Author Topic: The Politics Thread  (Read 895548 times)

Online mills_and_bhuna

What is it then?
Defending Russia from the US and its lapdogs.
Making sure Ukraine isn't armed to the teeth with NATO weaponry.
Making sure Russia isn't left in the hands of the Western capitalist vultures like Blackrock and Vanguard and the likes.

Online mills_and_bhuna

I think that's the problem - nobody knows what Putiin's goal is.
Some say it's to restore the territory of the old Soviet Union/Russian Empire, by installing puppet governments. Others say it's to grab rare earth metals which, it's said, Ukraine has a lot of and sell it at high prices.
Still others say it's gone beyond those, and Putin can't "give up" and go home because he'd lose face with the Russian people, or, more importantly, the oligarchs - he may be able to deal with them one at a time via open windows etc, but several of them? Then he'll be taking a dive - literally.
We do know the US's goal though.I
I've alluded to it plenty times because it's been written down in policy papers.
The trouble is the media's job is to trick the masses into believing the goals are different to what they actually are.
And what the ultimate goal is with regards to China, with Taiwan as the excuse .
All this shite about Putin is just distraction.

Online mills_and_bhuna

Meanwhile, the £3.35 trillion question is ... will Andy Burnham appoint Ed Miliband as his chancellor of the exchequer?

Oddly, as one who has opined that Burnham needs to “think left but do right”, I rather hope he does.

It could go disastrously wrong, but it might be a success.  Miliband – although very ideological* – is highly intelligent.  His Net Zero agenda is indubitably the right thing (others will vehemently disagree).  He would need to season it with a generous dose of reality, but a chancellor who thinks beyond the next opinion poll and the next election would make a refreshing change.

The commentariat suggest that Miliband being made chancellor is a strong possibility, but far from certain.

The bookies have him as hot favourite at around 4/6.

Next come Shabana Mahmood is at around 4/1, Wes Streeting at around 5/1, Yvette Cooper at around 13/2 and Pat McFadden at around 8/1.  Of those I would favour McFadden.  Dull but sensible.

(*I badly mistyped “ideological” – and the first word my spell-checker suggested was “diabolical”!)
Dull but sensible?
Just another Starmerite beneficiary of the Labour Together project /scam/criminal conspiracy to hoodwink the Labour voters.
Lies as readily as Starmer and Reed.
/

Online Jerboa

We do know the US's goal though.I
I've alluded to it plenty times because it's been written down in policy papers.
The trouble is the media's job is to trick the masses into believing the goals are different to what they actually are.
And what the ultimate goal is with regards to China, with Taiwan as the excuse .
All this shite about Putin is just distraction.

We know what the globalist neocons want, because they publish them in policy papers, that the majority of the public never read.

Extending Russia: Competing from Advantageous Ground
External Link/Members Only


Hidden Image/Members Only

Offline Vice Admiral

Meanwhile, the £3.35 trillion question is ... will Andy Burnham appoint Ed Miliband as his chancellor of the exchequer?

Oddly, as one who has opined that Burnham needs to “think left but do right”, I rather hope he does.

It could go disastrously wrong, but it might be a success.  Miliband – although very ideological* – is highly intelligent.  His Net Zero agenda is indubitably the right thing (others will vehemently disagree).  He would need to season it with a generous dose of reality, but a chancellor who thinks beyond the next opinion poll and the next election would make a refreshing change.

The commentariat suggest that Miliband being made chancellor is a strong possibility, but far from certain.

The bookies have him as hot favourite at around 4/6.

Next come Shabana Mahmood is at around 4/1, Wes Streeting at around 5/1, Yvette Cooper at around 13/2 and Pat McFadden at around 8/1.  Of those I would favour McFadden.  Dull but sensible.

(*I badly mistyped “ideological” – and the first word my spell-checker suggested was “diabolical”!)

Dull but sensible?
Just another Starmerite beneficiary of the Labour Together project /scam/criminal conspiracy to hoodwink the Labour voters.
Lies as readily as Starmer and Reed.

Pat McFadden picked up quite a few Brownie points from me and others when the Mandelson files revealed him complaining that every government meeting revolves around "who can we tax in order to pay benefits to others".

Meanwhile...

As I’ve observed before, it would be very surprising if Burnham’s team – and possibly Burnham himself – were not regular visitors to the UKP Politics Thread; and it’s clearly important that Burnham knows our position not only on who should be Chancellor (see above) but also who should be Foreign Secretary.

Here are the current bookies’ favourites, in order from Wes Streeting at 5/2 to Lisa Nandy and Keir Starmer at 10/1: Wes Streeting, David Miliband, Ed Miliband, John Healey, Angela Rayner, Shabana Mahmood, Jonathan Reynolds, Lisa Nandy and Keir Starmer.

Not an impressive list, when you consider that those who have held the post over the past 200 years have included such substantial figures as the Duke of Wellington, Viscount Palmerston, the Earl of Rosebery, Arthur Balfour, Ramsay MacDonald, Anthony Eden, Harold Macmillan, Alec Douglas-Home, “RAB” Butler, David Owen, John Major, Douglas Hurd, David Miliband and William Hague. 

And, er, Boris Johnson, Liz Truss and David Lammy.

You need someone with a certain amount of weight and gravitas.  I’d go for David Miliband or John Healey.

(I seem to have become a bit of a cheerleader for the Miliband bros – although I have to admit that I’d clean forgotten until I did my googling that David Miliband has already been Foreign Secretary, for almost three years in 2007-10 under Gordon Brown.)

Online mills_and_bhuna

Pat McFadden picked up quite a few Brownie points from me and others when the Mandelson files revealed him complaining that every government meeting revolves around "who can we tax in order to pay benefits to others".

Meanwhile...

As I’ve observed before, it would be very surprising if Burnham’s team – and possibly Burnham himself – were not regular visitors to the UKP Politics Thread; and it’s clearly important that Burnham knows our position not only on who should be Chancellor (see above) but also who should be Foreign Secretary.

Here are the current bookies’ favourites, in order from Wes Streeting at 5/2 to Lisa Nandy and Keir Starmer at 10/1: Wes Streeting, David Miliband, Ed Miliband, John Healey, Angela Rayner, Shabana Mahmood, Jonathan Reynolds, Lisa Nandy and Keir Starmer.

Not an impressive list, when you consider that those who have held the post over the past 200 years have included such substantial figures as the Duke of Wellington, Viscount Palmerston, the Earl of Rosebery, Arthur Balfour, Ramsay MacDonald, Anthony Eden, Harold Macmillan, Alec Douglas-Home, “RAB” Butler, David Owen, John Major, Douglas Hurd, David Miliband and William Hague. 

And, er, Boris Johnson, Liz Truss and David Lammy.

You need someone with a certain amount of weight and gravitas.  I’d go for David Miliband or John Healey.

(I seem to have become a bit of a cheerleader for the Miliband bros – although I have to admit that I’d clean forgotten until I did my googling that David Miliband has already been Foreign Secretary, for almost three years in 2007-10 under Gordon Brown.)
Substantial figures just means you've heard of them .
It doesn't mean they were competent or principled or hardworking.
More likely with most of them, they just knew what cutlery to use at a social function.

Offline Doc Holliday

  • Age Check : 18+
  • Forum Helper
  • ****
  • Posts: 2,066
  • Likes: 301
  •  
  • Reviews: 5
I pulled it out my arse,  :D

I suspected as much  :)  Is this a one off or a regular occurrence?

Below is a new avatar for you  :D

I notice you have avoided answering my other post? https://www.ukpunting.com/index.php?topic=339931.msg4488420#msg4488420

Hidden Image/Members Only

Offline Vice Admiral

Substantial figures just means you've heard of them .
It doesn't mean they were competent or principled or hardworking.
More likely with most of them, they just knew what cutlery to use at a social function.

That's the main thing, to be honest.  Whatever else you may say about Palmerston, he always held his knife correctly and never drank from his finger bowl. 

Offline Doc Holliday

  • Age Check : 18+
  • Forum Helper
  • ****
  • Posts: 2,066
  • Likes: 301
  •  
  • Reviews: 5
More likely with most of them, they just knew what cutlery to use at a social function.

On the subject of social functions I notice you didn't answer this? I assume you have no intention of doing so?

Why is Jerboa suddenly your bestie?

Happy to answer it for you ... rather like Jerboa answers questions on your behalf.

Online Jerboa

I suspected as much  :)  Is this a one off or a regular occurrence?

Below is a new avatar for you  :D

I notice you have avoided answering my other post? https://www.ukpunting.com/index.php?topic=339931.msg4488420#msg4488420

Hidden Image/Members Only

I don't support Russia, I don't need to disavow Russia, this is not 1950's McCarthyism, Russia is a great power, it warned the west for over 20 years not to push NATO eastward, as the west promised not to in 1989, but the neocons thought Russia wouldn't react. The whole conflict was avoidable.

Quote
"Nyet Means Nyet: Russia's NATO Enlargement Redlines" is the title of a famous diplomatic cable sent to Washington in February 2008 by William Burns, who was the U.S. Ambassador to Russia at the time and serves as the CIA

Offline Zimbaman

I don't support Russia, I don't need to disavow Russia, this is not 1950's McCarthyism, Russia is a great power, it warned the west for over 20 years not to push NATO eastward, as the west promised not to in 1989, but the neocons thought Russia wouldn't react. The whole conflict was avoidable.

It’s really not up to Russia which sovereign nations join a defensive alliance. It never was. And nothing formal was ever agreed in 1989.

Offline Blackpool Rock

I don't support Russia, I don't need to disavow Russia, this is not 1950's McCarthyism, Russia is a great power, it warned the west for over 20 years not to push NATO eastward, as the west promised not to in 1989, but the neocons thought Russia wouldn't react. The whole conflict was avoidable.
Well you certainly do a good impersonation of it jumping to it's / Russia's defence on everything.

To be honest it's quite sad and akin to listening to a battered wife / GF defending her partner and maintaining it's not his fault  :thumbsdown:

Offline Doc Holliday

  • Age Check : 18+
  • Forum Helper
  • ****
  • Posts: 2,066
  • Likes: 301
  •  
  • Reviews: 5
I don't support Russia, I don't need to disavow Russia, this is not 1950's McCarthyism, Russia is a great power, it warned the west for over 20 years not to push NATO eastward, as the west promised not to in 1989, but the neocons thought Russia wouldn't react. The whole conflict was avoidable.

Yes but that answer does not relate to my question.

You may not? Yet the clear perception of many others gained from reading your posts is that you do.

Why is that?

If we accept that you may not support Russia, then why do you think so many members have the perception that you do?

Online mills_and_bhuna

It’s really not up to Russia which sovereign nations join a defensive alliance. It never was. And nothing formal was ever agreed in 1989.
It's really cute that you bought the idea that NATO was a DEFENSIVE alliance as opposed to a money pit for the benefit of corporations and arms manufacturers.
Well done media.

Online mills_and_bhuna

On the subject of social functions I notice you didn't answer this? I assume you have no intention of doing so?

Happy to answer it for you ... rather like Jerboa answers questions on your behalf.
I only answer questions worth answering.
If you're going to ask stupid questions just to troll I'll just ignore them.

Online Jerboa

It’s really not up to Russia which sovereign nations join a defensive alliance. It never was. And nothing formal was ever agreed in 1989.

You might think that, but in the real world, great powers wield weight, let me give you a example, do you think if Mexico joined a military pact with either Russia or China, and that the Mexican army was being trained thousands per year by Russia, and Mexico was getting rearmed with modern weaponry, and Russia or China started installing hypersonic intermediate ballistic missiles on the US border, how do you think the US government would react? But Mexico has the sovereign right to do whatever it want right?  :rolleyes:

Offline Zimbaman

Exactly right. Sovereign nations can join any defensive pact they like. Really not rocket science  :hi:

Online mills_and_bhuna

We know what the globalist neocons want, because they publish them in policy papers, that the majority of the public never read.

Extending Russia: Competing from Advantageous Ground
External Link/Members Only


Hidden Image/Members Only
Brian Berletic is a good source re The New Atlas on YT .
He picks out the details they hope no one notices or amplifies.

Offline scutty brown

  • Age Check : 18+
  • Forum Helper
  • ****
  • Posts: 25,677
  • Likes: 538
  •  
  • Reviews: 125
I only answer questions worth answering.
If you're going to ask stupid questions just to troll I'll just ignore them.

So Jerboa answers questions put to you which you think aren't worth answering?
« Last Edit: June 28, 2026, 06:12:17 pm by scutty brown »

Offline Doc Holliday

  • Age Check : 18+
  • Forum Helper
  • ****
  • Posts: 2,066
  • Likes: 301
  •  
  • Reviews: 5
I only answer questions worth answering.
If you're going to ask stupid questions just to troll I'll just ignore them.

Me trolling? Surely not :D

I think it is a very important question. Admittedly not my usual 'simple questions' that you avoid. This one is difficult for you, as it potentially casts real doubt on your moral integrity in terms of your firm beliefs.

Online mills_and_bhuna

Exactly right. Sovereign nations can join any defensive pact they like. Really not rocket science  :hi:
Sovereign nations.
Like ones not infiltrated by the CIA .
Or blackmailed by the World Bank or IMF?
Where can I find one of those?
(This should be interesting)

Online Jerboa

So Jerboa answers questions put to you which you think aren't worth answering?

I'm not answering on behalf of Mills, plenty of folk reply to posts with their own opinion, including Doc and you.  :hi:

Online mills_and_bhuna

Me trolling? Surely not :D

I think it is a very important question. Admittedly not my usual 'simple questions' that you avoid. This one is difficult for you, as it potentially casts real doubt on your moral integrity in terms of your firm beliefs.
You asked me whether Jerboa was my "bestie".
He's someone else on the forum .
I don't know him from Adam.
Why this would have any bearing on my morality I have no idea.
Some stuff I agree with him on.
Others I don't

Online Jerboa

You asked me whether Jerboa was my "bestie".
He's someone else on the forum .
I don't know him from Adam.
Why this would have any bearing on my morality I have no idea.
Some stuff I agree with him on.
Others I don't

It seems a little like bullying, and why most members on here who have a different opinion won't post in this thread, if you are against the group think officially authorised narrative, you must have less morals than them, and they are of course virtuous and good.  :rolleyes:

Offline Doc Holliday

  • Age Check : 18+
  • Forum Helper
  • ****
  • Posts: 2,066
  • Likes: 301
  •  
  • Reviews: 5
It seems a little like bullying, and why most members on here who have a different opinion won't post in this thread, if you are against the group think officially authorised narrative, you must have less morals than them, and they are of course virtuous and good.  :rolleyes:

Nice try.  :D Do keep up with my long history with M&B

I actually agree with some of his politics. Just not all of it. What I object to is his obnoxious, aggressive online persona, but only because I am sure it is false.

I suspect there is a nice guy out there who in real life, wouldn’t interact with anyone in the way M&B does, but when I ask him about this he refuses to engage.

He is clearly intelligent but presents as totally intransigent to differing opinions. I also doubt that aspect is genuinely him (though I may be wrong) but is also just part of the false confrontational M&B.

If you go back to before around 2021 the UKP M&B persona was very different. He is a member from 2017. Little sign of confrontation and certainly no evidence of the increasing level of deliberate trolling. That is unusual. Most trolls have a consistent history of this activity.

Yes, he has been on the receiving end of trolling too (mostly self inflicted) though far less than he was in the past, as most now ignore him. The exception is currently myself as clearly I am deliberately pursuing him. This is to gauge response to being wound up by me.

I am genuinely concerned for him. It is not healthy. I suggest it is not especially good for the forum either?


Oh and you seem to have diverted again from answering my question. Why do you think members perceive you as supporting Russia.
« Last Edit: June 28, 2026, 07:47:35 pm by Doc Holliday »

Offline Doc Holliday

  • Age Check : 18+
  • Forum Helper
  • ****
  • Posts: 2,066
  • Likes: 301
  •  
  • Reviews: 5

Oh and you seem to have diverted again from answering my question. Why do you think members perceive you as supporting Russia.

Still no answer. Is this because you cannot explain the conundrum it raises?

From reading your considerable number of posts, members have formed the opinion you are pro-Russian (as in BR’s recent post).
 
Can you show me examples in your posts where you have been negative or critical of Russia to suggest otherwise? There are certainly a great many examples of your anti-west sentiment (including UK) as well as Ukraine. I assume you accept that latter statement as accurate?

You say you are not pro Russian. Both situations appear contradictory and suggestive that one must be false?

If we accept your word that the ‘real’ Jerboa is not pro Russian, then how do we explain the evidence to the contrary within your posts?

The explanation would be that the posts are deliberately contrived and not representative of the real persona behind them?
Why would your posts be deliberately contrived?



Offline Doc Holliday

  • Age Check : 18+
  • Forum Helper
  • ****
  • Posts: 2,066
  • Likes: 301
  •  
  • Reviews: 5
You asked me whether Jerboa was my "bestie".
He's someone else on the forum .
I don't know him from Adam.
Why this would have any bearing on my morality I have no idea.
Some stuff I agree with him on.
Others I don't

You are an intelligent man. Work it out. Don't allow yourself to be manipulated and sell out your genuine and firmly held beliefs on some topics, just because you found someone who is using the term neocons in their posts. Don't be a pawn  :hi:

Online Jerboa

Still no answer. Is this because you cannot explain the conundrum it raises?

From reading your considerable number of posts, members have formed the opinion you are pro-Russian (as in BR’s recent post).
 
Can you show me examples in your posts where you have been negative or critical of Russia to suggest otherwise? There are certainly a great many examples of your anti-west sentiment (including UK) as well as Ukraine. I assume you accept that latter statement as accurate?

You say you are not pro Russian. Both situations appear contradictory and suggestive that one must be false?

If we accept your word that the ‘real’ Jerboa is not pro Russian, then how do we explain the evidence to the contrary within your posts?

The explanation would be that the posts are deliberately contrived and not representative of the real persona behind them?
Why would your posts be deliberately contrived?

I'm not sure who you think you are, demanding I answer your questions. I'm just not a Russophobe, I understand what the west has done, what actions were taken from 1991, if you are going to condemn Russia for it's invasion of Ukraine, why don't you condemn Nato's invasion of Kosovo in 1999 and it's 78 days of bombing of Serbia? What was the mantra after 1945? The guiding international mantra ensuring that established frontiers would not be altered by force was the "inviolability of borders"

You understand you can be patriotic of your country, and want to fight for it, but be critical of the government and the deep state for their actions? Actions that have caused damage to the fabric of the nation. The UK government should be prioritising our own country, not sending billions to Ukraine, to continue a war that they can not win, and supplying Ukraine with weapons is not cost free, Russia's security counsel is having serious discussions about hitting the logistic hubs in Poland and Romania that supply Ukraine, and the drone manufacturing sites including in Britain that make these FP1 and other drones. 

Offline RedKettle

  • Age Check : 18+
  • Forum Helper
  • ****
  • Posts: 4,172
  • Likes: 77
  •  
  • Reviews: 102
The fact that you cannot see the difference says an awful lot about your world view and where your loyalties lie.

Ironically there were better, from your pro Russia position, comparisons that you could have chosen. Very hard to defend the attack on Iran.

However regardless of the pros and cons that does not change the position that the Russian invasion was wrong and needs to be defeated to discourage further Russian aggression. It is in our interests to stop Putin now before his stated desire for a greater Russia pushes us all into full scale war.

Please do not bother repeating more of the Russian propaganda to try and justify the invasion.

Online Jerboa

The fact that you cannot see the difference says an awful lot about your world view and where your loyalties lie.

Ironically there were better, from your pro Russia position, comparisons that you could have chosen. Very hard to defend the attack on Iran.

However regardless of the pros and cons that does not change the position that the Russian invasion was wrong and needs to be defeated to discourage further Russian aggression. It is in our interests to stop Putin now before his stated desire for a greater Russia pushes us all into full scale war.

Please do not bother repeating more of the Russian propaganda to try and justify the invasion.

Yes there are lots of other examples I could have given. Are you saying Kosovo was justified? The insurgency in Kosovo was run by the CIA, who sponsored the criminal/terrorist group the KLA, they are not heroes, they are drug/arms/people traffikers. And now Nato has the largest military base in the Balkans in their puppet state of Kosovo.

Understand, Russia believes the conflict is existential to their survival, they will not back down, they are winning slowly in the war of attrition. In the same way it is not existential to the US. Europe is little more than a vassal of the American empire, and has no weight behind it. The embarrassment of Europe including London, is they have not used diplomacy, not spoken to Russia since 2022, like embarrassing mean girls on the playground, now some politicians call to speak to Russia, as they understand the reality, and the EU is arguing about who in Europe should go to Moscow, recently Costa head of the European council was criticised because he sent representatives to Moscow.

External Link/Members Only

Offline finn5555

I see Jerboa is still spouting bollocks, He loves Russia more than the UK  :wacko: :wacko:

Online Jerboa

I see Jerboa is still spouting bollocks, He loves Russia more than the UK  :wacko: :wacko:

How would you know if you blocked me?  :rolleyes:

Offline Thephoenix

This section is my favourite place to get a regular dose of heavily biased anti-West/pro-Russian propaganda.

I've learnt all about lapdogs, Neocons, Klingons etc and the evil MSN

As a result I don't read any UK newspapers, or even suspicious comics like the Dandy or Beano.
I've ditched my TV and started a subscription to Rossiyskaya Gazeta.

That should please the two resident shill spin doctors.




Offline RedKettle

  • Age Check : 18+
  • Forum Helper
  • ****
  • Posts: 4,172
  • Likes: 77
  •  
  • Reviews: 102
I see Jerboa is still spouting bollocks, He loves Russia more than the UK  :wacko: :wacko:

Either that or they pay him more!  Just like TR.

Offline RedKettle

  • Age Check : 18+
  • Forum Helper
  • ****
  • Posts: 4,172
  • Likes: 77
  •  
  • Reviews: 102
This section is my favourite place to get a regular dose of heavily biased anti-West/pro-Russian propaganda.

I've learnt all about lapdogs, Neocons, Klingons etc and the evil MSN

As a result I don't read any UK newspapers, or even suspicious comics like the Dandy or Beano.
I've ditched my TV and started a subscription to Rossiyskaya Gazeta.

That should please the two resident shill spin doctors.

 :D :D

Online mills_and_bhuna

It is in our interests to stop Putin now before his stated desire for a greater Russia pushes us all into full scale war.

Please do not bother repeating more of the Russian propaganda to try and justify the invasion.
What a load of bollocks.
Why are you worried about a Greater Russia?
You're just spouting Western propaganda.
Jerboa has already pointed out where his information is drawn from.
Western based thinktanks.
It's all there in black and white and unfiltered.
Read the Rand Report he linked to.
Numerous examples of reports by The Atlantic Council.
Why do you think the BBC, CNN, MSNBC, Sky etc. never bring it up? (Left AND right wing :D :lol:).
But they're quite happy to feed you opinions of CIA and MI6 as fact.
Why is that? ;)

Online mills_and_bhuna

This section is my favourite place to get a regular dose of heavily biased anti-West/pro-Russian propaganda.

I've learnt all about lapdogs, Neocons, Klingons etc and the evil MSN

As a result I don't read any UK newspapers, or even suspicious comics like the Dandy or Beano.
I've ditched my TV and started a subscription to Rossiyskaya Gazeta.

That should please the two resident shill spin doctors.
: :lol: :lol:
Welcome comrade Phoenix.

Offline Doc Holliday

  • Age Check : 18+
  • Forum Helper
  • ****
  • Posts: 2,066
  • Likes: 301
  •  
  • Reviews: 5
I'm not sure who you think you are, demanding I answer your questions.

I am not sure who I am either. Thank god for Matron.

Where have I demanded you answer? Just a bit pushy perhaps  :D

Anyway your reply is the usual diversionary waffle and does not explain the conundrum


If we accept your word that the ‘real’ Jerboa is not pro Russian, then how do we explain the evidence to the contrary within your posts?

The explanation would be that the posts are deliberately contrived and not representative of the real persona behind them?
Why would your posts be deliberately contrived?

« Last Edit: June 29, 2026, 09:01:11 pm by Doc Holliday »

Offline Doc Holliday

  • Age Check : 18+
  • Forum Helper
  • ****
  • Posts: 2,066
  • Likes: 301
  •  
  • Reviews: 5
What a load of bollocks.
Why are you worried about a Greater Russia?
You're just spouting Western propaganda.
Jerboa has already pointed out where his information is drawn from.


You could of course have begun your post with "I completely disagree" rather than in your highly aggressive and confrontational manner that you seem to prefer and which I touched on in my linked post above.

Why is this important?

Well you go on to say that you agree with Jerboa on some things and not others and you back up Jerboa's position here in response to RK, yet only a month ago and as I have previously pointed out to you (but you ignored) you had this exchange with him.

That is true.  :P

You wouldn't know the truth if it smacked you between the eyes.

Mounting constant ad hominem attacks on members comes back to haunt you and means your support of that person's position at a later date becomes undermined and pretty worthless.

More importantly you have clearly not heeded my warning that you are being manipulated by Jerboa, as part of his game. Snagbadger lost the plot, urged on by Jerboa yet the latter remains largely unscathed. Engage your brain don't risk becoming another casualty. Why do you think he answers posts on your behalf?

Just because he 'appears' to share your view on Russia, should not mean you ignore his views on the much larger and more significant  number of his views that you strongly disagree with :hi:

Offline RedKettle

  • Age Check : 18+
  • Forum Helper
  • ****
  • Posts: 4,172
  • Likes: 77
  •  
  • Reviews: 102
What a load of bollocks.
Why are you worried about a Greater Russia?
You're just spouting Western propaganda.
Jerboa has already pointed out where his information is drawn from.
Western based thinktanks.
It's all there in black and white and unfiltered.
Read the Rand Report he linked to.
Numerous examples of reports by The Atlantic Council.
Why do you think the BBC, CNN, MSNBC, Sky etc. never bring it up? (Left AND right wing :D :lol:).
But they're quite happy to feed you opinions of CIA and MI6 as fact.
Why is that? ;)

We can argue all day about sources and you can be as arrogant as you like about your ability versus us ignorant ones. However the actual evidence including a full scale invasion of Ukraine is pretty strong.

Please do not bother with all the bullshit reasons for the invasion, we have heard it all many times.

Offline bigden40

I usually glaze over with the Russia/Ukraine conversations as it really does just go round and round.

As always two things can be true at once. Yes, “the west” has acted provocatively in Russia's backyard and they can understandably take exception to that. But that does not justify the 2022 invasion and waging of war for the last 4 years.

So Mills has a legitimate point about Western (US) provocations going back to, at least, the 2014 coup.  Many of the things he’s said about that are accurate and fair observations.  But I presume he also knows that that, in itself, is not justification for the last 4 years. I also presume that is why he never answers the question when Doc puts him on the spot on this topic.


Offline bigden40

Interesting piece by Larry Sanger, co-founder of Wikipedia, about the problems of Wikipedia. 

External Link/Members Only


Offline Blackpool Rock

Great news that resident doctors have agreed to accept the latest pay deal and end 3 years of strikes

External Link/Members Only

The NHS is a key factor in how the Govt is judged; waiting lists and cancelled appointments / operations etc so if everything is running smoothly with no strikes or industrial action etc it does reflect on the Govts popularity or otherwise.
It does strike me that the timing of this announcement is yet again slightly cruel but indicative of the entire Starmer reign in that as soon as he fucks off what should have been announced as a positive story for him / his Govt suddenly emerges but now the benefits fall to the guy who usurped him  :unknown:   

Offline Vice Admiral

I don't find Andy Burnham's recent activities and statements very reassuring.

At the moment he’s just the MP for Makerfield.  Nothing more.  There’s too much neo-triumphalism and glad-handing going on from someone who, to all intents and purposes, has no legitimacy.  A bit more humility and tact would be desirable.

Meanwhile, this business of setting up a branch of 10 Downing Street in Manchester is a silly gimmick that is likely to achieve nothing and to lead to confusion and inefficiency.  And if I hear the word "Manchesterism" once more I shall, like Violet-Elizabeth Bott, “thcream and thcream until I'm thick".

Oh, and Burnham intends to provide “good growth in every postcode and hope in every heart”.  (Yuk.)

Good luck with that.

I’m beginning to think that the usurper Burnham may turn out to be the most annoying Prime Minister of my lifetime.  (A competitive field...)

Online WARSZAWA16

  • Age Check : 18+
  • Forum Helper
  • ****
  • Posts: 2,743
  • Likes: 117
  •  
  • Reviews: 68
 First glimpse of the interior design at the new northern no 10.


Hidden Image/Members Only

Offline Vice Admiral

I don't find Andy Burnham's recent activities and statements very reassuring.

At the moment he’s just the MP for Makerfield.  Nothing more.  There’s too much neo-triumphalism and glad-handing going on from someone who, to all intents and purposes, has no legitimacy.  A bit more humility and tact would be desirable.

Meanwhile, this business of setting up a branch of 10 Downing Street in Manchester is a silly gimmick that is likely to achieve nothing and to lead to confusion and inefficiency.  And if I hear the word "Manchesterism" once more I shall, like Violet-Elizabeth Bott, “thcream and thcream until I'm thick".

Oh, and Burnham intends to provide “good growth in every postcode and hope in every heart”.  (Yuk.)

Good luck with that.

I’m beginning to think that the usurper Burnham may turn out to be the most annoying Prime Minister of my lifetime.  (A competitive field...)

Oh, and then there's his promise to initiate the "biggest council house building programme since the post-war period" – prompting me to ask the two questions I always ask whenever a government announces an ambitious house-building programme (which is often):

1.  Who's going to pay for it?

2.  Where are we going to find the brickies, the chippies and the plumbers?  The Poles have all gone home and the British don't like getting their hands dirty.

Online Jerboa

I usually glaze over with the Russia/Ukraine conversations as it really does just go round and round.

As always two things can be true at once. Yes, “the west” has acted provocatively in Russia's backyard and they can understandably take exception to that. But that does not justify the 2022 invasion and waging of war for the last 4 years.

So Mills has a legitimate point about Western (US) provocations going back to, at least, the 2014 coup.  Many of the things he’s said about that are accurate and fair observations.  But I presume he also knows that that, in itself, is not justification for the last 4 years. I also presume that is why he never answers the question when Doc puts him on the spot on this topic.

Russia used the exact same defence as Nato did in Kosovo, article 51 of the UN charter, what is good for the goose.

Offline bigden40

Russia used the exact same defence as Nato did in Kosovo, article 51 of the UN charter, what is good for the goose.

Quelle surprise, a textbook case of whataboutery.  Your attempt to dress it up as some sort of clever equivalence is risible.

NATO’s Kosovo action in 1999 was a limited air campaign - which was controversial without explicit UNSC approval - to halt ongoing ethnic cleansing and mass atrocities by Serbian forces against civilians in Kosovo. It wasn’t framed primarily as Article 51 self-defense and legal experts widely observe that didn’t fit that box cleanly; it leaned more on humanitarian grounds amid a humanitarian disaster.

Russia’s 2022 full-scale invasion of Ukraine, by contrast, is a war of conquest: tanks rolling across borders, attempted annexation of vast territories, hundreds of thousands of casualties, documented war crimes, and deliberate targeting of civilians and infrastructure. Russia did invoke Article 51, claiming “self-defense” against a non-existent imminent armed attack by Ukraine (or fabricated “genocide” in Donbas), after recognising puppet “republics” it helped create. International consensus rejects this as baseless.

Even granting Kosovo was legally shaky (and many argued it was), it doesn’t magically greenlight Russia’s far larger aggression. “They did it too” doesn’t erase the differences in scale, intent, or facts on the ground. Two wrongs don’t make a right, and pretending a limited intervention to stop slaughter is the exact same as launching Europe’s biggest war since 1945 is false equivalence on steroids.

Western provocations (NATO expansion, 2014 events) are fair game for debate and criticism. They don’t justify Putin choosing full invasion and years of destruction over diplomacy, Minsk implementations, or other options.

Even if you hate NATO’s Kosovo precedent, it doesn’t magically validate Russia’s far bloodier, expansionist war. “They did something questionable once, so we get to do this” is playground logic from a bad-faith troll who knows the equivalence falls apart under scrutiny. Mills dodges the direct question for the same reason, you can’t defend the indefensible without these tired whatabouts.

« Last Edit: June 30, 2026, 02:07:46 pm by bigden40 »

Offline DastardlyDick

Quelle surprise, a textbook case of whataboutery.  Your attempt to dress it up as some sort of clever equivalence is risible.

NATO’s Kosovo action in 1999 was a limited air campaign - which was controversial without explicit UNSC approval - to halt ongoing ethnic cleansing and mass atrocities by Serbian forces against civilians in Kosovo. It wasn’t framed primarily as Article 51 self-defense and legal experts widely observe that didn’t fit that box cleanly; it leaned more on humanitarian grounds amid a humanitarian disaster.

Russia’s 2022 full-scale invasion of Ukraine, by contrast, is a war of conquest: tanks rolling across borders, attempted annexation of vast territories, hundreds of thousands of casualties, documented war crimes, and deliberate targeting of civilians and infrastructure. Russia did invoke Article 51, claiming “self-defense” against a non-existent imminent armed attack by Ukraine (or fabricated “genocide” in Donbas), after recognising puppet “republics” it helped create. International consensus rejects this as baseless.

Even granting Kosovo was legally shaky (and many argued it was), it doesn’t magically greenlight Russia’s far larger aggression. “They did it too” doesn’t erase the differences in scale, intent, or facts on the ground. Two wrongs don’t make a right, and pretending a limited intervention to stop slaughter is the exact same as launching Europe’s biggest war since 1945 is false equivalence on steroids.

Western provocations (NATO expansion, 2014 events) are fair game for debate and criticism. They don’t justify Putin choosing full invasion and years of destruction over diplomacy, Minsk implementations, or other options.

Even if you hate NATO’s Kosovo precedent, it doesn’t magically validate Russia’s far bloodier, expansionist war. “They did something questionable once, so we get to do this” is playground logic from a bad-faith troll who knows the equivalence falls apart under scrutiny. Mills dodges the direct question for the same reason, you can’t defend the indefensible without these tired whatabouts.
I think there's a massive difference between preventing a possible genocide like the Serbs were starting in Kosovo and a "threat" you've manufactured and control yourself like Donnas - remember the "little green men"?

Online Jerboa

Quelle surprise, a textbook case of whataboutery.  Your attempt to dress it up as some sort of clever equivalence is risible.

NATO’s Kosovo action in 1999 was a limited air campaign - which was controversial without explicit UNSC approval - to halt ongoing ethnic cleansing and mass atrocities by Serbian forces against civilians in Kosovo. It wasn’t framed primarily as Article 51 self-defense and legal experts widely observe that didn’t fit that box cleanly; it leaned more on humanitarian grounds amid a humanitarian disaster. The reports of atrocities occurring in Kosovo were hugely overblown CIA funded KLA bands were killing Yugoslavian security forces, then claiming massacres if security forces returned fire.

Russia’s 2022 full-scale invasion of Ukraine, by contrast, is a war of conquest: tanks rolling across borders, attempted annexation of vast territories, hundreds of thousands of casualties, documented war crimes, and deliberate targeting of civilians and infrastructure. Russia did invoke Article 51, claiming “self-defense” against a non-existent imminent armed attack by Ukraine (or fabricated “genocide” in Donbas), after recognising puppet “republics” it helped create. International consensus rejects this as baseless. We have done this before, it was no war of conquest, who in their right mind invades a country as large as Ukraine, in a war of conquest with something like 110,000 to 180,000 troops? And the fact Russia got Ukraine to the negotiation table in 7 days, and was happy to return all territories taken in the SMO proves it.

Even granting Kosovo was legally shaky (and many argued it was), it doesn’t magically greenlight Russia’s far larger aggression. “They did it too” doesn’t erase the differences in scale, intent, or facts on the ground. Two wrongs don’t make a right, and pretending a limited intervention to stop slaughter is the exact same as launching Europe’s biggest war since 1945 is false equivalence on steroids.

Western provocations (NATO expansion, 2014 events) are fair game for debate and criticism. They don’t justify Putin choosing full invasion and years of destruction over diplomacy, Minsk implementations, or other options.

Even if you hate NATO’s Kosovo precedent, it doesn’t magically validate Russia’s far bloodier, expansionist war. “They did something questionable once, so we get to do this” is playground logic from a bad-faith troll who knows the equivalence falls apart under scrutiny. Mills dodges the direct question for the same reason, you can’t defend the indefensible without these tired whatabouts.

Russia tried to come to a agreement with Ukraine, the Minsk agreement was ratified at the UNSC, Ukraine refused to implement it and the US told them don't worry about it. Watch this clip of Zelensky in 2019 at the Minsk talks, he is sniggering while Putin is talking about implementing the accords, because he had no intention of doing what was required? External Link/Members Only

As I have mentioned before, Russia went in on 24th Feb 2022, because they had evidence of the Ukrainian armed forces were preparing a ground offensive against the two Donbass republics, that if were not stopped could have ended in disaster for the people of the Donbass.