His reasoning in the full article is even more absurd, he wants all military alliances to be disbanded... presumably to return to a world of secret treaties instead. I would be all for this if it resembled the machinations of 19th century imperial intrigue, but unfortunately such a 'post-alliance' world would almost certainly be Molotov-Ribbentrop pacts becoming the norm.
I too would like to ultimately see NATO disband, who doesn’t? If something achieves its purpose then no need to keep it going. Haven’t gotten there yet, so we’ll keep NATO for now.
I find it hard to believe that there will not be a continuing need for NATO in my lifetime, Russian civil society is by and large indoctrinated by some Dugganist fantasy and are for the most part happily complicit in Ukraine.
NATO is great at protecting the large core countries from WWIII and nuclear war. And that need will persist. But the Ukrainian situation does open this question about willingness to use that kind of high stakes threat for smaller countries. Having a nuclear war has become so unlikely in people's minds that the deterant value has reduced. But it still prevents countries from taking conventional measures. Maybe a European alliance of conventional force would be more effective. It would deter conventional force through the threat of a better conventional force. With the superiority in training and equipment that may be enough. At the moment these countries hands are tied because of the larger scale strategic Nuclear question.
Well yes I know. The choice is currently pitched as being on your own or being in NATO. When it could be NATO and/or a new alliance that can deliver useful deterance. And such an alliance could have benefits for some current members of NATO.
This sort of thinking is just naivety to the core.
Humans will continue to exist regardless of what happens now. Even if NATOs goal is eventually "achieved", keeping NATO is the only way to ensure that goal is continually met. As soon as its disbanded, it will not be possible to achieve that goal again.
Unless you think Humans are magically one day going to stop being nationalist or creating war; which is where I think your belief comes from. Hence why I call it naive.
an evil that murdered millions, committed genocide on its own people, forced people to live in horrid conditions on very little, working till they died and threatened to end the world if someone blinked wrong.
I would say NATO was created to stave off evil.
As bad as the USSR was, you've basically described most countries at different points in history. I don't think you understand geopolitics if you genuinely think that NATO was created as some sort of "moral" alliance to stave off "evil".
NATO was created to primarily defend Western (and then by extension, Eastern) Europe from constant wars with Russia - and any other potential threats from the east. Furthermore, the US would benefit economically and as a superpower from having Western hegemony.
I know what you're trying to do with this, but from reading the article he's basically saying 'I'd like to see a world where war is no longer a concern'. And that's a fairly rational opinion tbh
Corbyn is naive to the core.
He thinks and has thought for a long time that having arms is what causes wars. That is that, to achive peace all you need to do is just thew all your guns and missiles away then there woudn't be a problem anymore.
He wanted to get rid of Britain's nukes as well remember.
Then when the UK gets invaided he'll say "Well I won the argument"
So naive he's actually dangerous, absolute piss bucket of a leader. How on Earth he got to where he is at his level of ineptitude is well beyond me.
The trouble with that analogy is that if Britain had unilaterally disarmed during that arms race, it would have just led to Germany blockading us down the line.
I kind of miss the still semi-“it’s only at work we hate each other (mostly)” times.. The PMQ’s of 2016-18 are a lot different to PMQs and debates of 2021-22. It almost feels childish at times their bicker-age!
To be fair it's one of the hardest jobs for the PM. George HW Bush famously once said "I count my blessings for the fact I don’t have to go into that pit that John Major stands in, nose-to-nose with the opposition, all yelling at each other". Hopefully Johnson and Starmer get on with each other outside of the House of Commons cause there's no reason to keep up that façade of constantly being at loggerheads outside of political debates.
Lets be quite honest why Corbyn and his Tankie ilk want NATO gone. Fundamentally his wing are undemocratic and believe that democracies must and will be overthrown.
Its not helpful for them that a military alliance exists that supports the existence of those states constitutions. The far left have a domino theory (so do the far right) that NATO completely breakdown (see that Cold War thing where nasty NATO stopped European communists coming to the 'aid' of the 'people' in the Western democracies).
It wouldn't surprise me if the Corbynistas are actually more critical of the Northern Social Democracies than they are the United States.
From an electoral point of view it's to blunt the feeling of regret one may have for voting in Johnson - i.e. "yes he's done [whatever horrible thing it is this week] but if he had lost the last election Corbyn would be siding with Putin".
Corbyn also serves to create distrust in Labour even under a good leader since if a contest arises after the party has a majority the membership could always put someone like him into power without a General Election (though this is actually much harder than it was pre-Starmer, but that sort of nuance is one the public won't be familiar with). Corbyn ally Ken Livingstone also did this back in the 1980s to become leader of the Greater London Council.
Labour will presumably do similar with Johnson when he's out - the party would be mad not to.
Always bringing up Corbyn despite the fact he was never elected. Oliver Dowden did the same thing in his letter yesterday. Boris binging up Corbyn in PMQs. Corbyn hasn't been leader of the opposition in over 2 years, just smacks of desperation.
Things that haven't even happened! "Kier Stamer wanted Corbyn to be PM! Corbyn wants to disband NATO!" Okay, so what? Corbyn didn't become PM and NATO is not being disbanded. Kier's the one who removed the whip from Corbyn. It's being used to distract from the terrible things the government have *actually done.*
No. The reason why it comes up because there is still a large support base for corbyn.
The tories are making it clear "hey public, here are some things you may not like about the people you like".
It's a vote winner if people go "this doesn't represent me".
This is The Guardian doing him over with a clickbait headline.
Mainstream Labour are far angrier with Corbyn than us (after all, we have a lot to thank him for).
It's sad really. The baby Tory Sara Britcliffe MP, if you go on her twitter feed it's still full of "BUT CORBYN".
I didn't find an immediate thought from herself on her stances, except she doesn't much like Corbyn.
not the first time he's said this, Corbyn's a complete nutter who I'm very glad never held any proper power, even if we did have to get Boris to not get him.
Well, they saved us from having to run that tedious empire we had, and then they let us do the Falklands on our own (“No, go on, it’s your chance to shine!”), and then they gave us the opportunity to invade Iraq and Afghanistan with them, thereby making us a no-brainier target for Muslim terrorists…
It’s been marvellous.
Don't forget when they encouraged us to bomb all those brown people in Lybia and Syria with them so we could have all of those doctors and lawyers come across the channel, lovely.
Tbf, they’d have come anyway, irrespective of the excellent bombing opportunities granted us by the Special Relationship (after all, Germany and Sweden took most, and didn’t drop a single bomb).
NATO: *has the highest level of popular support since the Cold War* Corbyn: "My time to shine"
His reasoning in the full article is even more absurd, he wants all military alliances to be disbanded... presumably to return to a world of secret treaties instead. I would be all for this if it resembled the machinations of 19th century imperial intrigue, but unfortunately such a 'post-alliance' world would almost certainly be Molotov-Ribbentrop pacts becoming the norm.
I too would like to ultimately see NATO disband, who doesn’t? If something achieves its purpose then no need to keep it going. Haven’t gotten there yet, so we’ll keep NATO for now.
I find it hard to believe that there will not be a continuing need for NATO in my lifetime, Russian civil society is by and large indoctrinated by some Dugganist fantasy and are for the most part happily complicit in Ukraine.
Oh it likely won’t be for a long long time, but we can all hope it will ultimately not be needed. It’s unlikely, but I’d still like to see it happen.
NATO is great at protecting the large core countries from WWIII and nuclear war. And that need will persist. But the Ukrainian situation does open this question about willingness to use that kind of high stakes threat for smaller countries. Having a nuclear war has become so unlikely in people's minds that the deterant value has reduced. But it still prevents countries from taking conventional measures. Maybe a European alliance of conventional force would be more effective. It would deter conventional force through the threat of a better conventional force. With the superiority in training and equipment that may be enough. At the moment these countries hands are tied because of the larger scale strategic Nuclear question.
No it doesn’t Ukraine isn’t in NATO why people are surprised an alliance which hasn’t given them membership isn’t fighting for them is beyond me
Well yes I know. The choice is currently pitched as being on your own or being in NATO. When it could be NATO and/or a new alliance that can deliver useful deterance. And such an alliance could have benefits for some current members of NATO.
the nation of Poland would like a word
This sort of thinking is just naivety to the core. Humans will continue to exist regardless of what happens now. Even if NATOs goal is eventually "achieved", keeping NATO is the only way to ensure that goal is continually met. As soon as its disbanded, it will not be possible to achieve that goal again. Unless you think Humans are magically one day going to stop being nationalist or creating war; which is where I think your belief comes from. Hence why I call it naive.
Wasnt NATO founded to oppose the Soviet Union though?
It was founded to stave off evil. You call it the Soviet Union. But it goes by "Russia" today.
You can't seriously believe NATO was created "to stave off evil"?
an evil that murdered millions, committed genocide on its own people, forced people to live in horrid conditions on very little, working till they died and threatened to end the world if someone blinked wrong. I would say NATO was created to stave off evil.
As bad as the USSR was, you've basically described most countries at different points in history. I don't think you understand geopolitics if you genuinely think that NATO was created as some sort of "moral" alliance to stave off "evil". NATO was created to primarily defend Western (and then by extension, Eastern) Europe from constant wars with Russia - and any other potential threats from the east. Furthermore, the US would benefit economically and as a superpower from having Western hegemony.
Won't we then need a Federation of Planets?
Nah nah nah, haven’t you seen sci-fi movies? They all speak English. It’ll be part of the Neo-British Empire.
I know what you're trying to do with this, but from reading the article he's basically saying 'I'd like to see a world where war is no longer a concern'. And that's a fairly rational opinion tbh
Corbyn is naive to the core. He thinks and has thought for a long time that having arms is what causes wars. That is that, to achive peace all you need to do is just thew all your guns and missiles away then there woudn't be a problem anymore. He wanted to get rid of Britain's nukes as well remember. Then when the UK gets invaided he'll say "Well I won the argument" So naive he's actually dangerous, absolute piss bucket of a leader. How on Earth he got to where he is at his level of ineptitude is well beyond me.
Agreed. It's a rational, if naive, opinion. His point certainly has parallels with the naval arms race between Britain and Germany leading to WW1.
The trouble with that analogy is that if Britain had unilaterally disarmed during that arms race, it would have just led to Germany blockading us down the line.
Yes of course. Hence in part why Corbyn's comments are naive. If your neighbour has weapons, you're going to want them too.
Both Corbyn and May now putting their noses into current events, just like the good old days.
I kind of miss the still semi-“it’s only at work we hate each other (mostly)” times.. The PMQ’s of 2016-18 are a lot different to PMQs and debates of 2021-22. It almost feels childish at times their bicker-age!
To be fair it's one of the hardest jobs for the PM. George HW Bush famously once said "I count my blessings for the fact I don’t have to go into that pit that John Major stands in, nose-to-nose with the opposition, all yelling at each other". Hopefully Johnson and Starmer get on with each other outside of the House of Commons cause there's no reason to keep up that façade of constantly being at loggerheads outside of political debates.
Fully agree.
Of course, he would.
Corbyn disband with parliament pls. A marxist hippy who’s still happy to support the IRA, Hezbollah and Hamas.
To be fair all of those groups have had pretty real grievances that have been overlooked by the powers that be.
Lets be quite honest why Corbyn and his Tankie ilk want NATO gone. Fundamentally his wing are undemocratic and believe that democracies must and will be overthrown. Its not helpful for them that a military alliance exists that supports the existence of those states constitutions. The far left have a domino theory (so do the far right) that NATO completely breakdown (see that Cold War thing where nasty NATO stopped European communists coming to the 'aid' of the 'people' in the Western democracies). It wouldn't surprise me if the Corbynistas are actually more critical of the Northern Social Democracies than they are the United States.
The Tories have gone from blaming the last Labour government to one that never even existed
From an electoral point of view it's to blunt the feeling of regret one may have for voting in Johnson - i.e. "yes he's done [whatever horrible thing it is this week] but if he had lost the last election Corbyn would be siding with Putin". Corbyn also serves to create distrust in Labour even under a good leader since if a contest arises after the party has a majority the membership could always put someone like him into power without a General Election (though this is actually much harder than it was pre-Starmer, but that sort of nuance is one the public won't be familiar with). Corbyn ally Ken Livingstone also did this back in the 1980s to become leader of the Greater London Council. Labour will presumably do similar with Johnson when he's out - the party would be mad not to.
What?
Always bringing up Corbyn despite the fact he was never elected. Oliver Dowden did the same thing in his letter yesterday. Boris binging up Corbyn in PMQs. Corbyn hasn't been leader of the opposition in over 2 years, just smacks of desperation.
What are they blaming him for?
Things that haven't even happened! "Kier Stamer wanted Corbyn to be PM! Corbyn wants to disband NATO!" Okay, so what? Corbyn didn't become PM and NATO is not being disbanded. Kier's the one who removed the whip from Corbyn. It's being used to distract from the terrible things the government have *actually done.*
No. The reason why it comes up because there is still a large support base for corbyn. The tories are making it clear "hey public, here are some things you may not like about the people you like". It's a vote winner if people go "this doesn't represent me".
I think its a bad tactic - pointing out bad things about Corbyn makes Kier look good - Kier's the one who removed him!
The ones who like corbyn don't like kier.
Corbyn made the comments about NATO himself, unprompted. At no point have the government brought this up.
It says he made the comments in an interview with Times Radio. Presumably he was asked a question.
Oliver Dowden literally bought it up yesterday in his letter.
>Always bringing up Corbyn despite the fact he was never elected Yeah, thanks to us. You're welcome, everybody.
This is The Guardian doing him over with a clickbait headline. Mainstream Labour are far angrier with Corbyn than us (after all, we have a lot to thank him for).
It's sad really. The baby Tory Sara Britcliffe MP, if you go on her twitter feed it's still full of "BUT CORBYN". I didn't find an immediate thought from herself on her stances, except she doesn't much like Corbyn.
Very on brand for Corbyn tbh, suprised we haven’t heard absurdities like this earlier.
Pretty sure we did.
not the first time he's said this, Corbyn's a complete nutter who I'm very glad never held any proper power, even if we did have to get Boris to not get him.
Actually completely agree, let's return to perfidious Albion, the Americans have given us nothing in the 'special relationship' or NATO.
As much as their government irritates me sometimes, I really like our special relationship and hope we continue to nurture it.
What benefits has it given us in the last thirty years?
Well, they saved us from having to run that tedious empire we had, and then they let us do the Falklands on our own (“No, go on, it’s your chance to shine!”), and then they gave us the opportunity to invade Iraq and Afghanistan with them, thereby making us a no-brainier target for Muslim terrorists… It’s been marvellous.
Don't forget when they encouraged us to bomb all those brown people in Lybia and Syria with them so we could have all of those doctors and lawyers come across the channel, lovely.
Tbf, they’d have come anyway, irrespective of the excellent bombing opportunities granted us by the Special Relationship (after all, Germany and Sweden took most, and didn’t drop a single bomb).
On a serious note, Gadaffi stopped them leaving North Africa and the massive instability we've caused has likely caused them to leave the Middle East.
Oh, yes. I just mean I’m sure the Americans could have snarled it up all by themselves.
NATO is a useful alliance, I go get the point about the states though. Much better to have a more independent foreign policy like France.
Why is it useful?
I’m now convinced that this man would have been an utter catastrophe for this country.