Corbyn the Kremlin stooge despises everything our troops stand for

Sometimes you can tell more about a man by what he doesn’t say, than by what he does. the most striking aspect of Jeremy Corbyn’s interview yesterday by the BBC’s Andrew marr was that when asked about the RAF’s involvement in the bombing of syrian chemical weapons bases, the Leader of Her majesty’s opposition said not one word about the pilots who had carried out the mission.

Compare and contrast with the leader of the Liberal Democrats, sir Vince Cable, who, though also opposed to theresa may’s decision to launch the strikes without a prior vote in Parliament, insisted on beginning his answer to the same question (on sky News) with words for the British pilots who put their lives on the line in the performance of their duty.

those now serving in the British Armed Forces (whose number includes one of my nephews) will draw the appropriate conclusion. the man who would be Prime minister — and opinion polls have Labour level pegging with the Conservatives — regards them with, at best, complete indifference. And, as an institution, he despises them.

Nowadays, seeking the broad-based support necessary to become Prime minister, Corbyn tries to hide this long-held belief. so he will not repeat what he said at a rally in 2010 against public expenditure cuts: ‘Fight all the cuts. except those in the Armed Forces. Where we want to see a few more cuts taking place.’

Attack

this is at least consistent with his worldview: not pacifism exactly, but a particular opposition to the exercise of military power by the UK. this is because he regards the West (and therefore Nato) as the bad guys in any given conflict — and thus only our enemies as inherently deserving of support. this is the eternal line of the stop the War Coalition, the marxist campaign group of which Corbyn was chairman, until he relinquished that role on becoming Labour leader.

so, for example, stop the War were demonstrating in London at the weekend against the attack on Assad’s chemical weapons facilities (an attack which killed no one), but have never once mounted a demonstration outside the Russian embassy, even though Russian planes have been bombing hospitals and even aid convoys in syria for month after month.

Further back, stop the War (during Corbyn’s involvement) said it supported ‘the armed struggle’ of Palestinians against israel, and the ‘military struggle’ against British and American forces in iraq.

thus, while Corbyn has denounced the RAF’s sorties in syria on Friday night (‘Bombs won’t save lives or bring about peace’), he lent succour to the Provisional iRA in its bombing campaign on the British mainland. His closest colleague and friend, the shadow Chancellor John mcDonnell, in 2003 said iRA terrorists should be ‘honoured’: ‘it was the bombs and bullets . . . that brought Britain to the negotiating table. the peace we have now is due to the action of the iRA.’

Actually, it was the British military and intelligence which brought peace — by so compromising the iRA that it was finally forced to recognise it could not achieve its aim by force. But you will never hear Corbyn accept that: he refuses to believe it. For him, the British Army could never be the heroes (because they have always been on the wrong side).

Apart from mcDonnell, the other member of the shadow Cabinet with whom Corbyn has for decades been joined at the hip (once, literally) is Diane Abbott. in the eighties she declared, in respect of the iRA’s campaign, that ‘every defeat of the British state is a victory for all of us’.

Now, she says that is no longer her view. But when asked five times by the BBC’s Nick Robinson last week if there was any conceivable British military action she would ever have supported, or would support, she finally (and grudgingly) emitted the words: ‘the second World War.’

You will note that ms Abbott implicitly rules out support for the Falklands campaign of 1982. in this, she is being true to her party leader and former boyfriend. Corbyn described the campaign to liberate the Falkland islands from the Argentine invader (then ruled by a military junta) as ‘a nauseating waste of money and lives’ and the war itself as ‘one of those crazy conflicts of flag-waving nonsense’.

more recently, in 2016, the Argentine ambassador in London described Corbyn — who has been a frequent guest of the Argentine embassy over the years — as ‘one of us’.

it’s worth recalling that margaret thatcher sent the task Force only after the Argentine government refused to agree to withdraw and allow a UN force to come in pending a final settlement of the dispute.

Cynical

Corbyn always asserts that the UN is the solution to any conflict — but has nothing but empty platitudes to offer (and, of course, continued opposition to any role by the British Armed Forces) when the UN process has proved hopeless.

thus, on Andrew marr’s sofa yesterday, he insisted it was wrong for the Americans, British and French to use bombs to degrade the chemical weapons capabilities of the murderous syrian tyrant Bashar al-Assad, and that this removal of weapons banned under international law should be pursued only by ‘talks at the UN’.

Yet he knows Russia has on six occasions vetoed resolutions tabled by this country and others, which would have sent international inspectors into the syrians’ chemical plants.

Corbyn is being profoundly cynical, while appearing to be idealistic. But we knew that already. Corbyn issued a similar call for the involvement of the UN when Assad’s Russian-backed forces gassed to death civilians in the rebel-held town of Khan sheikhoun a year ago. He demanded that those responsible ‘be held to account’ — exactly the same words as he used yesterday in respect of the latest use of chemical weapons. But when in october, the UN inspectors confirmed that the syrian regime had indeed used sarin gas at Khan sheikhoun, Corbyn said . . . nothing.

We see the same approach from the Labour leader closer to home, in respect of President Putin’s campaign of using chemical weaponry to wipe out political opponents on British soil. When the judgeled inquiry into the murder of Alexander Litvinenko concluded that this British subject had been horribly poisoned by polonium from a Russian state nuclear reactor, Corbyn, given the opportunity to comment on the floor of the House of Commons, again said . . . nothing.

this man who has spent much of his adult life campaigning against the nuclear capabilities of the West, had nothing to say when moscow, with murderous intent, splashed lethal polonium around a hotel in our capital city.

And now when we have had the clearest possible intelligence that the same Russian state has used a military-grade nerve agent in an attempt to murder sergei skripal — a British citizen — and his daughter Yulia, Corbyn refuses even to criticise Putin. He claimed to Andrew marr yesterday that this was because the Russian state’s involvement was not ‘incontrovertible’. Presumably, he will not accept this until President Putin himself sends a hand-written letter to theresa may: ‘sorry theresa, it was us who tried to murder the skripals, best wishes, Vladimir.’

Yet while retaining a pathological cynicism about Britain’s clear demonstration of Russian motives, means and methods, Corbyn has not seen fit to criticise the absurd and malevolent lies spewed out daily by the Kremlin.

even the outrageous Russian suggestion that the chemical weapons attack in Douma (whose appalling consequences we saw on our television screens) was a ‘false flag’ operation by the British, Corbyn described merely as ‘surprising’. Anyone less chillingly detached would use the word ‘disgusting’.

All the civilised nations of the world have fully supported the British government over the salisbury outrage, having seen the evidence provided by Downing street. Yet Corbyn — not for the first time and assuredly not for the last — plays the role of moscow’s useful idiot. But there are times when stupidity is no excuse.

And if this man were to become Prime minister, what conclusions should be drawn? Well, if you are living on the Falkland islands, you should assume that British soldiers in the garrison there will not be ordered by Downing street to defend your home if Argentina were again to invade. to Jeremy Corbyn, you are just the embarrassing remnants of an evil empire (the British).

And if you are a British serviceman or woman, you should get used to the appalling fact that your Prime minister despises everything you have ever done and everything you stand for.

Malevolent