My experience in SGP, which I don't expect to be much different from GPEW, is that the anti-nuke and corresponding anti-NATO sentiments for the majority of members are probably more instinctive than well thought through (the same would be the case for many other policies).
Yeah, I think George Galloway and maybe Jeremy Corbyn are guys who've made what seems to them a logical transition from "Hands off the USSR!" to "Hands off Russia!" But I'd imagine amongst the European centre-left, you've got at least a few people who went from thinking...
..."NATO is evil because Reagan is using it to drag us into a conflict with the peaceful Russians" to...
...in 1983 to thinking "NATO is bad because the Trump won't fulfill his obligation to stop the warmongering Russians" in 2025...
...without sensing much of a contradiction.
(And maybe there IS no contradiction, if one believes that there is, in fact, a qualitative difference between the USSR and Putin's Russia, in terms of the threat posed.)
@stetson suggesting that Corbyn is somehow pro-Putin is a bizarre claim to make.
I'm happy to stand corrected. Most of my knowledge of his position on Russia is second-hand.
This seems like an incredibly dodgy basis on which to base your knowledge of politicians in another country. On what basis does your informant think that he is pro-Putin? Corbyn has been a CND supporter for many years, his anti-nuclear stance has nothing to do with Putin.
@stetson suggesting that Corbyn is somehow pro-Putin is a bizarre claim to make.
I'm happy to stand corrected. Most of my knowledge of his position on Russia is second-hand.
This seems like an incredibly dodgy basis on which to base your knowledge of politicians in another country. On what basis does your informant think that he is pro-Putin? Corbyn has been a CND supporter for many years, his anti-nuclear stance has nothing to do with Putin.
Well, like I say, I'm happy to stand corrected. FWIW, the one complaint that comes directly to mind right now is that he was unjustifiably reticent about assigning blame in the Salisbury poisonings.
I will admit that, having read his most controversial statement on the matter, it did seem to me that he might just have been saying "Let's not jump to conclusions", which is always wise advice. I am also aware that statements of hesitancy can be used to dog-whistle apologia, but I wouldn't care at this point to debate what Corbyn was doing there.
You can consider my linkage of him with Galloway retracted. Apologies.
@stetson suggesting that Corbyn is somehow pro-Putin is a bizarre claim to make.
I'm happy to stand corrected. Most of my knowledge of his position on Russia is second-hand.
This seems like an incredibly dodgy basis on which to base your knowledge of politicians in another country. On what basis does your informant think that he is pro-Putin? Corbyn has been a CND supporter for many years, his anti-nuclear stance has nothing to do with Putin.
Well, like I say, I'm happy to stand corrected. FWIW, the one complaint that comes directly to mind right now is that he was unjustifiably reticent about assigning blame in the Salisbury poisonings.
He didn't immediately jump to conclusions based on purely the pointing of a finger. The press, of course, ever the faithful tory lapdog, portrayed this as apologetics for Putin.
The worst Corbyn can be accused of (in both domestic politics and international relations) is a naïve belief that people are, at heart, decent and honest, and if only they could all sit down with a pot of tea they could sort things out.
There are anti- imperialist ideologues who are either paid by Putin or so ideologically- benighted they shill for him for free and there is an overlap between them and anti-NATO beliefs - but now a vital load bearing part of NATO is compromised by having a president who certainly looks like and can act like a Russian asset, so it's all a bit more complicated than it used to be.
Is it really a service to European defence for parties to pretend that problem isn't there? Perhaps there's some in-public 'appeasing' going on to gain time to privately work out how best to address the crisis but it's hard to tell. Certainly I wouldn't fault Polanski for mentioning the elephant in the room.
I'm not expert enough to.know what the best 'elephant' wrangling strategy might be.
And while on the one hand it's possible to see the utility of nuclear arms ( there's a reason countries who fear invasion really really want them), it's also striking that it's not enough these days just to have the weapons. Propagandise enough voters and you can decapitate a democratic nuclear power by putting one of your own assets in charge of deploying their arsenal.
So there is something 'hard nosed' and realistic in the social media propaganda soft power approach - I think we're seeing proof it can work in the way the US and increasingly the UK are being undermined by it.
I suspect there's more danger from Twitter-poisoned parties who appease racists and thus help Russian/ international fascist propaganda efforts than there is from the Greens vocalising what I think is a real and terrifying problem with defence policy centred on NATO these days- Trump and those behind him.
Comments
Yeah, I think George Galloway and maybe Jeremy Corbyn are guys who've made what seems to them a logical transition from "Hands off the USSR!" to "Hands off Russia!" But I'd imagine amongst the European centre-left, you've got at least a few people who went from thinking...
..."NATO is evil because Reagan is using it to drag us into a conflict with the peaceful Russians" to...
...in 1983 to thinking "NATO is bad because the Trump won't fulfill his obligation to stop the warmongering Russians" in 2025...
...without sensing much of a contradiction.
(And maybe there IS no contradiction, if one believes that there is, in fact, a qualitative difference between the USSR and Putin's Russia, in terms of the threat posed.)
I'm happy to stand corrected. Most of my knowledge of his position on Russia is second-hand.
This seems like an incredibly dodgy basis on which to base your knowledge of politicians in another country. On what basis does your informant think that he is pro-Putin? Corbyn has been a CND supporter for many years, his anti-nuclear stance has nothing to do with Putin.
Well, like I say, I'm happy to stand corrected. FWIW, the one complaint that comes directly to mind right now is that he was unjustifiably reticent about assigning blame in the Salisbury poisonings.
I will admit that, having read his most controversial statement on the matter, it did seem to me that he might just have been saying "Let's not jump to conclusions", which is always wise advice. I am also aware that statements of hesitancy can be used to dog-whistle apologia, but I wouldn't care at this point to debate what Corbyn was doing there.
You can consider my linkage of him with Galloway retracted. Apologies.
He didn't immediately jump to conclusions based on purely the pointing of a finger. The press, of course, ever the faithful tory lapdog, portrayed this as apologetics for Putin.
The worst Corbyn can be accused of (in both domestic politics and international relations) is a naïve belief that people are, at heart, decent and honest, and if only they could all sit down with a pot of tea they could sort things out.
Is it really a service to European defence for parties to pretend that problem isn't there? Perhaps there's some in-public 'appeasing' going on to gain time to privately work out how best to address the crisis but it's hard to tell. Certainly I wouldn't fault Polanski for mentioning the elephant in the room.
I'm not expert enough to.know what the best 'elephant' wrangling strategy might be.
And while on the one hand it's possible to see the utility of nuclear arms ( there's a reason countries who fear invasion really really want them), it's also striking that it's not enough these days just to have the weapons. Propagandise enough voters and you can decapitate a democratic nuclear power by putting one of your own assets in charge of deploying their arsenal.
So there is something 'hard nosed' and realistic in the social media propaganda soft power approach - I think we're seeing proof it can work in the way the US and increasingly the UK are being undermined by it.
I suspect there's more danger from Twitter-poisoned parties who appease racists and thus help Russian/ international fascist propaganda efforts than there is from the Greens vocalising what I think is a real and terrifying problem with defence policy centred on NATO these days- Trump and those behind him.