How is supporting the annexation of Crimea (just one example in context of Ukraine, there are many more) not open support for russian genocidal imperialism?

The fucker openly works with russian propaganda/intel services. This has nothing to do with the UK media.

google.com/search?q=Corbyn+sup…

Yep as I expected, nothing about supporting the annexation or openly working with Russian propaganda/intel services. In fact what I'm seeing from googling that is many examples of him actually publicly condemning the Russian governments actions over the years, including the invasion of Ukraine. If he's under Russian employ as you say, I'm very surprised they didn't fire him years ago

But yeah you're clearly someone who sees the Ukrainian government and NATO as perfect and could never do anything wrong and will continue to do so. So anyone who says even slightly different is worthy to be demonised by you, whether it's actually true or not they even said anything like that. And before you accuse me of being a "Russia sympathiser" or whatever I completely believe Russia is the aggressor and that we should be supoorting Ukraine. Just not that Ukraine and NATO have been 100% good themselves

Like, for instance, it's also funny that people can't see that NATO are loving the invasion. It means they don't have to all openly go to war with Russia to severely weaken it, something they've always wanted. They can just use Ukraine in a proxy war and allow the country and people to suffer all the hardships while the rest of NATO just pump Ukraine with war funding and the politicians in government in those countries get an easy win in popularity. Starmer is a great example of this, just about everything he's done is unpopular and the UK population for the most part are at the very least disappointed in him. The only time he was really popular was when he was all nice to Zelenskyy after the terrible Trump meeting he went through. Which is exactly what Starmer should have done of course, but it just shows how much of an easy goal it is

Your starting point was a web search! Corbyn is a huge promoter or russian propaganda on NATO, his fake peacnik organization recognized Crimea as part of russia.

Ukraine and NATO have not been good? What does that even mean?

That's a russian propaganda narrative. You don't speak Ukrainian (or russian) and you've never even lived in Ukraine (Donbas or any other part).

Get the fuck out of here with your "NATO is at fault" and "proxy war" bullshit, you ignorant, lazy, dishonest, fake leftist! A real leftist would recognise that countries have the right to self determination.

• He has worked with RT, a Russian propaganda service aimed at the west managed by russian intel services.
• He routinely promotes russian propaganda narratives about NATO
• His fake peacenik organization (he is the executive director who is responsible for such press releases) recognized russia as part of Ukraine.
• He openly opposed weapons deliveries to Ukraine after the full scale in order to give russia an edge in the invasion

I don't even need to do a web search to write out these points. Who would have thought that in a country being invaded by russia for 11 years out of its 34 years of independence, the media would report on Western leaders collaborating with russians?

Or do you think we are all dumb eastern european sour cream n1ggaz who don't have journalism?

You can look up the sources for the abovementioned points, it's not difficult. Or assume I am lying, whatever works for you.

There is that supremacist paternalism that I was talking about.

This is exactly why Western "leftists" are either useful idiots (E.g. Varoufakis, who otherwise has very good ideas and a modern leftist worldview) or collaborators with the russians (Corbyn).

Keep telling yourself that.

You know I am right (even though you may not admit publicly). You're too scared to look very clear and specific examples, because you know that Corbyn is a massive supporter of russian genocidal imperialism!

Yeah, yeah.

You don't even know the position of a politician you're fanboying for.

Someone did check the examples I provided and they are all true:

feddit.uk/post/35181984/196471…

I told you that such matters are reported on in Ukrainian media and they have both editorial and financial incentives to be honest about these sort things.

My first interaction here has been to ask for sources on your claims, I don't know where you got fanboyism, that's basic argumentation, you make the argument and provide examples, others refute them with other examples.

I find it funny that in the end it was still someone else who came forward with links to articles, weird hill to die on for you to not just do it yourself, but thank you for linking to the person linking articles.

You don't see how a bunch of Corbyn fanboys lying about easily verifyable facts would make someone from Ukraine less than willing to engage in a discussion in a diplomatic manner?

You may not be a Corbyn fanboy. To be honest it's a bit difficult to track who is who in the threads for this post.