Still this tbh. If they have said anything in public I’ve missed it. All weapons are terrible but cluster bombs and depleted uranium shells are particularly nasty. Indiscriminate and toxic often long after the war has ended.

https://twitter.com/elwinway/status/1680092349718724609

A few different sources have said Ukraine couldn’t have continued their ‘counteroffensive’ without the provision of cluster bombs. I’d genuinely like to know wether they think sending cluster bombs to Ukraine was worth it to save the ‘counteroffensive’?

The Washington Post says that Western officials have known for months that the Ukrainian armed forces simply weren’t equipped to launch a successful counter-offensive against Russian forces. They urged them to do it anyway:

https://t.co/hKSMAiZDkUwashingtonpost.com/opinions/2023/…
Personally I think the casualty figures from this war are hugely inflated by both sides for propaganda purposes. But the toll is still genuinely horrific. Why would the West pressure Ukraine into launching a counter-offensive if they knew it wouldn’t go well for Ukraine?

Remember 24 hours ago when helping sovereign states resist the occupation of their territory by hostile powers was Good Actually? Wonder what’s changed since.

https://twitter.com/washingtonpost/status/1664230809031639040

McDonnell, Lewis, Jones, Whittome, etc, will be producing a statement supporting Syria’s right to resist occupation - an occupation which almost certainly includes British special forces and fighter jets - and Iran’s duty to arm them any day now.

Hard to see this as anything other than bad faith nonsense. As if ‘transforming Britain and saving the planet’ hinges on whether Corbyn runs as an independent in Islington North or not. It’s bizarre rubbish. It’s also extremely nasty tbh. As Lansman concedes, Corbyn has been treated despicably. And yet the suggestion is if he doesn’t just roll over and retire quietly, it’ll be his fault if Britain isn’t transformed and the planet isn’t saved.

The socialist equivalent of TINA this. As if advancements can only be made via a party that, in the entirety of its history, has never been anything but social democratic / imperialist *at best*.

https://twitter.com/peoplesmomentum/status/1641416917171707905

‘Oh, so you don’t want to be a member of a racist, imperialist and neoliberal party that thinks you’re scum who should be ground into the dirt? Well what’s YOUR plan, comrade?’.

Here's the U.N.'s Under Secretary General for Humanitarian Affairs and Emergency Relief saying a political solution is need to the war in Ukraine:

https://twitter.com/UNReliefChief/status/1636882354147938304?s=20

The argument against a political solution - an argument which is currently being pushed by the U.S. State Department and large sections of the liberal-left - is that it will cement Russian control of Ukrainian territory (Crimea, Donbas).

And yet 3 and a half years ago John McDonnell was disgracefully trying to launder the reputations of Tony Blair and Alastair Campbell by whitewashing their crimes in Iraq. He’s never properly apologised. I wrote about it here:

interventionswatch.wordpress.com/2019/10/12/joh…

https://twitter.com/johnmcdonnellmp/status/1637878753274503179

McDonnell also has lots of nice things to say about another of the perpetrators, Gordon Brown. Quoting a mildly critical speech from 20 years ago pales compared to normalising and rehabilitating the perpetrators now:

https://twitter.com/elwinway/status/1303990087244550144

Had this person in my mentions for two days giving it ‘I’m a proper Marxist and you’re a liberal’ because I said university professors are middle-class. Here’s what they actually think of working-class people. Vicious ableism and snobbery: Me: Professional middle-class people are not working-class.

Professional middle-class people / their children:

Also supported the bombing of Kosovo and Serbia. People don’t see that war as straight forwardly problematic as Iraq. But I find the argument that it exacerbated, rather than prevented, atrocities and mass displacement - and NATO knew it would - very persuasive. Was also illegal.

https://twitter.com/IanJSinclair/status/1637056708353589248

Thread outlining the basic contours of the anti-war case here:

https://twitter.com/ElwinWay/status/1374638645861310464

A reminder that an International Criminal Court investigation found that British forces had committed war crimes in Iraq - including torture and rape, for which there was impunity - but they decided not to prosecute for reasons:

amnesty.org/en/latest/news… In 2014, France wrote a draft U.N. resolution to refer the situation in Syria to the ICC. Under U.S. pressure - this was Obama and Biden, not Trump - they included clauses that would de facto protect the U.S. and Israel from prosecution:

nytimes.com/2014/05/08/wor…

I see Gilbert Achcar is back on his ‘Genuine anti-imperialists must support NATO imperialism’ bullshit, while denying that’s what his position amounts to:

labourhub.org.uk/2023/03/12/con… Once again: the U.S. and NATO states are arming Ukraine to further their own imperial interests. To support that is to support U.S.-NATO imperialism, no matter how well intentioned you are. At least be honest about that.

Ash Sarkar: *Asks some mild questions about U.S.-NATO strategy towards Ukraine, what the end game might look like, and wonders why no-one in the media seems to be discussing these issues with any seriousness or honesty*

Twitter: SHUT UP PUTINIST TANKIE TRAITOR! That's about the level of debate you get on war from so many people who consider themselves the 'grown ups' in the room. And I know, because I've been arguing with them for 20 years.

Compare and contrast: More and more U.S. lawmakers, diplomats and NatSec types are openly saying what some of us have long suspected. That war in Ukraine is good for the U.S. because it’s weakening Russia without the U.S. itself having to fire a shot.

This line of argument is now standard in social imperialist discourse. That by opposing the imperialism of the U.S. and its allies, you are in fact an imperialist yourself for reasons. And it’s the people supporting U.S. imperialism who are the *real* anti-imperialists.

https://twitter.com/elwinway/status/1193897425121021952

I’m seeing it more and more in debates over Ukraine. People saying their support for arming Ukraine is rooted in their anti-imperialism. How do you square that with the fact most of those weapons are being provided by the worlds most aggressive imperialist state?

‘I wasn’t able to recognise the BBC Panorama antisemitism episode as the obvious establishment hit job it was. But by God, I can sniff out Putinist sympathies in left wingers from 1000 paces, even where none exist’ -

My latest for The Guardian. Evidence of serious misrepresentation in the Panorama antisemitism episode - the same evidence certain people are now citing as damning - has been in the public domain since July 2019. It was conveniently ignored by state-corporate media columnists:

thecanary.co/investigations…

Literal pogroms in the occupied West Bank - carried out by settlers who are protected by an occupying force that is armed by the U.K. - and almost total silence from ‘The left should be vocal about an occupied peoples inherent right to defend themselves’. ‘The left should be vocal about an occupied peoples inherent to defend themselves, just so long as it doesn’t upset newspaper owners, TV producers and right wing politicians’.

Thinking back to February 2011 when a ‘no-fly zone’ over Libya was first being mooted. Those of us who opposed it on the grounds that NATO was not motivated by protecting civilians and was indeed killing them had our position characterised as ‘Just let Benghazans be massacred’. Thinking back to February 2003 when the invasion of Iraq was imminent. Those of us who opposed it on the grounds the U.S./U.K. weren’t motivated by human rights and democracy and would massacre Iraqis had our position characterised as objectively pro-fascist.

Corbyn is only 'totally isolated' on Ukraine if you discount swathes of popular opinion across Europe and the global south.

https://twitter.com/paulmasonnews/status/1629806180330622976

We know that Mason has long wanted to push anti-imperialist and anti-war sentiment out of the British left and has been assiduously working to see it happen, essentially because he's an apologist for and supporter of anglo-American imperialism (has been for at least a decade).

Clive Lewis is extensively quoted in this Guardian article. He participated in the brutal occupation of Afghanistan. Why should we believe he is a principled opponent of military aggression and on the side of the oppressed, and not just giving left cover to NATO imperialism?

https://twitter.com/johnmcdonnellMP/status/1629892590999879685

Here is Clive Lewis talking about his experiences as a soldier in Afghanistan. Imagine a Russian volunteer saying something similar about their experiences occupying Ukraine. I doubt many people would be presenting them as a principled opponent of aggression:

This is your brain on social imperialism: it’s the people who oppose imperialists sending tanks into war zones who are ‘tankies’. Mason must be in fucking hog heaven right now. The absolute worst features of his politics - the U.S. as a guarantor of democracy, NATO as a progressive and defensive alliance - are back in vogue.

Good article by Andrew Murray on Ukraine which makes the key point: the U.S./NATO do not have the best interests of the Ukrainian class at heart and the government they’re arming is suppressing the left. All those weapons aren’t coming for free:

stopwar.org.uk/article/dont-b… Predictably, some people who should know better are mischaracterising the argument as being pro-Putin. It is nothing of the sort and condemns the invasion. Nor is it saying ‘We oppose it because the Tories support it’. Rather, it’s asking whose class interests are being served.