By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions. We in turn value your personal details in accordance with our Privacy Policy.
Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
For the cretins defending him, claiming that he is not a treacherous self serving arshole, then explain his nonsense about Nato and the EU being responsible for Russia attacking Ukraine.
Ukraine is a sovereign state and should be free to do as it pleases, with regard to who it aligns with. Was that not what the Russians told Farage to say ?
Note how the righties are defending Putin. Trump, Fox News and Farage jumping now their paymaster has cracked the whip.
This latter day William Joyce told us Russia would not attack the Ukraine. Nato is not the EU, but it does not stop this traitor from speaking as if they were..
Farages sort were interned during WW2, and the French gave them and their kind short shrift after the war, as we did with Joyce, and Italy did with Mussolini.
Tbh Dan I honestly can’t remember. It’s unlikely that I was on the same page as CIL who has accused me of being a Russiaphobe.
As you know, I voted for Brexit and wasn’t a fan of stuff like an EU army and beloved that the EU had moved well past its original idea of being a trading block and into being a European version of the USA. With individuals losing their sovereignty.
It’s entirely up to Ukraine whether they join the EU. It’s their choice. Did I believe that the EU should go punting for business at the time. Probably not.
If I could remember then I would tell you.
Annoyingly I'm certain you were, only reason I remember is because I was somewhat surprised at the time that you and CIL were on the same page!
It doesn't really matter overall, just this whole thing jogged a memory.
On a completely different subject (and this part isn't a reply to you Glassers!), for anyone who is interested in what Callis was talking about earlier with "Foundations of Geopolitics" it's well worth looking up. A single book that is taught in the Russian military and is very well thought of over there, including by Putin.
On the key question of Ukraine, Dugin underlines: "Ukraine as a state has no geopolitical meaning. It has no particular cultural import or universal significance, no geographic uniqueness, no ethnic exclusiveness" (377). "Ukraine as an independent state with certain territorial ambitions," he warns, "represents an enormous danger for all of Eurasia and, without resolving the Ukrainian problem, it is in general senseless to speak about continental politics" (348). And he adds that, "[T]he independent existence of Ukraine (especially within its present borders) can make sense only as a 'sanitary cordon'" (379). However, as we have seen, for Dugin all such "sanitary cordons" are inadmissible.
Also found in the book is trying to distance the UK and Europe diplomatically and sow tension between different groups in the US, which all sounds remarkably like reality.
Annoyingly I'm certain you were, only reason I remember is because I was somewhat surprised at the time that you and CIL were on the same page!
It doesn't really matter overall, just this whole thing jogged a memory.
On a completely different subject (and this part isn't a reply to you Glassers!), for anyone who is interested in what Callis was talking about earlier with "Foundations of Geopolitics" it's well worth looking up. A single book that is taught in the Russian military and is very well thought of over there, including by Putin.
On the key question of Ukraine, Dugin underlines: "Ukraine as a state has no geopolitical meaning. It has no particular cultural import or universal significance, no geographic uniqueness, no ethnic exclusiveness" (377). "Ukraine as an independent state with certain territorial ambitions," he warns, "represents an enormous danger for all of Eurasia and, without resolving the Ukrainian problem, it is in general senseless to speak about continental politics" (348). And he adds that, "[T]he independent existence of Ukraine (especially within its present borders) can make sense only as a 'sanitary cordon'" (379). However, as we have seen, for Dugin all such "sanitary cordons" are inadmissible.
Also found in the book is trying to distance the UK and Europe diplomatically and sow tension between different groups in the US, which all sounds remarkably like reality.
Although if Putin thought that the UK breaking away from the EU was going to be to his advantage then he seriously miscalculated.
The UK has been steps ahead of the EU on sanctions and military aid to Ukraine.
If I was Putin then I’d want the money back that was spent on the EU referendum.
Although if Putin thought that the UK breaking away from the EU was going to be to his advantage then he seriously miscalculated.
The UK has been steps ahead of the EU on sanctions and military aid to Ukraine.
If I was Putin then I’d want the money back that was spent on the EU referendum.
Ha! Being inside or outside of the EU would make no difference. We could do what we’ve done in either scenario. He’s partially achieved his aim in weakening our economy, if not in slowing down how quickly our army can mobilise.
I'm only just becoming more aware of her work now (bar the Banks court thing)., but can see why you say that (certainly a great thread)
I’ve been saying for a while WWIII started 8 years ago, but the weapons were so hidden from sight we didn’t know. CC has been a huge factor in exposing it.
Would be nice to undo some psyops hell and live in reality for a while.
I’ve been saying for a while WWIII started 8 years ago, but the weapons were so hidden from sight we didn’t know. CC has been a huge factor in exposing it.
Would be nice to undo some psyops hell and live in reality for a while.
Watch The Great Hack on Netflix.
Might just do that (my turn to pick the next show, at home)
Has anyone ever looked at their own postings for last day or so? Oh my... so sorry. Was Ullaa
Ha! Being inside or outside of the EU would make no difference. We could do what we’ve done in either scenario. He’s partially achieved his aim in weakening our economy, if not in slowing down how quickly our army can mobilise.
It was to sow divide. It didn’t work in the long run for Putin (at present) but short term look at the state of the country.
Brexit was Russian foreign policy and if you cheered it on you’ve been had.
Glassers is incapable of owning anything with hindsight though, we know this.
Dare I say, you might find yourself agreeing with me on here more after ;)
Seen the social dilemma and it was eye-opening. We agree more often that you'd think btw - just not worth always chiming in with 'agreed' or 'absolutely'!
Has anyone ever looked at their own postings for last day or so? Oh my... so sorry. Was Ullaa
Seen the social dilemma and it was eye-opening. We agree more often that you'd think btw - just not worth always chiming in with 'agreed' or 'absolutely'!
I think my challenge in a lot of this forum is seeing people reluctant to change in an ever changing world on more information.
The term “working class” means nothing, it’s a demographic that died in the 00s, yet we still talk about it like minimum wage corps haven’t created a new version, largely ignored and not represented in media.
Saw this just now on CC, I hope the penny finally drops this time for the population…
This point sums up why I think the BBC has failed and needs some level of mission reform.
If we could get Smeary McSmearface to see he’s a disingenuous liar that’d be lovely, he lives in a reality invented by 1980s Tories and anything since is made up in his head with assistance from establishment brainwashing.
Is that the same EHRC that are currently under fire for being anti-trans rights and not bothering the Tories with Islamophobia and worse anti-semitism figures? Stop weaponising discrimination.
I stated elsewhere I disagree with Corbyn’s take on Russia, it’s the lazy conflating of issues that aren’t related that bores me.
If you promoted Brexit you are a Russian asset. You pushed the lies of Leave.EU. We saw you do it.
I’m not going on loose links or assumptions. You happy clapped this government all the way til Boris and seem to think your hands are clean. They aren’t.
You moan about dishonest comparisons and assumptions, yet here you are claiming Corbyn and Farage are the same arse on different cheeks.
You moan about playing the man and not the ball but I’ve been victim of you doing that to the point of you crying to Phil and getting me banned.
Your act is more transparent than the fact a large chunk of this government you cheered on most of the last 12 years are kompromat.
I don’t care what Spruce thinks. Your comments were ignorant. Spruce is not a collective think tank. I also think you are taking liberties of what another poster believes and are speaking in their absense.
I never saw Joe or J2’s comments you mention to my memory. I don’t read or spend that much time here.
One day Phil will free all posts circa 2012-2018 and we can all laugh at your denial of things I literally saw you post. Austerity denial included.
If we could get Smeary McSmearface to see he’s a disingenuous liar that’d be lovely, he lives in a reality invented by 1980s Tories and anything since is made up in his head with assistance from establishment brainwashing.
The Tories are awash with Russian money because they are greedy and think they can control them and that they only want a it of lobbying when it has always been more
Corbyn, and his former leadership team, are incredibly naive with regards to Russia, and their anti-West, anti-Imperial world view means that they can't help but think the person attacking the West is justified in doing so, even when that person is a madman.
Which one is more damaging? At the moment probably the Tory one as they are the one sin power - but if Corbyn was in Number 10 when all this was going on it would be terrifying
The Tories are awash with Russian money because they are greedy and think they can control them and that they only want a it of lobbying when it has always been more
Corbyn, and his former leadership team, are incredibly naive with regards to Russia, and their anti-West, anti-Imperial world view means that they can't help but think the person attacking the West is justified in doing so, even when that person is a madman.
Which one is more damaging? At the moment probably the Tory one as they are the one sin power - but if Corbyn was in Number 10 when all this was going on it would be terrifying
Radical centrism at its finest.
Where do they think Putin is justified invading Ukraine?
You can believe Putin is very dangerous but the more hawkish NATO figures are a threat too – particularly because it’s Putin on the other side. And the ramping up of tension over the past decade or more hasn’t helped.
It would be much better if the spheres of influence were more civilian and democratic rather than military and economic. I don’t think that’s a particularly extreme view – in fact, it’s eminently more sensible.
The Tories are awash with Russian money because they are greedy and think they can control them and that they only want a it of lobbying when it has always been more
Corbyn, and his former leadership team, are incredibly naive with regards to Russia, and their anti-West, anti-Imperial world view means that they can't help but think the person attacking the West is justified in doing so, even when that person is a madman.
Which one is more damaging? At the moment probably the Tory one as they are the one sin power - but if Corbyn was in Number 10 when all this was going on it would be terrifying
Anti War ≠Anti West.
Although, the West does have a lot to answer for with the state of the world, rampant capitalism at any cost to grow is a problem.
Corbyn has not once defended Putin. His approach is clearly long term de-escalate all conflicts.
It’s farly simple to see. And I say this as someone who groaned at both JC and DA’s comments pre-invasion. They read the room wrong, but to take liberties with their intentions means you keep feeding that cyber war machine.
Where do they think Putin is justified invading Ukraine?
You can believe Putin is very dangerous but the more hawkish NATO figures are a threat too – particularly because it’s Putin on the other side. And the ramping up of tension over the past decade or more hasn’t helped.
It would be much better if the spheres of influence were more civilian and democratic rather than military and economic. I don’t think that’s a particularly extreme view – in fact, it’s eminently more sensible.
NATO has plenty of blood on it’s hands in Syria, Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan. It is also failing to react to conflicts in places such as Myanmar.
There is a lot to be said and criticise in general, even if justified in existence time to time.
I’d like to live in a world where everyone is happy and gets along, which requires wider long term considerations of power structure in all forms. That’s how we get there.
Where do they think Putin is justified invading Ukraine?
You can believe Putin is very dangerous but the more hawkish NATO figures are a threat too – particularly because it’s Putin on the other side. And the ramping up of tension over the past decade or more hasn’t helped.
It would be much better if the spheres of influence were more civilian and democratic rather than military and economic. I don’t think that’s a particularly extreme view – in fact, it’s eminently more sensible.
They make enough apologies for it, and just parrot the Kremlin line about it being NATO's fault and spend so much time both-sides'ing it all it does is come across as being Putin apologists
But you know this, and have spent the last week blaming NATO for Putin invading the Ukraine as it is.
Although, the West does have a lot to answer for with the state of the world, rampant capitalism at any cost to grow is a problem.
Corbyn has not once defended Putin. His approach is clearly long term de-escalate all conflicts.
It’s farly simple to see. And I say this as someone who groaned at both JC and DA’s comments pre-invasion. They read the room wrong, but to take liberties with their intentions means you keep feeding that cyber war machine.
Reality is out there and I miss living in it.
Whilst Anti War ≠Anti West, it always ends up like that, always.
Israel gets a million more times attention with regards to what it does to Palestine opposed to what Russia does, or what China continues to do.
Surely looking at Putin shows that it isn't possible to de-escalate all conflicts, how do you de-escalate it? Just let him have the Ukraine? Then what - Russia won;'t be happy until the old USSR is all back under it's control. How can that be de escalated?
Those who want everything de-escalated may have good intentions, but they end up with their own biases, and it's just not realistic with humankind. De escalation basically means appease bullies, and you can't appease a bully because all it does is see them wanting more.
Look at Hitler when he tried to fight on both Eastern and Western fronts on WW2, Putin cares not a jot for the people of Russia, he'll send them to their deaths in their thousands.
EDIT - And to go back to thread you posted by CC, she notes that the Skripal poisoining was a military act on our shores, and the reaction from the Labour front bench at that time was naive at best, compliant at worst - neither a good look
They make enough apologies for it, and just parrot the Kremlin line about it being NATO's fault and spend so much time both-sides'ing it all it does is come across as being Putin apologists
But you know this, and have spent the last week blaming NATO for Putin invading the Ukraine as it is.
Neither they nor I can help how things “come across” to people wearing blinkers.
Putin is an awful individual and of course the invasion is unjustified. But you seem to have no concept that pacifism and de-escalation starts at home.
We need to be a lot better given our recent record. But of course you almost certainly don’t see that.
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
