“You can recognise the fact that some people are good at what they do even if they have evil intent.”
Seems reasonable, does anyone actually disagree with what he said?
Yeh also some people use that caveat as a device to make themselves sound reasonable when in fact they do actually admire those evil dictators.
Iirc it was found out that UKIP got money from Russia, so I'd lean to this one in this case.
>Iirc it was found out that UKIP got money from Russia
They were accused of it they were investigated and it was found to be untrue.
[https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/sep/24/no-evidence-leave-eu-and-arron-banks-broke-law-says-agency-brexit](https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/sep/24/no-evidence-leave-eu-and-arron-banks-broke-law-says-agency-brexit)
Banks' dealings with Russia were deeply suspicious. Having read the book Kleptopia I feel there doesn't seem to any limit to what Russia's dirty money can achieve.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/jun/09/arron-banks-russia-brexit-meeting
Even with those blunders, Hitler still seduced millions and knocked at the very gates of Moscow, and Putin has kept an iron grip over Russia for 24 years. One does not achieve that being stupid.
Not exactly have to be super smart either. Just ruthless. Putin took all the measures it takes to kill whoever needs to be killed, steal what needs to be stolen, and keep everyone cowed to maintain his complete vertical stranglehold on power. One just needs to look up the last conference he had with the highest placed cats in his government before the full scale invasion of Ukraine to see how guys who wield tremendous power themselves within Russia acted like sheep before him. It's a completely fearful and abusive relationship.
Well, yeah, but Putin is smart. Egotistic and delusional, but he is intelligent. This was especially visible when he was younger. He knew exactly how to use his image and play on people's feelings to manipulate them.
The "evil and at the right place" would be Stalin. The guy got in on the act and didn't have Lenin's charisma or vision. It's been said that Stalin's supporters didn't follow him because they believed in him, but out of fear or for profit.
> Wasn't Hitler warned about going to war with Russia?
By who?
The german high command was pretty onboard with operation Barbarossa, except for the logistics guys, but who cares about what they say?
The Soviets lost 26,000 soldiers at most in nine years in Afghanistan. The Russians have lost at least 70,000 soldiers in two year in Ukraine. It's probably their worst loss since the Second World War.
Both germany and rhe western allies and us and poland thought the soviwts were super weak and would crumble, especially after their costly success in finland.
They did crumble, if you consider Russia in isolation.
Lend lease from (mostly) the USA and sacrificing human lives, as if they were meat, is what kept Russia from defeat.
To be clear, without the allies help, Russia would have fallen hard, they were even supplied with food because they couldn't feed their own population.
And weak they were. Soviet Union would have surely crumbled without the absolutely massive American support.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lend-Lease
>In total, the U.S. deliveries to the USSR through Lend-Lease amounted to $11 billion in materials (equivalent to $148 billion in 2023): over 400,000 jeeps and trucks; 12,000 armored vehicles (including 7,000 tanks, about 1,386 of which were M3 Lees and 4,102 M4 Shermans); 11,400 aircraft (of which 4,719 were Bell P-39 Airacobras, 3,414 were Douglas A-20 Havocs and 2,397 were Bell P-63 Kingcobras) and 1.75 million tons of food.
>Roughly 17.5 million tons of military equipment, vehicles, industrial supplies, and food were shipped from the Western Hemisphere to the USSR, 94% coming from the US. For comparison, a total of 22 million tons landed in Europe to supply American forces from January 1942 to May 1945. It has been estimated that American deliveries to the USSR through the Persian Corridor alone were sufficient, by US Army standards, to maintain sixty combat divisions in the line.
The invasion was actually a wild success at the beginning. Stalin was caught completely unprepared. He expected an invasion but later, not then, while Germany was still engaged on the western front.
You might think so, but after 4 months, before even the battle of moscow, the high command considered it a failure and feared that they would now get into an attritional 2 front war (especially with russia) which they would loose in the end.
And exactly that happened.
There are actually „secret“ recordings of hitler in Finland pre war with Russia. He talks about the immense economic power of the Soviet Union to one of his trusted in private. How many tanks they can produce in a year etc. - They knew. They knew how strong the Soviets were. Had the Russian generals not tried mimicking Kutusow it might have even been over faster.
I’d go even further and say it is an incredibly important point to make. The likes of Stalin and Hitler are dangerous exactly because they are competent, and we should never underestimate people like that.
"Er is wieder da" is such a brilliant film for this very reason. A very charming hitler joking about jews and sending people to camps and recognizing peoples problems. In the end they understood he wasn't joking and was serious about everything "did I ever say otherwise?".
Just like how he clearly laid out his plans in mein kampf, but people chose not to believe it.
He never actually really hid his intentions but still people thought "he won't do that, he's charming".
Seeing the "good" in hitler and with good I mean the hypnotic and charismatic qualities is important, because we tend to view him as evil incarnate, while he was a very charming guy, good public speaker and loved animals. But that's what's so important, true evil often doesn't come with little devil horns and a trident but comes with a charming face. That's what we should learn kids and what to look out for. Not "hitler bad boooo hitler" but the fact that just like the case with hitler true evil can have a charming face and can play with cute dogs and give a nice speech.
It’s especially ironic because the archetype of the evil, yet beautiful and charming manipulator is one of the oldest in Western tradition, literally going back as far as at least the Old Testament.
I thought that he was a socially awkward oddball that the political elite thought didn't have a chance at winning, much like Trump and DePheffel and then it was too late. Those three populists have much in common.
Honestly, Stalin was incompetent on many levels. Half of his power came from corruption and purging opponents. Pretty bad military leader too.
Hitler was able to brainwash people with his speeches alone
I honestly don’t see how you can look at a guy who clawed his way to the top of one of the most bloodthirsty regimes in history by being more violent, manipulative, and ruthless than any of his opponents and conclude “lol how incompetent”.
Exactly because he managed to do this by being violent and ruthless, not because he was super skillful or smart. I'm not saying he was a tool, no, he was intelligent and manipulative. You can also see a similar ruling style to Genghis Khan, based on the principle of "divide and conquer," which is known to be an effective policy. But I don't think he can be placed on the same level of leadership "phenomenon" as someone like Hitler.
Stalin came into power after Lenin's huge revolution and took advantage of the newly established tendencies. He couldn't sway people to his side if he had to do it on his own because he didn't possess the charisma or vision like Lenin or Hitler.
Shortly after coming to power, Stalin shifted his approach, distancing himself from revolutionary ideology and focusing on building his own secure position. This meant that he couldn't rely heavily on ideological manipulation and true believers in the cause, like some other dictators. His paranoia and fear of losing power led him to initiate purges, resulting in him loosing most of the commanders and intellectuals. This had a detrimental effect on both the army and the economy, as the military relied on poorly educated personnel and lacked the necessary technology- and skilled people who could produce it. This led to him dancing between Hitler and the other countries, in search for allies and support.
Stalin's cooperation with Hitler during the early stages of World War II somewhat bolstered the Soviet army, but it can be argued that the Soviet materials provided more significant support to Hitler's army, which ultimately backfired and bit Stalin in the ass when Hitler decided to attack USSR. Stalin also displayed megalomania, similar to what Putin demonstrates, underestimating his opponents and overestimating his own strength. He attacked Finland out of ego, and for many months, despite having a much larger army, achieved almost nothing, compared to the losses.
Another example of "incompetence" is the late reaction and bad decisions when it comes to Operation Barbarossa. There was a theory that Stalin planned to attack first, but Hitler was just quicker, but this theory has practically no confirmation. From what we know, it seems Stalin was completely unprepared for a possible attack.
To be precise, he was repeatedly warned about what was going to happen: by Churchill, which he obviously ignored, by his KGB agent in Berlin, which he considered disinformation, by a spy who provided him with the exact date of the attack - Stalin replied to him that he was a brat, and by his commanders who begged him to allow the troops to be moved to the border - he threatened them with execution. When Hitler attacked, Stalin was in complete shock and disappeared for two weeks hiding in his residence, and the only way for theUSSR to survive the attack was to sacrifice millions of civilians.
Stalin ruled over an empire and maintained power for several decades, that's true. However, when thinking about competence, I think about great leadership skills, organizational abilities, and the ability to foresee and plan effectively in order to gain support from people.
Stalin's rule was primarily based on terror, bribery, and intimidation. He also had an unlimited number of expendable individuals whose lives he did not value and whom he could throw into the "meat grinder".
Yeah, as much as farage is a cunt that's still a true statement. Hitler and Stalin were some of the greatest (most impactful) leaders in modern history, maybe all of world history. It's just that sometimes people forget that "great" does not in any way have to even hint at "good".
Recently one of his party's candidates said that Britain should have remained neutral with Hitler. Farage did not challenge that view in the slightest. His poll results aren't big enough to allow him to openly compliment Hitler yet.
Who said he was good at leading a country? He was a very good rabble-rouser, he was good at staying in power. He was shit at actually running a country.
EDIT: I don't understand why they picked that quote for the title, this part's far more troubling.
> He said the attack was a consequence of Nato and the EU trying to “poke the Russian bear with a stick”.
You just assume the western democratic standard value that a leader must have is the good of the country as his goal. Putins personal goals might at times overlap with that slightly, because a stronger Russia under his control increases his personal power, but you assuming he has the longterm betterment of Russians lives as a goal is just that, an assumption.
So if we just look at what he did, get hold of power over Russia and keeping it for two decades, it isn't unreasonable to say that he is at least somewhat competent at the game of politics. I don't think he is a good leader though.
Have you wasted your time on any of his speeches?
He was appointed in presidential position when Elcin just plainly quit. And his first "elections" happened few months later. That had nothing to do with normal public politics, they decided everything behind curtains and russians just followed it.
It’s very clever, a weak populace can lead to a lovely lavish life for some. You mentioned the Kims down below and while the country is in an awful state, the Kims are living in an absolute dream. The Second Kim was able to watch whatever movies he wanted and even force directors to make films at his whims for instance. Saddam Hussein for a time had everything he wanted as well. Some people just use power not for the country’s betterment but for their own very personal benefits. It’s exceedingly clever and manipulation of people. It’s entirely morally wrong and unethical sure, but it’s clever
Aren't we all. I'm sure most of the Russians are just waiting for inflation, smoking accidents and friends and family being shipped to Ukraine to end. But I guess Putin feeling very clever is what counts.
Not a contradiction imo. I mean he's probably staying at a nice place, gets good food, and - what's probably most important for him - he's in power. So all of his interests within the Russian borders are covered.
He doesn't care for those who suffer, and he disassembled the democratic system of his country well enough so that sanctions don't come to bite him. The population can't vote him out of office, and everyone near him is either too afraid of him or profiting from their situation so that theyre not interested in removing hin. He's basically untouchable.
Being a "clever political operator" doesn't tell me that he's good at benefitting his country, rather that he's good at manipulating the political sphere around him. Despite some travel restrictions, I really don't think he nor his family are living bad lives.
>Not a contradiction imo. I mean he's probably staying at a nice place, gets good food, and - what's probably most important for him - he's in power.
If that is what makes a successful politician for Nigel Farage, the British should listen very well.
Because no one has perfect performance? What sort of standard for clever are we using?
If Putin ISN'T a clever political operator, we need a fantastic story to explain how he has been in control of a nuclear-armed country of 144M people for the past 25 years.
The 2014 Russia-Ukraine war was never over, he could have just continued that by annexing the occupied Donetsk and Luhansk regions. In that case nobody in the West would have done anything.
He is a clever political operator in that he managed to consolidate power and stay on top in Russia for a long time. He isn't a very clever geopolitician, because he isn't a very smart person in general (just read his "historical works").
Because he runs a nuclear-posessing country of 140 million like his personal property? There are plenty of oligarchs that would like to take his place if they had a shot at it.
Lol, if you believe that you're an idiot.
They are digging a massive hole for themselves, a lot of the educated have left, a lot of young people have died, a lot more and severely injured and will need aid for the rest of their lives, a lot of criminals are let free, a lot of psychologically scarred people roam their streets.
Their economy is propped up by numbers they give out, about as reliable as there treaties or telling the Western media they are idiots for believing Russia would invade Ukraine, 3 days before they did exactly that and a war time economy.
Do you know what happens to a war time economy in the long run?
Nobody is buying the products they produce, the state is using all of it, most of it explodes or is otherwise destroyed, there's no economic value being created.
In the long run, they are destroying Russia and only two cities could have been called civilised before 2022, they will lag behind further and further in the coming decade.
I recognise that you could argue relevance to sanctions, but I'm just pointing at the state of Russia and that it's insane to think they're doing good, they're not close to doing good.
No. The problem here is that a neo-fascist is finding ways to compliment dictators as if it is merely relaying historical fact.
Is he a history or political science teacher? Is he giving a lecture? No, he's a politician hamfisting some 'they weren't all bad' into a political discussion.
I'm not a Brit, and Nigel my second most detested western politician (the other is orange).
Edit: It's always reassuring to me when I'm reminded that Americans (who have suffered the social effects of underfunded and purposely mismanaged public school systems for decades) don't hold the monopoly on ignorance and downright obvious manipulation by propaganda posing as news media.
This is such a braindead take. You are so hateful, just blinded by it.
He's not trying to complement Hitler. I can tell you're American. No one in Europe likes Hitler, even the far-right. It's a non-controversial topic.
How do the two things you mention contradict one another?
Having your underlings at odds with one another is "authoritarianism 101". Any dictator that wishes to hold on to power must constantly ensure there is no political climate for a coup to take place
Also, Hitler wasn't "lazy". Of all the things one could accuse him of, "being passive" isn't one of them
I don't think the two things I mentioned contradict each other. I just don't think Hitler is the genius people try to make him,
I would argue that a lot of the success that the Germans had in the war, was despite Hitler not because of him. But please note I am not an expert on Hitler or the war.
Hitler had an entire nation wrapped around his finger, I would call that quite hypnotic. And Putin has been in charge of Russia for decades. You don’t survive as the head of Russia for that long if you’re not a clever political operator.
The whole Hypnotic trance trope is a way for ordinary Germans to absolve themselves of the crimes of Nazism. Your average German in the 30's and 40's supported the Nazi party.
How is this so upvoted? 'Ordinary Germans' who might be saying this now are not guilty of the crimes of Nazism. Given that, they wouldn't be saying it 'to absolve themselves'.
point is that of the Germans of back then weren't already very racist themselves, a highly charismatic speaker wouldn't have made a difference. yes Hitler was a skillful orator, but he didn't hypnotise Germans into doing what they didn't want to do.
They had great propaganda and at the time their was no access to news not from the government so it was hypnotic as they only knew what Hitler wanted them to know.
I am from Germany and I don’t think you understand what we mean when we say hypnotic trance. It’s not to absolve anyone of any guilt.
It is meant to describe the spirit of the time back then, how people were swept up by a wave of euphoria.
The deportations and concentration camp came much later during the regime. In the beginning it was industrial prosperity and everything got better after the first world war. Without the hindsight knowledge of what was about to happen and no historical reference point to see it coming, people were euphoric on how things were improving day by day.
This is what people mean when they say it was some sort of hypnotic trance. Hitler was a charismatic leader who gave a broken nation a beacon of hope.
It would only later turn out that this beacon of hope was fuelled by some of the most horrendous behaviour the world has ever seen.
That is when the trance fades away and everyone sobers up.
Exactly, Germans wore sore over losing WW1, suffering due to economic issues, and were more than happy to scapegoat others for their problems. This idea Hitler used some witchcraft to hypnotize that nation is ridiculous.
The whole “Putin is a political jedi” thing is over the top as well. Politics repression to hold power works pretty well. If you are willing to do anything and say anything you can last awhile. The Kim’s have been in control of Korea for generations at this point. There’s a pretty long list of dictators that have ruled for 30/40/50 years. Killing dissenters, controlling all information, and barraging your population with propaganda isn’t some sort of big brained moves here.
The same with Putin on the international stage. His skill? Having nukes. He can get away with a lot and nations are hesitant to do anything because of armageddon or the idea Putin is deposed and Russia falls into anarchy.
You know what’s hard? Running a democracy where people can call you out on your failures, voters can remove you from power, and people have a choice.
You do know that people aren’t being literal when they say hitler “hypnotized” Germany?
He was a skilled manipulator, he was indeed very charismatic and charming. These abilities gave him the ability to go from a relatively minor figure in a minor political party to an extremely powerful dictator. He told the Germans what they wanted to hear- that’s a very easy way to get people to follow you- especially when you appear to be successful at first.
He told them what they wanted to hear to gain their trust.
He pumped them full of propaganda.
Then he made their neighbors disappear.
He dragged the country into a war for survival. Many people probably felt that if they lost then they, and Germany, would die.
It’s easy to look back on it and judge the situation, but considering that this is an established pattern for dictators, I’d say that most people today are susceptible to being duped.
>You do know that people aren’t being literal when they say hitler “hypnotized” Germany?
No shit
>It’s easy to look back on it and judge the situation, but considering that this is an established pattern for dictators, I’d say that most people today are susceptible to being duped.
There was no duping. He wrote book where he stated his views and it was pretty thorough. From German expansion to his view of race and ethnicity.
His speeches were pretty clear as well. From speeches on the need to militarize and re-build the German empire in 1929 to him stating he was going to end democracy through the democratic process in 1930 while testifying. The foreign press ranged from mocking to serious but Hitler was obviously pretty clear about what he was going to do.
The NY Times on Hitler during his trial for Treason in 1930
>
There is an innocence almost childish about the detailed fashion in which \[Hitler\] set out to be blood-curdling. Almost one expected him to state the precise number of heads that would roll from the guillotine when the Fascists have taken over control of the German nation and inaugurated the day of reckoning
NY Times on Hitler in 1930 post trial
>To dismiss the Hitlerite rhetoric, for all its naïveté, as of no consequence would be wrong. Since 1914 no one will venture to say what dire mischief may not be let loose by infantile irresponsibility. It requires no great talent to get on the nerves of the nations in the new European order and particularly in the present economic discontent. Yet, humanly speaking, the net result of the 6,000,000 votes cast for the Hitlerite platform of dictatorship and war, the net result of that flamboyant speech at Leipzig, should be to bring together the parties and elements in Germany standing for sobriety and the existing political order. These were a majority in the Reichstag election and may be expected to show a more decisive majority if it ever comes to a show-down. Many Germans who registered their economic and social grievances by voting Fascist a fortnight ago will think twice before actually inviting civil war and the return of French troops to German soil.
The rest of what you wrote....sure. He told them as I mentioned that they didn't really lose the war, the Jews and others are to blame, and that he'd make Germany great again. I guess right wing voters are as gullible now as they were the. Brushing off his rise to his magnetism and charisma is ignoring they liked what he was telling him.
> clever political operator
Counter-point, our Romanian communist leader Ceauşescu was a bumbling illiterate cretin who also managed to rise to the top and keep an iron grip on the country for 20+ years and was also hailed as a genius in the west (before one of our secret police leaders defected to the west and let the world know what the truth was) and eventually he fucked up so hard that everything came down around him
Just like Putin, he was absolutely ruthless and managed to delegate most of his responsibilities to other much more intelligent people around him which allowed him to remain in power. I'm not saying Putin is nearly as dumb as Ceauşescu, but just listen to Putin talk in the Tucker Carlson interview and see how deluded he really is now that he has gone off script and all of the people who directed him to say reasonable things have either been arrested or killed.
Yeah, you are right that Putin is currently going off the deep end, or so it seems.
But I think we can forget that he didn’t just randomly rose to power. He didn’t come from money or fame.
I’m not saying he’s a genius or whatever. Every political leader needs people that they delegate to, finding, selecting and keeping smart people is also being smart. I argue that you cannot stay in power for that long in the country like Russia if you are not smart.
I’m not saying compassionate, nice, trustworthy, reliable or good. I’m saying smart.
I don’t like him, but he’s not dumb.
Putin isn't really the only criminal in Russia though. It's full of it at the top levels. To survive all of that and come out on top for so long is an accomplishment
All real candidates are dead or in prison. All others are just servants carefully selected. That’s why medvedev was chosen to be “intermediate president” for example(it was very hard to find more miserable person). When, for some reason, the servant becomes dangerous, he falls out the window, his plane crashes, a heart attack happens, etc. Khuilo has a long history of eliminating everyone whom he considers dangerous.
> You don’t have to be clever. You just have to be criminal ready to kill anyone who threatens your power. Nothing “too clever” here…
There would have been swathes of men willing to do exactly the same after the USSR fell.
> All real candidates are dead or in prison.
Because Putin out-competed them all, or kept them under his boot? You know, almost like he's *clever* at *politics* in Russia.
Farage is doing well in politics due to gaping holes Labour/Tory have left him, so the media has to try every dirty tactic to sabotage him faster than the former can sabotage themselves.
Doing well? “Reform UK” (See: UKIP) is doing worse than the *conservatives* even after 14 years of the tories shitting themselves. I wouldn’t call that doing well.
If you’re talking about making money from politics, yes he is doing well.
Reform is 5 years old and some polls already have them above the Tories.
They are doing remarkably well considering almost all of their candidates are a bunch of nobodies.
And Reform is not UKIP, Farage left them years ago and they are still doing thier own thing.
I can’t stand Farage and believe him, like Trump and others, a dangerous far right virus but his comments, in isolation, are strictly true. That’s the danger with him and others, some of what they say seems to be reasonable and lures people into a false sense of comfort. They are however knowing of this using it to mask their true intentions which are far removed from reasonable.
Populists are often very good at diagnosing problems, and their advantage is that they're often willing to point things out that others, for political or practical reasons, don't want to address.
So they come off looking reasonable.
Then their proposed solution is to beat your wife. Not theirs; *yours*.
Populism fails at the solutions stage.
It’s their specific sleazy way of communication and cheap rhetorical trickery. It’s like someone says:
— People recommend everybody to get a vaccine, but when I look at the rising rate of heart diseases, it makes me terrified
— WTF, do you have any solid proof those are in any way connected?
— I NEVER CLAIMED THIS! HIGHLIGHT EXACTLY WHERE I CLAIMED THIS, YOU LIAR!
They just mention things together, they imply, they hint, and make you — the reader/listener — make the connection. And then they pretend they never said it. It’s like a special, con man way of talking, you need to learn to do it.
Putin has a phd in economics and politics and got to the top of the KGB before taking power in Russia, love him or hate him no fool could do that.
Hitler was such a great speaker that he tricked millions of people into believing his lies and led millions to their death waging a war against innocent Jews . If he was a bad orator he wouldn’t have been able to do this.
Putin was never a top KGB official through. He was an agent in Germany and later toward the end of USSR as Soviet influence over Europe started to collapse and paranoia was widespread, he was pushed to the side and got stuck with desk duties until the end.
When Soviet Union collapsed, he got involved with local politics until he managed to find his way into Yeltsin's inner circle, which pretty much put his career on a sudden upward trajectory, and the rest is history.
I urge everyone to listen to one full speech of Hitler to understand how it happened.
The usual screaming sound bites we get all the time were usually the crescendo of a much larger orchestrated performance
Nothing wrong with that Hitler was suposed to have been very charismatic and charming and Putin is suposed to be an astute politician. Just because someone recognises these qualities in a person doesn't mean they support their world views.
I really fucking hope this reality doesn't make me want the Conservative Party to continue to exist just so Reform UK doesn't become the biggest right-wing party in their country.
They have overtaken the conservatives in some polls the most known of which being a YouGov poll, i think you are in for quite a shock come election day mate
I think he's overselling him and "handling Syrian war" clearly wasn't "brilliant", but stating that russian dictator and german dictator could rile up the crowd is just observation of the factual
Nigel Farage says Ukraine invasion is result of EU and Nato provoking Putin
https://uk.news.yahoo.com/nigel-farage-says-ukraine-invasion-141002931.html
The Russian invasion of Ukraine happened because of Western provocation of Vladimir Putin, Nigel Farage has claimed.
The former Brexit Party and Ukip chief said on Thursday that the attack was a consequence of Nato and the EU trying to "poke the Russian bear with a stick".
He blamed the expansion of the Western military alliance and European Union for the current situation.
"A consequence of EU and Nato expansion, which came to a head in 2014. It made no sense to poke the Russian bear with a stick. These are dark days for Europe."
I mean, he's not wrong? The alternative, that millions of Germans voted for a non charismatic genocidal maniac just because they wanted to murder Jews is worse, isn't it?
Farage himself is an accomplished speaker and therefore dangerous.
So very clever, that he turned ru into a junior partner of cn, destroyed ru weapons exports and burned through half a century of military production in 2 years.
Truly of the the military leaders of all time.
If putin is as skilled as nigel says, how has the far weaker ukraine defied him for decades? For those unaware, he has tried to bend ukraine to his will long before this war. Putin is a pathetic loser and only pathetic losers will praise him.
Isn't it true, though? Hitler was hypnotic, just look at Nurnberg rallies. Putin is clever (some people tend to mix being good and being clever), after years of war he still finds ways to carry on.
I disagree, I think Farage is a very talented conman, unlike the other populist figures who just comes across as complete clowns (party lover Boris, fat orange moron Trump, that chainsaw guy in Argentina) etc.
> 'clever political operator'
Something that will never be said of Farage and his Brexit, for sure.
I hope he gets the self-awareness to realize that and stfu for once in his life.
So Brits had the Tories for decades, wrecked everything, secured Brexit and made everything worse and will now vote in Farage to make things better?
No hope for them at all.
Nope Keir stammer is going to win by a land slide, but the Tory's are bleeding votes to both labour and Reform.
Its got so bad that Farage's reform party might become the second largest UK party, ahead of the Tory's.
But they would be absolutely miles behind labour.
Farage was caught singing Nazi youth songs and a song about gassing Jews. He is a big fan of the nazis and hitler.
His party are in bed with Nazi groups who think the UK should be a dictatorship and they are funded by Russian money.
His admiration for hitler is because he wants to be him.
“You can recognise the fact that some people are good at what they do even if they have evil intent.” Seems reasonable, does anyone actually disagree with what he said?
[удалено]
Yeh also some people use that caveat as a device to make themselves sound reasonable when in fact they do actually admire those evil dictators. Iirc it was found out that UKIP got money from Russia, so I'd lean to this one in this case.
>Iirc it was found out that UKIP got money from Russia They were accused of it they were investigated and it was found to be untrue. [https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/sep/24/no-evidence-leave-eu-and-arron-banks-broke-law-says-agency-brexit](https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/sep/24/no-evidence-leave-eu-and-arron-banks-broke-law-says-agency-brexit)
Banks' dealings with Russia were deeply suspicious. Having read the book Kleptopia I feel there doesn't seem to any limit to what Russia's dirty money can achieve. https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/jun/09/arron-banks-russia-brexit-meeting
Dumber people can’t understand subtle undertones of admiration, hidden underneath an attempt to sound objective 🙂
[удалено]
I’m guessing a lot of these sudden downvotes are just the troll weirdos that were chased away from UK forums, useful idiots and professional trolls.
Most of people are morons unfortunately, this is why we don't live in technological utopia.
Pretty much on point here.
Wasn't Hitler warned about going to war with Russia? And Putin, the Ukranian invasion has to be one of the worst military operation since Afganistan.
Even with those blunders, Hitler still seduced millions and knocked at the very gates of Moscow, and Putin has kept an iron grip over Russia for 24 years. One does not achieve that being stupid.
Not exactly have to be super smart either. Just ruthless. Putin took all the measures it takes to kill whoever needs to be killed, steal what needs to be stolen, and keep everyone cowed to maintain his complete vertical stranglehold on power. One just needs to look up the last conference he had with the highest placed cats in his government before the full scale invasion of Ukraine to see how guys who wield tremendous power themselves within Russia acted like sheep before him. It's a completely fearful and abusive relationship.
No need to be stupid or smart, just evil and at the right place.
His invasion of Ukraine managed to destroy the illusion of Russia's armed forces and Putin's reputation of a strongman literally overnight.
His cheerleaders are still unconvinced. Just like with other arseholes and cunts, some people can’t help themselves becoming fanboys.
Initially yes. Lately it's not looking great for Ukraine. I hope I'm wrong.
It's been years since he invaded Ukraine. Putin expected to steamroll them in weeks.
Well, yeah, but Putin is smart. Egotistic and delusional, but he is intelligent. This was especially visible when he was younger. He knew exactly how to use his image and play on people's feelings to manipulate them. The "evil and at the right place" would be Stalin. The guy got in on the act and didn't have Lenin's charisma or vision. It's been said that Stalin's supporters didn't follow him because they believed in him, but out of fear or for profit.
> Wasn't Hitler warned about going to war with Russia? By who? The german high command was pretty onboard with operation Barbarossa, except for the logistics guys, but who cares about what they say?
The Soviets lost 26,000 soldiers at most in nine years in Afghanistan. The Russians have lost at least 70,000 soldiers in two year in Ukraine. It's probably their worst loss since the Second World War.
Both germany and rhe western allies and us and poland thought the soviwts were super weak and would crumble, especially after their costly success in finland.
If it was a regular war they absolutely would have crumbled. But when you know surrender means extermination you keep fighting.
It also helped that they got incredible amount of materiel from the US, they kever would have won otherwise
They did crumble, if you consider Russia in isolation. Lend lease from (mostly) the USA and sacrificing human lives, as if they were meat, is what kept Russia from defeat. To be clear, without the allies help, Russia would have fallen hard, they were even supplied with food because they couldn't feed their own population.
And weak they were. Soviet Union would have surely crumbled without the absolutely massive American support. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lend-Lease >In total, the U.S. deliveries to the USSR through Lend-Lease amounted to $11 billion in materials (equivalent to $148 billion in 2023): over 400,000 jeeps and trucks; 12,000 armored vehicles (including 7,000 tanks, about 1,386 of which were M3 Lees and 4,102 M4 Shermans); 11,400 aircraft (of which 4,719 were Bell P-39 Airacobras, 3,414 were Douglas A-20 Havocs and 2,397 were Bell P-63 Kingcobras) and 1.75 million tons of food. >Roughly 17.5 million tons of military equipment, vehicles, industrial supplies, and food were shipped from the Western Hemisphere to the USSR, 94% coming from the US. For comparison, a total of 22 million tons landed in Europe to supply American forces from January 1942 to May 1945. It has been estimated that American deliveries to the USSR through the Persian Corridor alone were sufficient, by US Army standards, to maintain sixty combat divisions in the line.
The invasion was actually a wild success at the beginning. Stalin was caught completely unprepared. He expected an invasion but later, not then, while Germany was still engaged on the western front.
You might think so, but after 4 months, before even the battle of moscow, the high command considered it a failure and feared that they would now get into an attritional 2 front war (especially with russia) which they would loose in the end. And exactly that happened.
There are actually „secret“ recordings of hitler in Finland pre war with Russia. He talks about the immense economic power of the Soviet Union to one of his trusted in private. How many tanks they can produce in a year etc. - They knew. They knew how strong the Soviets were. Had the Russian generals not tried mimicking Kutusow it might have even been over faster.
I’d go even further and say it is an incredibly important point to make. The likes of Stalin and Hitler are dangerous exactly because they are competent, and we should never underestimate people like that.
"Er is wieder da" is such a brilliant film for this very reason. A very charming hitler joking about jews and sending people to camps and recognizing peoples problems. In the end they understood he wasn't joking and was serious about everything "did I ever say otherwise?". Just like how he clearly laid out his plans in mein kampf, but people chose not to believe it. He never actually really hid his intentions but still people thought "he won't do that, he's charming". Seeing the "good" in hitler and with good I mean the hypnotic and charismatic qualities is important, because we tend to view him as evil incarnate, while he was a very charming guy, good public speaker and loved animals. But that's what's so important, true evil often doesn't come with little devil horns and a trident but comes with a charming face. That's what we should learn kids and what to look out for. Not "hitler bad boooo hitler" but the fact that just like the case with hitler true evil can have a charming face and can play with cute dogs and give a nice speech.
It’s especially ironic because the archetype of the evil, yet beautiful and charming manipulator is one of the oldest in Western tradition, literally going back as far as at least the Old Testament.
I thought that he was a socially awkward oddball that the political elite thought didn't have a chance at winning, much like Trump and DePheffel and then it was too late. Those three populists have much in common.
Honestly, Stalin was incompetent on many levels. Half of his power came from corruption and purging opponents. Pretty bad military leader too. Hitler was able to brainwash people with his speeches alone
I honestly don’t see how you can look at a guy who clawed his way to the top of one of the most bloodthirsty regimes in history by being more violent, manipulative, and ruthless than any of his opponents and conclude “lol how incompetent”.
Exactly because he managed to do this by being violent and ruthless, not because he was super skillful or smart. I'm not saying he was a tool, no, he was intelligent and manipulative. You can also see a similar ruling style to Genghis Khan, based on the principle of "divide and conquer," which is known to be an effective policy. But I don't think he can be placed on the same level of leadership "phenomenon" as someone like Hitler. Stalin came into power after Lenin's huge revolution and took advantage of the newly established tendencies. He couldn't sway people to his side if he had to do it on his own because he didn't possess the charisma or vision like Lenin or Hitler. Shortly after coming to power, Stalin shifted his approach, distancing himself from revolutionary ideology and focusing on building his own secure position. This meant that he couldn't rely heavily on ideological manipulation and true believers in the cause, like some other dictators. His paranoia and fear of losing power led him to initiate purges, resulting in him loosing most of the commanders and intellectuals. This had a detrimental effect on both the army and the economy, as the military relied on poorly educated personnel and lacked the necessary technology- and skilled people who could produce it. This led to him dancing between Hitler and the other countries, in search for allies and support. Stalin's cooperation with Hitler during the early stages of World War II somewhat bolstered the Soviet army, but it can be argued that the Soviet materials provided more significant support to Hitler's army, which ultimately backfired and bit Stalin in the ass when Hitler decided to attack USSR. Stalin also displayed megalomania, similar to what Putin demonstrates, underestimating his opponents and overestimating his own strength. He attacked Finland out of ego, and for many months, despite having a much larger army, achieved almost nothing, compared to the losses. Another example of "incompetence" is the late reaction and bad decisions when it comes to Operation Barbarossa. There was a theory that Stalin planned to attack first, but Hitler was just quicker, but this theory has practically no confirmation. From what we know, it seems Stalin was completely unprepared for a possible attack. To be precise, he was repeatedly warned about what was going to happen: by Churchill, which he obviously ignored, by his KGB agent in Berlin, which he considered disinformation, by a spy who provided him with the exact date of the attack - Stalin replied to him that he was a brat, and by his commanders who begged him to allow the troops to be moved to the border - he threatened them with execution. When Hitler attacked, Stalin was in complete shock and disappeared for two weeks hiding in his residence, and the only way for theUSSR to survive the attack was to sacrifice millions of civilians. Stalin ruled over an empire and maintained power for several decades, that's true. However, when thinking about competence, I think about great leadership skills, organizational abilities, and the ability to foresee and plan effectively in order to gain support from people. Stalin's rule was primarily based on terror, bribery, and intimidation. He also had an unlimited number of expendable individuals whose lives he did not value and whom he could throw into the "meat grinder".
Yeah, as much as farage is a cunt that's still a true statement. Hitler and Stalin were some of the greatest (most impactful) leaders in modern history, maybe all of world history. It's just that sometimes people forget that "great" does not in any way have to even hint at "good".
Recently one of his party's candidates said that Britain should have remained neutral with Hitler. Farage did not challenge that view in the slightest. His poll results aren't big enough to allow him to openly compliment Hitler yet.
I don't think "being good" at leading your country into barbarism and dead end is something that can be recognised as "clever" behaviour.
Who said he was good at leading a country? He was a very good rabble-rouser, he was good at staying in power. He was shit at actually running a country. EDIT: I don't understand why they picked that quote for the title, this part's far more troubling. > He said the attack was a consequence of Nato and the EU trying to “poke the Russian bear with a stick”.
You just assume the western democratic standard value that a leader must have is the good of the country as his goal. Putins personal goals might at times overlap with that slightly, because a stronger Russia under his control increases his personal power, but you assuming he has the longterm betterment of Russians lives as a goal is just that, an assumption. So if we just look at what he did, get hold of power over Russia and keeping it for two decades, it isn't unreasonable to say that he is at least somewhat competent at the game of politics. I don't think he is a good leader though.
[удалено]
Have you wasted your time on any of his speeches? He was appointed in presidential position when Elcin just plainly quit. And his first "elections" happened few months later. That had nothing to do with normal public politics, they decided everything behind curtains and russians just followed it.
It’s very clever, a weak populace can lead to a lovely lavish life for some. You mentioned the Kims down below and while the country is in an awful state, the Kims are living in an absolute dream. The Second Kim was able to watch whatever movies he wanted and even force directors to make films at his whims for instance. Saddam Hussein for a time had everything he wanted as well. Some people just use power not for the country’s betterment but for their own very personal benefits. It’s exceedingly clever and manipulation of people. It’s entirely morally wrong and unethical sure, but it’s clever
Many people love to fetishise dictators and sociopaths…in a way they see a version of themselves, or a version they would like to be 🙂
I am still waiting on the destruction of Russia, the western prophets foretold 2 years ago.
I’m still waiting on the Russian winter and crumbling of the west, that Russian apologists and useful idiots keep preaching nauseously.
Aren't we all. I'm sure most of the Russians are just waiting for inflation, smoking accidents and friends and family being shipped to Ukraine to end. But I guess Putin feeling very clever is what counts.
If Putin is a clever political operator then why is his country under massive sanctions?
Not a contradiction imo. I mean he's probably staying at a nice place, gets good food, and - what's probably most important for him - he's in power. So all of his interests within the Russian borders are covered. He doesn't care for those who suffer, and he disassembled the democratic system of his country well enough so that sanctions don't come to bite him. The population can't vote him out of office, and everyone near him is either too afraid of him or profiting from their situation so that theyre not interested in removing hin. He's basically untouchable.
Being a "clever political operator" doesn't tell me that he's good at benefitting his country, rather that he's good at manipulating the political sphere around him. Despite some travel restrictions, I really don't think he nor his family are living bad lives.
>Not a contradiction imo. I mean he's probably staying at a nice place, gets good food, and - what's probably most important for him - he's in power. If that is what makes a successful politician for Nigel Farage, the British should listen very well.
Because no one has perfect performance? What sort of standard for clever are we using? If Putin ISN'T a clever political operator, we need a fantastic story to explain how he has been in control of a nuclear-armed country of 144M people for the past 25 years.
[удалено]
The 2014 Russia-Ukraine war was never over, he could have just continued that by annexing the occupied Donetsk and Luhansk regions. In that case nobody in the West would have done anything.
He is a clever political operator in that he managed to consolidate power and stay on top in Russia for a long time. He isn't a very clever geopolitician, because he isn't a very smart person in general (just read his "historical works").
Because he runs a nuclear-posessing country of 140 million like his personal property? There are plenty of oligarchs that would like to take his place if they had a shot at it.
That literally did nothing to Russia's economy or society.
Or at least not to the people that matter to him.
Lol, if you believe that you're an idiot. They are digging a massive hole for themselves, a lot of the educated have left, a lot of young people have died, a lot more and severely injured and will need aid for the rest of their lives, a lot of criminals are let free, a lot of psychologically scarred people roam their streets. Their economy is propped up by numbers they give out, about as reliable as there treaties or telling the Western media they are idiots for believing Russia would invade Ukraine, 3 days before they did exactly that and a war time economy. Do you know what happens to a war time economy in the long run? Nobody is buying the products they produce, the state is using all of it, most of it explodes or is otherwise destroyed, there's no economic value being created. In the long run, they are destroying Russia and only two cities could have been called civilised before 2022, they will lag behind further and further in the coming decade. I recognise that you could argue relevance to sanctions, but I'm just pointing at the state of Russia and that it's insane to think they're doing good, they're not close to doing good.
RemindMe! 10 years
For a long time i thought poetin was clever but not anymore
I mean he's not wrong....about this.
r/selfawarewolves
>Seems reasonable, does anyone actually disagree with what he said? Reddit. Just mention Elon Musk.
His party has many neo-Nazis
Something something a broken clock something something twice a day
You can recognize the fact that some people can say sensible things even if they tend to spout nonsense.
I AM OUTRAGED I TELL YOU!
No. The problem here is that a neo-fascist is finding ways to compliment dictators as if it is merely relaying historical fact. Is he a history or political science teacher? Is he giving a lecture? No, he's a politician hamfisting some 'they weren't all bad' into a political discussion. I'm not a Brit, and Nigel my second most detested western politician (the other is orange). Edit: It's always reassuring to me when I'm reminded that Americans (who have suffered the social effects of underfunded and purposely mismanaged public school systems for decades) don't hold the monopoly on ignorance and downright obvious manipulation by propaganda posing as news media.
This is such a braindead take. You are so hateful, just blinded by it. He's not trying to complement Hitler. I can tell you're American. No one in Europe likes Hitler, even the far-right. It's a non-controversial topic.
Nigel Farage is in Europe and likes Hitler, so that’s one person? Pretty weird thing for you to say.
I'd love to hear what makes Nigel neo-fascist, wanting to control immigration does not make you neo-fascist.
Wasn't Hitler a massively incompetent chronic procrastinatior, who fostered a culture of infighting both in the party and the armed forces?
None of that is incompatible with being hypnotic
Thag doesn't contradict the fact the he was also very charismatic
How do the two things you mention contradict one another? Having your underlings at odds with one another is "authoritarianism 101". Any dictator that wishes to hold on to power must constantly ensure there is no political climate for a coup to take place Also, Hitler wasn't "lazy". Of all the things one could accuse him of, "being passive" isn't one of them
I don't think the two things I mentioned contradict each other. I just don't think Hitler is the genius people try to make him, I would argue that a lot of the success that the Germans had in the war, was despite Hitler not because of him. But please note I am not an expert on Hitler or the war.
Hitler had an entire nation wrapped around his finger, I would call that quite hypnotic. And Putin has been in charge of Russia for decades. You don’t survive as the head of Russia for that long if you’re not a clever political operator.
The whole Hypnotic trance trope is a way for ordinary Germans to absolve themselves of the crimes of Nazism. Your average German in the 30's and 40's supported the Nazi party.
Exactly, we blame Russians citizens for not standing up yet Germans in ww2 were hypnotized
Many of Hitler's speeches are video documented. You can listen to them yourself. It is utterly undeniable that he was a great public speaker.
How is this so upvoted? 'Ordinary Germans' who might be saying this now are not guilty of the crimes of Nazism. Given that, they wouldn't be saying it 'to absolve themselves'.
He's not talking about modern Germans but the German people in the time of nazism. Hypnotic implies that they didn't know what they were following.
“Hypnotic” is also a figure of speech (i.e. not meant to be taken literally) for a highly charismatic entity.
point is that of the Germans of back then weren't already very racist themselves, a highly charismatic speaker wouldn't have made a difference. yes Hitler was a skillful orator, but he didn't hypnotise Germans into doing what they didn't want to do.
They had great propaganda and at the time their was no access to news not from the government so it was hypnotic as they only knew what Hitler wanted them to know.
Once the autocrat takes power and the oppression starts most people start to "support".
I am from Germany and I don’t think you understand what we mean when we say hypnotic trance. It’s not to absolve anyone of any guilt. It is meant to describe the spirit of the time back then, how people were swept up by a wave of euphoria. The deportations and concentration camp came much later during the regime. In the beginning it was industrial prosperity and everything got better after the first world war. Without the hindsight knowledge of what was about to happen and no historical reference point to see it coming, people were euphoric on how things were improving day by day. This is what people mean when they say it was some sort of hypnotic trance. Hitler was a charismatic leader who gave a broken nation a beacon of hope. It would only later turn out that this beacon of hope was fuelled by some of the most horrendous behaviour the world has ever seen. That is when the trance fades away and everyone sobers up.
Exactly, Germans wore sore over losing WW1, suffering due to economic issues, and were more than happy to scapegoat others for their problems. This idea Hitler used some witchcraft to hypnotize that nation is ridiculous. The whole “Putin is a political jedi” thing is over the top as well. Politics repression to hold power works pretty well. If you are willing to do anything and say anything you can last awhile. The Kim’s have been in control of Korea for generations at this point. There’s a pretty long list of dictators that have ruled for 30/40/50 years. Killing dissenters, controlling all information, and barraging your population with propaganda isn’t some sort of big brained moves here. The same with Putin on the international stage. His skill? Having nukes. He can get away with a lot and nations are hesitant to do anything because of armageddon or the idea Putin is deposed and Russia falls into anarchy. You know what’s hard? Running a democracy where people can call you out on your failures, voters can remove you from power, and people have a choice.
You do know that people aren’t being literal when they say hitler “hypnotized” Germany? He was a skilled manipulator, he was indeed very charismatic and charming. These abilities gave him the ability to go from a relatively minor figure in a minor political party to an extremely powerful dictator. He told the Germans what they wanted to hear- that’s a very easy way to get people to follow you- especially when you appear to be successful at first. He told them what they wanted to hear to gain their trust. He pumped them full of propaganda. Then he made their neighbors disappear. He dragged the country into a war for survival. Many people probably felt that if they lost then they, and Germany, would die. It’s easy to look back on it and judge the situation, but considering that this is an established pattern for dictators, I’d say that most people today are susceptible to being duped.
>You do know that people aren’t being literal when they say hitler “hypnotized” Germany? No shit >It’s easy to look back on it and judge the situation, but considering that this is an established pattern for dictators, I’d say that most people today are susceptible to being duped. There was no duping. He wrote book where he stated his views and it was pretty thorough. From German expansion to his view of race and ethnicity. His speeches were pretty clear as well. From speeches on the need to militarize and re-build the German empire in 1929 to him stating he was going to end democracy through the democratic process in 1930 while testifying. The foreign press ranged from mocking to serious but Hitler was obviously pretty clear about what he was going to do. The NY Times on Hitler during his trial for Treason in 1930 > There is an innocence almost childish about the detailed fashion in which \[Hitler\] set out to be blood-curdling. Almost one expected him to state the precise number of heads that would roll from the guillotine when the Fascists have taken over control of the German nation and inaugurated the day of reckoning NY Times on Hitler in 1930 post trial >To dismiss the Hitlerite rhetoric, for all its naïveté, as of no consequence would be wrong. Since 1914 no one will venture to say what dire mischief may not be let loose by infantile irresponsibility. It requires no great talent to get on the nerves of the nations in the new European order and particularly in the present economic discontent. Yet, humanly speaking, the net result of the 6,000,000 votes cast for the Hitlerite platform of dictatorship and war, the net result of that flamboyant speech at Leipzig, should be to bring together the parties and elements in Germany standing for sobriety and the existing political order. These were a majority in the Reichstag election and may be expected to show a more decisive majority if it ever comes to a show-down. Many Germans who registered their economic and social grievances by voting Fascist a fortnight ago will think twice before actually inviting civil war and the return of French troops to German soil. The rest of what you wrote....sure. He told them as I mentioned that they didn't really lose the war, the Jews and others are to blame, and that he'd make Germany great again. I guess right wing voters are as gullible now as they were the. Brushing off his rise to his magnetism and charisma is ignoring they liked what he was telling him.
> clever political operator Counter-point, our Romanian communist leader Ceauşescu was a bumbling illiterate cretin who also managed to rise to the top and keep an iron grip on the country for 20+ years and was also hailed as a genius in the west (before one of our secret police leaders defected to the west and let the world know what the truth was) and eventually he fucked up so hard that everything came down around him Just like Putin, he was absolutely ruthless and managed to delegate most of his responsibilities to other much more intelligent people around him which allowed him to remain in power. I'm not saying Putin is nearly as dumb as Ceauşescu, but just listen to Putin talk in the Tucker Carlson interview and see how deluded he really is now that he has gone off script and all of the people who directed him to say reasonable things have either been arrested or killed.
Yeah, you are right that Putin is currently going off the deep end, or so it seems. But I think we can forget that he didn’t just randomly rose to power. He didn’t come from money or fame. I’m not saying he’s a genius or whatever. Every political leader needs people that they delegate to, finding, selecting and keeping smart people is also being smart. I argue that you cannot stay in power for that long in the country like Russia if you are not smart. I’m not saying compassionate, nice, trustworthy, reliable or good. I’m saying smart. I don’t like him, but he’s not dumb.
clever political operator. - i.e. Totalitarian bastard bastard.
I am not saying he’s nice, I’m saying he’s surviving. And you don’t survive if you’re dumb.
You don’t have to be clever. You just have to be criminal ready to kill anyone who threatens your power. Nothing “too clever” here…
Putin isn't really the only criminal in Russia though. It's full of it at the top levels. To survive all of that and come out on top for so long is an accomplishment
I love how you think that he has a country of loyal followers with no one being next in line for the throne.
All real candidates are dead or in prison. All others are just servants carefully selected. That’s why medvedev was chosen to be “intermediate president” for example(it was very hard to find more miserable person). When, for some reason, the servant becomes dangerous, he falls out the window, his plane crashes, a heart attack happens, etc. Khuilo has a long history of eliminating everyone whom he considers dangerous.
> You don’t have to be clever. You just have to be criminal ready to kill anyone who threatens your power. Nothing “too clever” here… There would have been swathes of men willing to do exactly the same after the USSR fell. > All real candidates are dead or in prison. Because Putin out-competed them all, or kept them under his boot? You know, almost like he's *clever* at *politics* in Russia.
Putin: "Kill the ambassador." Putin: "Kill the journalist." Putin: "Kill the mayor." Farage: "Wow, he looks soooo smart!"
It's not stupid if it works.
Nicholas ll was in charge of Russia for decades
So?
Sorry whats the outrage here?
Farage is doing well in politics due to gaping holes Labour/Tory have left him, so the media has to try every dirty tactic to sabotage him faster than the former can sabotage themselves.
Doing well? “Reform UK” (See: UKIP) is doing worse than the *conservatives* even after 14 years of the tories shitting themselves. I wouldn’t call that doing well. If you’re talking about making money from politics, yes he is doing well.
They literally just polled higher than the Conservatives. They are doing well. They're also aware that they won't win the GE
Reform is 5 years old and some polls already have them above the Tories. They are doing remarkably well considering almost all of their candidates are a bunch of nobodies. And Reform is not UKIP, Farage left them years ago and they are still doing thier own thing.
[удалено]
That someone posted an interview with this tool here again
Because it was said by someone this bubble hates
I mean. He is right. There are skilled and smart evil persons. If they were absolutely stupid they would have never gone that far.
[удалено]
Ironic statement coming from him
I can’t stand Farage and believe him, like Trump and others, a dangerous far right virus but his comments, in isolation, are strictly true. That’s the danger with him and others, some of what they say seems to be reasonable and lures people into a false sense of comfort. They are however knowing of this using it to mask their true intentions which are far removed from reasonable.
Populists are often very good at diagnosing problems, and their advantage is that they're often willing to point things out that others, for political or practical reasons, don't want to address. So they come off looking reasonable. Then their proposed solution is to beat your wife. Not theirs; *yours*. Populism fails at the solutions stage.
A few reasonable quotes of truth is usually the Trojan horse for their true intentions.
It’s their specific sleazy way of communication and cheap rhetorical trickery. It’s like someone says: — People recommend everybody to get a vaccine, but when I look at the rising rate of heart diseases, it makes me terrified — WTF, do you have any solid proof those are in any way connected? — I NEVER CLAIMED THIS! HIGHLIGHT EXACTLY WHERE I CLAIMED THIS, YOU LIAR! They just mention things together, they imply, they hint, and make you — the reader/listener — make the connection. And then they pretend they never said it. It’s like a special, con man way of talking, you need to learn to do it.
A lie with a sprinkle of truth is the darkest of all lies.
Half-truth half-lie, if some one points out the lie you bring the truth as a shield. Propaganda 101.
Well said.
What's wrong with that? It's true.
Putin has a phd in economics and politics and got to the top of the KGB before taking power in Russia, love him or hate him no fool could do that. Hitler was such a great speaker that he tricked millions of people into believing his lies and led millions to their death waging a war against innocent Jews . If he was a bad orator he wouldn’t have been able to do this.
Putin was never a top KGB official through. He was an agent in Germany and later toward the end of USSR as Soviet influence over Europe started to collapse and paranoia was widespread, he was pushed to the side and got stuck with desk duties until the end. When Soviet Union collapsed, he got involved with local politics until he managed to find his way into Yeltsin's inner circle, which pretty much put his career on a sudden upward trajectory, and the rest is history.
I urge everyone to listen to one full speech of Hitler to understand how it happened. The usual screaming sound bites we get all the time were usually the crescendo of a much larger orchestrated performance
I'm not fluent in German and the speeches are chilling. You can feel the cadence.
Nothing wrong with that Hitler was suposed to have been very charismatic and charming and Putin is suposed to be an astute politician. Just because someone recognises these qualities in a person doesn't mean they support their world views.
And yet, he does.
I can understand the Brits being tired of the Conservatives. I cannot understand them thinking Nigel Fuckface is a preferable alternative.
We don’t, Reform UK is doing worse than the conservatives in the polls lol. Reform UK voters are a very loud and irritating minority.
I really fucking hope this reality doesn't make me want the Conservative Party to continue to exist just so Reform UK doesn't become the biggest right-wing party in their country.
Reform UK overtook the tories in a poll yesterday
They have overtaken the conservatives in some polls the most known of which being a YouGov poll, i think you are in for quite a shock come election day mate
We don't like Nigel farage, it's just a small minority who happens to shout so loud it looks like we all support him. Nigel farage is a twat.
I think he's overselling him and "handling Syrian war" clearly wasn't "brilliant", but stating that russian dictator and german dictator could rile up the crowd is just observation of the factual
Farage is a kremlin stooge, they funded his Brexit crusade. He is a traitor and a grifter who should be in prison.
Nigel Farage says Ukraine invasion is result of EU and Nato provoking Putin https://uk.news.yahoo.com/nigel-farage-says-ukraine-invasion-141002931.html The Russian invasion of Ukraine happened because of Western provocation of Vladimir Putin, Nigel Farage has claimed. The former Brexit Party and Ukip chief said on Thursday that the attack was a consequence of Nato and the EU trying to "poke the Russian bear with a stick". He blamed the expansion of the Western military alliance and European Union for the current situation. "A consequence of EU and Nato expansion, which came to a head in 2014. It made no sense to poke the Russian bear with a stick. These are dark days for Europe."
And I say Farange was, and still is, a putinist agent.
It has been 0 days since a far right payroll agent for Russia has praised Putin or Hitler
Aah yes Putin's Puppet earning his paycheck I see.
Just like his very clever 3 day invasion.
there is no question Hitler was evil personified. Theres also no question, sadly, that he was a very good public speaker.
I mean, he's not wrong? The alternative, that millions of Germans voted for a non charismatic genocidal maniac just because they wanted to murder Jews is worse, isn't it? Farage himself is an accomplished speaker and therefore dangerous.
As much as I hate him, this isn't a news story.
Anyone who disagrees please let us know how putin is lasting this long against the entire West on dumb luck.
his 2 biggest idols. i hope britain gets some sense and doesnt vote for this guy
I have socks with higher IQ than him.
At least we now know who you admire, that's something.
And farage is a ‘knob’
At the end of the Day ,Countries get the Politicians they deserve !
Weird fan fiction, but ok.
This guy has nothing to do with Europe, please don't post about him here.
So very clever, that he turned ru into a junior partner of cn, destroyed ru weapons exports and burned through half a century of military production in 2 years. Truly of the the military leaders of all time.
If putin is as skilled as nigel says, how has the far weaker ukraine defied him for decades? For those unaware, he has tried to bend ukraine to his will long before this war. Putin is a pathetic loser and only pathetic losers will praise him.
He can’t get away with a more sympathetic Nazi statement to dog whistle so he chose something people can interpret as they please.
Sounds like someone has a mancrush on vile and evil men.
Takes one to know one
True words
Both true, and I have never heard anyone disagree.
I mean, he's right
Isn't it true, though? Hitler was hypnotic, just look at Nurnberg rallies. Putin is clever (some people tend to mix being good and being clever), after years of war he still finds ways to carry on.
r/nottheonion
And I bet he would love to surpass both of them
Isn't this the same cock that applied for a German passport after promoting brexit for years?
I think it was Belgian, his wife is from there.
The real question is why anyone ever listened to Farage, because he is neither.
I disagree, I think Farage is a very talented conman, unlike the other populist figures who just comes across as complete clowns (party lover Boris, fat orange moron Trump, that chainsaw guy in Argentina) etc.
Oh yes, he's 100% conman. Only thinking about himself. Now he's going full right-wing populism.
Farage has been a cunt since leaving the EU...
Before as well. Collected plenty of money for barely showing up.
I would argue clever people don't need to rig systems to work in their favor.
> 'clever political operator' Something that will never be said of Farage and his Brexit, for sure. I hope he gets the self-awareness to realize that and stfu for once in his life.
Farage wanted Brexit, and he got it by being a clever political operator. Doesn't mean Brexit was a good idea
You're right... It's just hard to acknowledge cunningness when the bigger picture cries stupidity.
pot calling the kettle black
Farage has said and done all sorts of wild stuff. Coming from him, those are basically mild and nuanced points.
Even a stopped clock and all that.
So Brits had the Tories for decades, wrecked everything, secured Brexit and made everything worse and will now vote in Farage to make things better? No hope for them at all.
Nope Keir stammer is going to win by a land slide, but the Tory's are bleeding votes to both labour and Reform. Its got so bad that Farage's reform party might become the second largest UK party, ahead of the Tory's. But they would be absolutely miles behind labour.
Farage was caught singing Nazi youth songs and a song about gassing Jews. He is a big fan of the nazis and hitler. His party are in bed with Nazi groups who think the UK should be a dictatorship and they are funded by Russian money. His admiration for hitler is because he wants to be him.