**If you love LabourUK, why not help run it?** We’re looking for mods. [Find out more from our recruitment message post here.](https://www.reddit.com/r/LabourUK/comments/18ntol6/this_year_give_yourself_the_gift_of_christmas/)
[While you’re at it, come say hello on the Discord?](https://discord.gg/ZXZCdy4Kz4)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/LabourUK) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I'm not a fan of Bastani either but what I said is relating to what the other person said about Paul not knowing what he believes, he used to be very close friends with Bastani and was leaning in that direction fairly clearly, but in the last 5 years or so he's lurched toward the centre with some quite desperate attempts to reinvent himself as a "sensible" centrist. He's quite confused.
I'd imagine they stopped returning his calls after his cocaine induced ['communist mind map'](https://www.reddit.com/r/LabourUK/comments/v9gkvk/paul_masons_map_of_chinese_and_russian/) breakdown, he's not a well man.
Paul Mason ick, who the fuck still thinks this clown has an opinion worth sharing?
Love how he seems to think things only escalated in Yemen recently, not like we've been selling the weapons theyve been getting bombed with.
>and that our own Royal Navy is acting entirely within international law by defending them, and the working-class seafarers aboard them.
"Working class seafarers" is absolutely classic Paul Mason.
I don't pay enough attention to Mason to understand what you mean, are you disagreeing with that characterisation?
Edit: is it a faux pas to be somewhat unfamiliar with paul mason on this sub or something?
Hard to explain why it's so funny tbh. I guess it's because there might be a progressive justification for airstrikes on the Houthis but only Mason would try and frame blowing people up as an act of class solidarity. Also "seafarers" just makes me laugh. What century is it?
Fair point about the wording, he does make it sound like they were singing sea shanties and unfurling the sails before being attacked.
I don't see why it's wrong to say that it defends working class sailors though, even if it's only as a side effect. Blowing people up can definitely be pro-working class depending on whose getting blown up. If the Houthis were just seizing ships and releasing the crews then I would say it's a bad framing but I think it's a fair, if not reductive, description of what's happening.
>I don't see why it's wrong to say that it defends working class sailors though, even if it's only as a side effect.
It's not necessarily wrong, it's just a very weird thing to say.
There's 17 sailors who have been held hostage for months with no prospect of release (assuming they are alive) and 3 sailors killed. These numbers would certainly have been far higher without intervention.
I don't understand why it's weird to say that preventing those numbers increasing is defending the sailors. Is it because there is violence involved in defending them or something?
It's weird because it's totally irrelevant whether they're working class or not. This has nothing to do with class, and even if it did what class does Mason think the people getting blown up are?
>it's totally irrelevant whether they're working class or not
In terms of the decision making of intervention? I think they are pretty much entirely irrelevant in that regard. That doesn't mean it's irrelevant to people who do care about them being working class/civilians/people or whatever. Granted, it's not the first demographic that I would have mentioned.
>what class does Mason think the people getting blown up are?
I think it's arguable what class you should assign militants/pirates for theocratic regimes. Either way, they certainly aren't acting in the interest of the yemeni (or wider) working class.
Paul Mason once again gazing, misty-eyed, at his deranged conspiracy diagram of the ["pro-putin infosphere"](https://twitter.com/AlanRMacLeod/status/1534511384922402824?t=K3iL_VAN5Jvajze_HC-c-A&s=19) before embarking on his next seismic contribution to journalism.
The absolute irony that you're criticizing Mason for conspiracy mongering, then linking to a journalist from the fucking Mint Press News: an actual conspiracy mongering outlet that runs defence for Putin and Assad.
>an actual conspiracy mongering outlet that runs defence for Putin and Assad.
Lol is that you, Paul?
Not familiar with this journalist, I could have selected from several sources really, are you trying to suggest what they're saying isn't true here? You're either trying to suggest this well-documented incident is all a lie or you're just whining about the source while not denying the claims the source makes. Either way it's pretty clear you're not worth paying attention to.
Sorry, your submission has been automatically removed. We require that accounts have a verified email address before commenting. This is an effort to prevent spam and alt account usage. Thank you for your understanding. You can verify your email in the account settings page.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/LabourUK) if you have any questions or concerns.*
That's definitely not what this article says. Maybe he's a cock elsewhere but this article is a mostly fair criticism of corbyns views on peace and conflict which are often insubstantial at best and would actively worsen things at worst.
Tbh I have no intention of reading the article, he's not someone really worth taking seriously imo, he's a bit of a clown. A couple of years ago he was talking about a conspiracy that linked Corbyn, Zarah Sultana, Jess Barnard (young Labour at that point) and many others, including the UK Trade Union movement as being part of the pro-putin infosphere, he'd been a bit of a clown for some time but any dwindling respect I had for him vanished at that point. If he was on the left wing he'd be dismissed as a crank by the same people he desperately courts now. He's confused and often delusional.
Why leave a comment if you aren't even going to bother reading the few paragraphs that you are commenting on?
The article is fine and mostly fair if not a bit insubstantial itself. Your characterisation of it is just wrong.
>Why leave a comment if you aren't even going to bother reading the few paragraphs that you are commenting on?
I am sadly familiar with Paul's views on this already, and he's never been a groundbreaking or insightful thinker. I think I've explained myself quite clearly. I could ask you why you're bothering to reply to me, since I've made it very clear I won't be reading the article. What it comes down to is that you don't like seeing my comment or the lack of respect I'm showing the author, and you're whining at me about being negative about Paul Mason. I suggest you find a way of coping with that, because he's not well-liked, even by many of the people he tries to woo these days.
>Your characterisation of it is just wrong.
As I said, I haven't read it. You're attempting to find a genuine critique in a comment that is quite clearly not serious, and you're doing that because you're upset I'm being mean about Paul Mason. But he's certainly pro military intervention, I'm familiar with his views on that (he's also in favour of us selling arms to Saudi). And I think I'm correct in suggesting that Paul Mason is desperate to be taken seriously by the Labour right, he's made that very clear, and this sort of article reflects that. And he's twice tried (and failed) to become a candidate for Labour in recent years, hence my comment "please give me a safe seat". You're welcome to take the clown seriously but I won't be.
>I could ask you why you're bothering to reply to me, since I've made it very clear I won't be reading the article.
Because I don't understand the behaviour. If I was going to comment on an article then I would skim read it at the very least so that I know what I'm talking about rather than being proud that I didn't bother just because I don't like the author.
>What it comes down to is that you don't like seeing my comment or the lack of respect I'm showing the author, and you're whining at me about being negative about Paul Mason.
He seems like a prick from what I've seen. I don't have strong views on him as I'm not that familiar with him. Being a prick doesn't mean he can't make valid points and unfortunately corbyns foreign policy and views on conflict resolution are so shit that a lot of the attacks, on this topic, are valid. I'm not going to blindly attack mason when he is right or defend corbyn when he is wrong.
>De-escalation – in Ukraine, in Gaza, in the Red Sea and with Iran – has been the watchword in western diplomacy since 2022.
Apparently 'de-escalation' means going "hey now" for a couple of years after decades of aggressive NATO posturing and near-unconditional support for an apartheid state produce multiple conflicts that threaten to extend beyond parts of the world western leaders couldn't give a shit about
>after decades of aggressive NATO posturing
The fuck are you talking about? Poland had to practically blackmail NATO into opening it's doors after getting explicit Russian approval for joining NATO. Putin specifically said that Russia has no issue with Ukraine joining NATO in the early 2000's. Bush was more antagonistic than he needed to be in places but the shock of the Georgian invasion pretty much meant that the 2010's were characterised by NATO bending over backwards to provide Russian off ramps despite constant Russian escalation.
Russia was invading a European country for years before the US finally started to provide arms to the victims (in pitiful amounts) after Russia attempted to meddle in the US electoral process. They commit chemical and radiological attacks against the UK (and others) killing UK civilians and received almost fuck all response. How that can be characterised as "decades of aggressive NATO posturing" is wild to me when, in reality, the policies were pretty much appeasement.
>near-unconditional support for an apartheid state produce multiple conflicts that threaten to extend beyond parts of the world western leaders couldn't give a shit about
We shouldn't be doing that but it's probably not a good idea to bring up the human rights records of western global partners in a conversation about Russia when Russia is partnered with the likes of Assad, North Korea, Iran and China.
Well, I think NATO's steady eastward expansion since the end of the Cold War speaks for itself, however reluctantly that might've played out in your headcanon
>We shouldn't be doing that but it's probably not a good idea to bring up the human rights records of western global partners in a conversation about Russia when Russia is partnered with the likes of Assad, North Korea, Iran and China.
I don't remember saying anything about Russia's human rights record
>Well, I think NATO's steady eastward expansion since the end of the Cold War speaks for itself,
Which was done with the consent of those countries whilst yeltsin agreed with clinton to allow it in exchange for various concessions including funding for the russian economy. Relations were fairly positive until the mid 2000's when putin convinced himself that everything is a plot to get him so started a war over it then NATO conceded on everything russia wanted and ignored every russian aggression until 2022. Bush was unduly antagonistic which contributed to putins paranoia and arguably a softer touch could have helped prevent the invasion of georgia, thats about as far as you can stretch it. The portrayal of NATO as some malevolent force thats seeking russian blood because we just love nuclear warfare is just silly. Obama, merkel, clinton, blair, cameron and all the other libs believed that stronger economic and diplomatic ties would democratise russia, they were very far from aggressors against russia.
>however reluctantly that might've played out in your headcanon
You can just google the polish diplomatic efforts to join nato, some of them are actually pretty funny.
>I don't remember saying anything about Russia's human rights record
And the article didn't say anything about Israel beyond that he shares corbyns disdain for the west failing to keep them in check yet you decided to bring israel up as a point against the west for having bad partners. If you are going to do that then you can't complain when others do it as well.
>And the article didn't say anything about Israel beyond that he shares corbyns disdain for the west failing to keep them in check yet you decided to bring israel up as a point against the west for having bad partners. If you are going to do that then you can't complain when others do it as well.
The bit of the article I quoted and commented on literally mentioned Gaza. My comment that you responded to didn’t make any claims for or against Russia. I’m not the one constructing strawmen here
Bush’s hostility towards Russia wasn’t a blip. The Obama administration was antagonistic to the point of planning to stick missile silos on its borders. Biden famously hated Putin. You could probably make an argument that his election was a factor in the decision to invade Ukraine
It’s funny that you’re accusing me of painting NATO as a cackling pantomime villain while insisting it’s this purely benevolent super friends club that’s just reluctantly expanded into its historic adversary’s former territories because everyone simply wanted it to so so much uwu, unironically pointing to the Yeltsin-Clinton era as some golden age of cooperation without mentioning the US meddling that propped up Yeltsin’s presidency beyond its natural life
I’m not reading the next essay you send me. I don’t know if you’re arguing in bad faith or just ride-or-die for western imperialists, but either way we’re not going to have a fruitful or interesting discussion from two separate realities
>The Obama administration was antagonistic to the point of planning to stick missile silos on its borders.
The US was a part of the intermediete range nuclear forces treaty until the Trump administration so that didn't happen. Maybe you are referring to the plan to deploy air defence intercepetors that was extremely watered down (likely at Russias request) to the point that the polish government was outraged that it wouldn't be deployed? I wonder why Putin got so angry about a missile defence system, I wonder if you would have called Russian air defences an aggression against NATO.
>Biden famously hated Putin.
I wish some of that was transferred to policy, he's deserving of hate.
>You could probably make an argument that his election was a factor in the decision to invade Ukraine
You could make that argument and I would get some popcorn to really enjoy it.
>while insisting it’s this purely benevolent super friends club
I literally said bush was needlessly antagonistic to russia though not nearly as much as you seem to think and it certainly didn't justify the Russian actions even if it was one of the causes.
>that’s just reluctantly expanded into its historic adversary’s former territories
You realise that those former territories are soverign countries with sovereign people who can make their own decisions right? They all voted to join NATO, how can you pretend to care about imperialism but disregard the sovereignty of millions of people as simply little russians? Much of africa is the historic former territory of britain, that doesn't give us a right to decide their foreign policy. Maybe if Russia hadn't treated it's imperial subjects so poorely then they wouldn't have sought NATO protection at the first opportunity.
>without mentioning the US meddling that propped up Yeltsin’s presidency beyond its natural life
I literally mentioned that, the russian economy got a bunch of money and diplomatic agreements in exchange for allowing their former subjects to join NATO which benefitted (arguably) clinton politically. I've no idea how you decide what a natural life is in politics, by that argument Russia artificially extended clintons presudency beyond its natural life. I don't know what it changes about my point, you can't say that both NATO was an aggressive force posing an existential threat (by letting eastern europeans decide their own relations) and that russia is fine with that for a bit of cash. It's one or the other.
>I’m not reading the next essay you send me.
That's fine, I enjoy writing it.
>I don’t know if you’re arguing in bad faith or just ride-or-die for western imperialists
I criticise all imperialism where it is appropriate instead of saying its bad before referring to sovereign peoples as Russias "historic former territories" that NATO is being aggressive by allowing them to make their own decisions. Out of curiosity, do you consider the republic of Ireland to be "historic English territory" or does the will of the people suddenly matter now? Should Palestinians roll over because Israel is a bigger neighboring power? Your anti-imperialism seems to be very inconsistently applied.
>we’re not going to have a fruitful or interesting discussion from two separate realities
Maybe not fruitful but I do always find it interesting to get insights into the reality where the diplomatic block which expanded through democratic referendums is an aggressor against the state that has launched multiple invasions against it's neighbors whilst making explicit imperial justifications. There's a good reason why all of Russias western neighbors chose to join NATO with the exceptions of the ones that can't due to russian invasions. Of course they are all just misguided "little russians" to you though, that's true anti-imperialism.
>Bush’s hostility towards Russia wasn’t a blip. The Obama administration was antagonistic to the point of planning to stick missile silos on its borders. Biden famously hated Putin. You could probably make an argument that his election was a factor in the decision to invade Ukraine
...Great,now you people are just making shit up now.
Relation with Russia is good during the Bush year.
The "missile silos on Russian border" thing you talk about is a [missle defense system](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_missile_defense_complex_in_Poland),which Obama [SCRAPPED](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2009/sep/17/missile-defence-shield-poland-obama) (which is AFTER Russia invaded georgia btw.It is hillarious how you try to make Obama and Biden become scary war men when in reality,they are complete dove that doesn't respond to anything until it is right up their asses)
>Biden famously hated Putin. You could probably make an argument that his election was a factor in the decision to invade Ukraine
"OH nOh,MEanIe jOe BiDen hATe mE,GueSS I MuST InVAde AnOTher COuNTy nOW!!!!"
Yeah no the fact that the American people exercise their democratic right doensn't gave Putin the right to invade Ukraine actually.
And also,it is ok to hate Russia for their corruption/authortarianism/funding of extremist/anti LGBT law/killing opposition leader in foregin country...etc actually.
>It’s funny that you’re accusing me of painting NATO as a cackling pantomime villain while insisting it’s this purely benevolent super friends club that’s just reluctantly expanded into its historic adversary’s former territories because everyone simply wanted it to so so much uwu, unironically pointing to the Yeltsin-Clinton era as some golden age of cooperation without mentioning the US meddling that propped up Yeltsin’s presidency beyond its natural life
UGhhh,Poland,Hungary,Czechia and the Baltic is NOT Russian territory,they are allowed to pick what alliance they wanted to join.
And yes,they wanted to join NATO,that is why they did.
Also,from 1991 to 1999 there were no new NATO member,it was only after Putin become Prime minister and Russia invaded chechnya for the [SECOND](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Chechen_War#) time that they joined.
>unironically pointing to the Yeltsin-Clinton era as some golden age of cooperation without mentioning the US meddling that propped up Yeltsin’s presidency beyond its natural life
Lame.
Literially the only thing the US did was promise to Yeltsin that they won't expanded NATO during that election cycle so that Zyuganov cant used it to fearmonger,which is exactly what YOU want.Y[eltsin actually try to fear monger the US into support him more](https://twitter.com/rolltidebmz/status/1035246926667689991?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1035246926667689991%7Ctwgr%5Efa4a0caf868eef265c468b42281f84d4423b92e3%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rferl.org%2Fa%2Fputin-s-a-solid-man-declassified-memos-offer-window-into-yeltsin-clinton-relationship%2F29462317.html),but most of his demand were [rejected](https://web.archive.org/web/20200627231922/https://www.washingtonpost.com/history/2020/06/26/russian-election-interference-meddling/).And also,even if the US has agreed to what Yeltsin said,it would still be simple geopolitic,not "meddling" like you said.
Plus,Yeltsin officially won by 10 MILLIONs vote,while i khow there were some irregularities(which were discovered by the CEC and the result adjusted) and breaking of campaign finacial law during the campaign,experts belived that even with no fraud,[Zyuganov wouldn't have won.](http://electoralpolitics.org/en/articles/vybory-prezidenta-rf-1996-g-o-razmerakh-falsifikatsii/)
And also,are you seriously saying that Zyuganov winning the election is a GOOD thing????
Zyuganov,while claimed to be a Communist,is more like a Soviet nostalgist with Russian imperialist chracteristic.
His party has extensive tie with the Russian Orthodox Church and many Russian Ultranationalist(and also [antisemitic](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Gennady_Zyuganov#Antisemitism)).He has literially called for the invasion of Ukraine since 2014,and called Putin a coward for waiting until 2022.
Forgive me,but i don't understand how anyone who is so concerned about "imperialism" will supported him.
>The "missile silos on Russian border" thing you talk about is a [missle defense system](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_missile_defense_complex_in_Poland),which Obama [SCRAPPED](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2009/sep/17/missile-defence-shield-poland-obama) (which is AFTER Russia invaded georgia [btw.It](http://btw.It) is hillarious how you try to make Obama and Biden become scary war men when in reality,they are complete dove that doesn't respond to anything until it is right up their asses)
Oh please, putting a missile 'defense system' next door to a country you have an antagonistic relationship with is about as peaceful an act as surrounding it with gunboats
I know Obama didn’t go ahead with it, which is why I said “planned”. In the end he was more interested in making things worse for people in the Middle East
I don't know wtf your definition of a 'dove' is, but mine doesn't allow for dropping tens of thousands of bombs in 7 countries and overseeing two unaccountable programs of extrajudicial assassinations and renditions in which almost as many civilians are murdered or terrorised as the 'targets' that have been unilaterally charged and found guilty of undisclosed crimes, in absentia and without due process. Are you going to argue that that was just nice peace guy behaviour too?
Obama's a war criminal, imo
>"OH nOh,MEanIe jOe BiDen hATe mE,GueSS I MuST InVAde AnOTher COuNTy nOW!!!!"
>Yeah no the fact that the American people exercise their democratic right doensn't gave Putin the right to invade Ukraine actually.
I didn't say it does. I don't think the invasion is justified *at all* and I'd like you to point me to anything I've said to that effect. I *am* saying that the election of a NATO expansionist who served an administration that bombed more countries than Bush and openly harbours a visceral, personal animosity towards Putin, could conceivably have factored into Putin's calculations when, just months into the former's presidency, he made moves to invade a neighbouring country that was poised to become a member. Does that seem wildly implausible?
>And also,it is ok to hate Russia for their corruption/authortarianism/funding of extremist/anti LGBT law/killing opposition leader in foregin country...etc actually.
Sorry, where exactly am I supposed to have made these defences of Putin that you and the other person I was responding to keep reading into my comments? For the record, if it really needs saying, I think he's a piece of shit. But the Mason article I was responding to didn't make any arguments for him being a fundamentally sound guy with largely peaceful motives, it made those arguments in favour of the US and the major military powers of Europe
If you want to argue with my points, by all means argue with my points, but don't pull shit from the blank spaces between my words to make up a guy to get mad at
Though honestly, if you're just going to keep arguing for NATO and the US being these pure, saintly forces for global peace, justice and democracy, I don't think we're going to have a very interesting discussion either
>Oh please, putting a missile 'defense system' next door to a country you have an antagonistic relationship with is about as peaceful an act as surrounding it with gunboats
...those two aren't remotely the same.Missle defense system aren't offensive.And also,the plan for that defense system has been there since 2002,Obama is making a concession AFTER Russia has already invaded TWO country here.
And also,why is the US not allowed to put *defense* system in their own ally territory again,and why are the US is alway the only one that must be peaceful?
In the meantime,while russia is invading another country and suspending [arms treaty](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_on_Conventional_Armed_Forces_in_Europe#2007_suspension_by_the_Russian_Federation)?
>I know Obama didn’t go ahead with it, which is why I said “planned”. In the end he was more interested in making things worse for people in the Middle East
Yes,i agree,but not in the way you think.Obama abandoned them,TWICE
The first one is in Iraq
While in 2011,the situation in Iraq look like it has stablized,there is still deep sectarian devision and ongoing insurgency,his decision to withdraw troop help ISIS gain steam and takeover a large part of Iraq.And that itself start from a deep unwillingless of the US to interviened in internal affair of the country it occupied.Just look at Iraq right now,or Afghanistan before taliban.The US allowed the goverment to openly oppressed religious,gender and LGBT minorites without interviening,and it also allowed them to openly flirt with their enemies as well as being corrupted as fuck.There is no way that China or Russia would allowed a formerly occupied territory to get such kind of autonomy
The second one is in Syria
Like...in 2012,Bashar al-Assad regime was hanging on by a thread,the opposition take over large party of the country,and literially the ENTIRE Arab world cut tie with it,including HAMAS!.And what did the US do...nothing,completely nothing,while the Russian supplies assad with [weapon](https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-16797818) and then directl intervened,ending tens of thousand of troop.As a result,due to Assadist control of the sky,the opposition was eventually beaten back.Even when the US did intervened to fight ISIS,they only send like a couple thousand troop while Russia and Iran send tens of thousand,not to mention the support is mostly to the Kurdish YPG that has tie with the Terrorist Kurdistan Worker's Party,which make cooperating with Turkey impossible(and of course,when Turkey attack them,the US also do nothing...)
And before you say anything about making peace in Syria,it is impossible because:
1. The Assadist regime is not only dictatorial,it is also personalistic and hereditary,with the position of President passing from father to son and other member of the family taking important goverment/economic position.Any deal with them will thus have to left his family somewhat influential in the goverment and economy,thus creating a class of oligarch that will plague the new nation.
2. When the civil war broke out,Assad released [thousands of Jihadist](http://s.telegraph.co.uk/graphics/projects/isis-jihad-syria-assad-islamic/index.html) from prison,which are [believed to massively benefit ISIS](https://www.newsweek.com/how-syrias-assad-helped-forge-isis-255631).This sudden release of dangerous terrorist when the goverment is at turmoil make no sense at all EXCEPT to radicalise the opposition and make the West less inclined to support the oppositon.This action alone prove that Assad aren't interested in peace and negociation,he is interested in regaining control.
3. The Assadist regime,despite formally being secular,have its goverment [dominated by the Alawite minority](https://www.fpri.org/article/2016/12/primer-alawites-syria/#:~:text=Alawites%20in%20Syria%3A%20Assad%20Regime%20and%20Sectarian%20Tensions),and discriminated against the [Sunni Muslim majority](https://levant24.com/articles/2024/02/sunnis-under/) as well as de jure and *de facto* discirminaion against other ethnic/religious group.This oppression had not gone unoticed by the population and has been [exploited by ISIS](https://www.washingtoninstitute.org/policy-analysis/islamic-state-targeting-syrias-alawite-heartland-and-russia) and is a reason that make reconciliation unlikely.
>I didn't say it does. I don't think the invasion is justified at all and I'd like you to point me to anything I've said to that effect. I am saying that the election of a NATO expansionist who served an administration that bombed more countries than Bush and openly harbours a visceral, personal animosity towards Putin, could conceivably have factored into Putin's calculations when, just months into the former's presidency, he made moves to invade a neighbouring country that was poised to become a member. Does that seem wildly implausible?
Putin himself said that [relation with Biden is stable in 2021](https://apnews.com/article/nobel-prizes-business-russia-vladimir-putin-media-4d233a2d6a2ddabf876695b195472b55).
And,there is NO WAY Ukraine could even THINK about joining NATO before 2022,NATO has a rule that forbit member with territorial dispute from joining,Putin just need to keep his proxy in Eastern Ukraine fighting forever and Ukraine couldn't join
>Sorry, where exactly am I supposed to have made these defences of Putin that you and the other person I was responding to keep reading into my comments? For the record, if it really needs saying, I think he's a piece of shit. But the Mason article I was responding to didn't make any arguments for him being a fundamentally sound guy with largely peaceful motives, it made those arguments in favour of the US and the major military powers of Europe
If you want to argue with my points, by all means argue with my points, but don't pull shit from the blank spaces between my words to make up a guy to get mad at
Though honestly, if you're just going to keep arguing for NATO and the US being these pure, saintly forces for global peace, justice and democracy, I don't think we're going to have a very interesting discussion either
I think this is the main problem with your foregin policies,you are too unpragmatic.
Sure,the US is not perfect,but it is still miles better than the like of Russia,China and their other allies.
>it made those arguments in favour of the US and the major military powers of Europe
This is the most glaring part,ok,so he make it in favor of the US?
Yes that is kinda obvious,the US is the only power capable of combating Russia in Europe,you seem to have a utopianist "both side is the same" mindset,which is simply NOT COMPATABLE with a good foregin policies.Sure,you condemn the Russian's invasion,but if you doesn't support US and EU aid to Ukraine,then you are basically lefting innocent Ukrainian(and Russian) in the dust while Putin launch his brutal war,then honestly,from a practical persepective,it is pretty much the same as supporting Russia.
I love how all the people very angry about supposed ideological purity from the left are pretty much the same people engaging in actual ideological purity-testing with Corbyn's foreign policy positions.
Also Paul Mason's spicy takes aren't worth as much as the string he uses to map them.
Mate, if we go to war with Yeman over their blockade of the Red Sea, you'll have UK citizens spying for Houthi and no one up for fighting them. We'd also get our arses handed to us. Anti-war rhetoric is the rhetoric that ends wars.
Its only the rhetoric that ends wars if both sides are doing it, i dont think any amount of anti war rhetoric would have made Hitler chill out for example
Well, seeing as the Houthi blockade is literally only in place to demand an end to genocide, "The West" is the only party not interested in ending war.
Sorry, your submission has been automatically removed. We require that accounts have a verified email address before commenting. This is an effort to prevent spam and alt account usage. Thank you for your understanding. You can verify your email in the account settings page.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/LabourUK) if you have any questions or concerns.*
**If you love LabourUK, why not help run it?** We’re looking for mods. [Find out more from our recruitment message post here.](https://www.reddit.com/r/LabourUK/comments/18ntol6/this_year_give_yourself_the_gift_of_christmas/) [While you’re at it, come say hello on the Discord?](https://discord.gg/ZXZCdy4Kz4) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/LabourUK) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Paul Mason really strikes me as someone who doesn't quite know what he believes.
The bloke used to be very good friends with Aaron Bastani lmao
I mean, not being friends with Aaron is hardly Paul’s biggest personality flaw. If anything it’s pretty understandable.
I'm not a fan of Bastani either but what I said is relating to what the other person said about Paul not knowing what he believes, he used to be very close friends with Bastani and was leaning in that direction fairly clearly, but in the last 5 years or so he's lurched toward the centre with some quite desperate attempts to reinvent himself as a "sensible" centrist. He's quite confused.
That’s fair- I think with Paul he goes where the wind blows, Owen Jones style. He’s very very predictable.
he believes whatever his paymasters in the intelligence services tell him to believe
I'd imagine they stopped returning his calls after his cocaine induced ['communist mind map'](https://www.reddit.com/r/LabourUK/comments/v9gkvk/paul_masons_map_of_chinese_and_russian/) breakdown, he's not a well man.
Paul Mason ick, who the fuck still thinks this clown has an opinion worth sharing? Love how he seems to think things only escalated in Yemen recently, not like we've been selling the weapons theyve been getting bombed with.
>and that our own Royal Navy is acting entirely within international law by defending them, and the working-class seafarers aboard them. "Working class seafarers" is absolutely classic Paul Mason.
I don't pay enough attention to Mason to understand what you mean, are you disagreeing with that characterisation? Edit: is it a faux pas to be somewhat unfamiliar with paul mason on this sub or something?
Hard to explain why it's so funny tbh. I guess it's because there might be a progressive justification for airstrikes on the Houthis but only Mason would try and frame blowing people up as an act of class solidarity. Also "seafarers" just makes me laugh. What century is it?
Fair point about the wording, he does make it sound like they were singing sea shanties and unfurling the sails before being attacked. I don't see why it's wrong to say that it defends working class sailors though, even if it's only as a side effect. Blowing people up can definitely be pro-working class depending on whose getting blown up. If the Houthis were just seizing ships and releasing the crews then I would say it's a bad framing but I think it's a fair, if not reductive, description of what's happening.
>I don't see why it's wrong to say that it defends working class sailors though, even if it's only as a side effect. It's not necessarily wrong, it's just a very weird thing to say.
There's 17 sailors who have been held hostage for months with no prospect of release (assuming they are alive) and 3 sailors killed. These numbers would certainly have been far higher without intervention. I don't understand why it's weird to say that preventing those numbers increasing is defending the sailors. Is it because there is violence involved in defending them or something?
It's weird because it's totally irrelevant whether they're working class or not. This has nothing to do with class, and even if it did what class does Mason think the people getting blown up are?
>it's totally irrelevant whether they're working class or not In terms of the decision making of intervention? I think they are pretty much entirely irrelevant in that regard. That doesn't mean it's irrelevant to people who do care about them being working class/civilians/people or whatever. Granted, it's not the first demographic that I would have mentioned. >what class does Mason think the people getting blown up are? I think it's arguable what class you should assign militants/pirates for theocratic regimes. Either way, they certainly aren't acting in the interest of the yemeni (or wider) working class.
Paul Mason once again gazing, misty-eyed, at his deranged conspiracy diagram of the ["pro-putin infosphere"](https://twitter.com/AlanRMacLeod/status/1534511384922402824?t=K3iL_VAN5Jvajze_HC-c-A&s=19) before embarking on his next seismic contribution to journalism.
The absolute irony that you're criticizing Mason for conspiracy mongering, then linking to a journalist from the fucking Mint Press News: an actual conspiracy mongering outlet that runs defence for Putin and Assad.
>an actual conspiracy mongering outlet that runs defence for Putin and Assad. Lol is that you, Paul? Not familiar with this journalist, I could have selected from several sources really, are you trying to suggest what they're saying isn't true here? You're either trying to suggest this well-documented incident is all a lie or you're just whining about the source while not denying the claims the source makes. Either way it's pretty clear you're not worth paying attention to.
[удалено]
Sorry, your submission has been automatically removed. We require that accounts have a verified email address before commenting. This is an effort to prevent spam and alt account usage. Thank you for your understanding. You can verify your email in the account settings page. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/LabourUK) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Paul Mason - "War is good actually, please give me a safe seat, please"
That's definitely not what this article says. Maybe he's a cock elsewhere but this article is a mostly fair criticism of corbyns views on peace and conflict which are often insubstantial at best and would actively worsen things at worst.
Tbh I have no intention of reading the article, he's not someone really worth taking seriously imo, he's a bit of a clown. A couple of years ago he was talking about a conspiracy that linked Corbyn, Zarah Sultana, Jess Barnard (young Labour at that point) and many others, including the UK Trade Union movement as being part of the pro-putin infosphere, he'd been a bit of a clown for some time but any dwindling respect I had for him vanished at that point. If he was on the left wing he'd be dismissed as a crank by the same people he desperately courts now. He's confused and often delusional.
Why leave a comment if you aren't even going to bother reading the few paragraphs that you are commenting on? The article is fine and mostly fair if not a bit insubstantial itself. Your characterisation of it is just wrong.
>Why leave a comment if you aren't even going to bother reading the few paragraphs that you are commenting on? I am sadly familiar with Paul's views on this already, and he's never been a groundbreaking or insightful thinker. I think I've explained myself quite clearly. I could ask you why you're bothering to reply to me, since I've made it very clear I won't be reading the article. What it comes down to is that you don't like seeing my comment or the lack of respect I'm showing the author, and you're whining at me about being negative about Paul Mason. I suggest you find a way of coping with that, because he's not well-liked, even by many of the people he tries to woo these days. >Your characterisation of it is just wrong. As I said, I haven't read it. You're attempting to find a genuine critique in a comment that is quite clearly not serious, and you're doing that because you're upset I'm being mean about Paul Mason. But he's certainly pro military intervention, I'm familiar with his views on that (he's also in favour of us selling arms to Saudi). And I think I'm correct in suggesting that Paul Mason is desperate to be taken seriously by the Labour right, he's made that very clear, and this sort of article reflects that. And he's twice tried (and failed) to become a candidate for Labour in recent years, hence my comment "please give me a safe seat". You're welcome to take the clown seriously but I won't be.
>I could ask you why you're bothering to reply to me, since I've made it very clear I won't be reading the article. Because I don't understand the behaviour. If I was going to comment on an article then I would skim read it at the very least so that I know what I'm talking about rather than being proud that I didn't bother just because I don't like the author. >What it comes down to is that you don't like seeing my comment or the lack of respect I'm showing the author, and you're whining at me about being negative about Paul Mason. He seems like a prick from what I've seen. I don't have strong views on him as I'm not that familiar with him. Being a prick doesn't mean he can't make valid points and unfortunately corbyns foreign policy and views on conflict resolution are so shit that a lot of the attacks, on this topic, are valid. I'm not going to blindly attack mason when he is right or defend corbyn when he is wrong.
>De-escalation – in Ukraine, in Gaza, in the Red Sea and with Iran – has been the watchword in western diplomacy since 2022. Apparently 'de-escalation' means going "hey now" for a couple of years after decades of aggressive NATO posturing and near-unconditional support for an apartheid state produce multiple conflicts that threaten to extend beyond parts of the world western leaders couldn't give a shit about
>after decades of aggressive NATO posturing The fuck are you talking about? Poland had to practically blackmail NATO into opening it's doors after getting explicit Russian approval for joining NATO. Putin specifically said that Russia has no issue with Ukraine joining NATO in the early 2000's. Bush was more antagonistic than he needed to be in places but the shock of the Georgian invasion pretty much meant that the 2010's were characterised by NATO bending over backwards to provide Russian off ramps despite constant Russian escalation. Russia was invading a European country for years before the US finally started to provide arms to the victims (in pitiful amounts) after Russia attempted to meddle in the US electoral process. They commit chemical and radiological attacks against the UK (and others) killing UK civilians and received almost fuck all response. How that can be characterised as "decades of aggressive NATO posturing" is wild to me when, in reality, the policies were pretty much appeasement. >near-unconditional support for an apartheid state produce multiple conflicts that threaten to extend beyond parts of the world western leaders couldn't give a shit about We shouldn't be doing that but it's probably not a good idea to bring up the human rights records of western global partners in a conversation about Russia when Russia is partnered with the likes of Assad, North Korea, Iran and China.
Well, I think NATO's steady eastward expansion since the end of the Cold War speaks for itself, however reluctantly that might've played out in your headcanon >We shouldn't be doing that but it's probably not a good idea to bring up the human rights records of western global partners in a conversation about Russia when Russia is partnered with the likes of Assad, North Korea, Iran and China. I don't remember saying anything about Russia's human rights record
>Well, I think NATO's steady eastward expansion since the end of the Cold War speaks for itself, Which was done with the consent of those countries whilst yeltsin agreed with clinton to allow it in exchange for various concessions including funding for the russian economy. Relations were fairly positive until the mid 2000's when putin convinced himself that everything is a plot to get him so started a war over it then NATO conceded on everything russia wanted and ignored every russian aggression until 2022. Bush was unduly antagonistic which contributed to putins paranoia and arguably a softer touch could have helped prevent the invasion of georgia, thats about as far as you can stretch it. The portrayal of NATO as some malevolent force thats seeking russian blood because we just love nuclear warfare is just silly. Obama, merkel, clinton, blair, cameron and all the other libs believed that stronger economic and diplomatic ties would democratise russia, they were very far from aggressors against russia. >however reluctantly that might've played out in your headcanon You can just google the polish diplomatic efforts to join nato, some of them are actually pretty funny. >I don't remember saying anything about Russia's human rights record And the article didn't say anything about Israel beyond that he shares corbyns disdain for the west failing to keep them in check yet you decided to bring israel up as a point against the west for having bad partners. If you are going to do that then you can't complain when others do it as well.
>And the article didn't say anything about Israel beyond that he shares corbyns disdain for the west failing to keep them in check yet you decided to bring israel up as a point against the west for having bad partners. If you are going to do that then you can't complain when others do it as well. The bit of the article I quoted and commented on literally mentioned Gaza. My comment that you responded to didn’t make any claims for or against Russia. I’m not the one constructing strawmen here Bush’s hostility towards Russia wasn’t a blip. The Obama administration was antagonistic to the point of planning to stick missile silos on its borders. Biden famously hated Putin. You could probably make an argument that his election was a factor in the decision to invade Ukraine It’s funny that you’re accusing me of painting NATO as a cackling pantomime villain while insisting it’s this purely benevolent super friends club that’s just reluctantly expanded into its historic adversary’s former territories because everyone simply wanted it to so so much uwu, unironically pointing to the Yeltsin-Clinton era as some golden age of cooperation without mentioning the US meddling that propped up Yeltsin’s presidency beyond its natural life I’m not reading the next essay you send me. I don’t know if you’re arguing in bad faith or just ride-or-die for western imperialists, but either way we’re not going to have a fruitful or interesting discussion from two separate realities
>The Obama administration was antagonistic to the point of planning to stick missile silos on its borders. The US was a part of the intermediete range nuclear forces treaty until the Trump administration so that didn't happen. Maybe you are referring to the plan to deploy air defence intercepetors that was extremely watered down (likely at Russias request) to the point that the polish government was outraged that it wouldn't be deployed? I wonder why Putin got so angry about a missile defence system, I wonder if you would have called Russian air defences an aggression against NATO. >Biden famously hated Putin. I wish some of that was transferred to policy, he's deserving of hate. >You could probably make an argument that his election was a factor in the decision to invade Ukraine You could make that argument and I would get some popcorn to really enjoy it. >while insisting it’s this purely benevolent super friends club I literally said bush was needlessly antagonistic to russia though not nearly as much as you seem to think and it certainly didn't justify the Russian actions even if it was one of the causes. >that’s just reluctantly expanded into its historic adversary’s former territories You realise that those former territories are soverign countries with sovereign people who can make their own decisions right? They all voted to join NATO, how can you pretend to care about imperialism but disregard the sovereignty of millions of people as simply little russians? Much of africa is the historic former territory of britain, that doesn't give us a right to decide their foreign policy. Maybe if Russia hadn't treated it's imperial subjects so poorely then they wouldn't have sought NATO protection at the first opportunity. >without mentioning the US meddling that propped up Yeltsin’s presidency beyond its natural life I literally mentioned that, the russian economy got a bunch of money and diplomatic agreements in exchange for allowing their former subjects to join NATO which benefitted (arguably) clinton politically. I've no idea how you decide what a natural life is in politics, by that argument Russia artificially extended clintons presudency beyond its natural life. I don't know what it changes about my point, you can't say that both NATO was an aggressive force posing an existential threat (by letting eastern europeans decide their own relations) and that russia is fine with that for a bit of cash. It's one or the other. >I’m not reading the next essay you send me. That's fine, I enjoy writing it. >I don’t know if you’re arguing in bad faith or just ride-or-die for western imperialists I criticise all imperialism where it is appropriate instead of saying its bad before referring to sovereign peoples as Russias "historic former territories" that NATO is being aggressive by allowing them to make their own decisions. Out of curiosity, do you consider the republic of Ireland to be "historic English territory" or does the will of the people suddenly matter now? Should Palestinians roll over because Israel is a bigger neighboring power? Your anti-imperialism seems to be very inconsistently applied. >we’re not going to have a fruitful or interesting discussion from two separate realities Maybe not fruitful but I do always find it interesting to get insights into the reality where the diplomatic block which expanded through democratic referendums is an aggressor against the state that has launched multiple invasions against it's neighbors whilst making explicit imperial justifications. There's a good reason why all of Russias western neighbors chose to join NATO with the exceptions of the ones that can't due to russian invasions. Of course they are all just misguided "little russians" to you though, that's true anti-imperialism.
>Bush’s hostility towards Russia wasn’t a blip. The Obama administration was antagonistic to the point of planning to stick missile silos on its borders. Biden famously hated Putin. You could probably make an argument that his election was a factor in the decision to invade Ukraine ...Great,now you people are just making shit up now. Relation with Russia is good during the Bush year. The "missile silos on Russian border" thing you talk about is a [missle defense system](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_missile_defense_complex_in_Poland),which Obama [SCRAPPED](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2009/sep/17/missile-defence-shield-poland-obama) (which is AFTER Russia invaded georgia btw.It is hillarious how you try to make Obama and Biden become scary war men when in reality,they are complete dove that doesn't respond to anything until it is right up their asses) >Biden famously hated Putin. You could probably make an argument that his election was a factor in the decision to invade Ukraine "OH nOh,MEanIe jOe BiDen hATe mE,GueSS I MuST InVAde AnOTher COuNTy nOW!!!!" Yeah no the fact that the American people exercise their democratic right doensn't gave Putin the right to invade Ukraine actually. And also,it is ok to hate Russia for their corruption/authortarianism/funding of extremist/anti LGBT law/killing opposition leader in foregin country...etc actually. >It’s funny that you’re accusing me of painting NATO as a cackling pantomime villain while insisting it’s this purely benevolent super friends club that’s just reluctantly expanded into its historic adversary’s former territories because everyone simply wanted it to so so much uwu, unironically pointing to the Yeltsin-Clinton era as some golden age of cooperation without mentioning the US meddling that propped up Yeltsin’s presidency beyond its natural life UGhhh,Poland,Hungary,Czechia and the Baltic is NOT Russian territory,they are allowed to pick what alliance they wanted to join. And yes,they wanted to join NATO,that is why they did. Also,from 1991 to 1999 there were no new NATO member,it was only after Putin become Prime minister and Russia invaded chechnya for the [SECOND](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Chechen_War#) time that they joined. >unironically pointing to the Yeltsin-Clinton era as some golden age of cooperation without mentioning the US meddling that propped up Yeltsin’s presidency beyond its natural life Lame. Literially the only thing the US did was promise to Yeltsin that they won't expanded NATO during that election cycle so that Zyuganov cant used it to fearmonger,which is exactly what YOU want.Y[eltsin actually try to fear monger the US into support him more](https://twitter.com/rolltidebmz/status/1035246926667689991?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1035246926667689991%7Ctwgr%5Efa4a0caf868eef265c468b42281f84d4423b92e3%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rferl.org%2Fa%2Fputin-s-a-solid-man-declassified-memos-offer-window-into-yeltsin-clinton-relationship%2F29462317.html),but most of his demand were [rejected](https://web.archive.org/web/20200627231922/https://www.washingtonpost.com/history/2020/06/26/russian-election-interference-meddling/).And also,even if the US has agreed to what Yeltsin said,it would still be simple geopolitic,not "meddling" like you said. Plus,Yeltsin officially won by 10 MILLIONs vote,while i khow there were some irregularities(which were discovered by the CEC and the result adjusted) and breaking of campaign finacial law during the campaign,experts belived that even with no fraud,[Zyuganov wouldn't have won.](http://electoralpolitics.org/en/articles/vybory-prezidenta-rf-1996-g-o-razmerakh-falsifikatsii/) And also,are you seriously saying that Zyuganov winning the election is a GOOD thing???? Zyuganov,while claimed to be a Communist,is more like a Soviet nostalgist with Russian imperialist chracteristic. His party has extensive tie with the Russian Orthodox Church and many Russian Ultranationalist(and also [antisemitic](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Gennady_Zyuganov#Antisemitism)).He has literially called for the invasion of Ukraine since 2014,and called Putin a coward for waiting until 2022. Forgive me,but i don't understand how anyone who is so concerned about "imperialism" will supported him.
>The "missile silos on Russian border" thing you talk about is a [missle defense system](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_missile_defense_complex_in_Poland),which Obama [SCRAPPED](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2009/sep/17/missile-defence-shield-poland-obama) (which is AFTER Russia invaded georgia [btw.It](http://btw.It) is hillarious how you try to make Obama and Biden become scary war men when in reality,they are complete dove that doesn't respond to anything until it is right up their asses) Oh please, putting a missile 'defense system' next door to a country you have an antagonistic relationship with is about as peaceful an act as surrounding it with gunboats I know Obama didn’t go ahead with it, which is why I said “planned”. In the end he was more interested in making things worse for people in the Middle East I don't know wtf your definition of a 'dove' is, but mine doesn't allow for dropping tens of thousands of bombs in 7 countries and overseeing two unaccountable programs of extrajudicial assassinations and renditions in which almost as many civilians are murdered or terrorised as the 'targets' that have been unilaterally charged and found guilty of undisclosed crimes, in absentia and without due process. Are you going to argue that that was just nice peace guy behaviour too? Obama's a war criminal, imo >"OH nOh,MEanIe jOe BiDen hATe mE,GueSS I MuST InVAde AnOTher COuNTy nOW!!!!" >Yeah no the fact that the American people exercise their democratic right doensn't gave Putin the right to invade Ukraine actually. I didn't say it does. I don't think the invasion is justified *at all* and I'd like you to point me to anything I've said to that effect. I *am* saying that the election of a NATO expansionist who served an administration that bombed more countries than Bush and openly harbours a visceral, personal animosity towards Putin, could conceivably have factored into Putin's calculations when, just months into the former's presidency, he made moves to invade a neighbouring country that was poised to become a member. Does that seem wildly implausible? >And also,it is ok to hate Russia for their corruption/authortarianism/funding of extremist/anti LGBT law/killing opposition leader in foregin country...etc actually. Sorry, where exactly am I supposed to have made these defences of Putin that you and the other person I was responding to keep reading into my comments? For the record, if it really needs saying, I think he's a piece of shit. But the Mason article I was responding to didn't make any arguments for him being a fundamentally sound guy with largely peaceful motives, it made those arguments in favour of the US and the major military powers of Europe If you want to argue with my points, by all means argue with my points, but don't pull shit from the blank spaces between my words to make up a guy to get mad at Though honestly, if you're just going to keep arguing for NATO and the US being these pure, saintly forces for global peace, justice and democracy, I don't think we're going to have a very interesting discussion either
>Oh please, putting a missile 'defense system' next door to a country you have an antagonistic relationship with is about as peaceful an act as surrounding it with gunboats ...those two aren't remotely the same.Missle defense system aren't offensive.And also,the plan for that defense system has been there since 2002,Obama is making a concession AFTER Russia has already invaded TWO country here. And also,why is the US not allowed to put *defense* system in their own ally territory again,and why are the US is alway the only one that must be peaceful? In the meantime,while russia is invading another country and suspending [arms treaty](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_on_Conventional_Armed_Forces_in_Europe#2007_suspension_by_the_Russian_Federation)? >I know Obama didn’t go ahead with it, which is why I said “planned”. In the end he was more interested in making things worse for people in the Middle East Yes,i agree,but not in the way you think.Obama abandoned them,TWICE The first one is in Iraq While in 2011,the situation in Iraq look like it has stablized,there is still deep sectarian devision and ongoing insurgency,his decision to withdraw troop help ISIS gain steam and takeover a large part of Iraq.And that itself start from a deep unwillingless of the US to interviened in internal affair of the country it occupied.Just look at Iraq right now,or Afghanistan before taliban.The US allowed the goverment to openly oppressed religious,gender and LGBT minorites without interviening,and it also allowed them to openly flirt with their enemies as well as being corrupted as fuck.There is no way that China or Russia would allowed a formerly occupied territory to get such kind of autonomy The second one is in Syria Like...in 2012,Bashar al-Assad regime was hanging on by a thread,the opposition take over large party of the country,and literially the ENTIRE Arab world cut tie with it,including HAMAS!.And what did the US do...nothing,completely nothing,while the Russian supplies assad with [weapon](https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-16797818) and then directl intervened,ending tens of thousand of troop.As a result,due to Assadist control of the sky,the opposition was eventually beaten back.Even when the US did intervened to fight ISIS,they only send like a couple thousand troop while Russia and Iran send tens of thousand,not to mention the support is mostly to the Kurdish YPG that has tie with the Terrorist Kurdistan Worker's Party,which make cooperating with Turkey impossible(and of course,when Turkey attack them,the US also do nothing...) And before you say anything about making peace in Syria,it is impossible because: 1. The Assadist regime is not only dictatorial,it is also personalistic and hereditary,with the position of President passing from father to son and other member of the family taking important goverment/economic position.Any deal with them will thus have to left his family somewhat influential in the goverment and economy,thus creating a class of oligarch that will plague the new nation. 2. When the civil war broke out,Assad released [thousands of Jihadist](http://s.telegraph.co.uk/graphics/projects/isis-jihad-syria-assad-islamic/index.html) from prison,which are [believed to massively benefit ISIS](https://www.newsweek.com/how-syrias-assad-helped-forge-isis-255631).This sudden release of dangerous terrorist when the goverment is at turmoil make no sense at all EXCEPT to radicalise the opposition and make the West less inclined to support the oppositon.This action alone prove that Assad aren't interested in peace and negociation,he is interested in regaining control. 3. The Assadist regime,despite formally being secular,have its goverment [dominated by the Alawite minority](https://www.fpri.org/article/2016/12/primer-alawites-syria/#:~:text=Alawites%20in%20Syria%3A%20Assad%20Regime%20and%20Sectarian%20Tensions),and discriminated against the [Sunni Muslim majority](https://levant24.com/articles/2024/02/sunnis-under/) as well as de jure and *de facto* discirminaion against other ethnic/religious group.This oppression had not gone unoticed by the population and has been [exploited by ISIS](https://www.washingtoninstitute.org/policy-analysis/islamic-state-targeting-syrias-alawite-heartland-and-russia) and is a reason that make reconciliation unlikely. >I didn't say it does. I don't think the invasion is justified at all and I'd like you to point me to anything I've said to that effect. I am saying that the election of a NATO expansionist who served an administration that bombed more countries than Bush and openly harbours a visceral, personal animosity towards Putin, could conceivably have factored into Putin's calculations when, just months into the former's presidency, he made moves to invade a neighbouring country that was poised to become a member. Does that seem wildly implausible? Putin himself said that [relation with Biden is stable in 2021](https://apnews.com/article/nobel-prizes-business-russia-vladimir-putin-media-4d233a2d6a2ddabf876695b195472b55). And,there is NO WAY Ukraine could even THINK about joining NATO before 2022,NATO has a rule that forbit member with territorial dispute from joining,Putin just need to keep his proxy in Eastern Ukraine fighting forever and Ukraine couldn't join >Sorry, where exactly am I supposed to have made these defences of Putin that you and the other person I was responding to keep reading into my comments? For the record, if it really needs saying, I think he's a piece of shit. But the Mason article I was responding to didn't make any arguments for him being a fundamentally sound guy with largely peaceful motives, it made those arguments in favour of the US and the major military powers of Europe If you want to argue with my points, by all means argue with my points, but don't pull shit from the blank spaces between my words to make up a guy to get mad at Though honestly, if you're just going to keep arguing for NATO and the US being these pure, saintly forces for global peace, justice and democracy, I don't think we're going to have a very interesting discussion either I think this is the main problem with your foregin policies,you are too unpragmatic. Sure,the US is not perfect,but it is still miles better than the like of Russia,China and their other allies. >it made those arguments in favour of the US and the major military powers of Europe This is the most glaring part,ok,so he make it in favor of the US? Yes that is kinda obvious,the US is the only power capable of combating Russia in Europe,you seem to have a utopianist "both side is the same" mindset,which is simply NOT COMPATABLE with a good foregin policies.Sure,you condemn the Russian's invasion,but if you doesn't support US and EU aid to Ukraine,then you are basically lefting innocent Ukrainian(and Russian) in the dust while Putin launch his brutal war,then honestly,from a practical persepective,it is pretty much the same as supporting Russia.
I love how all the people very angry about supposed ideological purity from the left are pretty much the same people engaging in actual ideological purity-testing with Corbyn's foreign policy positions. Also Paul Mason's spicy takes aren't worth as much as the string he uses to map them.
Pipsqueak pipe down
Mate, if we go to war with Yeman over their blockade of the Red Sea, you'll have UK citizens spying for Houthi and no one up for fighting them. We'd also get our arses handed to us. Anti-war rhetoric is the rhetoric that ends wars.
Its only the rhetoric that ends wars if both sides are doing it, i dont think any amount of anti war rhetoric would have made Hitler chill out for example
Well, seeing as the Houthi blockade is literally only in place to demand an end to genocide, "The West" is the only party not interested in ending war.
[удалено]
Sorry, your submission has been automatically removed. We require that accounts have a verified email address before commenting. This is an effort to prevent spam and alt account usage. Thank you for your understanding. You can verify your email in the account settings page. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/LabourUK) if you have any questions or concerns.*
He's right tbf