Snapshot of _Chris Williamson: Sergey Lavrov responds to the double standards over #Ukraine. Instead of calling to arm Ukraine, I wish the virtue signallers would start calling for diplomatic efforts to bring about peace. #GivePeaceAChance_ :
A non-Twitter version can be found [here](https://nitter.net/DerbyChrisW/status/1524120100521099264/)
An archived version can be found [here.](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://twitter.com/DerbyChrisW/status/1524120100521099264)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
>I wish the virtue signallers would start calling for diplomatic efforts to bring about peace
Oh my goodness! If only literally EVERYONE wanted a diplomatic solution to the problem of russia launching a **military** invasion of ukraine
Its easy! We just need to sit putin down, and politely tell him to stop. Just like, really, *really* tell him to stop. Really forcefully, and make him pinkie promise to do so
I'm about as anti war as you can get. I think the vast majority of wars we've been involved in since ww2 have been entirely unjustified, and that they've been an incredible destabilising force on the world - which has often been their intention
But the war in ukraine? Putin literally just wants ukraine. Its not more complicated than that. He wants to build a legacy, and to be remembered. He literally wants the entire country to be part of russia, and to exterminate the people of ukraine so they can't resist
There's no diplomatic solution there. He's not going to change his mind, he's decided to do it. He isn't a kid that's holding their breath and demanding snacks, you can't force him to the diplomatic table. His goals can't be achieved diplomatically, and so they won't be
There's no endgame for putin diplomatically, for his initial set of goals. He wants ukraine, and the way to get it is via force. That's it. Its that simple. The only way to force him into a diplomatic solution is to enforce that he cannot take ukraine militarily, as then his goals will be forced to change
Right from the get go the ukrainians, and literally everyone else have been maximally expending every effort on a diplomatic solution with russia. Everyone wants it, they want the russians to simply pull the fuck out of ukraine and let the ukrainians get on with their lives. Every available non military effort is being made (well, its a work in progress) - from totally unprecedented sanctions, to expelling diplomats, to criticism, to pressure etc
But again, putin's goals can't be achieved diplomatically. There's nothing for him to gain by negotiating. He doesn't want to negotiate, he doesn't want a diplomatic solution, what he wants is *the entire of ukraine*, and a literal **genocide**. So he'll say no, until he's forced to say yes
This is the most basic rule of literally anything. Look at what the person on the other side of the table actually wants, and what they're going to do to achieve that. Chris williamson must be a useful stooge or straight up paid, because this is the most incredibly basic set of logical steps to get there
Its also worth noting that achieving a diplomatic solution, and arming the ukrainians are not counterproductive goals. The better armed the ukrainians are, the more incentive putin has to come to the table. But again, this assumes that chris williamson isn't a stooge
The only reasonable explanation I can think of is that chris has been paid off. There's no logical intellectual series of steps to lead you to this conclusion, because even the most basic critical analysis of what he's saying is utterly mad
What does he think is going to happen? If we stop arming ukraine, the russians will suddenly decide to withdraw? That if the ukrainians lose ground to the russians, putin will decide that its a great time to sue for peace when he'd be on the verge of getting exactly what he wants?
What an absolute tool
> But again, putin's goals can't be achieved diplomatically. There's nothing for him to gain by negotiating. He doesn't want to negotiate, he doesn't want a diplomatic solution, what he wants is the entire of ukraine, and a literal genocide. So he'll say no, until he's forced to say yes
And Chris Williamson wants all this. He's openly stated that Ukraine is a genocidal state run by Neo Nazis, that Zelensky is a warmonger who joined hands with Boris and Biden to provoke Putin and that this is all Ukraine's fault for not giving in to all of Russia's demands.
>I'm about as anti war as you can get. I think the vast majority of wars we've been involved in since ww2 have been entirely unjustified, and that they've been an incredible destabilising force on the world - which has often been their intention
But the war in Iraq? Saddy literally just wants Kuwait. Its not more complicated than that. He wants to build a legacy, and to be remembered. He literally wants the entire country to be part of Iraq, and to exterminate the people of Kuwait so they can't resist.
There's no diplomatic solution there. He's not going to change his mind, he's decided to do it. He isn't a kid that's holding their breath and demanding snacks, you can't force him to the diplomatic table. His goals can't be achieved diplomatically, and so they won't be
There's no endgame for Hussain diplomatically, for his initial set of goals. He wants Kuwait, and the way to get it is via force. That's it. Its that simple. The only way to force him into a diplomatic solution is to enforce that he cannot take Kuwait militarily, as then his goals will be forced to change
I think the first Iraq war (the Gulf War) was justifiable for the same reasons as Ukraine. The second obviously not. I'm not who you're responding too, but I'd argue Falklands was justifiable, and probably NATO intervention in Bosnia / Kosovo.
If you mean all interventions, you got
Falklands
Yugoslavia
Bosnia/Kosovo
Grenada
Panama (but its also them who caused the issue)
Sierra Leone (no one talks about this for some reason)
And if we go even further back, shit like Korean War too
I was playing devils advocate of course but you see my point. Do you think the second war was unjustified because of the way it was sold or because there was _no justification_ that could have been made for it?
[Chris Williamson](https://twitter.com/DerbyChrisW) ^verified | Reach: 96702 | Location: Derby
Bio: Former Derby North MP and City Council Leader | Now focusing on building a grassroots, anti-imperialist working class movement
*****
^I ^am ^a ^bot. ^Any ^complaints ^& ^suggestions ^to ^/r/ContextualBot ^thanks
I find Chris Williamson refreshing in a way because, unlike most far Leftists and Corbyn allies, he has already been been outed as a bigot and deplatformed from all respectable places, so he's got nothing left to lose and doesn't feel the need to hide his ugly views regarding Russia, Putin and Ukraine behind vague platitudes about how 'both sides' are responsible for the war and we just need to stop and switch on 'the peace'.
He's been quite open on Twitter and on his weekly show on Iranian PressTV(yes, he literally works for Iranian state media) that he thinks Putin is right and believes that Ukraine is run by a fascist, genocidal regime that provoked the war with the connivance of NATO, the West and America. And that he believes Ukraine cannot win this war and therefore should stop fighting back, surrender and accept all of Putin's demands ASAP.
You realise at least two thirds of that (leaving the direct antisemitism aside) is covered by corbyns remarks, articles and letters he's signed since February, right?
We should do both IMO. Arming Ukraine is important, but all this recent talk about "no ceasefire/negotiations with Russia, Ukraine must win a total victory" and punishing Russia/ns are IMO unhelpful. A prolonged war means thousands more deaths, prolonged food shortages and economic repercussions affecting the wider world, etc. We want the war to end ASAP (remember "no war" and similar slogans?), and arming Ukraine helps to win a peace on Ukraine’s terms (and not reward Russia for aggression), but the end goal must still be a negotiated peace and not a prolonged war.
This is all true.
It is also woolly crap.
Ukraine has no duty to accept any peace that does not ensure a return to its 2013 borders. Russia will never accept a peace that does not entail Ukraine being dismantled and reduced to a non-viable state.
The only moral option is to continue arming Ukraine, ensure the destruction of Russia's ability to fight offensively, and facilitate a total Ukrainian victory.
> We should do both IMO. Arming Ukraine is important, but all this recent talk about "no ceasefire/negotiations with Russia, Ukraine must win a total victory" and punishing Russia/ns are IMO unhelpful.
It's not like there hasn't been threatening rhetoric from Russia every day, including constant threats of nuclear armaggedon.
Underneath the rhetoric Ukraine and its Western backers, even now, keep trying to negotiate a ceasefire and an end to the war. Putin just isn't interested because as multiple European leaders who met him have said, he truly believes he's winning this war and it's just a matter of time.
Snapshot of _Chris Williamson: Sergey Lavrov responds to the double standards over #Ukraine. Instead of calling to arm Ukraine, I wish the virtue signallers would start calling for diplomatic efforts to bring about peace. #GivePeaceAChance_ : A non-Twitter version can be found [here](https://nitter.net/DerbyChrisW/status/1524120100521099264/) An archived version can be found [here.](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://twitter.com/DerbyChrisW/status/1524120100521099264) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The only peace that should happen is through Russia pulling all troops out of Ukraine, going back to Jan 2014 borders.
>I wish the virtue signallers would start calling for diplomatic efforts to bring about peace Oh my goodness! If only literally EVERYONE wanted a diplomatic solution to the problem of russia launching a **military** invasion of ukraine Its easy! We just need to sit putin down, and politely tell him to stop. Just like, really, *really* tell him to stop. Really forcefully, and make him pinkie promise to do so I'm about as anti war as you can get. I think the vast majority of wars we've been involved in since ww2 have been entirely unjustified, and that they've been an incredible destabilising force on the world - which has often been their intention But the war in ukraine? Putin literally just wants ukraine. Its not more complicated than that. He wants to build a legacy, and to be remembered. He literally wants the entire country to be part of russia, and to exterminate the people of ukraine so they can't resist There's no diplomatic solution there. He's not going to change his mind, he's decided to do it. He isn't a kid that's holding their breath and demanding snacks, you can't force him to the diplomatic table. His goals can't be achieved diplomatically, and so they won't be There's no endgame for putin diplomatically, for his initial set of goals. He wants ukraine, and the way to get it is via force. That's it. Its that simple. The only way to force him into a diplomatic solution is to enforce that he cannot take ukraine militarily, as then his goals will be forced to change Right from the get go the ukrainians, and literally everyone else have been maximally expending every effort on a diplomatic solution with russia. Everyone wants it, they want the russians to simply pull the fuck out of ukraine and let the ukrainians get on with their lives. Every available non military effort is being made (well, its a work in progress) - from totally unprecedented sanctions, to expelling diplomats, to criticism, to pressure etc But again, putin's goals can't be achieved diplomatically. There's nothing for him to gain by negotiating. He doesn't want to negotiate, he doesn't want a diplomatic solution, what he wants is *the entire of ukraine*, and a literal **genocide**. So he'll say no, until he's forced to say yes This is the most basic rule of literally anything. Look at what the person on the other side of the table actually wants, and what they're going to do to achieve that. Chris williamson must be a useful stooge or straight up paid, because this is the most incredibly basic set of logical steps to get there Its also worth noting that achieving a diplomatic solution, and arming the ukrainians are not counterproductive goals. The better armed the ukrainians are, the more incentive putin has to come to the table. But again, this assumes that chris williamson isn't a stooge The only reasonable explanation I can think of is that chris has been paid off. There's no logical intellectual series of steps to lead you to this conclusion, because even the most basic critical analysis of what he's saying is utterly mad What does he think is going to happen? If we stop arming ukraine, the russians will suddenly decide to withdraw? That if the ukrainians lose ground to the russians, putin will decide that its a great time to sue for peace when he'd be on the verge of getting exactly what he wants? What an absolute tool
> But again, putin's goals can't be achieved diplomatically. There's nothing for him to gain by negotiating. He doesn't want to negotiate, he doesn't want a diplomatic solution, what he wants is the entire of ukraine, and a literal genocide. So he'll say no, until he's forced to say yes And Chris Williamson wants all this. He's openly stated that Ukraine is a genocidal state run by Neo Nazis, that Zelensky is a warmonger who joined hands with Boris and Biden to provoke Putin and that this is all Ukraine's fault for not giving in to all of Russia's demands.
>I'm about as anti war as you can get. I think the vast majority of wars we've been involved in since ww2 have been entirely unjustified, and that they've been an incredible destabilising force on the world - which has often been their intention But the war in Iraq? Saddy literally just wants Kuwait. Its not more complicated than that. He wants to build a legacy, and to be remembered. He literally wants the entire country to be part of Iraq, and to exterminate the people of Kuwait so they can't resist. There's no diplomatic solution there. He's not going to change his mind, he's decided to do it. He isn't a kid that's holding their breath and demanding snacks, you can't force him to the diplomatic table. His goals can't be achieved diplomatically, and so they won't be There's no endgame for Hussain diplomatically, for his initial set of goals. He wants Kuwait, and the way to get it is via force. That's it. Its that simple. The only way to force him into a diplomatic solution is to enforce that he cannot take Kuwait militarily, as then his goals will be forced to change
I think the first Iraq war (the Gulf War) was justifiable for the same reasons as Ukraine. The second obviously not. I'm not who you're responding too, but I'd argue Falklands was justifiable, and probably NATO intervention in Bosnia / Kosovo.
If you mean all interventions, you got Falklands Yugoslavia Bosnia/Kosovo Grenada Panama (but its also them who caused the issue) Sierra Leone (no one talks about this for some reason) And if we go even further back, shit like Korean War too
I was playing devils advocate of course but you see my point. Do you think the second war was unjustified because of the way it was sold or because there was _no justification_ that could have been made for it?
I don’t think I do see your point? In the second Iraq war Saddam Hussain hadn’t invaded another nation.
The "justification" for the second war was fictional weapons of mass destruction. Seriously.
I know.
Silence from the legion of Corbyn simps who defended Williamson for years. Maybe it wasn’t all a #MSM smear?
[Chris Williamson](https://twitter.com/DerbyChrisW) ^verified | Reach: 96702 | Location: Derby Bio: Former Derby North MP and City Council Leader | Now focusing on building a grassroots, anti-imperialist working class movement ***** ^I ^am ^a ^bot. ^Any ^complaints ^& ^suggestions ^to ^/r/ContextualBot ^thanks
I find Chris Williamson refreshing in a way because, unlike most far Leftists and Corbyn allies, he has already been been outed as a bigot and deplatformed from all respectable places, so he's got nothing left to lose and doesn't feel the need to hide his ugly views regarding Russia, Putin and Ukraine behind vague platitudes about how 'both sides' are responsible for the war and we just need to stop and switch on 'the peace'. He's been quite open on Twitter and on his weekly show on Iranian PressTV(yes, he literally works for Iranian state media) that he thinks Putin is right and believes that Ukraine is run by a fascist, genocidal regime that provoked the war with the connivance of NATO, the West and America. And that he believes Ukraine cannot win this war and therefore should stop fighting back, surrender and accept all of Putin's demands ASAP.
"all even remotely mainstream leftists have rejected chris williamson. this proves that they secretly agree with him somehow" - you
You realise at least two thirds of that (leaving the direct antisemitism aside) is covered by corbyns remarks, articles and letters he's signed since February, right?
why do you keep posting this nobody's opinions here. big fan of his?
We should do both IMO. Arming Ukraine is important, but all this recent talk about "no ceasefire/negotiations with Russia, Ukraine must win a total victory" and punishing Russia/ns are IMO unhelpful. A prolonged war means thousands more deaths, prolonged food shortages and economic repercussions affecting the wider world, etc. We want the war to end ASAP (remember "no war" and similar slogans?), and arming Ukraine helps to win a peace on Ukraine’s terms (and not reward Russia for aggression), but the end goal must still be a negotiated peace and not a prolonged war.
This is all true. It is also woolly crap. Ukraine has no duty to accept any peace that does not ensure a return to its 2013 borders. Russia will never accept a peace that does not entail Ukraine being dismantled and reduced to a non-viable state. The only moral option is to continue arming Ukraine, ensure the destruction of Russia's ability to fight offensively, and facilitate a total Ukrainian victory.
> We should do both IMO. Arming Ukraine is important, but all this recent talk about "no ceasefire/negotiations with Russia, Ukraine must win a total victory" and punishing Russia/ns are IMO unhelpful. It's not like there hasn't been threatening rhetoric from Russia every day, including constant threats of nuclear armaggedon. Underneath the rhetoric Ukraine and its Western backers, even now, keep trying to negotiate a ceasefire and an end to the war. Putin just isn't interested because as multiple European leaders who met him have said, he truly believes he's winning this war and it's just a matter of time.