Farage and Russian Propaganda

Have to say this made me chuckle.

And people want this guy as the next Prime Minister. He did enough damage with Brexit.

LMAO!

Great clip Stav!

I am very concerned that Farage may win the next election.

If the election were tomorrow, he would win in a landslide.

It may be a protest vote for people not happy with the economy and illegal immigration.

When it comes to the election, it may not be the same high numbers for Farage, but he would certainly win.

Hopefully, the government fixes illegal immigration, as well as improves the economy.

Some estimates suggest that the UK loses 1% GDP per year from Brexit. If we had that, the UK would have emerged post-COVID as one of the stronger economies. (Around 8% since leaving Brexit).

The UK must rejoin.

Imagine what clowns the rest are when people would rather vote for him.

It is early days. Things can change in months in politics, let alone years.

Anyone not able to recognise Starmer for the limp wristed beta that he is, deserves the backlash that might be Ferage.

I would like to think that Farage would do a much better job than Starmer.... hell, to be fair, I think absolutely anyone would............. what a absolute waste of a PM he has been

If illegal immigration is solved, people will take a closer look at Farage's economic plan.

The Economist and any other macro-economist have said his financial plans are just a bonanza for billionaires.

We had a choice after the fall of the Soviet Union, welcome Russia back into the family of nations, or continue to treat them as a pariah. Not surprisingly given the Soviet history the West chose the latter. That led us inevitably to Russia trying to reassert itself. Ukraine is paying the price.

But even more stupidly Europe led by Merkel then made itself dependent on Russian oil. I have no doubt, Farage, flawed as he may be, saw these possibilities far more clearly than the little men in suits in Brussels.

.

Yes, we have been poking the bear by allowing NATO to expand, but these countries joined NATO because they were concerned that Russia would go back to its (usual) ways of invading countries for territorial expansion.

Putin is ex-KGB, as are many of the other top ranking Russian officials.

Another path was that Russia got a more convectional government.

I am very concerned that Farage may win the next election.

If the election were tomorrow, he would win in a landslide.

It may be a protest vote for people not happy with the economy and illegal immigration.

When it comes to the election, it may not be the same high numbers for Farage, but he would certainly win.

As you should be, he would be a disaster for the UK.

But I've seen recent polling number being crunched. While he would win the largest share of the seats it would appear he wouldn't actually win an outright majority and would need a coalition partner.

Hopefully, the government fixes illegal immigration, as well as improves the economy.

Well what do you mean by fixes illegal immigration. Serious question, what would you describe as fixed, like an 80% reduction in Asylum seekers, 100%?

Economy wise, they are an improvement over the Tories who left them in a very difficult fiscal situation. I believe they have outperformed economic expectations which admittedly were quite low to begin with. I'm not saying they couldn't be doing better with the economy but I also its unrealistic to think they could have massively turned the UK economy around in the time they have been in power so far. I think they have a better shot at the economy than the Asylum/immigration issue.

Some estimates suggest that the UK loses 1% GDP per year from Brexit. If we had that, the UK would have emerged post-COVID as one of the stronger economies. (Around 8% since leaving Brexit).

I believe the cost of the UK Asylum system has been steadily rising over the last 5 years. From £739 million in 2019-2020 to £1.15 billion the following year, £1.86 the year after, £3.6 billion the year after that and £4.7 billion in 2023-2024 with some estimates putting 2023-2024 at £5.38 billion.

Even though those are large numbers, even taken collectively, they amount to just a third of one years loss of GDP to the UK that can be attributed to Brexit.

Imagine what clowns the rest are when people would rather vote for him.

Helps when the majority of the UK media is right wing and wastes no chance bashing Labour and Starmer at every single opportunity. That's not to say Labour haven't made mistakes and that much of the criticism isn't justified and they are not also under attack from the left, but in the case of Farage not only does he get a free pass from the right wing media they actively promote him.

We had a choice after the fall of the Soviet Union, welcome Russia back into the family of nations, or continue to treat them as a pariah. Not surprisingly given the Soviet history the West chose the latter. That led us inevitably to Russia trying to reassert itself. Ukraine is paying the price.

But even more stupidly Europe led by Merkel then made itself dependent on Russian oil. I have no doubt, Farage, flawed as he may be, saw these possibilities far more clearly than the little men in suits in Brussels.

So let me get this straight the west made a mistake not being nice enough to Russia, but also made a mistake by being too nice in buying lots of oil off them? You can't have it both ways. Though like Farage you try too.

As for the rest of the post, I guess for ideological reasons you are somewhat sympathetic to Farage but probably don't know all that much about him, so you give a generic "flawed as he maybe" response to cover your bases while trying move the goal post by attacking Europe with a load of ignorant nonsense.

Europe was not led by Merkel, she was the leader of Germany a country which had a history of energy imports from Russia even before the fall of the Soviet Union and it was the policy of successive German governments to maintain and expend these imports as a policy of reproachment with Russia, you also mistakenly confuse a dependency on Russian gas as a dependency on Russian oil, and also erroneously believe Brussels decides where member states import energy from, when its in fact a national competency of individual members states of the EU. Even states who where extremely wary of Russia such as Estonia and Latvia bought Russia gas because it was the best value and most convenient.

@Stav I have included some data below on population growth and estimated increases of refugees around the world.

============================================================================

The table below include climate change, but this has not been as high as forecasted.

@Stav, the Democratic mandate is to reduce refugees and illegal immigration.

The refugees program is a world wide system, but it is applied selectively by countries.

Some countries take no refugees and deport illegal immigrants, while others vary in their policy.

So something has to be done to help improve the illegal immigration problem.

Many people would rather:

1. Cancel the refugee program. (except to Allied countries).
2. Deport existing refugees who have been involved in crimes and who are not working
3. Deport those that are here illegally.

Labour have made some improvements, more than the Tories. However, it is unclear how far they need to go.

Stav

But it goes even further back to 1955 when it was agreed in the case that Austria would not join NATO in turn for Russian troop wihdrawals from Austria.

In the 1970's Kissinger laid down a policy that Russia and C hin should not be forced into an alliance, That policy resultd in two treaties involving Nuclear arms restriction and a non-agression pact datiing back to 1985.

Not nice enough has nothing to do with it. An agreement was reached in 1990 that Russia would give permission for the German Unification provided that N ATO was not to expand to include the Warzaw pact countries. NATO was formed to prevent and deal with a potential attack om Europe by the then Russian Communist Regime - an alliance aimed against Russia - nobody else - much needed during the Cold War.

Yeltsin as President tried his utmost to become allied to NATO countries - but for decades the propaganda showed up Russia was a threat and when the threat was reduced - the anti Russia campaign took over, In 1997 Clinton as President nted N ATO to be exapanded to include most of the present NATO countries. His Secretary of Defense at the time threaten to design if the treaty on NATO expansion was approved, Whilst there was a civil war in Georgia some NATO members tried to get Georgia as a NATO memebr but in the end it did not happen.

Russia in terms of the 1990 agreement objected to NATO expansion - but did nothing about it. The Baltic States have substantial Russian populations and did not present a threat to their Russian popualations. Ukraine became a real problem inasmuch as the 2014 coup represents a real threat to the Russian speaking people especially in Eastern Ukraine and a Civil War broke out,

Between 1985 and 2014 there was not a single case that in any way Russian acted against any NATO or European Countries, A typical example was that after the 9/11 attacks the Russians warned the U SA Government of potential terroist threat and especially against the two brithers who carried out the terrorist attack in Boston,

In the years 2014 to date Russia was threatened and accused of being threatening European countries - which never happened, In 2016 and 2017 the emdia went crazy about collusion between Trump and Putin in the 2016 election - something based on lies and zero proof.

After 2014 relationship between NATO and Russia started going down rapidly. The Civil War in Eastern Ukraine got progressively worse, When Putin met Biden in Geneva Putin asked Biden for a peace negitiations insofar is Ukraine is concerned and the requst was ignored,

The fact is that the Russians became aware again that NATO's sole purpose was to threaten Russia's continued existence, - nothing else,

Snce 2000 the insistence on Ukraine beoming a NATO member was largely aimed to get hold of the Crimea and the sea route through the Black Sea Russia regarded as a extremely serious threat to the country itself,

I really ask - what is the purpose of NATO and what was the aims involved, Even after the fall of Communism and the intial policy change Russia was never a real enemey of the west ever. So what is the purpose of NATO at present if it is not an alliance threatening Russia,

That is what Kissinger said should never happen. However, it became an issue in the USA when endless corruption took over, The present situation is what Kissinger fear would happen and the fact is that the sitation now is worse than it was in 1990 - much worse,

.

"As for the rest of the post, I guess for ideological reasons you are somewhat sympathetic to Farage but probably don't know all that much about him, so you give a generic "flawed as he maybe" response to cover your bases while trying move the goal post by attacking Europe with a load of ignorant nonsense."

Yup, sounds like the opinionated yet ignorant old drunkard we've come to know . . .

On your numbers, may I ask where did you get then?

@Stav, the Democratic mandate is to reduce refugees and illegal immigration.

Okay just to clarify. I assume you mean Asylum seekers when you say refugees. In most countries a refugee is a person who was successfully granted asylum.

Asylum seekers are not illegal immigrants. Under international law a person has the right to claim asylum, irrespective of how they entered a country they are claiming asylum, be it they entering via a plane, walking across a border, being smuggled in in lorry container, or entering in by boat and crossing.

An illegal immigrant is someone who enters the country without permission and does not go on to claim asylum. An illegal immigrant can also be a person who requested asylum but who's asylum application was rejected and subsequent appeals were rejected. It can also be a person who legally entered the country but who's legal right to remain in the country has expired or they committed an illegal act and they are to be deported.

The refugees program is and world wide system, but it is applied selectively by countries.

Some countries take no refugees and deport illegal immigrants, while others vary in their policy.

What do you mean by refugee program. Like there is a global system for protecting refugees and there is resettlement programs managed by the UN, but countries are under no obligation to take in refugees, its a voluntary system countries can opt in and out of.

Which countries take in no refugees?

Pretty much all countries try to deport illegal immigrants, the problem is they can quite hard to track down. Asylum seekers are not illegal immigrants, unless their application is rejected at which point you will find no one has an issue with them being deported. But there is a catch here. What if they are from countries you can't deport them too? The UK has return/readmission agreements with 24 countries for example with Pakistan, Nigeria, Iraq etc, but for example it has no agreement with say Afghanistan, whom the UK don't even officially recognize , the UK can't just fly a plane into Kabul (unless they want it hijacked) to return Afghan asylum seekers nor can they just fly a plane over Afghanistan put a parachute on rejected Asylum applicant and boot them out the door. You obviously can't just dump rejected asylum applicants on a third country either, unless you have an agreement with them.

Many people would rather:

Cancel the refugee program. (except to Allied countries).

What refugee program?. Do you mean pull out of the 1951 Refugee Convention and 1967 Protocol which obligates states to allow people to apply for asylum and not forcible return them to a country were they risk persecution?

And what do you mean by Allied countries, I'm going guess here that your thinking along the lines of western aligned countries, Europe, US, Canada, Australia etc, i.e. countries that don't have refugees

Deport existing refugees who have been involved in crime.

Zero people have an issue with this and this is generally what's done. If more resources need to be committed to ensure the deportations are carried out promptly then more resources should be committed.

and who are not working

Unemployment is not a crime. If they're a refugee then they have proven they have a legally valid claim to asylum (during the asylum application process they are not allowed work). I mean if they have a legally valid claim to asylum they would likely provided a credible case during the application process that if returned to their country of origin they potentially face, persecution, torture or possibly death, you really think they still should be sent back.

Deport those that are here illegally.

Again no one has an issue with that, it's typically what governments try to do. If a person entered the country illegally and did not seek asylum, if a person originally entered the country legally but they no longer have a legal right to stay (expired visa) or they committed a relatively serious crime, or if they are failed asylum applicant. then by all mean's deport them.

Labour have made some improvements, more than the Tories. However, it is unclear how far they need to go.

They have sped up the asylum application process. There also has been an increase in the number of asylum application rejections. Labour have also signed this one in and one out deal with France though its effectiveness at this point is totally unproven.

Where Labour have failed big time is asylum hotels which are after the small boats the most visible sign of the asylum system. Originally set up by the Tories these became a focal point of both pro and anti asylum/immigration campaigners. The pro immigration side see argue that hotels are unsuitable accommodation for living in for the length of time it takes to process asylum applications. The anti immigration side view them as a potential danger to the local population while both pro and anti immigration campaigners view them as horrendously expensive.

Labour promised to get rid of them, but they have actually increased. Now Labour do plan to build barracks like facilities designed to house asylum applicants as they undergo the application process, these facilities will be cheaper and away from population centres but the time frame isn't really clear, or if it will plicate either side.

Now Labour are also looking at deterrence options. For one thing most people crossing on the small boats are younger aged men. In many cases they are opting to take the risk of crossing the English Channel via small boats, while their spouse and/or children remain behind. If the person's asylum application is accepted he has the automatic right to bring his family over to join him. Labour went to get rid of that automatic right. The idea being if the reward is less, less people will take the risk of crossing in the first place. Critics say this may simply encourage more women and children to undertake the risky channel crossing in small boats.

Other steps they are looking at are. Reviewing refugee status every two and half years instead of 5 years. Tripling the length of time it takes to gain permanent resident status to 20 years. Removing the legal obligation the UK government has to provide support to asylum seekers that would be otherwise destitute. The provision of a accommodation and weekly allowance to asylum seekers will become discretionary as opposed to being guaranteed. Automatic removal of those granted refugee status if the UK government subsequently deems the country they fled from as a safe country. Speeding up of the asylum appeals process. Limiting asylum seekers who's application was rejected to only one appeal as opposed to now where they can appeal on multiple grounds.

Now here's the thing, I think Labour are foolish here. All these policies will do is alienate their traditional left wing base who will just view it as pandering to the far right. And it won't win over the right because Farage can just move further right and promise to be much tougher on asylum and immigration, the political equivalent of firing asylum seekers out of a cannon atop the cliffs of Dover.

And fundamentally for deterrence to actually work, the deterrent has to be worse than what what people are fleeing from. From the majority of data I've seen the majority of asylum seekers are genuinely fleeing war, famine or climate change, and the deterrence doesn't match that. And you've got to ask yourself do you really want your country to deliberately try and match or exceed what they are fleeing from?

@Stav,

I am not sure how accurate this table is, I used AI to generate it.

However, it appears that some countries are bearing a greater share of the burden than others.

So if it is an international law, why can some countries agree to take in more or fewer than others?

@Stav,

This from AI

Under international refugee law, countries are generally not obligated to accept asylum seekers who enter by small boats themselves from another safe country such as France. The 1951 Refugee Convention protects people fleeing persecution, but it does not require countries to allow asylum seekers who enter unlawfully from a safe country to settle. Many countries, including the UK, have legal mechanisms or agreements—such as the UK-France treaty—to return people who arrive illegally by small boats to the safe country from which they came, provided that the returning country is safe and willing to accept them.

The UK has implemented policies and legislation to remove people who enter unlawfully by small boats from France, requiring removal without settlement rights except in exceptional cases. This practice is generally consistent with international law, especially when the country of entry is not the first safe country of arrival and offers a safe alternative for asylum processing.

However, asylum seekers must still be screened and assessed individually for protection needs, including if they face risk in the country of return. The law also mandates humanitarian obligations such as search and rescue at sea, but the obligation to admit asylum seekers on land is more limited and conditioned by safety and procedural considerations under international and national laws.?

So let me get this straight the west made a mistake not being nice enough to Russia, but also made a mistake by being too nice in buying lots of oil off them? You can't have it both ways. Though like Farage you try too.

Of course I can have it both ways. America and NATO were treating Russia like the old Cold War enemy, while Germany was buying Russian gas hand over fist.

Europe was not led by Merkel, she was the leader of Germany a country which had a history of energy imports from Russia even before the fall of the Soviet Union

The usual deliberate misunderstanding of an obvious point. Of course Merkel wasn’t the political leader of Europe, but she was probably the the strongest voice and closing the Nuclear plants she ensured the share of Russian fossil fuels would rise

and also erroneously believe Brussels decides where member states import energy from, when its in fact a national competency of individual members states of the EU.

Where in my posts did I say Brussels decides where member states import energy from? The reference to little men in suits, referred to opinions not decisions. Another convenient, dishonest extrapolation.

‘So then we come to this:

As for the rest of the post, I guess for ideological reasons you are somewhat sympathetic to Farage but probably don't know all that much about him, so you give a generic "flawed as he maybe" response to cover your bases while trying move the goal post by attacking Europe with a load of ignorant nonsense.

The remark I make about Farage is that he was probably right when he claimed to be an early cautionary voice in the danger of isolating Russia.

Here’s Chats verification:

Nigel Farage was one of the earliest mainstream European politicians to publicly argue that Western policy toward Russia (NATO expansion, EU eastward pressure, diplomatic isolation) carried serious long-term risks.

You may disagree with his reasoning or conclusions — many do — but the timing is undeniable.

…..

So as usual we come to the same place. You aggressively make your angry, arrogant little rebuttal . Rhonda claps his hands in glee. And then the facts emerge blowing you out of the water. You wanted to ‘get it straight’ now you have.

The video is just another dishonest hatchet job on a right leaning politician who is too influential for the woke set’s comfort.

I am not sure how accurate this table is, I used AI to generate it.

It's probably reasonable accurate but the numbers on estimated displaced people don't tell the full picture, that around 60% of displaced people are internally displaced, as in they are displaced but remain in the country which they originally lived.

However, it appears that some countries are bearing a greater share of the burden than others.

So if it is an international law, why can some countries agree to take in more or fewer than others?

Yes low and middle income countries host 71% of refugees. Geography plays a major factor, countries besides conflicts and warzones tend to carry the greatest burden when it comes to refugees. Countries like the UK, Ireland, Iceland get relatively few going by proportion of population simply due to the fact that they are the European countries furthest away from conflict and are islands surrounded by water.

It's not a question of international law in that say the UN has the giant pool of refugees it has to distribute to countries globally and some countries are taking them and some are refusing. Yes there is UN resettlement schemes that countries can opt in and out of voluntarily but that's not where the majority of the refugees come from, it's to do with where people who are fleeing war, famine, persecution climate change and are choosing to go.

Under international refugee law, countries are generally not obligated to accept asylum seekers who enter by small boats themselves from another safe country such as France. The 1951 Refugee Convention protects people fleeing persecution, but it does not require countries to allow asylum seekers who enter unlawfully from a safe country to settle. Many countries, including the UK, have legal mechanisms or agreements—such as the UK-France treaty—to return people who arrive illegally by small boats to the safe country from which they came, provided that the returning country is safe and willing to accept them

This is true but I've underlined a key point. They still need France's permission to return them.

And here's the issue with that law. From France's perspective it's easier to allow those asylum seekers to try to get to UK where they become the UK's issue. You can argue this is France not living up to its obligations, but then you have to remember most of those asylum seekers got into France though other safe countries in Schengen zone, from who's perspective the issue is now for France to deal with.

What that law effectively does is place an unfair burden on safe countries first in the path of refugee/asylum routes. Italy, Spain, Greece, Macedonia would be required to process the overwhelming majority of asylum applications. Greece and Macedonia would likely just declare Turkey a safe country and pull the same trick.

The UK has implemented policies and legislation to remove people who enter unlawfully by small boats from France, requiring removal without settlement rights except in exceptional cases. This practice is generally consistent with international law, especially when the country of entry is not the first safe country of arrival and offers a safe alternative for asylum processing.

It may well be consistent with international law, but the French have to play ball. You can implement laws and legislation in your own country all you want but the Brits can't just enter sovereign French territory and return people without France's approval. You've probably heard about the one in and one out deal Labour has signed with France. Which is basically an exchange program. But it's not a system of mass returns.

However, asylum seekers must still be screened and assessed individually for protection needs, including if they face risk in the country of return. The law also mandates humanitarian obligations such as search and rescue at sea, but the obligation to admit asylum seekers on land is more limited and conditioned by safety and procedural considerations under international and national laws.?

Yeah that's all fine and makes sense. But as I say there is real world practicalities that get in the way of that. If it's small boat in the channel trying to get to the UK and a British search and rescue team rescues them, they are of course going be brought ashore in the UK, they can't return cross over into French territory and leave them back and French are simply not going to accept them back on mass. You can of course say that is France pushing the problem on to the UK, but back when the Rwanda scheme was being floated in the UK, Conservative politician and pundits bragged that it had lead to an uptick in asylum seekers leaving the UK and crossing into Republic of Ireland via the open border with Northern Ireland, and they also specifically stated they would not be taking them back. It's estimated that 80% of asylum applicants in Ireland are crossing over from Northern Ireland, UK territory.

Of course I can have it both ways. America and NATO were treating Russia like the old Cold War enemy, while Germany was buying Russian gas hand over fist.

The sheer mindless logic of your position.

Moz: Okay Russia we the west want to be your friend and as friendly act we will completely ignore any aggressive actions you take towards us or other countries. We won't expand our military alliance an inch eastwards towards Russia and we are going trust that this example of friendship will inspire you to travel down the path of democracy.

Russia: Oh that's wonderful to hear. This could be the path to a remarkable friendship.

Moz: Indeed.

Russia: This also opens up a world of economic opportunities as well. We have an abundance of energy sources we could sell you, we know Europe lacks there own, it's a win win for both sides.

Moz: Oh f**k off, what do you take us for idiots, we don't trust you as far as we can throw you. No way we want to create an energy dependency with a Mafia state. ROFL.

Russia: Da fuk?

The usual deliberate misunderstanding of an obvious point. Of course Merkel wasn’t the political leader of Europe, but she was probably the the strongest voice and closing the Nuclear plants she ensured the share of Russian fossil fuels would rise

No misunderstanding you deliberately framed it as Merkel leading Europe down the path of reliance on Russian energy, probably because you buy into that old right wing anti EU trope that Germany defacto controls the EU. Merkel's decision on closing Nuclear plants relates to Germany alone, a decision that came about in the aftermath of the Fukushima nuclear disaster and was popularly supported by the German people.

Where in my posts did I say Brussels decides where member states import energy from? The reference to little men in suits, referred to opinions not decisions. Another convenient, dishonest extrapolation.

Why did you bring up little men in Brussels your usual slur against the EU one line after you claimed Europe led by Merkel has made itself dependent on Russia oil. You were conflating the two because you don't know anything how the EU works or know what is and isn't a competency of the EU or what is a national competency. It's just lazy generic criticism.

The remark I make about Farage is that he was probably right when he claimed to be an early cautionary voice in the danger of isolating Russia.

He wasn't right. Russia isolated itself with its actions. He was merely parroting Kremlin talking points to attack Europe. He doesn't care if Russia's claims had zero credibility or how many aggressive, criminal and violent acts Russia carried out, he just used whatever narrative he can lay his hands on to criticize Europe, and Russian propaganda played well with the fringe he appealed too at the time,

So as usual we come to the same place. You aggressively make your angry, arrogant little rebuttal . Rhonda claps his hands in glee. And then the facts emerge blowing you out of the water. You wanted to ‘get it straight’ now you have.

LOL you calling me arrogant? You're one of the most pompous self important people I've ever come across, categorically unable to admit your wrong no matter how blatantly obvious it is. And this desperate need to come across as an expert on pretty much every topic and this desperate need to proclaim yourself the winner of every argument, "blowing you of of the water", "schooled you "or get it straight" is absolutely child like. I guess in real world your simply not use to people challenging your vapid world views or if they do maybe you try to brow beat them into submission. But on here you're just a fool and the funniest thing about you is that I know my posts get you all hot and bothered by I've actually a feeling Roo liking my posts annoys you even more than the content of the post.

Mike don't worry about these loons fully taken in with Globalist propaganda.

The fact is the Globalist control over Europe and Britain is collapsing.

There was wondercul news coming out of France where polls are showing Le Pens National Rally Party would win the presidency.

Farage is doing exceptionally well in Britain and polls show Reform has more votes than the Tories and Labour combined.

The Islamic invasion of Britain will end when Reform take power. Farage will ensure Britain leaves the ECHR and regains control of its borders. There will be mass deportations.

It's also pleasing to see the AFD become the biggest party in Germany as anti invasion sentiment keeps growing.

Hungary and Poland with their peace and safety are showing the rest of Europe how deranged open borders have been.

The European Continent is moving to the populist right.

Having watched many videos of the protests in Ireland my take is tbe spirited Irish will kick out their open borders Globalist government as has well. Old StavAss of course doesn't mind his country being taken over by invaders.

Canada under open order Globalist Carney is in dire straights and certain provinces like BC. Manitoba. Sachkatchewan and Alberta are talking about exiting Canada.

The wise thing to do regarding Russia would have been to get the democratic Russia in as part of NATO as Trump wanted.

However the Globalists preferred that Russia joined up with their favorite country China.

Globalists want a world government based on the China model.

I think in the next 5 years there will be massive changes in Europe and Britain and Canada. Once the patriots of France and Britain take back their country everthing changes. This will give tremendous impetus backed by MAGA America to throw out the remain Globalist governments.

I see people are also waking up in Australia and NZ.

A srachanve is hapoening which no amount of Globalist censorship or Crackdown can stop.

Somebody like Starmer must in the future be tried for treason.

As I always say reality is a great teacher. and the people's of tbe West have been learning a very hard lesson

Bye the way well know and respected Historic Victor Davis Hansen has said Trump is more popular than ever. Even CNN admitting this.

Last point. I think 2026 will be a stellar year for America economically. See what happens.

PS anybody remember Mampara Mozzietard saying DeSantis was the man. When Ron flopped out he then punted for NeoCon war Hawk Nikki Haley, who had literally no GOP support. The Mampara insisted she was a better bet as Trump couldn't win. Heck from 12,000 miles away I could tell he didn't have a clue. He was living in a little bilubnle in Chicago with some out of touch elitists in some gated community with his private bodyguards. The poor nutter must have got a shock Trump won! Won well despite massive election fraud. It was simply too Big to Rig.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

The sheer mindless logic of your position.

No the sheer naiveté of your position assuming the West is one block making decisions in lock step. NATO was expanding, why? Because Russia was still viewed as a threat, while Germany was doubling down on Russian gas. Fact. Excuse me if I don’t respond to your childish attempt at dialogue.

No misunderstanding you deliberately framed it as Merkel leading Europe down the path of reliance on Russian energy, probably because you buy into that old right wing anti EU trope that Germany defacto controls the EU.

So you change your position….I’m no longer thinking Merkel is the leader of Europe, I buy into some notion of Germany controlling Europe. I guess that means you concede the point that I never had Merkel as President of Europe. Well done.

Why did you bring up little men in Brussels your usual slur against the EU one line after you claimed Europe led by Merkel has made itself dependent on Russia oil.

What I said was: Farage flawed as he may be saw these possibilities far more clearly than the little men in suits in Brussels.

Just a comment on the bureaucratic nature of EU leadership, versus instinctive leadership, you conveniently tried to turn that into me saying Brussels made energy policy for member countries.

He wasn't right. Russia isolated itself with its actions. He was merely parroting Kremlin talking points to attack Europe

And he called out the dangers of increasing Russian isolation, whether self inflicted or not…..the destruction of the Ukraine says he was right,

LOL you calling me arrogant? You're one of the most pompous self important people I've ever come across, categorically unable to admit your wrong no matter how blatantly obvious it is

Well in terms of actual importance I’d back my claim above a that of a lowly IT worker who appears to have no quantitative skills. But you seem to put great stock on admitting errors….when did you ever admit you were wrong on a policy matter as opposed to a simple fact.

No the sheer naiveté of your position assuming the West is one block making decisions in lock step. NATO was expanding, why? Because Russia was still viewed as a threat, while Germany was doubling down on Russian gas. Fact. Excuse me if I don’t respond to your childish attempt at dialogue.

Never did I assume the west is one block, I merely see you being logically inconsistent, criticizing part of the western block for pushing Russia away from what you call the family of nations and then criticizing another nation of the western block for doing something that brings them closer towards the family of nations.

The truth is the west quite rightly did not trust Russia. The west may have made mistakes directly after the fall of the Soviet Union advocating for what became know as shock therapy in Russian economics but at the end of the day, the Soviet Union collapsed on its own because it was a system that didn't work and Russia subsequently chose a authoritarian to lead it. The west did not make Russia the mafia state it is today, it didn't make Russia imprison opposition figure and rig elections. It didn't make Russia stage a false flag operation in Moscow killing its own citizens in order to carry out its dirty war in Chechnya, it didn't make Putin write long essays on how Ukraine really doesn't exist as a country independent of Russia, it didn't make Russia lie about historical events, it didn't make it absorb Belarus into a vassal state, it didn't make Russia invade Georgia or Ukraine, it did make it lie about Nazi's in Ukraine, it didn't make it interfere in western elections and referendum, it didn't make it conduct hybrid war against the west or carry assassination in western countries. This are things that the Russian chose to do, because Putin believes Russia is a great power and has the right to do whatever the hell wants in its former empire and anyone who opposes that is fair game as an enemy. An no posting some drivel about Sochi doesn't changes that.

Also lol at pretending your not anything more than a grown toddler.

So you change your position….I’m no longer thinking Merkel is the leader of Europe, I buy into some notion of Germany controlling Europe. I guess that means you concede the point that I never had Merkel as President of Europe. Well done.

Quote "But even more stupidly Europe led by Merkel then made itself dependent on Russian oil"

I never said you called her President of Europe but you literally called her the leader of Europe. You think you can gaslight me or something?

What I said was: Farage flawed as he may be saw these possibilities far more clearly than the little men in suits in Brussels.

Just a comment on the bureaucratic nature of EU leadership, versus instinctive leadership, you conveniently tried to turn that into me saying Brussels made energy policy for member countries.

Farage is instinctive like Trump. He knows a good attack line when he sees one. What pray tell where the little men in suits suppose to have seen. It wasn't up to the little men in Brussels (okay it is in the case of Belgium) to tell European countries were to source their energy from or to determine individual member states diplomatic or defence stance towards Russia. Yes you could argue that the EU would be responsible for overall trade with the Russia had there been a trade deal between Russia and the EU but there wasn't as the EU and Russia traded under WTO rules.

Again with the contradiction, you basically would have preferred had the west brought Russia back into the fold, but at the same time the west should never have engaged in significant trade with Russia?

And he called out the dangers of increasing Russian isolation, whether self inflicted or not…..the destruction of the Ukraine says he was right,

Well now there is a bit of difference between self inflicted or not. It's actually a rather important detail, because it shifts the responsibility of the war from Russia to the West. Your probably are of the position that Russian is overwhelming responsible for the war right but maybe if the west had just a little more friendly towards Russia and avoided NATO expansion eastwards there is a chance the war being avoided. But I say given the clear cut nature of Putin's Russia, none expansion of NATO eastwards at the request of those sovereign states would have been naive in the extreme and simply have emboldened Putin even more.

Well in terms of actual importance I’d back my claim above a that of a lowly IT worker who appears to have no quantitative skills. But you seem to put great stock on admitting errors….when did you ever admit you were wrong on a policy matter as opposed to a simple fact.

A lowly IT worker lol, oh the superiority complex. Reminds of that snobby remark you made about English people with little in their sad lives to look forward to other than next weekends match of footy. I may be a mere lowly IT working but my ability to think critical isn't warped by black hole sized ego and political ideology that compiles you to defend the indefensible no matter how stupid it makes you look. I remember you trying to pass off Trump's asking had bleach been considered as a treatment for human covid sufferers as a great example of America corporate like brain storming of a problem. Absolute absurd take but you went there without blinking an eye lid. Absolutely epic gas lighting.

I'm not the one putting stock on admitting errors, your the one putting stock in declaring yourself the victor in so many threads or have a clear desire to get the last post on thread so you can perceive yourself to have won (good lord that face mask thread). It's always I've school you this, I've schooled you that, game set and match etc, its pure child like.

"I'm not the one putting stock on admitting errors, your the one putting stock in declaring yourself the victor in so many threads or have a clear desire to get the last post on thread so you can perceive yourself to have won (good lord that face mask thread). It's always I've school you this, I've schooled you that, game set and match etc, its pure child like."

Indeed.

I find when dealing with Moffie, it helps to picture him as an obnoxious 5 year-old with his thumbs in his ears, his fingers waggling and sticking his tongue out. That mental picture matches his behaviour on this board.

‘Also lol at pretending your not anything more than a grown toddler’

Lol at your constant use of ‘your’ when the word is you’re . It’s not as if you don’t want to use the apostrophe, you use it elsewhere, you simply don’t seem to know it applies in this instance.

Again with the contradiction, you basically would have preferred had the west brought Russia back into the fold, but at the same time the west should never have engaged in significant trade with Russia?

Not at the same time…..15 years after the Soviet Union collapsed this happened:

2005: Schröder signs Nord Stream 1 deal

1. 4 days before leaving office, he approves Nord Stream 1.
2. Removes dependence on transit states (Poland, Ukraine).
3. Consequence: long-term structural dependence.

There were 15 years where the tone was set by the West’s inherent distrust of the Russians. By the time the Nord Stream deal was signed Putin was in power. Signing the deal at that time with Russia already signaling a return to Soviet style leadership was pure folly.

if you think having Germany locked into Russian gas didn’t make Putin’s decision to attack the Ukraine easier, you are even more naive than I thought.

Well now there is a bit of difference between self inflicted or not. It's actually a rather important detail, because it shifts the responsibility of the war from Russia to the West

Self inflicted or not pertained to Farage’s comment being valid regardless of how Russia got there, it made no judgement on the point of culpability.

I remember you trying to pass off Trump's asking had bleach been considered as a treatment for human covid sufferers as a great example of America corporate like brain storming of a problem

Yes I did say that and it’s true. Stupid of Trump to expose himself in front of a hostile media, that like you, will put the worst interpretation on everything he says. He followed it by saying something like ‘we need to look into that’. Clearly indicating it was just an idea. In fact it’s a classical example of the Woke attack book.

I'm not the one putting stock on admitting errors, your the one putting stock in declaring yourself the victor in so many threads or have a clear desire to get the last post on thread so you can perceive yourself to have won (good lord that face mask thread).

Actually for me it’s just a game, for you it’s who you are….and yet you always end up losing. Basically because, while you may be stubborn, you just aren’t smart.

And just for the record:

MozartHall Of Famer

47,589 posts

Jul 03, 2023, 16:31

I am on record as saying the US should have been far more accommodating to Russia after the wall fell. Much of the blame rests with the deep state that loves to hate Russia. The Russia hoax wasn’t produced in a vacuum. The negativity towards the Socchi games, for example, was a bad mistake.

That said there is no existential threat to Russia. There is no desire in the west to invade Russia….zero! The only threat was to Putin and his ilk as the population was more exposed to Western society.

So this is a trumped up war which has had vast human consequences for which there are some dishonest rationales but no excuses

lol at your constant use of ‘your’ when the word is you’re . It’s not as if you don’t want to use the apostrophe, you use it elsewhere, you simply don’t seem to know it applies in this instance.

Oh look he's back on grammar, its the point in the debate where you Moz has actually run out of actual arguments and needs a distraction.

Not at the same time…..15 years after the Soviet Union collapsed this happened:

2005: Schröder signs Nord Stream 1 deal

1. 4 days before leaving office, he approves Nord Stream 1.
2. Removes dependence on transit states (Poland, Ukraine).
3. Consequence: long-term structural dependence.

There were 15 years where the tone was set by the West’s inherent distrust of the Russians. By the time the Nord Stream deal was signed Putin was in power. Signing the deal at that time with Russia already signaling a return to Soviet style leadership was pure folly.

ROFL, oh the contortions, the absolute contortions you go through to win an argument. So just to clarify it wasn't Sochi in 2014 where the west messed up it's now sometime between 1991 and 2005 . That's funny you know because Russia actually approved of NATO expansion in 1997 and Putin didn't become President of Russia until 2000, and what's this Bush looked into Putin's eyes in 2001 and saw a sense of his soul and it was good?. Hell Putin was cooperating with the US during its war on terror. What about London 2012 when Prime Minister Cameron was giving Putin a personal back stage tour of the Olympics, sorry when again was it exactly that this supposed Soviet style leadership a premise that is also quite debatable. I'm sure you have a detailed timeline comparing Russian acts of aggression and western diplomacy and you know the exact point in time where the west should of been nicer to Russia and the exact point in time when it was too late and they should of switched to a danger alert stance when it came to Russia. Either that or you just making shit up as you go (99.9% certainty).

if you think having Germany locked into Russian gas didn’t make Putin’s decision to attack the Ukraine easier, you are even more naive than I thought.

I never said it didn't make Putin's decision to attack Ukraine easier, it may well have, and Europe energy imports from Russian may have well led to a seriously miscalculation on both Europe and Putin's part. I'm just pointing the sheer hypocrisy of someone arguing that the west was both was to blame for both pushing Russia away and for getting too close too them. Now you scrambling to make a timeline that fit's that narrative.

Yes I did say that and it’s true. Stupid of Trump to expose himself in front of a hostile media, that like you, will put the worst interpretation on everything he says. He followed it by saying something like ‘we need to look into that’. Clearly indicating it was just an idea. In fact it’s a classical example of the Woke attack book.

Hostile media, woke attack book, LMAO. You know damn well that any politician in the world would of been mercilessly mocked by both he media and the public for suggesting something that most children above the age of 10 or less know is incredibly stupid. But not only that it was also dangerous given the influence the President of the United States has. Had that been Biden who suggested it, there would of been no defence from you, you would of called it for what it was, a moment were the President suggested something that was absolute height of stupidity.

Actually for me it’s just a game, for you it’s who you are….and yet you always end up losing. Basically because, while you may be stubborn, you just aren’t smart.

Well I'm glad you can admit it's a game for you, a game you absolutely must perceive yourself to be winning. For me it's a curiosity mixed with a bit of a laugh, the fact you delude yourself into thinking it's anything more is even more amusing. By all mean's declare victory in your round about way and throw in an insult for good measure, we all know you're just compensating. But the thing that really kills you is that you're right, I'm not smart, but I'm still able to wipe the floor with you in a debate. You may be better educated than me but it counts for nothing when you're so compromised by your own ego and political ideology. It will never allow you to think critically.

I am on record as saying the US should have been far more accommodating to Russia after the wall fell. Much of the blame rests with the deep state that loves to hate Russia. The Russia hoax wasn’t produced in a vacuum.

Oh bravo, now come join us back in reality where the deep state is just a right wing conspiracy that doesn't actually exist. If it did explain to me how the hell did Trump get re-elected? Russian hoax, you call it a hoax despite an official investigation concluding that Russia was interfering in the US election, similar to how numerous investigations in other western countries have found the Russian's interfering in their elections and referendums.

That said there is no existential threat to Russia. There is no desire in the west to invade Russia….zero! The only threat was to Putin and his ilk as the population was more exposed to Western society.

So this is a trumped up war which has had vast human consequences for which there are some dishonest rationales but no excuses

Congratulations, welcome to reality. Now stop covering for people who promote that dishonest rationale and stop making your own up just so you can perceive yourself to be winning a debate.

Shark come back and lets debate about immigration/asylum, it's actually far more interesting when someone wants to have a genuine debate as opposed to me just running loops around Moz after he butts into a thread with nonsense.

Oh look he's back on grammar, its the point in the debate where you Moz has actually run out of actual arguments and needs a distraction.

No I have plenty to say, but the word is you’re not your …what’s the merit in being wrong.

ROFL, oh the contortions, the absolute contortions you go through to win an argument. So just to clarify it wasn't Sochi in 2014 where the west messed up it's now sometime between 1991 and 2005.

Talk about leading with your chin. The relations broke down over a long period but the crucial first period occurred before 2005. Read and learn.

Key events:

1. 2003: U.S. invasion of Iraq (Russia opposed it strongly)
2. 2004: NATO’s “Big Bang” expansion (Baltics + 7 states); Russia saw this as a major strategic threat
3. 2004: EU expansion into former Soviet sphere
4. 2004: Orange Revolution in Ukraine (Putin saw this as a Western-backed coup)

Effect:

Trust drops sharply.

Putin begins speaking about “Western meddling” and “color revolutions” as existential threats.

This is when the first real break happens

Hostile media, woke attack book, LMAO. You know damn well that any politician in the world would of been mercilessly mocked by both he media and the public for suggesting something that most children above the age of 10 or less know is incredibly stupid. But not only that it was also dangerous given the influence the President of the United States has.

Now that is hilarious, according to you most children under 10 would know it’s stupid. But at the same time it’s dangerous….who are these idiots who are stupider than children under 10….ROFL!

But the thing that really kills you is that you're right, I'm not smart, but I'm still able to wipe the floor with you in a debate.

Just read the responses in this post to see how time and again your arguments are easily set aside…and then there are the blunders, like something children under 10 would regard as silly, is somehow dangerous….haha. But Wiping the floor sounds like something you might be familiar with…perhaps not IT, a janitor?

…….

Oh bravo, now come join us back in reality where the deep state is just a right wing conspiracy that doesn't actually exist. If it did explain to me how the hell did Trump get re-elected?

He got re-elected because Harris was a terrible candidate…you never figured that out?

Congratulations, welcome to reality. Now stop covering for people who promote that dishonest rationale and stop making your own up just so you can perceive yourself to be winning a debate.

You just don’t get it….the fact that there is no threat from NATO doesn’t mean NATO’s expansion didn’t play a big role i in angering Russia. Putin clearly hated the that former vassal states were now aligned with the West. Hell you can’t think your way through the most obvious issues Back to wiping floors….ROFL!

SB

"Yes, we have been poking the bear by allowing NATO to expand, but these countries joined NATO because they were concerned that Russia would go back to its (usual) ways of invading countries for territorial expansion".

I gave a fulle xplanation of NATO and th reason for the original treaty and what ahppened subsequently during the period since 1985 and there is ZERO evience of any threat toa ny country invaded in the period 1985 to 2014 by Russia of any fear and ZERO " ... to its (usual) ways of invading countries"

Name me one case where since NATO wa formed where Russia inaded any countries in Europe since 1945 and do not tell me it did haen in Eatsern Europe. Roosevelt got trapped by Stalin to allow Russia to conquer all the central and east European countries to eb accupoed during WW2, It was only in 1047 when it as found rhat Roosevelt and Churchil fucked up royally at the Yalta meeting with Stalin where hey handed on a platter Eastern adn Central Europe to Russia and a threat of further counties not controlled by the Soviet Union already became a serious problem and NATO was formed,It was to protect Europe from attacks by the then Communist Russia,

Afer Stalin died in 1953 that threat died wih him and in fact Russia did not try and invade any European Country that joinmed NATO, In 1985 two treaties were signed between the USA and Russia that removed any potentil invasion of NATO countris by Russia, In 1990 a further teaty between the USA and Russia that NATO would not expand the membership of NATO to all Central and Eastern European Countries freed from Communist dictatorship,

There were n existing threa and your above quote si BS.

.

,

No I have plenty to say, but the word is you’re not your …what’s the merit in being wrong.

You bring it up as a method of trying to undermine my arguments. Oh look at the stupid yokel with his bad grammar he isn't half as intelligent as me.

Talk about leading with your chin. The relations broke down over a long period but the crucial first period occurred before 2005. Read and learn.

LOL, read and learn you just can't help yourself.

So first you said the west treated Russia badly at Sochi 2014 pushing them away from the family of nations, then you moved to after 15 years of inherent mistrust it meant that by 2005 the nature of the Russian regime was clear enough that economic co-operation was pure folly and then in the very next post you quote A.I stating that the first signs of tension between the west and Russia was between 2003-2004?

You don't half contradict yourself do you?

You're timeline doesn't add up, because you never actually thought through what you were saying which is an inherent contradiction. West too mean to Russia, west also too nice to Russia and now you scramble to make a timeline fit.

Now that is hilarious, according to you most children under 10 would know it’s stupid. But at the same time it’s dangerous….who are these idiots who are stupider than children under 10….ROFL!

Just read the responses in this post to see how time and again your arguments are easily set aside…and then there are the blunders, like something children under 10 would regard as silly, is somehow dangerous….haha.

Now I know you can use A.I so why don't ask it what happened in the aftermath of Trump's speech

Surge in Poison Control Calls:

After Trump's remarks, there was a noticeable increase in calls to poison control centers regarding disinfectant exposure, especially involving bleach. In the weeks following the comments, the American Association of Poison Control Centers (AAPCC) reported a sharp rise in calls related to the ingestion of bleach or disinfectants, which was seen as a direct consequence of Trump's words.

1. Poison control centers reported a significant increase in calls, particularly around the time of the press briefing and shortly after. Between March 20 and April 30, 2020, calls related to the ingestion of disinfectants were up by nearly 50% compared to the same period in the previous year.
2. These calls were mainly about people accidentally ingesting or coming into contact with cleaning products like bleach or disinfectants, but some cases involved individuals who may have attempted to use them inappropriately, based on Trump's comments.

Cases of Intentional Misuse:

Although specific cases of people intentionally injecting bleach were not widely reported, there were multiple incidents of people attempting to self-administer dangerous substances based on the idea that disinfectants could somehow treat COVID-19. Some people ingested bleach, others used cleaning agents improperly, and a few individuals may have taken bleach in desperation or due to confusion following the comments.

1. Reports indicated that people were drinking bleach or rinsing their mouths with disinfectants in misguided attempts to protect themselves from the virus. These actions were particularly dangerous and often led to calls to poison control or visits to the emergency room.
2. The CDC and other health organizations immediately issued strong public warnings that bleach and disinfectants should never be used in or on the human body, as they can cause severe harm, including poisoning, burns, and even death.

So yeah ROFL and haha

He got re-elected because Harris was a terrible candidate…you never figured that out?

Terrible candidate is a matter of opinion but if the deep state existed it doesn't matter how terrible the candidate was they would of just rigged the election.

You just don’t get it….the fact that there is no threat from NATO doesn’t mean NATO’s expansion didn’t play a big role i in angering Russia. Putin clearly hated the that former vassal states were now aligned with the West. Hell you can’t think your way through the most obvious issues Back to wiping floors….ROFL!

Firstly by no threat from NATO, I assume you mean there was never a possibility of NATO attacking Russia unless it attacked a NATO country first. This is the view I have. I've never claimed NATO expansion did not anger Russia. The question was did Russia have a legitimate right to be angry.

Why did it anger Russia, because NATO's eastern expansion blocked Russia from coercively controlling its direct western neighbours, something it believed it was entitled too do. And that's not a mindset that the west forced onto Russia, it was something that emanated from within Russia and had been since the days of Imperial Russia.

When Farage talks about provoking the bear what he is really saying is that Russia is entitled to it's sphere of influence and that he doesn't care if that mean's over a hundred million peoples freedoms are curtailed.

Stav

You have made three statements in your last posting in three different paragraphs,

Can you give us real examples where the three statements are proved to be factual.

You're timeline doesn't add up, because you never actually thought through what you were saying which is an inherent contradiction. West too mean to Russia, west also too nice to Russia and now you scramble to make a timeline fit

This has to be a sting….right? Now you are using ‘you’re’ when you should be using your. ROFL!

My timetable is supported by ChatGTP’s dig into the history. It was very unwise of Germany to hand over the keys to its energy needs just at the time Russia was getting angry at the expansion of NATO.

Sochi was a golden opportunity to repair some of the damage. Russia took pride in the event in one of it’s most beautiful cities and the Wesf humiliated them….journalists writing articles about poor plumbing, non attendance by leaders who could have been there.

It was a humiliating episode for Russia. I said at the time it was going to provoke a very negative response. It’s part of recent Russian experience that has driven it towards China and away from the West.

Now I know you can use A.I so why don't ask it what happened in the aftermath of Trump's speech

But you have to ask it the right question Anger. Of course Fake Media rushed to report bleachgate. And there probably were more calls to poison centers….many of which were probably made by the Left jumping on a political opportunity. Here’s the result of efforts to establish a statistical link:

What is not documented / Why no reliable “case count” exists

1. The poison-call data does not distinguish between ingestion, inhalation, skin contact, or accidental vs intentional exposure. Many of the additional calls involved inhalation or accidental exposures, not deliberate ingestion. CDC+2CDC Stacks+2
2. A 2023 peer-review study attempted to replicate a prior survey that had suggested widespread ingestion of household cleaners (including bleach) to prevent COVID-19, and found that after excluding careless or “problematic” respondents, there was no statistical evidence people intentionally drank bleach or disinfectants as a preventive.

So no statistical evidence….just a dubious increase to call centers. Stick with moz..

Terrible candidate is a matter of opinion but if the deep state existed it doesn't matter how terrible the candidate was they would of just rigged the election.

I think you’ll find even the hilarious left now think Harris was a mistake. As I have said to the chaps on the right, every election has some fraud, but it’s much more likely to influence a local election, not a national one….Deep State or no Deep State.

bump