For a world of peace & justice...


On war, why Jeremy Corbyn is right and Keir Starmer is wrong

Jeremy Corbyn has not seen, contributed to or authorized this article.
It has been produced independently by a joint effort of the APEurope Correspondents' Pool.

As Keir Starmer increasingly imposes a restricted militant viewpoint on members of the Labour party reducing it to a parochial Lilliputian relevance, Jeremy Corbyn has expanded the appeal of his Peace and Justice Project through his association with the Stop the War Coalition which remains focused on the essential issue of ensuring that people have peaceful and productive lives. The fact that Jeremy Corbyn is an independent has allowed him to operate more freely on the most important issues of the day unmolested by the irrational carping and silly finger pointing by the Starmer militants.

Starmer has gone so far as to threaten long standing members of the Labour party who were to speak as a Stop the War Coalition Rally to expel them from the party. This censorship and clamp down on freedom of expression on Labour politicians has the whiff of Fascism about it. Is there no longer any due process? Now people are guilty before judged and controlled not through a reasoned dialogue to understand, with respect, the positions different colleagues take on current events, but rather through erratic and illogical assertions by a weak leader who irrespective of an evident lack of ability, demands that all obey his command.

If we look at the Russian actions in Ukraine it is obvious that the fault lies with NATO and the USA in not taking seriously, a completely reasonable analysis of the post-Soviet era presented by Vladimir Putin in 2007. This was presented at the Munich Security Conference. In his analysis President Putin provided diplomatic, frank and valid analysis pointing out that there was no longer a mutual strategic security framework for the whole of Europe. A pdf copy of his presentation is available at If we might elaborate slightly, a mutual strategic security framework agreement takes into account the security of everyone. Clearly a "security" agreement that does not do this has nothing to do with mutual security. This was one of the points made by President Putin. It is self-evident that with Russia making up 50% of the East European population this was an important oversight. Neither NATO or the USA, through their Department of State, responded to Putin's analysis or his proposals. The problem was that NATO, being no more than an office, some filing cabinets and meeting rooms for military attachés and acting as an arms bazaar for armament company sales had nothing much to say. The US State Department had dismissed Russia as an irrelevance since 1992 and no longer deserving the respect provided to the Soviet Union on account of its nuclear arsenal. The odd oversight was that since the nuclear arsenal was still there, this was an irresponsible position to take on the part of the State Department. Each time the Russians referred to the 2007 proposals both NATO officials and the State Department deflected the conversation into irrelevances. Therefore at the diplomatic level Russia was constantly rebuffed in an insulting and somewhat irresponsible fashion resulting in a rise in tensions. This was exacerbated as NATO was joined by an increasing number of countries, closer and closer to Russia, in contradiction to agreements made in 1992. The bottom line evidence building up was, therefore, that the USA and NATO were turning out to be unreliable entities on the question of a mutual strategic security agreement. This state of affairs was clearly a danger signal driven by USA arrogance.

Although attempting to sell an image of the USA being a bastion for, "freedom, democracy and the rule of law" this image was destroyed when the US State Department participated in encouraging a bloody coup in the heart of Europe in Ukraine in 2014. The support and training of neo-Nazi nationalist militia by the USA, whose forebears has murdered thousands of Roma and Jews on behalf of the Germany military in the Second World War, set off a panic in the Russian-speaking areas of Ukraine in Crimea and the Donetsk and Lugansk regions (Donbas). The populations of these regions held referenda to declare their independence from Ukraine before the terrible attacks and murder of Russian-speakers occurred in Odessa at the hands of nationalist militia. The mind sets of these terrorists were well understood by Russian speakers. Crimea went a step further and held an additional referendum to become part of Russia. These referenda were not organized by Russia but rather people who wished to be free of Ukrainian extremist terror. The Ukrainian government organized military attacks on the Donbas targeting civilians in a campaign of genocide. In 2014 and again in 2015 Russia insisted in a diplomatic and peaceful solution and as a result the Minsk agreement was drawn up to orientate a stepwise reconciliation between the Ukraine and the Donbas including Donetsk and Lugansk gaining more autonomy while remaining part of Ukraine. The USA, not being part of Minsk and the guarantors, Germany and France, very much under the influence of the USA through NATO dragged their feet in implementing Minsk. In the meantime during the last 8 years some 14,000-15,000 people died in the clashes between the Ukraine military and volunteers from Donbas. The Ukrainian campaign became a creeping genocide. Each time Russia asked for Minsk to be implemented they were rebuffed with conversation and inaction.

Russia has a unique experience with the behaviour of neo-Nazi nationalists. It was these elements, forerunners of the current Ukraine units, who brought Hilter to power. Once in power they pursued an insane campaign which ended up in the murder of some 30 million people. Some 6 million Roma and Jews and 25 million Russians. Russia has a tradition of a nationwide commemoration of those who passed away in that genocide. Russia has an ongoing sensitivity to the dangers of neo-Nazis and Fascists, no matter how small because their fanaticism and brutality intimidates most people. They tend to get their way. On the other hand, if any power habours such a mindset or intent, then it is clear that the country most likely to detect this madness and its consequences, would be Russia. There is a myth that Russians live in a distorted historic context that no longer exists. This is wrong. It is Western Europeans who remain completely insensitive to the broader dangers but the Americans who find Fascists and neo-Nazis to be useful pawns in securing their objectives within the European theatre.

Observing the development in Ukraine and inaction by all concerned to seek a peaceful solution, the Russian Government sent the USA and NATO proposals on a final structure for a mutual strategic security framework setting out Russia's red lines. These documents were sent 17th December, 2021. As usual the USA and NATO did not respond adequately.

In the meantime, with the knowledge of the USA, the Ukrainian government prepared to organize an invasion of Donbas to take these regions by force and no doubt complete their genocidal plans. However, the build up of Ukrainian troops and nationalist militia along the contact line was observed as well as the increased shelling of Donbas, as reported by the OCSE monitors. Donbas agents in taking over a unit of nationalists discovered maps containing the Ukraine government's plans. It will be remembered that there was a sudden evacuation of women and children from Donbas to Russia. In spite of this, the Ukrainian shelling succeeded in killing many civilians. In order to head off this attack, and drive it back, Russia immediately initiated the current action to protect the people of the Donbas.

Whereas Keir Starmer has a blind faith in the merits of NATO the track records shows that it is highly unreliable with its unprovoked a disastrous attacks in Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya as well as Yugoslavia. He has a blind belief in the USA's ability to keep the peace in Europe when the cause of the instability surrounding the Ukraine has been a direct intervention by the USA, bringing war to Europe.

The Russian government has a duty of care towards Russian-speakers while the Ukrainian government with USA encouragement wishes to destroy this minority community. Therefore the prolonged insulting and irresponsible refusal to take Russia's concerns seriously on the part of the USA and NATO resulted in a military action provoked by the irresponsible actions of the USA and the Ukrainian puppet government.

It will be recalled that Anthony Blinken, aware of the Ukrainian government intent, referred to the fact that Russia would invent false flags of Ukrainian intent as a justification for action against the Ukraine. However, this was not a false flag event it was a real event planned by the US and the Ukrainian government.

What has this got to do with Jeremy Corbyn?

Jeremy Corbyn is consistent in his approach to conflict in seeking conflict resolution, or even better, conflict avoidance. Therefore if the USA and NATO had taken a leaf out of his book, they would have responded to Russia's concerns, as early as 2007 and today we might have a secure security framework for Europe in operation. Unfortunately, they opted to not take European security seriously so as to build up tensions and even organize a bloody coup in a country neighbouring Russia and then encouraged the puppet government to attack and murder
As long as he has been a figure in British politics, Jeremy Corbyn has campaigned tirelessly against war and has participated in, and advocated, peaceful resolutions on the international stage, from Ireland to the Middle East.
Russians and Russian speakers in Ukraine.

In terms of sensitivity to grievances as a basis for understanding situations, Jeremy Corbyn has shown himself to be courageous enough to hold meetings openly with "the enemy" in an attempt to comprehend complex conflict situations and sensitivities both concerning Ireland and the Middle East. In all cases he was vilified by our shallow corporate media that exposed a complete lack of subtlety or appreciation of what he was doing; probably intentionally. The preference seems to be to not take things seriously or explore sensitivities like the "role models" of NATO and the USA. It is paradoxical that while NATO and the USA can spend hours talking the talk and issuing banal press releases, Jeremy Corbyn, in a quiet but effective way, has more often walked the walk, in spite of never receiving sufficient support or appreciation. Today, the reality is that, if the Corbyn path had been followed in the case of Ukraine, this evening, Ukrainian and Donbas families would be sitting down to their evening meals in peace, and looking forward to tomorrow. The whole of Western Europe would be going about their business and the people of Russia also.

As it is, the very institutions, that Keir Starmer and his cronies place so much faith, have created instability, death and violence in the heart of Europe by threatening the security of 50% of Eastern Europeans made up of the people of Russia. They created the conditions that have created widespread European instability and suffering.

In conclusion, nothing in this article assumes anything about Jeremy Corbyn's views on Russia or Ukraine because we don't know what these are.

However what is very apparent from the unfolding events over the last 25 years is that "On war, Jeremy Corbyn is right and Keir Starmer is wrong.