Fifty years ago, when the current Labour leader was on the cusp of adulthood, there was a logical explanation for why he loved Russia.

It was at the centre of a Communist empire called the Soviet Union, providing for more than 200m people many of the ideals - state control of the means of production, dislike of NATO, support of Castro's regime in Cub a and a total loathing of what would go on to become the EU - which Jeremy Corbyn has long held, and continues to profess today.

But what may have seemed reasonable in March 1968 no longer does. Today the means of production are in the hands of a few oligarchs who arose out of the post-Communist criminal underworld, its leaders have long abandoned Communism in the interests of lining their own pockets, and it oppresses or sidelines all of those groups which have fought long battles for equality - homosexuals, people of colour, and the disabled to name just three.

In fact modern Russia makes Goldman Sachs, once dubbed the "vampire squid" of financial services, look positively cuddly. Yet while he has long argued for greater regulations, more taxation, and general ethical crackdowns on corporate greed, Corbyn glosses over the fact that modern Russia is more criminal, more malignant, and more inclined towards murder than any evil corporation.

Whether or not you believe the flashing neon sign "RUSSIA! RUSSIA! IT WAS RUSSIA WOT DONE IT!" over the hospital beds of Sergei and Yulia Skripal , whether or not you think it reasonable for Corbyn to call for more proof, it is perfectly clear that he is not fighting for Russia. This is a man still fighting for the Soviet Union, despite the fact it ceased to exist 27 years ago.

Now, I'm not calling the man a Communist, because he's clearly a democrat. I'm not calling him a spy, a double agent, or a traitor because he's none of those things. He just appears to be someone for whom every day since March 1968 does not seem to have actually happened.

Because in August 1968 the USSR sent 250,000 troops to invade and occupy Czechoslovakia because there was widespread public support for ending censorship and liberal reforms; a softening, not an overthrow, of Communism. Around 500 people were injured and 137 killed. That would be enough, you would think, for a reasonable person - Lefty, Righty or otherwise - to dislike the aggressor.

It wasn't enough to convince Corbyn. At the time the USA was busy in Vietnam so there was little international condemnation. And in 1979 the USSR invaded Afghanistan for precisely the same reasons. That time, 2m people were killed in a 9-year war which led to the radicalisation and extensive military training of not only Osama Bin Laden, but all his principal lieutenants, Hook-Handed Abu Hamza and thousands of others who went on to become the Taliban, which is not only still active in Afghanistan but guilty of trafficking, heroin production, massacres and murders of aid workers.

Yet on July 6, 2011, Corbyn told the House of Commons: "There is a huge memorial movement within Russia today on behalf of those [Soviet soldiers] who are still not recognised for the sacrifices they made." He's criticised the Taliban, but blamed it on the USA when the truth is it's an organisation born of two superpowers, not one.

Video Loading
"Um, well, er..." "DON'T LISTEN, COMRADE!" (
Image:
Sky News)

In its early days the Soviet Union had things worthy of praise - a booming energy sector which paid for its ambitious infrastructure policies, more women trained in science, medicine and mathematics than the USA had, wide access to education, a successful space programme, ethnic diversity, a constitutional right to a job and free training.

But it ossified. The economy stagnated, money wasn't invested wisely, there was rampant anti-Semitism, and further education became limited to those approved by the party so that the country had less than half the university students of the USA. Mortality rocketed so high officials stopped publishing data on it for a decade, corruption ran wild and it failed to computerise.

Whatever your politics, the Soviet Union could not maintain or deliver its promise. It was just as responsible as the USA for the nuclear arms race and Cold War, a terror so chilling that millions lived in fear . And while the USA spent $20bn on repairing western Europe after the Second World War, the USSR seized $20bn of eastern Europe's assets for itself.

It is simply undeniable that there should have been a point at some time in the past half-century where anyone who admired a single achievement of the Soviet Union would have had reason to reconsider. Indeed, you could say the same for any nation. Jeremy Corbyn, however, appears to think it is still the well-intentioned ideological experiment of his youth.

With really comfortable hats (
Image:
Getty)

This week Corbyn had the same briefing as every other member of the Privy Council about what evidence there is Russia was responsible for the attempted murder of the Skripals on the streets of Salisbury. He, and his Shadow Cabinet, all saw the work and reasoning of Porton Down scientists and British intelligence services gathered over the past two weeks.

His Shadow Foreign Secretary Emily Thornberry and his Shadow Defence Secretary Nia Griffith both saw that briefing and agreed there was "prima facie evidence" and said the party "fully accepts that Russia is responsible".

Corbyn said he didn't trust British scientists and British intelligence services, and suggested samples of the nerve agent be sent back to Russia because he DID trust them and Russia had asked to see the evidence.

Regardless of whether you believe Russia responsible for the crime he'd like them to investigate, and regardless of the fact international chemical weapons treaties do not demand such action, Russia is known, proven, and 100% responsible for the murder by chemical weapon of Alexander Litvinenko in a British hotel in 2006.

That should, to a reasonable person, be enough reason not to trust modern Russia's handling of chemical weapons.

The man wanted for trial in the murder is now a Russian MP (
Image:
REUTERS)

Former Russian KGB agent Andrei Lugovoy is wanted in Britain to stand trial for the murder. He is known to have met Litvinenko on the day of his death. Traces of the radioactive chemical used were found, not just in the 3 hotels Lugovoy visited and the aeroplanes he flew on, but in the grounds of the Emirates Stadium where he watched CSKA Moscow play Arsenal . He endangered thousands of Londoners, football fans and tourists, and was treated for suspected radiation poisoning on his return to Moscow.

Russia said it wanted to see the evidence before it would hand him over. Vladimir Putin gave him a medal for "services to the Motherland". Corbyn, according to Hansard, uttered not a word on the issue in Parliament.

He has said that he is no supporter of Putin or Russian foreign policy, but he attacks all those who attack Russia. He argued against NATO, the EU, Barack Obama's foreign policy. He has made the same arguments as Russia when it comes to the attack in Salisbury, and is, like Russia, claiming to be victim of a smear campaign by his enemies.

He has even suggested that the mafia may be behind the killings, despite the fact Russia hasn't said it's recently lost any Novichok. Were criminals somehow able to break into Russian chemical warfare laboratories without being noticed, you'd think it a good idea, in the current climate, for them to say so.

I can understand why Corbyn loved the Soviet Union. I can stretch that into understanding why he is reluctant or unwilling to recognise its failures, and even his wilful blindness of just what sort of a monster the modern Russia has become under the control of a clever, vengeful, killer.

But that multi-billionaire has seized assets and wealth from others. He degrades and denigrates those who have been historically oppressed, his business dealings are so opaque they cannot be properly assessed or taxed, he presides over a state where police brutality is witnessed by 1 in 4 people, he has cracked down on freedom of expression and assembly, he's helped Syria's Bashar al-Assad bomb his own people to smithereens, he's influenced democratic votes and is thought to be in a position to blackmail the current president of the USA.

All that remains of the Russia that Corbyn loves is a distrust of organisations of those allied against it. And while once they were anti-Russia for ideological reasons, they are anti-Russia today because that state is run by criminals, thieves, killers, oppressors, anti-democrats and the sort of people who see no reason not to wave chemical weapons around on either a battlefield, hotel, football stadium or civilian street.

Jeremy Corbyn is entirely right to demand evidence of all that. The problem is that there is PLENTY, and he can't see it.