Well that’s fucking disgusting

Cute but it’s the “…but” following that softening blow, obviously.

So why is Corbyn speaking on behalf of the victim and telling them what they should be okay with giving up?

Whew, lots of half-truths and misinformation to unpack here, but I take it the gishgallop is the intent. Perhaps you should consider a ceasefire now because this argument will never end and you will slowly hemorrhage down-votes.

For starters, since you distinguish yourself from “people in the West,” I’m curious from where you reside? People from the West don’t normally say, “People in the west.”

NATO is primarily a defensive organization with a voluntary membership. Its bolstering is a direct reflection of the outside aggressive risks. In fact, prior to Putin’s invasion NATO was largely collecting dust. To be clear, Russia could just as easily reinstitute the Warsaw Pact – but the problem is nobody wants to join because there is no legitimate risk of NATO suddenly attacking a sovereign peaceful and stable nation. “nAtO EXpAnSioNism” is therefore utterly irrelevant and in fact, Russia is invoking a self-fulfilling prophecy. (Jn before pointing to fringe outlier incidents that are contextually much more complicated, or events where Russia could’ve vetoed but permitted on the UNSC).

As for far right neo-nazi groups, pro-tip: Azov doesn’t account for even 1% of the total UAF. Talk about pointing to outliers. But I’m sure Zelenskyy – who is Jewish and whose ancestors were in the Holocaust – is really neo-nazi… Just stop and think about it for a second :)

Let’s not forget that Putin has since backpedaled on the Budest Memorandum and like Hitler invading Poland, invaded a sovereign nation under the false pretenses of protecting ethnic groups. How awfully convenient.

Thus far you are drinking the Russia Vodka. I encourage you to stop being so gullibly duped.

Russia was wrong to invade Ukraine, no question, but in the beginning there was a potential diplomatic resolution on the table if the US and NATO were willing to back off Ukraine.

Incorrect. What Putin actually stated was that so long as Ukraine didn’t join NATO, then he wouldn’t attack. Ukraine pledged to not join NATO, and yet Putin attacked them anyway. But you know, it sure is funny how all those nations under the NATO banner HAVEN’T been attacked by Russia. It’s almost like… That’s kind of the… Point of NATO? Golly!

Russia is using second-hand ammunitions from North Korea that are blowing up in the faces of Russian troops. Russia is seeking help from 2-bit nations like Iran, and sure, some help from China. But China’s economy is wholly dependent on its economic relations with USA, and so will not overextend.

Russia itself has an economy smaller than California. Aid will continue to Ukraine and Ukraine can easily out-pace Russia. After all, the smaller Soviet-Afghan War brought down a stronger USSR.

“No End in Sight” doesn’t mean endless war. People enter tunnels for which they cannot see the end; but that doesn’t mean it’s endless…

So I repeat what was dodged; What will Corbyn say and do when Ukraine commits to a ceasefire, loses 17% of its landmass, allows Russia to regroup its forces, and strikes again?

Sorry, but Russia has no legimitate grievances on anything that takes place inside of Ukraine.

Ditto on the NATO expansion and all that “argumentation” line you’re parroting: Russia and Ukraine are different soverign nations and none of them has any right to force the other to do anything, which does mean that it’s not up to Russia and never was the way Ukraine runs their government including which alliances they join, same as, for example, it was never up to the United States how Iraq was run (and why the American invasion of Iraq was just as immoral as Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and the “Saddam was a murderous dictator” is a totally bollocks excuse).

Up and until the point one of those nations actually harms the other, none of the has any right to do anything to the other and as it so happens, it was Russia that harmed Ukraine by invading it, so the only nation there with any legitimate grievances is Ukraine.

In fact since the Russian invasion and occupation of Crimea, Ukraine and Ukraine alone is the one nation of the two with legitimate grivances against the other.

Your whole “argument” is predicated on the notion that Russia as the large neighbouring nation has a say in the affairs of its smaller neighbouring nation Ukraine, which is just a nakedly imperialist view of the relations between states straight out of XIX century political thinking.

You won’t hear this often in mainstream media but NATO expansionism

Dont sovereign countries have the right to join alliances? Would you support the US invading Mexico if Mexico joins a chinese led alliance? Would you support a cuban invasion during the Cold War for similar reasons?

the involvement of neo-nazi far right paramilitary groups in the Maidan revolution in Ukraine were legitimate grievances for Russia.

Putin is also supported by neo-nazis. The premiere russian military organization in Ukraine was named Wagner. What is your argument here? Shitty people follow shitty ideologies. You fight with the people you have, not with the people you want to have. This is problematic but it isnt as if Ukraine was left with many alternatives.

Ukraine is not that different to Russia in the end. Both have insane corruption issues and both have neonazis. Neither is an excuse to invade anyone or to not help the victims of an invasion.

Russia’s resources are vast and they are supported by China. Ukraine is backed by the deep pockets of NATO.

Russia has the gdp of Italy. Russia is big in terms of geographical area but not really in terms of economy. If you think Russia has vast resources, wait till you find out about the resources the West has. It’s all about political will.

And China doesnt really support Russia, at least not in terms of military help, at least not for the moment. China supports Russia as much as Turkey supports it, ie it facilitates trade and takes advantage of Russia’s lack of alternatives when it comes to trading.

Over half a million troops on both sides have been killed

Casualties are not dead. It is dead+injured.

A diplomatic solution three years ago could have possibly prevented all that.

What diplomatic solution would have prevented Russia from invading? Should have the West pre-emptively sanctioned and cut off Russia from the world economy in order to prevent the invasion? Should the West have said “ok, we wont let Ukraine join NATO and EU”? Should countries not have the right to choose what they do?

Even during the early stages of invasion, Macron legitimately thought he could stop it, he still wanted to keep the bridge with Russia alive. Go back and read some articles. Now Macron is one of the most anti-Russia politicians in the world? Why? Because he eventually realized that there was no alternative and that Putin was bullshitting him the whole time.

In Russia’s mind there are 2 types of countries, sovereign countries where rules do not apply to (the US, China, Russia) and minor countries that are just following what their “master” country tells them. It is inconceivable to the russian mind that 2 countries could freely associate with each other. Hence the whole “NATO expansion” narrative. As if NATO tanks marched in and forced those countries to join it.

The exact opposite happened actually. Eastern Europe was so afraid even after the USSR collapse, that some of them blackmailed NATO to let them join. Poland literally threatened to get their own nukes if they werent allowed to join NATO.

Ask yourself, why would all eastern european countries want to join NATO? Your answer is the Ukraine invasion. They wanted to join because they didnt want to be like Ukraine is now.

Those are only a problem for Russia’s ambitions to conquer Ukraine. I.e. a problem for Putin’s ambitions, not Russians. NATO won’t even step into Ukraine to save an ally let alone invade a nuclear power like Russia.

Putin could’ve maintained good relations with gas importers, spent all this massive military funding on economic and infrastructure investments, and everyone but Putin would be happier for it.

Russia was wrong to invade Ukraine, no question, but in the beginning there was a potential diplomatic resolution on the table if the US and NATO were willing to back off Ukraine.

In the beginning, Russia pledged never to invade Ukraine in exchange for all of the nuclear weapons.

That reply is pure Russia propaganda drivel.

It’s hit every made up Russian talking point “Oh it’s NATO expanding, we had to attack someone else because how dare they want to think about defending from us. Oh and they were all totally Nazis, now excuse us as we wipe out the Ukrainians as a peoples”

I replied there.