Dropped a Truth Bomb on the Warmongering Elite
On 18 August,
the real reason why the establishment believes
Jeremy Corbyn is so “dangerous”
was made perfectly clear. Responding to a question
about defence at a Labour leadership debate, the
incumbent refused to justify military action by the
North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), instead
vowing to make efforts to create “a world where
we don’t need to go to war”.
millions of citizens around the world, this is great
news. But for those intent on maintaining the
politics of power and the lucrative industries that
support that, Corbyn’s vision is nothing short of a
Do you want to be in our
debate, Corbyn and fellow candidate Owen Smith were
asked a question about Russia:
would you as Prime Minister react to a violation
by Vladimir Putin of the sovereignty of a fellow
obviously try to avoid that happening in the
first place. You would build up a good dialogue
with Russia to ask them, support them in
respecting borders. We would try to introduce a
demilitarisation between Russia and Ukraine, and
all the other countries down on the border
between Russia and Eastern Europe.
cannot allow is a series of continuous buildups
of troops on both sides which can only lead to
great danger in the future. It’s beginning to
look awfully like Cold War politics at the
present time. We’ve got to engage with Russia,
engage with demilitarisation in that area, in
order to try and avoid that danger happening.
formed in 1949 in the wake of WWII. Initially, its
primary focus was Russia, and the creation of an
alliance capable of taking on the red ‘bear’ where
necessary. But once the Berlin Wall fell and the
Soviet Union was dissolved, tensions with Russia
faded and NATO, determined to justify its continued
existence, moved on to other
Cold War tension has returned and, as Corbyn notes,
there is a “continuous buildup of troops” along the
Russian border. On 10 February, for example, NATO
Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg
Defence Ministers agreed on an enhanced forward
presence in the eastern part of our Alliance.
NATO-speak for a decision to amass a military
presence in six countries bordering Russia. The UK
contributing five warships and a considerable
number of troops to the military contingent. The
pledge followed an announcement by US President
Barack Obama to quadruple the superpower’s military
spending in Europe, to the tune of $3.4bn.
same time, US Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter
explained that the current “security
environment” is “dramatically different” to that of
the last couple of decades. For the last 25 years,
noted, US ‘defence’ has largely focused on
insurgent forces, like the Taliban and other
extremist groups. But now, the US is gearing up for
“a return to great-power competition” with “high-end
enemies” like Russia and China.
NATO is the
frontline of this “great-power competition”.
Play by the rules, or get
out of the game
As most of
the big players on both sides of the ‘competition’
have stockpiles of nuclear weapons, any escalation
of the tensions could indeed “lead to great danger
in the future”. This is a sentiment that Putin
himself shared when he recently
spoke to foreign journalists:
people in turn do not feel a sense of the
impending danger – this is what worries me. How
do you not understand that the world is being
pulled in an irreversible direction?
suggests that “dialogue”, “demilitarisation”, and
‘engagement’ are the appropriate actions to take to
ensure no violations of sovereignty occur in the
first place. He advocates prevention of hostilities
rather than a cure once they’ve begun.
tactics do not seem to factor much in NATO’s
playbook. In fact, leaked emails from recently
retired NATO Supreme Commander Philip Breedlove
showed he was consciously
plotting ways to overcome President Obama’s
reluctance to escalate military tensions with Russia
Stoltenberg, in his announcement regarding the
buildup of troops on the Russian border, made pains
to stress the
NATO principle that “an attack against one Ally
is an attack against all Allies, and that the
Alliance as a whole will respond”.
It is this
principle, that all members should be willing to act
militarily if one member is under threat, that was
the subject of the Labour leadership debate
question. And Smith dutifully
responded in line with NATO policy:
would have to come to the aid of a fellow member
of Nato, that’s the nature of the Nato accord.
That would be the job of Britain in the event of
a fellow Nato member being invaded obviously.
But it would be calamitous, and we must never
see that happen.
work diplomatically to make sure that Russian
aggression, and I think that it has been nothing
less than that, expansionism and militaristic
aggression, by Putin in recent years is
‘diplomacy’ will be successful if only the
aggression of Russia is under discussion is
difficult to imagine. And if Smith truly believes
“we must never see” invasions and a NATO military
response, prevention must surely be the only way to
An explosive business
further on whether he would take military action “if
he had to”, Corbyn
wish to go to war, what I want to do is achieve
a world where we don’t need to go to war, where
there is no need for it. That can be done.
decades of endless military interventions that have
left much of the Middle East in ruins, thrust
Wahhabi terrorism onto a global stage, and
eroded trust in communities throughout the western
hemisphere, it’s unsurprising that the audience
erupted with applause at his suggestion.
establishment doesn’t like the idea one bit. Lord
West, a former Labour security minister and Royal
Navy head, said
the comments were “absolutely dreadful”. Labour MP
Wes Streeting, meanwhile, claimed
they were “a gross betrayal of Labour’s
It could of
course be considered thoroughly ‘internationalist’
to advocate for diplomatic solutions to avoid all
conflict – not only for one’s allies, but for the
global citizens who would suffer in the event of a
war. But obviously not in the circles Streeting
also consider it ‘absolutely dreadful’ not to
attempt to influence NATO, the only military
alliance the UK has direct involvement with, to
exhaust peaceful solutions before considering
mainstream media can
vent all they wish about how this is a “step
too far” for Corbyn, and
resurrect Clement Attlee’s founding of the
alliance in its condemnation of Corbyn.
today’s world is a very different place from the one
in which Attlee negotiated. Following the ceaseless
interventions of recent years, our military impulses
have to be curtailed along with those of others if
there is to be any prospect of world peace.
geopolitical question now is not who’s going to be
in control of the world, but who’s going to save it.
action with the Stop the War Coalition.
Veterans for Peace, who are fighting for peaceful
solutions to the world’s problems.