised him he’d only use it to fire flowers
It's all Corbyn's fault again is it.
Jesus Christ.
Once the liberal establishment gets together for a bit of cost no object war (we don't need taxes to fund defence, goes without saying.) then the common enemy must be Corbyn and all the idle Daily Mail shite that goes with it.
A good chunk of you utterly deserve the sinking ship of Johnson and co. Stick with it liberals you lot love a good War.
You have form.
Given how many times the West have bull-shitted up a War excuse you think it likely we're getting the truth this time?
Have we forgotten about Partygate, wallpaper gate, Starmer's arse kicking forensic vote winning PMQS this week?
Nice to see that Russian propaganda has been swallowed hook, line & sinker by certain parties in here.
Also that a simple map has been used to argue that a defensive alliance to contain an expansionist power is being used to justify aggression (see WW1 & 'encirclement')
Nice to see that Russian propaganda has been swallowed
What Russian propaganda? I've honestly not seen any. I've seen a lot of western propaganda on all the news channels though, and that seems to have been swallowed by everyone here. BND even thinks we lefties would invite the russians in with open arms and fight on their side in a war! As delusions go that's one of the more spectacular ones I've seen.
The propaganda that NATO is advancing East to attack Russia.
Give me a clue. For example: Which is most likely
1: Russia might, at some point try to invade Estonia
2: Estonia might, at some point try to invade Russia?
See if you can guess why Estonia joined NATO
It's great isn't it when anyone who advances the idea that it isn't as simple as 'NATO good Russia bad' can be denounced as a deranged commie or useful idiot.
At the risk of repeating myself, Putin is a scumbag. That doesn't make everything NATO does wonderful and blameless though does it.
Only read a couple of his articles but this guy seems to offer a more nuanced perspective.
https://foreignpolicy.com/author/stephen-m-walt/
The propaganda that NATO is advancing East to attack Russia.
Precisely no one has said that.
Putin has. & he is justifying attacking Ukraine because of 'NATO enlargement'
BTW
What has NATO done wrong?
I’ve no idea, and don’t really care. Why is it relevant?
You made it relevant by saying NATO essentially exists to give defence companies a market by virtue of the commitment to spend 2% GDP
BND even thinks we lefties would invite the russians in with open arms and fight on their side in a war!
No I don't. I believe a Corbyn led government would have left NATO and be sending troops to act as "peacekeepers" in Ukraine which in turn would facilitate the carving up of Ukraine by Putin. All the time railing against the aggression from NATO
Right… I’m calling it… Labour will lose their lead in the polls as soon as the first week in March.
Johnson flapping over his parties links to Russia and Starmer looking more grown up on Ukraine seems to be holding it steady so far
https://twitter.com/BritainElects/status/1496549310518988805?t=DXIY1_LrfNNCogpRHZFT6A&s=19
I don't see that sticking. As is often the case... I'd be very pleased to be wrong.
You made it relevant by saying NATO essentially exists to give defence companies a market by virtue of the commitment to spend 2% GDP
What's that got to do with what Russia spends? I couldn't care less what Russia spends, I don't live and pay taxes there.
I believe a Corbyn led government would have left NATO and be sending troops to act as “peacekeepers” in Ukraine
Then you're deluded. At no point in the four years he was leader did Corbyn adopt leaving NATO as a policy. He may have questioned NATO's purpose and usefulness (with good reason as it would turn out), but he never said we would leave if he was PM. That was propaganda invented by tory and some labour opponents to smear him, which you seem to have swallowed without question.
What has NATO done wrong?
Oh you know, maybe the idea of expanding eastwards onto Russian borders might have been an unnecessarily reckless thing to do, upsetting the delicate geo-political east-west balance as many critics said at the time. A more sensible strategy might have been for the buffer states to remain neutral militarily whilst pursuing other ways of 'westernising' if that's what they wanted. Just because eastern european states wanted to join, doesn't mean NATO should have allowed them to.
Putin is a scumbag. That doesn’t make everything NATO does wonderful and blameless though does it.
No it doesn't, but I'm willing to bet more than 2% of dazh's annual budget that the 3 small Baltic states, Romania, and Bulgaria are members though, eh?
But that presupposes that you accept 'spheres of influence' like the good old days of the Cold war. The purpose of those states joining NATO wasn't to Westernise them, that's what the EU is for. It was to prevent them being subject to Russiaan aggression.
Estonia = member of NATO
Ukraine = not member of NATO
Who is in danger of being invaded at the moment?
I accept that Putin is upset by the sight of NATO advancing towards Russia & in part that might be due to his normal despotic paranoid mindset, but in a large part it is because he wants to swallow up those parts of Russia which broke away in the 1990's. If they join NATO he can't do that.
I believe he is trying to reverse the result of the Cold War, I don't think he really believes that NATO is going to invade him (or that Ukraine is going to do so.) You have heard his speech about Ukraine not really being a nation?
What’s that got to do with what Russia spends?
Hmmm, hands up if you think the level of Russian defence spending impacts what NATO member countries spend.....
he never said we would leave if he was PM
Did he ever say he would stay in NATO? The organisation he wants to throw other countries out of...
A more sensible strategy might have been for the buffer states to remain neutral militarily whilst pursuing other ways of ‘westernising’ if that’s what they wanted.
Isn't the westernisation the problem, trying to have working democracies, rule of law, vibrant press, etc etc. How westernised could they get before the tanks rolled.....
Estonia = member of NATO
Ukraine = not member of NATO
Who is in danger of being invaded at the moment?
If we're going to start using this level of argument.
Finland - not member of NATO
Ukraine - officially declared as future member of NATO
Who is in danger of being invaded at the moment?
I accept that Putin is upset by the sight of NATO advancing towards Russia & in part that might be due to his normal despotic paranoid mindset, but in a large part it is because he wants to swallow up those parts of Russia which broke away in the 1990’s.
It's not as simple as that. As I posted before there is a deeply ingrained Russian cultural fear of being invaded from the west, most recently in WWII where they lost 26 million lives. Remember all the people in the UK who think the EU is just the Germans taking over Europe by stealth rather than with tanks this time? Imagine what many people in Russia think about the EU and NATO.
I'm not saying it's justified or correct necessarily but I think it's helpful to understand it in these terms. What we might like to see as perfectly reasonable consolidation is likely seen as an insult/lack of respect/betrayal of agreed boundaries etc etc
officially declared as future member of NATO
Nope, they would like to be but there is no suggestion that they have been accepted.
& also
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/russian-bullying-forces-finland-to-rethink-its-tradition-of-neutrality-5nx23958d
(Russian aggression forces Finland to think about joining NATO)
But you are missing the point. Finland has never been part of Soviet Russia (& was more loosely connected to the Russian Empire before that), Estonia, Ukraine etc have been & have been part of the Warsaw Pact. Those countries who have 'never been real nations' are the ones Putin wants to get back.
Who is in danger of being invaded at the moment?
Maybe not at the moment, but they are worried about it
https://warsawinstitute.org/new-legislation-finland-will-stop-russian-expansion/
It’s not as simple as that. As I posted before there is a deeply ingrained Russian cultural fear of being invaded from the west, most recently in WWII where they lost 26 million lives. Remember all the people in the UK who think the EU is just the Germans taking over Europe by stealth rather than with tanks this time? Imagine what many people in Russia think about the EU and NATO.
I’m not saying it’s justified or correct necessarily but I think it’s helpful to understand it in these terms. What we might like to see as perfectly reasonable consolidation is likely seen as an insult/lack of respect/betrayal of agreed boundaries etc etc
& I think you have to see it in the context of a man who has entrenched himself in power, stifled & imprisoned internal dissent, poisoned opponents in other countries, mounted semi-official cyber attacks on other states etc etc. He is an authoritarian despot trying to win a 'war' his country lost three decades ago. Sorry to Godwinise a thread, but there were lots of reasons why the German's were fearful in the 1930's: making excuses for Hitler's behaviour was quite popular in the UK at that time.
'The West' is by no means perfect, but I think attempting to see an equivalence in Putin's Russia is completely lacking a sense of perspective. Just having a sense of greivance doesn't confer legitimacy.
The US has spent billions of dollars in Ukraine. Why?
The US has spent billions of dollars in Ukraine. Why?
Government or corporates? Property or oil and gas?
Go on tell us
The US has spent billions of dollars in Ukraine. Why?
Hookers?
He is an authoritarian despot trying to win a ‘war’ his country lost three decades ago.
No arguments there.
You're thinking of charities binbins
I see this thread is still banging on about Corbyn :
Did he ever say he would stay in NATO?
And the answer of course is yes, he did.
These are the precise words in the 2019 Labour Party manifesto which he was personally responsible for :
We will maintain our commitment to NATO and our close relationship with our European partners, and we will use our influence at the United Nations to support peace and security worldwide.
For Corbyn to renegade on that manifesto commitment would have required him to circumvent parliament, perhaps force the Queen to sign an Enabling Act and declare himself dictator?
In which case it begs the question why even bother with fighting a general election if he could have simply seized power and ignored parliament?
The hysterical accusations from anti-Corbyn extremists seem to be getting evermore ridiculous, still I guess it takes flack away from Starmer so I guess it serves a purpose.
I think we are in a dangerous place when both sides of the house basically agree on everything.
These are the precise words in the 2019 Labour Party manifesto which he was personally responsible for :
We will maintain our commitment to NATO and our close relationship with our European partners, and we will use our influence at the United Nations to support peace and security worldwide.
For Corbyn to renegade on that manifesto commitment would have required him to circumvent parliament
I can't think why people didn't believe him..... And as we know a parliamentary majority would be able to carry a bill to leave, he could just cite it's aggressive eastwards expansion and that leaving would allow the UK to work constructively for peace......
But at least he's now sent a tweet asking the Russians to leave Eastern Ukraine