X Close

The cowardice of the far Left A tyrant can get a fair hearing if he opposes Nato

Pacifist? Jeremy Corbyn. Credit: Hollie Adams/Getty

Pacifist? Jeremy Corbyn. Credit: Hollie Adams/Getty


March 9, 2022   4 mins

The far Left exposed itself this week in a series of meetings and rallies and encounters about Ukraine, for a tyrant bombing civilians will get a fair hearing from them if he is not a member of Nato.

Putin needs a buffer in Ukraine, said one on Twitter. Would you be a buffer, was one reply, and the tweet was duly taken down. The far Left’s most pleasing character trait is its cowardice. It collapses easily. Nato expansion is de rigueur in eastern Europe for countries seeking to join the EU, said a woman at a Stop the War meeting, as if national sovereignty — which she is blessed to have — is something trivial for those defending it in Ukraine.

Stop the War says we shouldn’t arm Ukraine or impose sanctions: it will only encourage Putin. Such is their determination, a man with a Ukrainian flag was escorted from a meeting this weekend as he cried, “Shame!” I would have listened to him but that is not part of their culture: not when they are met with opposition, which they do not like, and to hear them now praise “diplomacy” — as they did — is bizarre because it involves listening. During the meeting they congratulated themselves on their courage for speaking as they do, among friends — the media were barred for immorality even as independent media is fleeing Russia — and inside a liberal democracy.  Such is their toxicity now, Diane Abbott and John McDonnell pulled out of a Stop the War rally.

They may be a pottage of vanity, self-deception, and rage, but they have been clear on Ukraine, even before the hammer and the sickle appeared at a rally in London this week. “In [the] game of great power politics, if we have to pick a side over Crimea let it be Russia,” they said in 2014, when Jeremy Corbyn was their chair. “Some of us have never supported Putin,” he says now, a coward among cowards.

The willingness to understand Putin was obvious, again in 2014, when Corbyn’s spin doctor Seumas Milne, a rich Communist sympathiser, appeared with Putin at PR junket alongside leaders of the European far Right. A surprising number of far Left leaders are rich as if they, who don’t really need politics, can afford uniquely unserious ones. If you are rich, it doesn’t matter if the Socialist Utopia never comes. Dreaming, to steal their language, is a privilege.

For George Galloway, an original sponsor of Stop the War, closeness to tyranny seems to be a soothing and instinctive need. His address to Saddam Hussein in 1994 is infamous: “I still meet families who are calling their newborn sons Saddam. Sir, I salute your courage, your strength and your indefatigability and I want you to know that we are with you until victory, until victory in Jerusalem.” Another sponsor was Andrew Murray, a rich Communist sympathiser; yet another is Jeremy Corbyn himself. Plenty of them failed to oppose Bashar al-Assad, even as Muslim activists begged them to. They didn’t support aid convoys to Aleppo — too imperialist — or the White Helmets pulling bodies out of Russian-bombed rubble in Syria. They are only anti-war when the West is the aggressor. There are no just wars when the West fights them is their reasoning, if we are calling it that; but every war against the West is, if not just, then at least understandable.

But this isn’t pacifism, however they may brand it. It is Occidentalism: hatred of the West, and, with that comes hatred of parliamentary democracy too, because it is disappointing and hard work.

What real — rather than self-serving and performative — sympathy do they have for those beyond themselves? Who have they really helped beyond themselves? I often wonder what would happen if they threw themselves behind moderate Labour with all their fury as an experiment in real politics — if they acknowledged, for instance, that a Socialist Utopia is unlikely in a country that is also a monarchy. But this kind of self-reflection and generosity is not in their nature.

Consider their brutal anti-Semitism. Jeremy Corbyn doesn’t know he is an anti-Semite, but that doesn’t make him any less of one. Much can be laid at the door of their idiocy; like idiots, their world is binary. They do not think the West can be saved, and they will not help others save it.

I sensed the anti-democratic tendencies of the far Left when I first met Corbyn’s Labour Party in 2015. It was obvious in the way they spoke about their enemies, which they define as anyone who has ever disagreed with them. Tory Right or soft Left: to the far Left there is no difference. Every day they say so on social media: Liberals and Centrists are bemused to find themselves called far Right. It’s poison on the doorstep. It made former miners vote Tory in 2019 because if soft Left is far Right, why not? The violence of their language offered a creeping kind of dehumanisation of the enemy who is also — crucially — a voter: someone to be seduced by a serious politician is, for them, only someone to be despised.

Violence was always acceptable if it was against your enemy: the rhetoric itself made it necessary. I heard many far Left cheerleaders call the throwing of milkshakes and eggs acceptable if they landed on the wrong kind of politician, and what comes after that? Quite recently a far Left journalist celebrated a policewoman being knocked off her horse. I saw a journalist attacked at a far Left meeting last autumn; they applauded when the victim left the room. At the last campaign rally in 2019, a Jew was physically attacked for carrying an anti-Corbyn banner. I concluded that they do not believe in parliamentary democracy, because they do not believe in the legitimacy of opposition. It’s a defect that makes a nonsense of any good within them. It isn’t a whimsical thing. It’s a structural fault.

So, their kindness to Putin this last week — their willingness to see the world from his point of view, even as he destabilises it — is no accident. It is, consciously or not, a recognition of similar desires.


Tanya Gold is a freelance journalist.

TanyaGold1

Join the discussion


Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber


To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.

Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.

Subscribe
Subscribe
Notify of
guest

164 Comments
Most Voted
Newest Oldest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Stephen Walshe
Stephen Walshe
2 years ago

Keir Starmer served in Corbyn’s shadow cabinet and campaigned in two general elections to make him Prime Minister. Whatever you thought of them, Chuka Umunna, Luciana Berger and Chris Leslie stood up to Corbyn and surrendered safe-for-life Labour seats in the process. Not Starmer. He is as courageous as he is charismatic.

Last edited 2 years ago by Stephen Walshe
Billy Bob
Billy Bob
2 years ago

Labelling the ERG as far right is frankly ridiculous. The closest thing Britain has had to a far right party is the BNP, who won a council seat or two after the northern race riots 20 years ago. This imagination of England as a nation of racist skinheads simply has no resemblance to reality, almost every survey points to it being amongst the most tolerant nations in the world.
As for Brexit, we’re still waiting for the numerous economic catastrophes we were promised should we vote to leave

Milos Bingles
Milos Bingles
2 years ago
Reply to  Billy Bob

All the ex BNP lot LOVE Farage and Rees-Mog. You don’t need a skinhead to be far-right. The ERG is the far right of the Conservative party. The same way Momentum is the far left of Labour.
The ERG are far more influential than the crustys on the left. And far more dangerous

Billy Bob
Billy Bob
2 years ago
Reply to  Milos Bingles

It sounds to me as if you’re suggesting there’s no difference between the centre right such as the Tories, and the far right such as the National Front, that their supporters are one and the same. If you truly believe that then you really need to start mixing with people outside your bubble, as your worldview is incredibly distorted

Milos Bingles
Milos Bingles
2 years ago
Reply to  Billy Bob

The ERG and Farage aren’t center right.
Its interesting that you feel that the ERG are centre. I think it says more about your political position. Its human nature to assume your own position is neutral. If you’re politically aligned with the ERG you are to the far right of the Tory party.
The Lib Dems are centre. Blair was centre left. Cameron was centre right. Farage and his pals in the Tory party are definitely right of the right. right of the right by definition is far right. If you continue right you reach the BNP & EDL. Momentum is the left of the left by definition the far left if you continue left you reach Communists.
I consider myself to be centre Left. I find the far left an irritant. They are loud and idiotic. I find the far right of the Conservative party far more concerning as they are in power. The far left will NEVER be in power.
I enjoy reading UNHERD as it gives me a different perspective but the comments section tends to be slanted quite considerably to the right.

Last edited 2 years ago by Milos Bingles
James Chater
James Chater
2 years ago
Reply to  Milos Bingles

(I haven’t down-thumbed, or up-thumbed you, don’t worry!) The ERG were a Parliamentary ‘ginger-group’. No comparison to Momentum, which systematically took over the LP.
Depending on which side of the argument… they (ERG) were either, obstreperous zealots or torch-bearers for a ‘pure Brexit’.

Last edited 2 years ago by James Chater
A Spetzari
A Spetzari
2 years ago
Reply to  James Chater

Yeah good points.
Doesn’t that illustrate the big difference overall though? Whilst the Tories will have made decisions to pander to the ERG’s way of thinking, the fact that Momentum has seized Labour should be a cause for concern.
(FWIW i don’t think the ERG are especially extreme right at all – they have strong views on a particular issue. Momentum are far left though. Both are fairly extreme but occupying different spheres)

Johann Strauss
Johann Strauss
2 years ago

I am very far from a supporter of the left or the Labor party. But at the same time, it is important to look at the situation as it is and not as one would like it to be. The truth is that if Mexico entered or threatened to enter into a military alliance with Russia and certainly with the USSR during the Cold War, we in the US would be in Mexico City before you could say “coffee please”. Why – it’s known as the Monroe doctrine outlined in 1823, and it is on that basis that the US has engineered coups in numerous South American countries (e.g. Argentina anybody) and attempted (but failed) to instigate coups in others (e.g. Cuba). While we can all agree that war is absolutely horrific, Russia is acting no differently from the way the US would behave under similar circumstances. And while many feel that every country should be free to pursue the foreign policy they wish and join military and economic pacts as they see fit, the fact is that small border/buffer states simply do not have that luxury. This war could have been averted before it even started by NATO and US simply stating very clearly and in unambiguous terms that Ukraine would never be allowed to join NATO and would remain neutral. NATO didn’t do that. Instead they virtue signaled by saying that NATO is open to all, including Ukraine, and the result is there for all to see. Perhaps NATO and the US thought that Putin would consider his and Russia’s red lines in the sand (repeated n number of times by the Russians over the last 15 years) as Obama considered his red line in Syria; i.e. completely fungible. Sometimes it’s better to take tyrants at their word rather than virtue signal.

Billy Bob
Billy Bob
2 years ago
Reply to  Johann Strauss

It’s all the wests fault isn’t it Johann.
Shelling civilians as they flee their war torn cities in an unprovoked invasion is a completely reasonable response to disagreeing with another sovereign nations choices

Lesley van Reenen
Lesley van Reenen
2 years ago
Reply to  Billy Bob

Disingenuous comment Billy Bob.

Billy Bob
Billy Bob
2 years ago

I don’t believe it is, nothing I’ve said is false and to me Putins invasion of Ukraine is unprovoked and disgusting.

Ethniciodo Rodenydo
Ethniciodo Rodenydo
2 years ago
Reply to  Billy Bob

It is not just NATO. The US has actively sought to destabilise the governments of other Soviet Republics in the very recent past and no doubt the was a concern that the Ukraine would be used as a proxy to destabilise Russia

Graham Strugnell
Graham Strugnell
2 years ago
Reply to  Billy Bob

You are boring and wrong. And you are preaching to yourself and your fans in Russia.

Adam Bacon
Adam Bacon
2 years ago

You are boring and wrong and lining up with the righteous propaganda in the West. This is Realpolitik not virtue signalling

Gintautas Australas Kaminskas
Gintautas Australas Kaminskas
2 years ago
Reply to  Billy Bob

Idiotic crap. Grow up. NATO is not an aggressor, it’s a defence alliance. You know that. You’re a Moscow-lover trying to pretend that you’re Mr Reasonable. You don’t fool me or any other sane and rational thinkers.

Iris C
Iris C
2 years ago
Reply to  Billy Bob

Russia’s demand was for a neutral country on its border and we now know that EU nations would not have supported Ukraine’s application to join NATO. Why did they not say that at the time? If they had done so, then many deaths – and destruction of that fragile country – would have been avoided.

Brian Villanueva
Brian Villanueva
2 years ago
Reply to  Iris C

Iris, agreed. Prior to the invasion, when Macron was running around meeting with everyone, I really thought Macron and Scholz were going to give a joint statement stating their unified opposition to further NATO expansion, effectively ending the “open door” policy. (The whole idea that “anyone” can join a military alliance if they want to is absurd anyway.) I was shocked when they didn’t. Of course, now they can’t, because “Russia evil and must not be rewarded”.

Everyone knows Ukraine isn’t joining NATO, but no one is allowed to say it, especially as of 12 days ago. We’re sleepwalking into a nuclear conflict. A stray Russian missile hits Poland and kills some photogenic kids? Putin tactically nukes the troops on the Donbass front line? Too easy to get to WWIII from where we are.

Of course, the elite Left (and Right mostly) already thinks that having too many people is the biggest environmental problem (people emit GHG), and blue-collar, deplorable people are the worst (they’re racist, and drive pickup trucks, which emit even more GHG.) In my truly cynical moments, I wonder if our elites are not sleepwalking at all, but inching closer to WWIII on purpose.

chris sullivan
chris sullivan
2 years ago
Reply to  Iris C

Not the point – why does Russia get to demand ANYTHING – oh thats right -because they are a bully and everyone is scared of them. Bullies need to understand that there will be no more intimidation accepted – goes for the US, China etc etc- or else the human race will never progress

Andrew F
Andrew F
2 years ago
Reply to  Iris C

So you haven’t red Putin’s essay?
This has nothing to do with NATO membership for Ukraine.
He doesn’t believe that Ukraine has right to exist.
No different to Hitler and his Czechoslovakia policies.
Why do you think, so many countries joined NATO?
Clearly government and population of all these countries see Russia for what it is: expansionist, totalitarian, inhumane entity.
All based on their experiences of Russian occupation.
Whereas, you view of Russia is just wishful thinking.

Insufficiently Sensitive
Insufficiently Sensitive
2 years ago
Reply to  Iris C

Russia’s demand was for a neutral country on its border 
So all nations now have a right to demand certain governance traits from all their neighbors?

Adam Bacon
Adam Bacon
2 years ago
Reply to  Billy Bob

Similar to unprovoked, disgusting attacks on Iraq, Libya etc by the US, UK and other Western powers obviously?

Ian Moore
Ian Moore
2 years ago
Reply to  Adam Bacon

Yes, more or less the same. You do realise that many in the “west” were against these wars too? There is the old saying too; two wrongs don’t make a right.

Ted Ditchburn
Ted Ditchburn
2 years ago
Reply to  Billy Bob

It is funny how none of us have to worry about countries clamouring to join the Warsaw Pact, Nato style replacement Russia has set up with old Republics…nobody is rushing to join that alliance.
It’s a wannabee expansionist alliance nobody wants to join if they have a choice.

David Owsley
David Owsley
2 years ago
Reply to  Billy Bob

unprovoked? Do some reading FFS.

Ian Stewart
Ian Stewart
2 years ago

Interesting that you have a go at Billy Bob but don’t point out the flawed logic of Johann.

David Owsley
David Owsley
2 years ago
Reply to  Ian Stewart

what flawed logic? I read Johann’s comment – and agree – so I ask a genuine question.

Chris Wheatley
Chris Wheatley
2 years ago
Reply to  Billy Bob

The US has killed thousands in Vietnam, Central America, Iraq with the aim of ensuring the US ‘idea’ is paramount. The UK joined them in Iraq after a short propaganda barrage. Russia has killed hundreds of thousands in Chechnia and more to come in the Ukraine.

I think the waltzman, Mr Strauss, is trying to say that it is all the same – only the viewpoint is different.

Ian McKinney
Ian McKinney
2 years ago
Reply to  Chris Wheatley

I doubt very much that Russia will have countless trials of soldiers accused of killing or abusing civilians over the next 30 years. I doubt very much that a Duma member will have to campaign on behalf of aged old ex-soldiers to be left in peace and not face criminal trials 30 or 40 years hence. I doubt very much that the Russian government will instigate a public inquiry into the Ukraine war, the reasons for it, and whether it was legal. I doubt very much that Putin will end his days as a pariah in his own country, mocked and rightly belittled.

Therein lies the difference.

Graham Stull
Graham Stull
2 years ago
Reply to  Ian McKinney

That’s a low moral bar for us to cling to, Ian. Hundreds of thousands of Iraqis died in that war, including tens – if not hundreds – of thousands of civilians. The International Criminal Court never tried Bush or his lapdog Blair for their war crimes.
None of this makes Putin a hero. It just makes it hard for our moral outrage to stick.

Franz Von Peppercorn
Franz Von Peppercorn
2 years ago
Reply to  Ian McKinney

Who do you think is a “pariah” after the Iraq war? Gordon Brown, Tony Blair, George Bush all walk around freely – and the first two still have political positions and journalism roles.

Ethniciodo Rodenydo
Ethniciodo Rodenydo
2 years ago
Reply to  Ian McKinney

Throwing your old soldiers to the wolves out of expediency is a peculiarly British peccadillo and it is not something to be proud of.
As to the Chilcot Inquiry it would never have been commissioned had the outcome not been more or less fixed in advance. even David Cameron dismissed it as “an establishment stitch-up”, and the Liberal Democrats threatened a boycott. Wee just do widow dressing better.
Do you still think the dodgy dossier was compiled in good faith or that we might still find WMD buried somewhere in the deserts of Iraq if we just keep looking?

Last edited 2 years ago by Ethniciodo Rodenydo
Martin Smith
Martin Smith
2 years ago
Reply to  Ian McKinney

If that’s the only difference then in high moral terms it only demonstrates how close the two sides are in their depravity. A difference worth dying for?

Iris C
Iris C
2 years ago
Reply to  Ian McKinney

The main thrust of the UN Charter was to ensure that the invasion of one sovereign state by another would never happen again; disputes would be settled by diplomacy
Article 2 enshrined this aim and it held until 2003 when it was subtly altered to give legality to the invasion of Iraq, Libya and Syria. (When Kofi Anan – Secretary General of the UN at the time- was asked about this* he said that such invasions could be justified “if a sovereign state was not willing or in a position to protect its own citizens” but citizens come in all political shapes and sizes and cannot be assessed by an outside body.
I think there is a lot of hypocrisy around when it comes to blame.
*Hardtalk – BBC – ~April 2017 I had recorded it on Freeview so could quote his exact words.
(.
.

.

Brian Villanueva
Brian Villanueva
2 years ago
Reply to  Ian McKinney

Ian, we are refusing to buy oil from a Russian dictator over his invasion of a sovereign neighbor, so we can buy more oil from Saudi Arabia, which has invaded their sovereign neighbor Yemen and used our weapons to massacre tens of thousands of people over the last 5 years.

And this is a “moral victory”? How?

Bret Larson
Bret Larson
2 years ago
Reply to  Ian McKinney

So morality 10 years from now is somehow beneficial to the dead?

Liam O'Mahony
Liam O'Mahony
2 years ago
Reply to  Ian McKinney

Countless? ..you can only count up to what 5 or is it 6?

Franz Von Peppercorn
Franz Von Peppercorn
2 years ago
Reply to  Chris Wheatley

Thousands? The death toll in Vietnam alone was hundreds of thousands or millions.

James Pelton
James Pelton
2 years ago

I have read 2 million on the Vietnamese side in a few places over the years.

Johann Strauss
Johann Strauss
2 years ago
Reply to  Chris Wheatley

Not quite, because Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam were miles away from the US, not on the US’s doorstep. Ukraine is on Russia’s doorstep. Now the killing and the bringing of death and destruction is the same.

Leto McAllister
Leto McAllister
2 years ago
Reply to  Johann Strauss

Chomsky and Herman offered a lovely systematisation of bloodbaths: benign, constructive, nefarious, mythical. Easy to see which one is which, isn’t it. The saddest thing, they all remain bloodbaths (save the mythical ones, of course!)

Liam O'Mahony
Liam O'Mahony
2 years ago
Reply to  Chris Wheatley

I believe the death toll in Vietnam was close to 3,050,000? But the average American if asked will say 50,000. They don’t count the Vietnamese because no one matters except Americans! Try it.. guaranteed!
The death toll in Iraq was between 300,000 and 600,000 but again who cares? Only US lives lost are counted!
The only regime to qualify as even more reprehensible is the Zionist one in occupied Palestine: they don’t ignore Palestinian deaths: they celebrate them, not least the children buried under the rubble of the bombed schools and hospitals!
The Russian invasion of Ukraine is indeed reprehensible: but far short of the murderous regimes of the US and their wicked allies in Zionist Israel and Saudi Arabia (massacre of Yemen population) etc.

Last edited 2 years ago by Liam O'Mahony
Colin Macdonald
Colin Macdonald
2 years ago
Reply to  Liam O'Mahony

Perhaps you should go to Iraq and count the bodies Liam, not sure how long you’d last before the murderous natives decapitate you.

Andrew F
Andrew F
2 years ago
Reply to  Chris Wheatley

All Putin’s appeasers forget huge difference between world dominated by USA and world ruled by China and Russia.
For a start this discussion would not be happening in Russia or China.
If you are European or American it is clear that USA is better for humanity.
I easily accept that if you are Iraqi etc you might feel differently.
But we are discussing Russia invasion of European country.

Paul Smithson
Paul Smithson
2 years ago
Reply to  Billy Bob

That isn’t what Johann is saying or advocating. You seem to have fallen for the non-stop Western propaganda (at’s been going on fo decades) that we are always the good guys. We aren’t. Many wars have been started and perpetuated by ‘The West’ and I’ve lost count of the number of regime changes we have organised.

This is NOT to say that Putin is right, or anyone else who instigates a war, but people should understand that the USA, or other sovereign nation, may feel they are justified to behave in a confrontational way if a foreign power (or group of foreign powers) was looking to break long standing agreements on put serious weaponry on your border, such as Mexico in relation to the US. I seem to remember there being a bit of a fuss about Cuba at one point.

Nato and the EU seem to have been prodding Putin for years over Ukraine with their ambiquity so they are far from blameless.

Had the USA had a stronger leader and Europe and the UK had more competent leaders I feel confident that this could have been resolved well before the terrible war broke out.

Andrew McDonald
Andrew McDonald
2 years ago
Reply to  Paul Smithson

‘Ambiquity’ is a good invention – a perfect adjective for Blair or Cameron.

Steve Elliott
Steve Elliott
2 years ago
Reply to  Paul Smithson

Your first paragraph reminds me of the Bob Dylan song – “With God on our side”.

gpowis83
gpowis83
2 years ago
Reply to  Paul Smithson

You are aware that NATO countries already border Russia, right?

Billy Bob
Billy Bob
2 years ago
Reply to  Paul Smithson

I haven’t fallen for anything, however Johann often mistakes seeing both sides of a situation with simple contrarianism.
Not taking the western media at face value is a legitimate position to hold as we’re all well aware they can often descend into hyperbole and selective reporting, however Johann rather than simply taking what written with a pinch of salt instead unquestionably believes those from the opposite side, in this case Putin and heavily Kremlin controlled Russian media such as RT

Brian Villanueva
Brian Villanueva
2 years ago
Reply to  Billy Bob

Two things can both be true at the same time. Putin is a bully and a dictator who deserves to lose this war (I hope he does, though I doubt he will). But he can also be responding to NATO expansion. Acknowledging the role of the latter in getting us to this point doesn’t excuse Putin’s responsibility for the invasion.

More than blame, what matters is how to bring the parade of dead Ukrainians and Russians to an end. Does tanking Russia’s economy help make that happen? Banning Russian media from the West? Firing and deporting Russian artists who won’t “denounce Putin”? When it’s been obvious for a decade that Ukraine was never joining NATO, does pretending otherwise help diminish tensions? How is making Americans pay $7 / gallon for gas helping end the war? To ask such basic questions is to brand yourself an “tool of Putin” and an “invasion supporter”. Hard to solve a problem you’re not even allowed to talk about.

Bret Larson
Bret Larson
2 years ago

Happiness is being in lock step with the current narrative of the political class.

Are you not happy yet?

Liam O'Mahony
Liam O'Mahony
2 years ago

Of you’re paying $7 a gallon for ‘gas’ who receives that $7? Not Russia because it is now banned? So us it Saudi Arabia? Nice friend to have? Or is it AMERICAN oil companies?? Of course it is! Get real!

Billy Bob
Billy Bob
2 years ago

What are the alternatives to sanctions?I personally can see two, either allow Putins aggression to go unpunished, appeasement which would likely in my view lead to more aggressive actions further down the track as we’ve seen Putin has now attacked Georgia, Crimea, the eastern Ukrainian regions and now the rest of Ukraine, or we put boots on the ground to defeat him militarily. Both of those options are worse than sanctions in my view

Last edited 2 years ago by Billy Bob
chris sullivan
chris sullivan
2 years ago
Reply to  Billy Bob

the history of aggressive expansionist nations/peoples goes round and round throughout history and is only stopped when said bully/megalomaniacs know clearly that they wont get away with ‘it’. Many murdering tyrants spring to mind who ALL thought they could get away with ‘it’ – eventually they were stopped but the body count was enormous -would it not make ‘common’ sense to send the message ‘you will not get away with it’ efficiently – ie early on when the body count is relatively small….. it all goes back to the school playground – only the arena and the weapons are bigger-the same dynamics rule – quite simple really – all the rest is simple minded appeasing blather – just like the games in the playground . Join together resolutely and tell the bully to f*** off !!!!

A Spetzari
A Spetzari
2 years ago
Reply to  Johann Strauss

At a superficial level you are correct that the US has aggressively looked after its interests – and it’s what the Putins and Xis of this world use to justify their actions.
But the detail is very important and could not be further than the reality.
In the Middle East, when given the choice between US/Coalition bombs and Russian/Regime bombs – refugees flooded towards coalition areas. Because ordinary people on the ground knew the brutal difference between the means and methods employed by each side.
Russia is a one party (one man?) authoritarian regime that kills and imprisons all of its enemies from within and without. The US/West are collections of imperfect democracies with many flaws – but where dissent is allowed, people have some say in their governance and have a right to disagree. Chalk and cheese.
There’s a reason why independent countries choose to join NATO of their own accord – NATO doesn’t have to invade them for its own protection or to force people to be part of it. If you cannot see that difference then perhaps have a rethink.
As a final note, we could not be safely having this debate right now in Russia or China. I say this not to invoke unnecessary hatred of either, but just merely stating this as fact. And one that says it all.

Last edited 2 years ago by A Spetzari
Johann Strauss
Johann Strauss
2 years ago
Reply to  A Spetzari

What you say about Russia and China is perfectly true, but completely irrelevant. Big powers act in their interests and have always done so since time immemorial. During the Cold War, the US was perfectly happy to instigate coups in South America, and fight in far away places like Vietnam to no purpose. They justified this as they viewed the spread of communism as an existential threat to their democratic form of government. The Russians believe that continually dangling NATO membership in front of Ukraine, an obvious buffer state between Russia and the West, is an existential threat. They have said so time and time again over the last 15 years. Yet the West continued to poke the bear. As for Xi, China and Taiwan, if you ask almost all highly educated mainland chinese, who have emigrated to the US, whether they consider Taiwan as part of China, they will all say yes. Why is absolutely beyond me because if I were them I sure wouldn’t care, but they do. So I have no doubt that if Xi decided to move on to Taiwan, he would have considerable support within China.
And your 3rd paragraph is bizarre to say the least. Bombs are bombs and sow devastation whether those bombs are Russian or American!

Last edited 2 years ago by Johann Strauss
A Spetzari
A Spetzari
2 years ago
Reply to  Johann Strauss

Not a bizarre paragraph at all – it shows I was perhaps not clear enough in making my point and you have misunderstood.
If you’re a civilian in or around the receiving end of bombs – and you have a choice between Russian or American – you will chose the latter every time. My somewhat anecdotal point is that refugees in the Middle East in recent years made that exact choice because one side would use munitions in a far more precise manner than the other. That’s not to condone US use of force in all cases, but to highlight a key distinction.
Which brings me to the wider point – that whilst the US’ foreign policy record is far from unblemished, given a real choice between them and the Russians/Chinese – it’s a no brainer which side we should be taking here.
Talking of poking the bear is irrelevant and silly. Why do people insist on trying to paint a hugely powerful, highly aggressive nuclear armed state that has a long history of conquest, murder and annexation as some sort of victim in this?

Johann Strauss
Johann Strauss
2 years ago
Reply to  A Spetzari

Or is it more likely that the West opened their door indiscriminately to unvetted refugees whereas Russia did not. Isn’t that perhaps the more likely reason for them going to the West. after all, who is going to attempt to go some place where they are immediately thrown out or interned forever.

Liam O'Mahony
Liam O'Mahony
2 years ago
Reply to  Johann Strauss

Looks like the UK is now copying Russia by meticulously checking whether distraught women with babies in their arms might be terrorists?

Roger Sponge
Roger Sponge
2 years ago
Reply to  Liam O'Mahony

Don’t be naive. Refugee processing has been dreadful. But that doesn’t negate the need to be cautious about who people say they are.

Liam O'Mahony
Liam O'Mahony
2 years ago
Reply to  A Spetzari

So the US was ‘accurate’ then in killing nearly 500,000 innocent Iraqis? That surely is a worse indictment of the US than saying “sorry” we didn’t mean to hit civilians?

nigel roberts
nigel roberts
2 years ago
Reply to  Liam O'Mahony

Sorry. Most of those 500,000 Iraqis were killed by other Iraqis.

chris sullivan
chris sullivan
2 years ago
Reply to  Liam O'Mahony

really !! wadduya think happened in the Iraq/Iran war ??

chris sullivan
chris sullivan
2 years ago
Reply to  A Spetzari

see my comment above

Ethniciodo Rodenydo
Ethniciodo Rodenydo
2 years ago
Reply to  Johann Strauss

Only it is worse than you suggest.
For example, following the US sponsored coup in 1965, Indonesian government forces perpetrated mass killings over many months. Estimates of the number of civilians killed range from a half million to over a million. The US Ambassador encouraged the military leaders to act forcefully against the political opponents, and declassified documents from the U.S. Embassy in Jakarta have confirmed that the US had knowledge of, facilitated and encouraged mass killings for its own geopolitical interests.
Further US diplomats admitted to a reporter that they had provided the Indonesian army with thousands of names of alleged PKI supporters and other alleged leftists, and that the U.S. officials then checked off from their lists those who had been murdered.

Liam O'Mahony
Liam O'Mahony
2 years ago

Ues, Putin is a monster! But he sure as hell ain’t alone on that!

chris sullivan
chris sullivan
2 years ago
Reply to  Liam O'Mahony

Again not the real point – people aint queueing up for a green card to Russia !!!!

Leto McAllister
Leto McAllister
2 years ago
Reply to  chris sullivan

It’s not called a green card, but nationals of many adjacent countries are indeed queuing to get into Russia to work, and would dream of eventually getting the Russian passport.
Azerbaijan, Tadjikistan, Kazahstan, Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Serbia, Armenia, Ukraine. For many Russian speakers in the Baltic states, where they are in many ways treated as second class citizens, the opportunities are limited, so they look to emigrate, mainly to Britain, Germany, Russia, the Nordics, the US.
In regards to the economic attractiveness of Russia relative to the US. Indeed, Russia has a much lower GDP. But it should be hardly surprising, given that the country went through two decimating world wars, which it had to fight on its own territory on all sides West and West, a bloody revolution accompanied by famine, a collapse and dissolution of the country, followed by a default of the national currency, then as it joined the world economy – two world economic crises manufactured on the other side of the globe.
It is sad to see the great effort of the Russian people to dig themselves out of a hole squandered by yet another calamity they have very little say in.

Andrew F
Andrew F
2 years ago

Reality is Indonesia government stopped Chinese backed coup by communist party supporters.
We know from history that many more millions would die under communist rule.
That is why all the lefties hate people like Franco and Pinochet: they stopped communist takeovers of their countries and prevented many more deaths.

Ethniciodo Rodenydo
Ethniciodo Rodenydo
2 years ago
Reply to  Andrew F

Russia might make a similar point in relation to Ukraine

Leto McAllister
Leto McAllister
2 years ago
Reply to  A Spetzari

Unfortunately, your confidence relies fully and entirely on repeating after other people.
What you said is patently untrue, as you would quickly discover if you were able to watch Russian TV, listen to the radio or read Internet. The oppositional views are constantly aired, promoted, expressed and supported by countless public figures, as well as the oppositional parties at televised debates, which in their turn influence policies across the board. The government view is also quite varied depending on the Federal Region you look at, and the point of time.

The same applies to the oft repeated mantra about the prosecutions of LGBT minorities. Marriage is indeed not available to gay couples, but everything else in the public and professional realm is. And what did it really do here, except score cheap moral kudos for the Cameron government? Yet women have unrestricted access to abortions, and this is not the case in half of the USA. Gender pay gap and proportion of female high level executives is substantially higher than it is here.

To have any authority on the matter, all you would need to do is learn the language and listen for longer than 5 seconds.

Ethniciodo Rodenydo
Ethniciodo Rodenydo
2 years ago

Only a totalitarian state would stifle dissent and force through gay marriage

Last edited 2 years ago by Ethniciodo Rodenydo
JP Martin
JP Martin
2 years ago

Passed into law by an unelected and irremovable judiciary (US, Canada, etc)

Last edited 2 years ago by JP Martin
Andrew F
Andrew F
2 years ago

Yes, of course Russia is country of democratic discourse.
Please tell this to families of murdered journalists and opposition politicians.

What about Navalny?

Can he express his views on Russian TV and contest presidential elections against Putin?

Ethniciodo Rodenydo
Ethniciodo Rodenydo
2 years ago
Reply to  Andrew F

Dr Kelly
Seth Richards
Assange
He may no be a journalist but Epstein
Can anyone who is not sanctioned by the Democrats get the opportunity t appear uncensored on US TV

Bret Larson
Bret Larson
2 years ago
Reply to  A Spetzari

Here are some propaganda talking points you have inculcated:
“Russia is a one party (one man?) authoritarian regime”
 “independent countries choose to join NATO”
They are affecting justice of your conclusions.

James Chater
James Chater
2 years ago
Reply to  Johann Strauss

Does the analogy have much use? The histories are so different. Yes, we can imagine the world’s, justified, outrage if a Trump-like figure did decide on a whim to walk into Mexico City.
‘…small border/buffer states simply do not have that luxury.’ One is tempted to ask ‘why shouldn’t Ukraine ”have that luxury”’? Why can Russia not accept the new ‘reality’? Like Poland, Ukraine must be able to break with its past to create itself anew.
Putin’s lack of diplomatic skill and callousness have caused this.

Last edited 2 years ago by James Chater
Johann Strauss
Johann Strauss
2 years ago
Reply to  James Chater

It’s worth bearing in mind that in any dispute there are always two sides to every story. You ask why Ukraine shouldn’t have that luxury. For the same reason that no buffer state since time immemorial has had that luxury. And I can assure you that as far as the American continent is concerned, if any South American Government joined a military alliance with Russia or China, with Russian or Chinese troops stationed there and high tech weapons amassed, the US’s response, following the Monroe doctrine, would be absolutely identical to that of Putin’s current response.
Now, nobody is condoning this one way or the other, but one does have to appreciate that there is a very significant degree of symmetry. Of course, Western democracy is incomparably better than Russian autocracy, but that has nothing to do with how big powers play the game abroad, whether the near abroad (Ukraine) or the far abroad (Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, etc…).

Liam O'Mahony
Liam O'Mahony
2 years ago
Reply to  Johann Strauss

I’m not convinced that Putin’s regime is far preferable to the US’s for the poorest in each society? For the rich and middle class yes but for the poor? Mmm

Last edited 2 years ago by Liam O'Mahony
nigel roberts
nigel roberts
2 years ago
Reply to  Liam O'Mahony

The poorest state in the USA has a higher per capita income than the average EU state.

Andrew F
Andrew F
2 years ago
Reply to  Johann Strauss

By your logic of “might is right” there would be no Canada.
USA could easily conquer Canada and join Alaska with the rest of USA.
But American government did not do that.
Lets stop pretending that Russia has any claim on ever being part of Western Civilisation in political sense.
It was never democratic and totalitarianism is defining aspect of Russian history.

Colin Macdonald
Colin Macdonald
2 years ago
Reply to  Johann Strauss

Except the US hasn’t invaded Cuba. Or Venezuela. Or Nicaragua. Ukraine hasn’t joined NATO, doesn’t have foreign troops in her soil (apart from Russian ones)
In any case I wish people would stop positing implausible scenarios about Mexico joining Russia, Canada hosting Russian tank brigades, what would uncle Sam do. Plenty of Yanks would love it Mexico built an iron curtain! I think Mexico is instructive. US Mexico relations aren’t exactly cordial but Mexico has absolutely no fear of American invasion. If they did, they’d have some kind of Air Force. In fact, they don’t need a proper military because of the really big one up north!

Liam O'Mahony
Liam O'Mahony
2 years ago
Reply to  James Chater

So why couldn’t the US just accept that Cuba needed nuclear weapons to defend itself from a belligerent US in 1962?

James Chater
James Chater
2 years ago
Reply to  Liam O'Mahony

Because it was in the context of actual provocation in 1961 – attempted invasion of Cuba by exiles, covertly supported by the US . The Soviet Union played it extremely dangerously as did the US. Of course the US had to deter the Soviet Union.
As has been said, Putin has now simply put NATO on full alert with his unprovoked invasion.

Last edited 2 years ago by James Chater
Ben Dhonau
Ben Dhonau
2 years ago
Reply to  Johann Strauss

*This business about NATO was just a excuse for a piece of imperialist aggression by a would be Tsar trying to recreate the Russian empire.. Opposing him by all feasible means is the only moral position for Western countries to take. The undoubted sins of some Western countries in the past is irrelevant.

Johann Strauss
Johann Strauss
2 years ago
Reply to  Ben Dhonau

And exactly why was NATO an excuse when we know from recent history that the US has also acted in its perceived self-interest by bringing death and destruction to far away places. So should the “moral” position via a vis the Afghanistan and Iraq wars been to “oppose them by all feasible means”, and did you indeed do this.

Liam O'Mahony
Liam O'Mahony
2 years ago
Reply to  Ben Dhonau

That’s a nice simplistic take for sure! You give the term ‘black and white’ a bad name!

Mike Doyle
Mike Doyle
2 years ago
Reply to  Johann Strauss

NATO and the EU are not perfect; however, given Putin’s statements about his aims, it is clear to me that he would have invaded irrespective of our behaviour.

Phil Rees
Phil Rees
2 years ago
Reply to  Johann Strauss

I agree completely with this. However, it is nothing to do with the article which is about the very slippery far left and ‘Stop the War’, and on that the article seems absolutely correct.

Robert Routledge
Robert Routledge
2 years ago
Reply to  Johann Strauss

And what if the U.S.A. had been occupied by a Mexican controlled puppet government for decades taking thier wealth and freedom but Mexico eventually having to reluctantly give back the U.S.A to its citizens then those that forced the Mexicans out offered a partnership with the the U.S.A what would you have done?

Charles McEwan
Charles McEwan
2 years ago
Reply to  Johann Strauss

Your point about listening is good, but it has to operate both ways. After the fall of the Berlin Wall the West promised not to move NATO East. We have broken that promise. Here is a video about the causes of the conflict: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrMiSQAGOS4&t=10s

Andrew F
Andrew F
2 years ago
Reply to  Charles McEwan

There is no treaty about NATO expansion with Russia.
Countries formerly occupied by Russia chose to join the alliance.
It was obvious choice of any country with experience of Russian aggression and oppression.
However, there is treaty about integrity of Ukraine borders.

Brian Villanueva
Brian Villanueva
2 years ago
Reply to  Johann Strauss

Actually, Johann, we don’t have to speculate on what America would do is Mexico joined a hostile military alliance. We declared war on Germany in WWI largely because of an intercepted telegram in which the German High Command offered an alliance to Mexico if Mexico would attack us.

Ian Stewart
Ian Stewart
2 years ago
Reply to  Johann Strauss

Using your logic then the USA should demand that Mexico formally agree to never ally itself with Russia. And that fact destroys your argument as you hyperspeculate about what the USA would do.
Face it Johann – don’t try to use flawed logic as a defence – your position is anti NATO. So try being honest with yourself and us about your agenda, and explain your bias instead?

Liam O'Mahony
Liam O'Mahony
2 years ago
Reply to  Ian Stewart

If every sovereign state is entitled to chose its own security alliances then Mexico is perfectly entitled to align itself with Russia. You agree I presume?

Adam Bacon
Adam Bacon
2 years ago
Reply to  Johann Strauss

Excellent comment, thank you

Bret Larson
Bret Larson
2 years ago
Reply to  Johann Strauss

The Ukrainian people are suffering for the virtue signaling of the Biden government.
You are either going to support Ukraine as a member of NATO or not. Choosing somewhere in the middle is why there is war.

gpowis83
gpowis83
2 years ago
Reply to  Johann Strauss

First of all you wilfully or ignorantly overlook the fact that Russia shares borders with NATO countries already.

Lesley van Reenen
Lesley van Reenen
2 years ago
Reply to  gpowis83

Which countries are these?

Bruce Haycock
Bruce Haycock
2 years ago
Reply to  Johann Strauss

Your analogy with US geopolitical responses to a neighbour cohabiting with an enemy is correct but with severe limits.
The Ukraine has been occupied and made unfree in many ways by Russia whether in the guise of the Soviet Union or the Tsars. It, along with the other buffer border states simply did not like that experience nor wants it any more.
It, like the others, seek the support of neighbours on the other side, the West in the form of Nato, it is not Nato and the West which are pushing the buffer states security agenda
The US’s way of maintaining geopolitical security with its neighbours is peaceful trade, the relationship tensions simply being argument over the terms of that trade
Mexicans and Canadians don’t live existential anxiety that the US will try to overwhelm their sovereignty.
Russia’s historical geopolitical insecurity, a perfectly understandable one based on bitter experience of brutal invasions, needs to be attained by shifting into a peaceful coexistence of trade and respect for the free nationhood of its neghbours. Of course it is probably 3 generations away from evolving into a suitably liberal country, goverance wise, if ever, so in the meantime it should simply be robustly stood up to and not appeased. And certainly not be allowed the behave in such an antiquated imperialist way at the expense of neighbouring peoples who have tasted but a brief window of freedom

Last edited 2 years ago by Bruce Haycock
Andrew F
Andrew F
2 years ago
Reply to  Johann Strauss

Still defending gangsters like Putin?
It is completely irrelevant to current situation in Ukraine, what USA would do in hypothetical situation in Mexico.
Appeasing gangsters does not work.
Having properly financed and equipped armed forces does work, as Regan proved.
All the Russia appeasers can’t decide which option is true:
1) Putin invasion is limited in scope, so NATO members have nothing to fear.
2) Ukraine would be safe if it decided against NATO membership.
As we know now option 2 did not work for Ukraine.
It is still not clear whether option 1 would work but it is definitely better than option 2.

The main problem with siding with Putin, if you really live in USA, is that world order decided by Russia is not in USA and European interest.
The same goes for China.

Mike Smith
Mike Smith
2 years ago
Reply to  Johann Strauss

By that logic, Poland should invade Ukraine under the NATO banner since I doubt if NATO want a totalitarian commie state on its border.

Philip LeBoit
Philip LeBoit
2 years ago
Reply to  Johann Strauss

Perhaps Ukraine needs a buffer state to its east. Let’s demilitarize Russia west of the Urals, and then we can talk about Ukraine’s choices.

Colin Macdonald
Colin Macdonald
2 years ago
Reply to  Johann Strauss

I wonder why NATO is considered such a threat when they’ve had ample opportunity to wipe out Russian forces in Ukraine, but so far done nothing. Can anyone seriously model a scenario where NATO would invade Russia, a country with 6000 nukes?

Last edited 2 years ago by Colin Macdonald
Andrew Fisher
Andrew Fisher
2 years ago
Reply to  Johann Strauss

The very fact that you can make a comparison between Communist (in fact, Stalinist) expansionism and a people choosing their own path is telling. Putin knows full well that NATO is a defensive organisation; if you DO listen to what he says he simply denies the existence of Ukraine as a separate state despite the mutual recognition treaties of 1991.

Maybe the US in its successful ‘ containment’ policies misinterpreted some ‘national liberation movements’ and overreacted to them. However the prevention of the expansion of totalitarianism over the globe is an enormous (bipartisan) achievement to which we owe the US our thanks. This is no hyperbole, the Eurasian landmass was dominated by Communist powers from 1949.

Who knows what the useful idiot (at best) Allende might have done if he had stayed in power? It was, by the way, entirely possible to pursue left wing social democratic policies but not be a Communist, and justifiable suspicion was due to all those who slavishly followed Stalin’s line for decades.

Here are the ultimate big choice of the last century, whose side do you take, the US or Nazi Germany (killed millions), USSR (killed millions), Communist China (killed millions)?. This should be a no-brainer for anyone who believes in freedom and / or democracy.

The US has many faults, which are well rehearsed, but overall, thank God for America.

Last edited 2 years ago by Andrew Fisher
Prashant Kotak
Prashant Kotak
2 years ago

And, what then does all this say about the Labour party membership, one of the largest political party memberships in Europe, when they voted Corbyn and gang in as their leadership, not once, but twice? What does it say about all those ‘lovely Labour members’ as Kinnock might have said (and if he didn’t I’m sure he regrets not saying it, every day) then, eh?

James Chater
James Chater
2 years ago
Reply to  Prashant Kotak

Many of us didn’t.

Prashant Kotak
Prashant Kotak
2 years ago
Reply to  James Chater

Not that many. It was a landslide on both occasions. In 2015 he got 84% of the registered voters, 88 thousand voters. That’s 88 thousand Labour members who thought Corbyn and gang were just dandy.

James Chater
James Chater
2 years ago
Reply to  Prashant Kotak

In 2015 he won 251,417 – 59.5% of votes. In 2016 he won 313,209 – 61.8% of votes. Yes, he was massively popular within the grassroots of the party.

Last edited 2 years ago by James Chater
Prashant Kotak
Prashant Kotak
2 years ago
Reply to  James Chater

And that discrepancy between the all the voters’ figures you quoted (which included the huge surge of ÂŁ3 members) and the core ‘registered’ voters which I quoted, who were typically longer term Labour members, highlights some of the myths around that huge tranche of new members. The msm story was the new members highjacked the party, but in fact Corbyn was even more popular with the core long term members, meaning the party had in fact been highjacked a long time ago, and it was only the vetoes of the parliamentary party that held that membership at bay. Something Miliband killed off by handing over power to the members, who then proceeded to indulge their delusions on stilts of a socialist utopia to the absolute max. The new members of course indulged a different set of delusions, all around reversing the Brexit vote, something that only died with the 2019 election.

Liam O'Mahony
Liam O'Mahony
2 years ago
Reply to  James Chater

UK citizens are of course far better off with BJ and his Eton chums wreaking havoc on the British economy: creating a new poverty stricken population in post Brexit UK. Lucky they didn’t vote for a socialist!

James Chater
James Chater
2 years ago
Reply to  Liam O'Mahony

Simply shows the total mess our system was in. The ‘choice’: a privileged, lying charlatan nonetheless saying he was able to push Brexit on, or a procrastinating, semi-aware dreamer, apparently beholden to fanatics. Of course Corbyn should never have been there. The leadership election processes were abused completely by Momentum.

Last edited 2 years ago by James Chater
Andrew F
Andrew F
2 years ago
Reply to  Liam O'Mahony

I wonder what planet are you on.
Your beloved lefty project was tried in some countries with the same ethic makeup.
Europe: West Germany against East Germany.
Asia: South Korea against North Korea.

We know the results. Two great industrial countries on one side against impoverished dictatorships which spent a lot of money on barbed wire to keep people in.
I wonder why people like you are still in the West.
Why don’t you join some successful socialist paradise like Cuba or Venezuela?
There are millions there who would swap places with you to live in “poverty stricken UK”

Lesley van Reenen
Lesley van Reenen
2 years ago
Reply to  Liam O'Mahony

Ummmm
 Covid? Furlough? Is this all forgotten?

Sheryl Rhodes
Sheryl Rhodes
2 years ago
Reply to  Prashant Kotak

Voters are seduced by the surface appeal of “fighting for the little guy.” How they don’t ever notice the lack of actual progress, the lies, and the naked power-greed of the progressive leaders is the real question.

Ian McKinney
Ian McKinney
2 years ago

This was a very good evisceration of a frankly ridiculous coterie of morons who still have far too much influence on the public discourse.

AC Harper
AC Harper
2 years ago

The Left (as a generalisation) believe that Human Nature is perfectible and so are willing to use all their own imperfections to bring that glorious Utopia about. Since (according to Thomas Sowell) human nature is essentially unchanging and unchangeable the Left will always be disappointed and always reject the very social processes that could work.

Julian Farrows
Julian Farrows
2 years ago

Narcissistic self-loathing has itself become a trademark characteristic of the cultural shapers of the West. They are not unlike the medieval warlords and missionaries of old who, after performing sadistic acts of cruelty upon an intransigent peasantry, required that the courtly bards compose a majestic ballad praising their virtue and honoring their chivalric deeds.

Last edited 2 years ago by Julian Farrows
A Spetzari
A Spetzari
2 years ago

Tory Right or soft Left: to the far Left there is no difference. Every day they say so on social media: Liberals and Centrists are bemused to find themselves called far Right.

Just going to leave this here
Repeatedly calling people far-right doesn’t make them so. It just gives you diminishing returns on people paying attention to what you’re saying

Last edited 2 years ago by A Spetzari
Sheryl Rhodes
Sheryl Rhodes
2 years ago

Well, yeah. Since at least the Russian revolution, the Marxian Left is defined by opposition to all that exists that is not of the Marxian Left. The ONLY imperative is the liberation of the proletariat by whatever means–there is no other moral, ethical, or rational concern.
In practice (Praxis) the “good” is what the Party/Far Left is doing and saying today, because only the Party/Far Left is the embodiment of the Will of the proletariat, and the actions of the Party are only means by which this Will is made manifest in the world.
There IS no appeal to principle because the only principle is that the Party is always by definition “right.” If Hitler is supported today and denounced as the devil tomorrow, no reason need be given and no questions may be asked. If even the most loyal Party members are to be arbitrarily round up and shot, that is “right” because the Party leaders so decreed. There can never be any debate or even toleration of the presence of disagreement because the slightest opposition is ipso facto a betrayal of The Cause.
Stop trying to get them to make sense. They have no shame, no qualms, no cognitive dissonance whatsoever, because The Cause is the only things that matters, and the Cause is whatever they say it is today regardless of what they said it was yesterday.

James Chater
James Chater
2 years ago

Almost darkly comic & tragic, a la Conrad’s Secret Agent were it not for what they did to the Labour Party, from 2015 up until… about now.
I’ve had several verbal stand-offs with members of both StWC/SWP. If not hopelessly naive then, disingenuous and typically, deranged late 1970s casualties.
There is everything right with passion and Utopian dreaming as a nourishing stream but actual politics has to be based on the real-life situations – the society you live in; an awareness of its history and traditions.
Yes, it could be ‘boring’ but if you aspire to be a national leader you have to fall in, don’t you? At this advanced stage in our history UK society is unlikely to agitate for anything radical like: land reform; disestablishment of the Church of England and a much smaller Sovereign Support Grant, is it?
There was a brief moment when I thought Corbyn would wake up and be some sort of proper leader, defy the fluffy nutters, and get a bit real.But limited intelligence and the all-too human weakness, vanity, ensured everything was mucked up.

Last edited 2 years ago by James Chater
Andrew F
Andrew F
2 years ago
Reply to  James Chater

And which particular moment in Corbyn’s political journey make you believe he can become proper leader?
Far left is like religious cult.
No amount of real life experience would persuade them that communism would never work.
“no, no, it would work. I it was just badly implemented in Russia, China, Cambodia, and etc”

Ethniciodo Rodenydo
Ethniciodo Rodenydo
2 years ago

With my stupid little cap and my stupid little goatee I look jut like Lenin

Prashant Kotak
Prashant Kotak
2 years ago

What you can’t see in the picture is his Che Guevara t-shirt. Over which he is wearing a green anorak, with multiple CND badges sewn on.

Ethniciodo Rodenydo
Ethniciodo Rodenydo
2 years ago
Reply to  Prashant Kotak

Was not Che Guevara some kid of war criminal who admitted to the torture and murder of innocent civilians?

Prashant Kotak
Prashant Kotak
2 years ago

He apparently did some dubious things, as did the people he was fighting. He used to be a hero figure with the Corbynite type left back in the day, but I guess he has fallen out of fashion.

R Wright
R Wright
2 years ago

Che Guevera’s hilariously ‘problematic’ diary from his time in the Congo makes good reading.

Jeff Butcher
Jeff Butcher
2 years ago

‘Jeremy Corbyn doesn’t know he is an anti-Semite, but that doesn’t make him any less of one.’

I’m no fan of Corbyn, but this is a bit mad isn’t it? I don’t honestly believe Corbyn hates Jews; I think he was sewn up by the MSM on this one by and large.
Insert another white person and ‘racist’ into that sentence and you have CRT; insert ‘misogynist’ and you have the more extreme manifestations of feminism.
If we are not to accept what people say about themselves but assume they don’t know their own mind what are we to do but descend into paranoia? It’s a recipe for never-ending conflict.

Ian McKinney
Ian McKinney
2 years ago
Reply to  Jeff Butcher

He definitely is like.

Francis MacGabhann
Francis MacGabhann
2 years ago
Reply to  Ian McKinney

As stated above, a declaration that it is so does not make it so. It’s a bit like saying, “I’m middle-class and went to university, so I know things”. Don’t you just hate people like that?

AC Harper
AC Harper
2 years ago
Reply to  Jeff Butcher

One person’s banter is another person’s harassment. While I don’t think you should automatically ‘believe the victim’ you would hope that a savvy politician would be aware of how their words could be received.

A Spetzari
A Spetzari
2 years ago
Reply to  Jeff Butcher

No I think Tanya nails it.
He might not actively be anti-semitic in his thought processes, but by repeatedly allying himself with individuals, organisations and policies that are anti-semitic – he is by extension anti-semitic.

Jeff Butcher
Jeff Butcher
2 years ago
Reply to  A Spetzari

That’s not what she said though – she said he’s anti- Semitic but he doesn’t know it which is just bonkers, not that he has been associated with questionable organisations which of course he has.

A Spetzari
A Spetzari
2 years ago
Reply to  Jeff Butcher

Perhaps a different interpretation here – I think she is implying there is cognitive dissonance going on. He doesn’t genuinely realise that he is. He’s clearly not too intelligent so it’s quite possible.

Lesley van Reenen
Lesley van Reenen
2 years ago
Reply to  Jeff Butcher

I saw a clip of him standing by silently while one of his Jewish MPs was abused. Looked pretty anti-Semitic to me.

Jeff Butcher
Jeff Butcher
2 years ago
Reply to  A Spetzari

I think he is certainly against the existence of the state of Israel; that does not however imply he hates all Jews. Anti semitism is another of these terms used as a cudgel to shut down debate. My point is that saying he is anti semitic but DOESN’T KNOW IT is completely bananas!

Francis MacGabhann
Francis MacGabhann
2 years ago
Reply to  Jeff Butcher

Or manipulative.

R Wright
R Wright
2 years ago
Reply to  Jeff Butcher

His real problem is his low intelligence. He is conceptually incapable of separating his socialist anti-imperialist campaigning from the Israel-Palestine issue. It doesnt help that Israel likes to trip opponents up on the ‘disliking Israel = disliking Jews” minefield.

Andrew F
Andrew F
2 years ago
Reply to  R Wright

But the point is that disliking Israel means disliking Jews.
Otherwise, why would all this people protesting against Israel don’t protest against many other states like China, Russia etc.
It is not just antisemitism.
Just look at climate green blob.
Not protesting against reall problems like China and India coal fired power stations and overpopulation in Africa.
They protest against the West because they hate success of capitalist system.

Andrew McDonald
Andrew McDonald
2 years ago
Reply to  Andrew F

Possibly. But also maybe because protest in the UK against coal fired power stations in China is an optimistic but pointless exercise, whereas protesting to your own MP about coal fired power stations in the UK seems to be quite effective.

Lesley van Reenen
Lesley van Reenen
2 years ago
Reply to  R Wright

Because disliking Israel equals disliking Jews. It is a favourite argument of anti-Semites used to divert.

Phil Mac
Phil Mac
2 years ago

It becomes so easy to anticipate what the Far Left will do in every circumstance once you understand they just hate the West. There’s nothing any more complicated about it.
One other thing. The “Far Right” isn’t Right Wing, it’s Left. Always has been. If Right of centre means a tendency towards free markets, and as we move along we approach libertarian instincts, how in Hell does it suddenly embrace totalitarian Socialist principles as we inch farther rightwards?
Those called “Far Right” are just the racist Left, a bit like the people who are solidly anti-Semitic. In recent years Labour became the only true Far Right party we’ve ever had with any scale.

Sheryl Rhodes
Sheryl Rhodes
2 years ago
Reply to  Phil Mac

Exactly! The “right” and the “far right” are meaningless terms. In mainstream parlance they mean nothing other than “everything that good, thinking people reject.” To the extent that there are people who self-identify as Far-Right in the sense of violent lawless conduct, authoritarianism, and vicious unequal treatment of groups they hate, how is that conservative? Conservatives are traditionally thought of as law-abiding and freedom-loving, at least in the American version.

Ian Moore
Ian Moore
2 years ago

Far too many people indulging in “whataboutery” on these threads, and it is very odd to read justification of wholesale slaughter of innocents because “somebody else did it first”. There were many who were against the various wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya etc who are against the wars here. Never lose sight of that. Just because people live in, or broadly align with, the “West” does not mean they support everything done under that banner.
For all those defending/excusing; would it be ok for Putin to commit genocide in Ukraine, and use tactical nukes to wipe out a large part of the country, because these acts have been perpetrated before? Whatever you think of the West’s activities in the past, and I personally am a vocal critic/opponent, Putin/Russia now are far beyond reasonable behaviour, and are basing these atrocities on mistruth to say the very least.

Colin Macdonald
Colin Macdonald
2 years ago
Reply to  Ian Moore

It’s a strange form of whattaboutery indeed, it wasn’t Ukraine that invaded Iraq,Kosovo etc.

Francis MacGabhann
Francis MacGabhann
2 years ago

So, is John Bercow’s fall from grace anti-Semitism?

Drahcir Nevarc
Drahcir Nevarc
2 years ago

“a Socialist Utopia is unlikely in a country that is also a monarchy”
Reminds me of Prince Sihanouk’s attempts to find an accommodation with the Khmer Rouge.

Bernie Wilcox
Bernie Wilcox
2 years ago

Aside from the debate on the rights and wrongs of NATO expansion and Russian aggression, I find something rather amusing in the Left’s campaign on this terrible situation if anything can be amusing when people are suffering so dreadfully. That is the fact that the Left have tried (very successfully) to cancel any view that opposes their view in the past 10 years and now they’re being subjected to the very same thing themselves.
Poetic justice.

Christopher Chantrill
Christopher Chantrill
2 years ago

If you want to understand all this I think it helps to know, from Curtis Yarvin, that “there is no politics without an enemy.” And he got it from Nazi Carl Schmitt and his notion that politics is the distinction between friend and enemy.
In other words, anyone in politics is in the game of finding an enemy and then defeating and humiliating that enemy.
The left believes that politics is the royal road to justice. I believe that politics is the royal road to injustice.
But I’m just a racist-sexist-homophobe. What do I know?

Terence Fitch
Terence Fitch
2 years ago

My daughter in law is Finnish. Brought up in the North with plenty of hunting experience. Few years ago remember asking her view of Putin. Her face darkened and her eyes took on a certain look.

Graham Stull
Graham Stull
2 years ago

This article is an ugly rant, full of self-righteousness and lacking much insight, beyond cherry picking references that suit the journalist’s narrative.
I am no fan of the politics of the far left, for sure, but what of substance is Tanya Gold holding against them? Beating the tired drum of anti-Semitism? Wanting a peaceful solution to a war? Suggesting that Russia has a point of view, any point of view, other than the pure driven madness of an unhinged leader? What then, is her proposed endgame? Nuclear war?
At times it feels like Ms Gold is frothing at the mouth as her fingers pound the keyboard, accusing others of cowardice. I look forward to seeing her with a Kalashnikov on the streets of Kiev.

Julian Farrows
Julian Farrows
2 years ago

I’m sorry you’re getting downvotes. Personally, I think they should be used sparingly and not just for expressing a difference of opinion.

Milos Bingles
Milos Bingles
2 years ago
Reply to  Julian Farrows

Thanks Julian.

Alan Hawkes
Alan Hawkes
2 years ago

Perhaps we should consider that what Corbyn and Co. are suffering from is a form of obsessive compulsive disorder applied to politics.

Ian Moore
Ian Moore
2 years ago

This line here sums up why, primarily, they will remain unelectable for a long time. They just do not understand how voting, and democracy works.
“It’s poison on the doorstep. It made former miners vote Tory in 2019 because if soft Left is far Right, why not? The violence of their language offered a creeping kind of dehumanisation of the enemy who is also — crucially — a voter: someone to be seduced by a serious politician is, for them, only someone to be despised.”

John Wilkes
John Wilkes
2 years ago

Corbyn’s entire life has been motivated by self loathing, He is a privileged white middle class straight man. If he were discovered to have Jewish roots I would not be the least bit surprised.

Insufficiently Sensitive
Insufficiently Sensitive
2 years ago

I concluded that they do not believe in parliamentary democracy, because they do not believe in the legitimacy of opposition.
Well put!

Marcus Tiro
Marcus Tiro
2 years ago

Beautifully written. You have powerfully stated what the far-left never admits–that they seek power above all, and so they embrace ugly political violence . . . b/c it works. Unwilling and, in fact, unable to debate, they attack. This aligns them with the Marxists, which is appropriate, b/c that is who they are–destroyers, not builders. TY for a great essay.

Francis MacGabhann
Francis MacGabhann
2 years ago

The first half of the article is spot on, then the second half veers off onto the usual hobby horse.

Last edited 2 years ago by Francis MacGabhann
Hersch Schneider
Hersch Schneider
2 years ago

Calling out far Left violence and open anti-Semitism is now a ‘hobby horse’?

Francis MacGabhann
Francis MacGabhann
2 years ago

Simply declaring someone or something to be anti-semitic does not make it so. It’s a bit like “transphobe” in this regard.

Francis MacGabhann
Francis MacGabhann
2 years ago

Just declaring it to be so doesn’t make it so.

Leto McAllister
Leto McAllister
2 years ago

Curious discourse. Reminds me of “The Seventh Function of Language” by Laurent Binet. Spoiler alert, but that’s the Seventh function in action exactly: declaring it makes it so. A bit like magic, or like the media manufactured reality.

Rod McLaughlin
Rod McLaughlin
2 years ago

The only cowards on the “far left” are those like Diane Abbott, who abandoned her opposition to the war criminals of NATO when Starmer threatened to remove the Labour whip.
“Nato is not a defensive alliance but an aggressive one, centrally involved in wars in Afghanistan, Libya and Yugoslavia, and engaged in more and more ‘out of area operations’ including in the Indo-Pacific”. – Stop the War Coalition. This isn’t quite right, because it’s possible to be both defensive and aggressive simultaneously, but it’s a lot closer to the truth than this article.
On August 6th 1945, the USA committed the greatest crime in history – starting the nuclear arms race. The Russian response was entirely defensive, and the US and its NATO whores have continued to threaten humanity ever since.

Last edited 2 years ago by Rod McLaughlin
Leto McAllister
Leto McAllister
2 years ago
Reply to  Rod McLaughlin

100%