Snapshot of _Nigel Farage praised by Russian state media over Ukraine war comments_ :
An archived version can be found [here](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://inews.co.uk/news/politics/nigel-farage-praised-russian-state-media-ukraine-3127555) or [here.](https://archive.ph/?run=1&url=https://inews.co.uk/news/politics/nigel-farage-praised-russian-state-media-ukraine-3127555)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I'm so sick and tired of the "he tells it like it is" attitude with Farage.
He quite literally tells the opposite of "like it is". He could not be further from "like it is". He just tells you what he knows you want to hear and makes you feel validated in the fact that you feel uncomfortable around non-white people.
Farage is a confidence trickster, his rhetoric is delivered with such confidence and zeal that it persuades many to believe him.
He's a truly dangerous operator, especially given where his loyalties appear to lie.
Serial liars quickly evolve the ability to be good speakers.
Someone concerned with truth, and navigating complexity, will tend to be more hesitant in how they speak about subjects. A liar, in contrast, will just bulldoze ahead.
He's a confidence trickster with a dog whistle that he knows how to use. "He tells it like it is" is code for "I think he'd stick it to people I am prejudiced against". He's very good at speaking in ways that appeal to people's baser emotions.
People are gullible idiots. He made it to 3rd place on I'm a Celeb. He made my skin crawl more from just watching him than the insects would. Nothing about him felt sincere on the show (a lot like his politics), but occasionally his mask would slip and you'd get a real good look at his cold, barely beating heart.
Absolute slimeball.
What i hate is how much the right has weaponised Godwin's law to the point that they go "hurr durr Godwin's law" when you do any kind of comparison to the nazis.
You don't have to believe current day politicians are about to commit the holocaust, to be able to use the nazis as a cautionary tale about populist right tactics and how they are trying to lead you down the wrong path.
The nazis didn't win the 1933 election with a manifesto that said they were literally going to commit genocide. It was a 25 point "program", that largely proposed stuff that wasn't really that controversial aside from suggesting shutting immigration and tightening the rules of German citizenship and voting. It was very much a "telling people what they want to hear and make them feel validated in the fact that you feel uncinfortable around non-German people" manifesto.
It was a manifesto filled with implausible promises and an incredibly anti-immigration but that were ultimately popular with the German people.
It's obvious comparisons can be made with modern populist right groups. And it's frustrating that making the comparison is so taboo that it isn't possible to properly discuss how "we've literally done this game before, for the love of God they're taking you for a dangerous ride".
This is it, it’s the same with Trump, the supporters like them because they feel it gives them licenses to be bigots.
Far more people than we would admit work on “I feel, so is”, they just look for somebody who validates what they feel, even if it isn’t reality.
They feel migrants are ruining the country, so to they look for that view to be validated and in doing so ignore the structural inequality, lack of building, regional inequality and wealth hoarding that would be causing the same problems in a nation with zero migration.
But they feel that migration is the problem, they feel, so is.
Migration is *a* problem for the nation, but not *the*problem. If Labour does not deal with this problem, they leave more room for parasitic gargoyles like Farage to exist.
> Migration is a problem for the nation, but not theproblem.
It's more complicated than this even.
You are corect, it is a problem, you are also correct that it's not THE problem.
To complicate matters, it's also actually been being used by the Tories as a temporary 'sticking plaster' short term "quick-fix" solution to a bunch of our other problems
However where things get even stickier, is that some people have been convinced that not only is it THE problem, it's also responsible for other stuff that in reality it isn't.
Where it really gets nasty is if we stop it tomorrow, all of the underlying issues that need long term, hard work solutions will suddenly be big problems for us. Whilst only actually 'fixing' the problem of some people not liking the foreigns, and slowing the increasing pressure on the housing market (but definitely not fixing the housing issue, which is actually caused by a lack of building new houses).
This is what worries me, I dont see Starmer taking a strong position on this (or anything), and he must, otherwise Farage is going to hoover up the right vote for the 2029 election. When you add Tory+Reform even now, Labour only has a small lead. Thats easily eroded by an emboldened Farage.
"A" problem , surely plays it down?
On current figures the UK imports a population the size of the city of Glasgow, every year.
There is no sign of this reducing in the future.
There is every sign, from world events and population growth, that figure will increase.
That means 75 more "Glasgows " by the end of the century.
Complacency seems to be misplaced.
I meant that migration is a factor in the country's problems, but is not the singular source of all our woes. The present rate of migration is destructive to our social fabric, and must not be tolerated. Migrants, however, are not the sole source of all problems.
Has anyone said that they are?
Problem is that your last line is used by so many to imply that massive inward migation causes no problems.
Foolish yes, difficult to understand what drives that pretence.
A part of me wonders if a change in government and them perhaps de-emphasising it may take it out of the public consciousness to some extent.
Most people don’t live in areas that would see high migration, the west coast or people living in the north are less likely to see migrants.
I hate to say it but most of the things that the public get angry about are just the things they can see right now. If it’s not put in their faces all the time I’m not sure how much people would notice migration outside of the south east.
I beg to differ. Migration is not a problem. Seriously. Every migrant either spends a sh¡tload of money here, or works for us, making us money. They have to travel, to eat, to wear clothes, to live somewhere. All that means money that flows from them to us.
Skilled migrants? Do valuable jobs.
Unskilled migrants? Work for you, for low pay.
We win, every time.
But what about housing, schools, benefits, the NHS? Your problem accessing those services is because of UNDERINVESTMENT, not migrants. Migrants just make us richer. It's public spending cuts that wreck the nation.
>Skilled migrants? Do valuable jobs.
>Unskilled migrants? Work for you, for low pay.
Both of these factors allow companies and the government to keep wages not just low, but actually shrinking as the migrants that come here are usually more willing to take lower wages and 9/10 times a company will hire the lower paid worker
Quite. "Saying something controversial" and "telling it like it is" aren't the same. His appeal to some seems more to centre around the idea that he says things which they'd like to say, but feel unable to say anymore.
I think a lot of people would be surprised at how self involved most people's voting decisions are. They don't care about Putin, Ukraine, Israel or Palestine. They just want to pay less money out, get more money in and make sure the value of their property doesn't start going down instead of up.
Even when they claim to care about something other than themselves, they will happily drop it if caring about that thing is stopping them from getting something they think they deserve.
> I think a lot of people would be surprised at how self involved most people's voting decisions are. They don't care about Putin, Ukraine, Israel or Palestine. They just want to pay less money out, get more money in and make sure the value of their property doesn't start going down instead of up.
The problem isn't specifically what's happening Putin/Ukrain, but what Farage stance and the comments being made say about him, and his reliability/trustworthyness.
If you elect a grifting liar who is known to be a grifting liar, endorsed by a warmongering dictator, on a platform of economically debunked fantasy policies, then you don't really get the right to pretend you didn't know he wasn't going to do the stuff you expected.
Same, members of my family were saying that he's right and that NATO/the EU antagonized Russia by expanding.
They also said that Putin just wants Russian speaking lands etc. and that he's "holding back".
One of them even said Farage is a grifter but they'll still vote for him because "all politicians are grifters."
Social media algorithms + smart phone curated news feeds + GB News + Right Wing Newspapers will probably do what Fox, social media and Sinclair Media did in the US: they'll push the Tories into becoming UK MAGA.
Oh yeah where have we heard the just wanting 'insert language here' reason before? That once they have x land, we will have peace and nothing more will come from it, just try appeasement once more right? RIGH?
> "all politicians are grifters."
Which is why the "They're all the same" narative really needs to stop, in all it's forms. Including the salty JC left groups that keep insisting that Labour is just "Red Tories".
They really aren't, and coming out unironically with ridiculous things like "They are further right on immigration than Reform" is just assinine and makes everyone aware that your political opinion should be, at best, taken with a grain of salt.
Fight fire with fire. Don't use rationality, use rhetorical tricks to trip them up.
If they say that Putin wants to "unite Russian speaking lands" then just say, "oh wow, so why are you even voting if you don't believe in democracy?". They'll say "huh?", and you reply "Well, in 1991 Ukraine had a referendum to leave the Soviet Union and be their own independent country". If they are Brexit fans then add "Just like we did when we voted to leave the EU and be an independent country". Remember - doesn't matter if it isn't partly or wholly true, it just has to pluck their strings.
After all, if the UK can vote to leave the EU then Ukraine can vote to leave Russia, right?
And if they start talking on cultural terms just say (as smugly as you can), "Well, akshally, Kyiv is the home of the Russian speaking people, they should be in charge as they were the original power. Moscow should answer to Kyiv, not the other way around!".
Then move on to ask them how they can justify killing children to achieve political aims. Or more specifically "How many children do you think it is acceptable to kill, in order to force another country to bend to your will because you don't like what they are doing? A hundred? A thousand?".
You can't use rationality to lead someone away from an opinion that they didn't use rationality to arrive at.
>oh wow, so why are you even voting if you don't believe in democracy?".
Tbf, one of them isn't because "they don't believe in government". They have gone full "government shouldn't exist and all taxation is theft". Basically US style "anarcho-capatalist", because they spend all their time in Qanon/similar groups on Facebook and Twitter. Although he did say he'd vote for Putin if he could...
Even when I brought up freedom of speech (which is in limited supply in Russia), because they always bang on about cancel culture, they just changed the subject.
>"Well, in 1991 Ukraine had a referendum to leave the Soviet Union and be their own independent country
Did bring that up, they said part of the agreement was that NATO/the EU wouldn't expand past Germany. They said "Putin/Russia upheld their side of the bargain by dissolving the Warsaw Pact" and that NATO should've been dissolved after the fall of the Soviet Union, and that if it had then Georgia/Ukraine wouldn't have happened.
Their argument was that Ukraine was meant to be independent and by aiming to join NATO/the EU they had broken that agreement. They also said the maidan revolution was led by the CIA and they'd seen videos of "US soldiers in balaclavas in 2014".
There's no arguing with them, I just got bored and said I'm not talking about this anymore. Not worth the effort when they spend so much time in bubbles online and I only speak to them every few months.
> Same, members of my family were saying that he’s right and that NATO/the EU antagonized Russia by expanding
What? You think he’s wrong in saying this? NATO expansion **has indeed** antagonised Russia. You don’t need to be a political expert to know that.
Not quite, the effect of historical events on the russian psyche have been profound
The UK has not been invaded for near 1000 years.
That makes a difference to how the populus think.
Not true. I watched the Russian media for years, and I can tell you for certain that the Russians weren’t neutral about NATO’s expansion.
You’d have to be a complete idiot to suggest that Russia was indifferent to the expansion of NATO.
My dad (elderly) genuinely compared him to jesus this week, made me do a bit of sick in my mouth
I don't care much for Jesus but I don't want him dead like Farage
Agreed, I think Labour know they don’t have to ‘win’ this election, they just have to wait and watch the Tories lose it.
14 years of misery left Labour with a massive majority without even having to do anything. Now they can afford to be coy, without any flagship policies or concrete plans for the core issues, because they can afford to lose 5% of voters
The problem as I see it is all of labour think they've already won so maybe they won't even bother to vote. Whereas all the Tory's think they can't possibly win so some of them might vote reform instead. So we could end up with a shock result if we're unlucky
It's time for Farage and the Reform/UKIP party members to come clean about why they are forever cosying up to the Russians.
Back during the pre-Brexit period, from 2015 onwards, major UKIP donor Arron Banks and his sidekick Andy Wigmore had multiple meetings with Russian officials at the Russian embassy in London.
Why did Banks need to meet them even once let alone so many times?
And now we have Farage making pathetic excuses for Putin's totally unnecessary war. None of this looks or sounds right, so what exactly is going on here, between these former UKIPers and the Putin regime?
It's high time that Farage and his team came clean on this issue.
Nonsense. I can PCP a brand new BMW i4 M Sport for 4 years for about £33k, give it back at the end of the term. Ownership is for plebs - you need to start thinking like a Tory MP.
That’s a good deal nowadays, I looked at an i4 Sport (not even M Sport) and even if you go poverty spec (no options and base grey colour) it worked out 39k with 10% deposit over 4 years. Was roughly 800 a month.
Dang interest rates.
They are cosying up to the Russians because the Russian are probably funding them indirectly (and other European right wing/antiestablishment parties). The Russians want to the UK and the EU to breakup for their own geopolitical purposes and dividing nations is a good way to do that.
See also SNP/Independence referendum, Brexit (the Russia report was hushed up because it would’ve delegitimised the result), Johnson being cosy with Lebedev (although that didn’t workout for Russia because Johnson was good on Ukraine), Trump, Le Penn, etc
Johnson was only on the right side on Ukraine because he saw the chance to do his Churchill cosplay. I firmly believe if UK public opinion was slanted the other way and Johnson saw the opportunity to get something out of it he would have done the complete opposite and gone for maximum appeasement.
it really doesnt matter, thats the outcome the world needed. Jeremy Corbyn was constant in his beliefs and would have done the wrong thing because of his tendency towards pacifism . From the point of view of Ukraine it was better we had the liar narcissist who made the right call than the consistent campaigner who would have made the wrong call.
Thank god both of them are consigned to history now.
Agreed, I voted for Corbyn, but he would have been one of the worst people possible to have leading the country when Russia invaded the rest of Ukraine. Boris, for all his many faults did the right thing on that one.
Too right.
When we voted to leave the EU, Farage and his cronies would have been out celebrating.
But on that same night, some 1,500 miles to the east, Vladimir Putin and his team would also have been cheering to the rafters.
When you tihink about it, it's extraordinary just how well the Farage agenda meshes with the Putin agenda.
People just aren't aware enough of the US's involvement in pushing brexit, although strong allies the US and EU are economic rivals and with us out it weakened them in a big way, as well as us.
Yeah fair, although I'm certain the Us gov would have been well aware and individuals will have had conversations about it, unofficially giving it the green light I mean.
Exactly. The Brexit brigade was constantly bemoaning the fact that the UK was a net contributor to the EU. However, the flip side is that the UK was investing in the rapid economic development of many former soviet states who, in time, would come to serve as huge economic trading partners and strong allies in the event of any future conflict with Russia.
I missed that aspect of European membership so makes even more sense why Putin is so opposed to EU unity which why he’s been funding the likes of UKIP and Reform.
Johnson's switch on Ukraine has me baffled to this day. I am certain he was under Russian influence, but what was the game here? I actually wonder if they were using Johnson to learn of the whereabouts of Zelensky, with those high profile meet and greets. Things were definitely not as straightforward as Johnson doing the right thing.
we already know the answer. they're fickle traitors who would sell their nation's interests for money. if farage gets in I absolutely guarantee he will be shouting in the commons about how we should be buying cheap Russian gas.
If Kier Starmer has any sense he'll do another investigation into Russian influence early on. We've underestimated Russia for a very long time in my opinion and we need to have a pretty thorough look at which of our pies the Kremlin has a finger in.
So….McCarthyism.
It’s getting a bit tired now.
There has been zero evidence regarding a Russian state relationship with Trump, the Scottish Independence movement, Brexit, or Reform. Absolutely nothing.
It’s politically motivated hysteria.
Boris Johnson lead the charge against the Russian invasion of Ukraine. He still remains passionate about it, and yet, half of you can’t work out if he’s also a secret Russian agent. It’s laughable.
Either you’re all unable to think critically and understand nuance, or it’s just deliberate disingenuous nonsense. It is awfully convenient it’s all directed at people you already disagree with isn’t it?
> There has been zero evidence regarding
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jul/21/russia-report-reveals-uk-government-failed-to-address-kremlin-interference-scottish-referendum-brexit
See no evil, hear no evil.
>Boris Johnson lead the charge against the Russian invasion of Ukraine. He still remains passionate about it
Sure, but the argument is that, since 2011, when the US/UK had good intelligence about Putin's expansionist ambitions, the Tories chased rubles and cozied up to Russians, rather than were conscious of geopolitical realities. They granted export licenses, opened up domestic markets to Russian oligarchs, and overlooked massive levels of money laundering. Their free market fundamentalism - trade will eradicate the need for all conflict! - made them naive, and less willing to take certain steps against Russia, steps that may have even made invasion less likely.
I’m already aware Russia uses so called bots on Twitter to stir up division.
Scottish Independence and Trump are both in Russia’s favour, it doesn’t mean they are directed by the Russian state.
The point still stands there has been zero evidence of any Russian money or connection to the SNP, to Trump, or to Reform.
The accusation is these are essentially Russian agents taking money from the Russian state. Zero evidence. It’s politically motivated hysteria, and you know full well it is. It absolutely is McCarthyism.
I find these conspiracy theories to be so strange. I've listened to Farage a lot over the years and he tends to be a) a nationalist b) a conservative, and c) a europhobe. His comments about Russia tick all of the boxes, but not becuase he's somehow 'cosying up the Russians'. Its a weird attack line. You can call him protectionist, a little englander, but a pro-russian? Its bullshit.
His entire career has been built around opposing the UK's strategic interests and wrapping it in a Union Jack,. He is on record saying he admires Putin, and this week he has repeated almost word for word the Russian propaganda line that the war is a result of NATO and EU expansion. He has made dozens of appearances on RT and Sputnik.
If he's *not* bought by the Kremlin, then he's doing an amazing job at pretending he is. He literally couldn't do a better job at being an instrument of the will of the Russian state if he tried, which in this case strongly suggests he *is* trying.
If you'd really like to pull further on that thread then let's do so. Within a month of that interview where he said he admires Putin as a political operator, he also:
* Expressed doubt that Russian-backed Syrian dictator Al Assad used chemical weapons in Ghouta (spoilers: Assad in fact did).
* Said that Russia had been provoked and that the EU had blood on its hands for trying to force Ukraine to choose between itself and Russia.
* Doubled down on his Putin comments, making the usual caveats: I said I don't like him, I wouldn't trust him and I wouldn't want to live in his country, but compared with the kids who run foreign policy in this country, I've more respect for him than our lot."
* Said that the EU was anti-democratic and that its leadership were "the worst people we have seen in Europe since 1945".
Note the stark contrast, the bluster with which he furiously condemns Western politicians and policy, but when it comes to Putin or Assad the nuance is suddenly dialled right up and, oh, we might not *like* them but ooh, we should give them a chance, and you have to admit they're very clever, and if they do something wrong, it's because we made them."
The man is scum; he is an enemy to this country and the West, a tool of Kremlin policy. I don't know what he has to do to prove that to people.
I agree. There's absolutely no evidence for Farage being pro-Russian. Absolutely none. Only a nutcase would suggest otherwise.
Like all those nutcases who think the Earth is round.
It's true! My real name is Symyen Symyenovich of the 3rd Guards Cyberwarfare Regiment of Russia and we are currently running disinformation efforts in your area!
I also infiltrated UK a few days ago pretending to be used shoe salesman, I get bonus payment to go to polls and rig your election for Comrade Farage, he is good friend of ours, yes yes.
The fact they both use the term 'western expansionism' which is a well used Russian propaganda term to describe countries that moved away from Russia and voluntarily joined a defence pact says it all. They both know exactly what the term means and it's used deliberately, under Order I presume.
After the Cold War the West should have pursued constructive dialogue with Russia about maintaining the neutrality of the former Soviet states to act as a buffer zone between NATO/EU and Russia. Instead as soon as the Berlin Wall fell and probably well before NATO and probably the EU started to agitate for eastward expansion despite being warned by geopolitical analysts that doing so would risk upsetting the stability of the region.
There is no issue with stability. Nato is a defensive alliance. People align with it and the EU because they see it as an advantage. An advantage against what? Against Russia's bullshit.
Don't be a despotic wanna-be empire, and people won't align themselves with each other against you.
NATO invaded Afghanistan it is incorrect to call it defensive.
Of course stability has been upset, there is now a war, because we didn’t pursue the path that I recommended.
It doesn’t matter how much countries want to join NATO/EU the implications need to be considered, in the same way that if we admitted Taiwan into NATO it would stir up a hornet’s nest.
Should Finland and Sweden not have been allowed to join NATO?
It seems to me that Russia wanted Crimea (at least) due to it being the only warm water port in the west for Russia.
Russia didn't respect Ukraine's sovereignty or the [Budapest Memorandum](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum);
Under the agreement the Russian Federation provided security assurances to Ukraine in the form of promising to neither attack nor threaten attack them. The other signatories (the United States, United Kingdom and France) pledged non-military support to Ukraine in exchange for its adherence to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons.
The west effectively attempted to appease Russia by not intervening when Russia invaded Ukraine's Crimea region in 2014, and Ukraine requested assistance when Russia continued their invasion under the guise of "demilitarisation" of Ukraine, which is pretty rich as Ukraine only increased their military due to being invaded by Russia.
Afghanistan harboured the group that destroyed the twin towers. That's as defensive as you can get. It wasn't a war of conquest, that's a Russian speciality.
Bin Laden was a CIA asset originally, 9/11 would probably never have happened if USA hadn’t poured money into training and arming extremist Afghans in the 1980s.
Nope. Bin Laden received no training, funding or support from the CIA. It was kind of the point of the foreign Arab Mujahideen, they were self funded with support from Saudi Arabia. Most of the ISI funding, who the CIA funneled their money through, went to Afghan Pashtun groups. Arab Mujahideen played a negligible role in fighting the Soviets and received no CIA funding, they were a primarily Saudi benefactor.
The Taliban were a post-Soviet occupation group, funded and organised solely by the Pakistanis well after US funding stopped. They had little to do with the previous Mujahideen and were a response to the disintegration between Mujahideen factions during the Afghan civil war.
This is why a knowledge of history is important to understanding modern conflicts.
After the cold war there should have been no need for neutral or buffer zones or whatever, we tried treating Russia as an equal opening up trade etc and they did the same, peace time conditions. There were no plans to invade Russia nor could anyone due to obvious reasons. Former Soviet countries felt they couldn't trust Russia not to invade at some point so joined nato to prevent this. The aim was to integrate our economies so that conflict could never be an option, obviously Russias actions since have proved this was a mistake. The 'nato expansion' they take about was simply sovereign countries close to Russia not trusting them that they wouldn't invade at some point an as Ukraine shows they were bang on with that prediction.
Galloway attacks from whatever side he truly believes in this hour.
The man’s possibly more of a crank than Farage, at least Farage is somewhat consistent in his bullshit.
They should just go round vox-popping Clacton and attribute some of the Putin-loving statements to Jeremy Corbyn and film their reaction.
Reality is, as with Brexit, people - often with nothing to be fair to them (either materially or in terms of time left) - will leverage anything and everything to get the thing they want it seems. Would be interested to hear what some of these Farage supporters *wouldn't* give up in return for no/minimal immigration.
Clacton is something like 98% white. There aren't any immigrants there. I mean, who the fuck would migrate to Clacton? Immigrants go to where the money is, or to where other immigrants are. Not to some failed shithole of a town.
Any chance of a western intelligence agency waking the fuck up?
It could be that Farage is a useful idiot, but surely he's too much of a grifter for that?
I'm surprised that Russian state media is praising Farage. Aren't they undermining Farage by reducing his electoral chances? And isn't Farage amplifying the effect by suing the Mail on Sunday?
Maybe this is all for Russian internal consumption and Putin isn't interested in promoting Farage any more now that brexit is done?
He reminds me of Mr Toad in The Wind in the Willows by Kenneth Graham. He dashes about boasting, making a lot of noise driving one of his large collection of cars . He spouts nonsense. He is a ridiculous man but unfortunately not very funny. Toot toot !
The more time Farage has in the spotlight the more utterly gormless and horrible he comes across.
I’d say that this is a negative for him, but the people who support him probably lap this drivel up.
Yeah but it doesn't help him get the votes he needs from Labour or the cons, the sort of voters who will see him siding with putin over the 'west' as totally unacceptable similar to Corbyn.
I know a lawyer who loves Farage; it was never about income. One thing I've noticed about him: he lacks curiosity about other people. Like, the whole world is a joke to him, and he just doesn't get the point of listening to different opinions (other than to argue against them) or having real friends.
He's just a clown, really. I don't want to assume what your life looks like but I find that Reform UK tends to appeal to people who are emotionally bored and think being noticed is a substitute for being cared about.
In case that sounds like you, I have to say life's much better when you're kind and curious. Try getting to know someone you don't relate to, it's a lot of fun.
Or don't. Hey, maybe Nigel Farage will make Brexit work like he keeps saying he would have if he were in charge.
>I agree with a lot of what he says.
What exactly do you agree with?
His seeking the endorsement of Enoch Powell, the racist guy who wanted to kick (and kill!) your Caribbean ancestors out of the UK?
Or his stance on immigration, which obfuscates that the population growth rate in this country (0.3 percent since the 1960s, 0.6 percent in recent years) is far below the global average (3.9 percent). ie - once you factor in deaths, and people leaving the UK, the UK is actually a low immigration country.
Or perhaps you love Farage's economic policies. Remember, Farage wants to take immigration down to zero, which implies that he's either an idiot, or that he's figured out a way to run capitalism - essentially a debt ponzi which requires a constant influx of immigrants to jack up production/consumption rates and so avoid collapse - without increasing immigration. He's implying that he's figured out a way to run the NHS, and reverse low birth rates, and maintain economic growth, and build houses (225,000 immigrants are in construction- they're building the homes!), and that he's personally solved all of capitalism's manifold contradictions and antagonisms, which far smarter economists have been wrestling with for centuries.
What a genius!
Meanwhile, in the real world, no far-right populist has ever done what Farage promises to do. Even Japan, the poster child for low immigration (it used to take in 80,000 to 100,000 a year), is now targeting 647,000 working-age immigrants per year (as a starting point!). And most countries which vote into power far-right anti immigration parties themselves tend to vote them out when the economic effects of low immigration begin to bite. Hungary, for example, which is rabidly anti immigration, has wages below the EU average, high youth unemployment, a demographic crisis, and inflation well above the EU average.
So these are structural issues which Farage's free market fundamentalism is incapable of addressing; he hates the symptoms of the system he loves.
Or perhaps you simply love Farage's plan to cut taxes for millionaires, which you hope to one day be. In which case, go for it. Farage has you covered.
Farage is a bigot who appeals to bigots. The black millennial with the six figure salary is right, i.e. bigotry is not confined to class/race/gender etc.. There are plenty across the board who will eat up his message.
I've read his manifesto and listened to his points.
I agree with a lot of what he says too and I hate Farage.
That's the whole problem with him. He only says those things because they are likeable. His manifesto/contract plan is laughable unworkable in reality. It makes Liz Truss seem like a sensible person with good, grounded ideas.
His manifesto is basically - "We support everything you like and we oppose everything you don't like!"
There's lots of wealthy backers that like him, like property tycoons. His manifesto favours people with money who believe the public services should be further cut or privatised. It's just that the uneducated Wetherspoons people believe the lie that Farage will help struggling people, as long as they aren't immigrants.
Ah .. the apologist of our day, Farage getting praised by dictator.
Read your history books people; Neville Chamberlain, Munich Agreement, Appeasement; down this road leads only to horror
It's good for their home narrative. I wouldn't jump so quickly to assume it's geared towards stirring shit here.
It's pretty weak in that regard anyway. At least compared to the stirring caused by Farage himself
Exactly, lol.
If Farage were actually a Russian stooge, the last thing Russia would do is stir the pot some more with a move like this.
He's clearly not, if you actually listen to what he's saying closely (and have a good understanding of the historical backdrop of the region...which almost nobody in the UK does, to be completely frank).
Are his takes good overall? Personally, I don't agree with them. But I don't see 'Russia simp' anywhere in what he says...because I've seen actual Russia simps talk, and the actual pro-Russia propaganda rhetoric is 500 miles apart.
Reform actually had a fairly good chance of getting a big vote share. Farage is an absolute idiot for this. Not just from a moral standpoint, but a political one as well
This feels like a forced narrative.
Farage said that Russia was deplorable for invading Ukraine.
He also said that NATO expansion past agreed lines gave Russia the appearance of legitimacy to other world powers about the invasion, which it has done.
I'm not sure how this is being managed go be spun into a false/Russian shill narrative but it makes me wonder who's profiting from that.
The leader of a British ‘political party’ stating he admires Vladimir Putin (an authoritarian kleptocrat) while feeding the narrative the Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has legitimacy (with the West bearing responsibility) and you find it difficult to understand how it could be spun or seen as shilling for Russia.
Baffling.
Not to be rude, can you provide proof of admiration?
Because the articles in question and his appearance on TV, he said the exact opposite. He specifically stated it lacked legitimacy, but that Putin could argue legitimacy.
The simple fact is that it does not excuse Russias invasion, but the World doesn't share NATO or the West's views or ideology. There is fairly widescale support in other major nations that NATO expansion in Eastern Europe is seen as provocative to Russia.
Western bias or blinkered opinioning =/= necessarily the universal opinion.
He quite literally said he admires Putin as a political operator for how he managed to take control of Russia.
If you Google the words "Farage admire" you will find plenty of news articles discussing it.
And personally him "admiring" someone for essentially being a dictator is just the teensiest bit concerning don't you think?
And you still seem to be completely missing the point. The idea that NATO "expanded" is literally a russian propaganda point. Simply him saying that is bad enough, no matter how much he qualifies it with negative things about Russia.
NATO did not "expand", because that paints an image like NATO was going round forcing countries to join. These nations asked to join NATO because they felt threatened by Russia, and framing it like it was the other way round is precisely what Russia wants.
Sorry but expansions =/= forced takeovers. Expansion means growth. NATO is now on Russias direct border.
Whether you want to take the view that a self governing country can join whatever alliance or economic group that it likes, which I agree with, there are going to be consequences. Hell there was talk early on into Putins reign that he wanted to join NATO but didn't want to go through the usual hoops beforehand.
The consequences being, whether you agree with them or not, that Russia will respond in certain ways if it feels itself "hemmed in". It wants buffers. NATO knows this, but went ahead either way.
It doesn't justify the war, but it does explain it.
I'm not saying that it's literally the same thing, but that Russia specifically uses that terminology to paint a specific picture of these countries joining NATO. And Farage repeating those arguments helps nobody but Putin.
>It doesn't justify the war, but it does explain it.
Again, this is russian propaganda. Putin has been very clear about his goals of reclaiming the lands of the historical Russian empire, because he believes they belong to Russia. It has absolutely nothing to do with some notion of being threatened, he would have done the exact same thing regardless of what NATO has done. In fact if anything he'd probably have done more because the Baltic states would not have had protection.
It very literally is, quite simply, the line that Russia uses to justify it's invasion. It does not explain it, because the actual reasons are clear. So again, Farage repeating those lies only legitimises Putin's propaganda, as evidenced by the fact that you're out here repeating and defending it.
Yeah, but no.
Russia has done the same thing for 1000 years. It expands westward to build buffers between it's biggest and most vital areas, which due to geographic pressures, are all in the West of the country.
The Tsars did it, the Communists did it and Putin does it. The Russians are a pretty paranoid people, probably because they keep getting invaded from the West, Nepolean, Nazis, etc. So they always want to have more and more land between them.
Is that Empire building? Perhaps, but less out of the usual reasons of empire building and more out of their own, relatively well founded paranoia of western invasions.
That's not propaganda, that's history. Again, it's not a justification for invading Ukraine, but it's an explanation.
It's impressive you're managing to acknowledge Russia's expansionism, but then still manage to miss that Russia is deliberately framing countries joining NATO (you know, so that they don't become one of these buffer states you mentioned) as the same thing as their previous history of being invaded.
*That's* the propaganda. And people repeating it as if it's a legitimate concern is exactly what Putin wants, because it gives him sympathy and give legitimacy to those claims that they're just protecting themselves. In 2024, it literally is not a well founded paranoia, and pretending like it is just demonstrates how well the propaganda works.
Propaganda or just a different view point?
NATO is a military alliance, whose members are now including states that border it's territory.
You keep throwing around these terms because I think you feel the rest of the world views things the same way as the West. It doesn't.
There are plenty of places in the world that view the G7 and NATO with extreme skepticism. Advancement in borders by membership of a military alliance is controversial to a lot of countries.
The US would feel exactly the same if Mexico joined some "defensive military alliance" which the US was not a part of as well.
Again, you can get as dismissive of this point of view as you like, again I feel like I've said this a dozen times, I don't condone the invasion. But not every country views or makes calculations in the same way that the West does, and the arrogance and the mistake that the West makes is viewing decision s through its own ideological and moral lens - like its the objectively "right" one.
Many may agree with them, but there are plenty that don't.
Just propaganda. Because these would all be perfectly valid points if not for the fact that the countries joining NATO literally did so **because they felt threatened by Russia**. NATO did not force anyone to join.
It actually matters fuck all what the rest of the world thinks of NATO, you don't get be expansionist and threatening, and then when your neighbours get anxious and act to protect themselves, act like you're the one under attack.
I'm not being dismissive, I'm calmly and reasonably explaining why the arguments you are making are not valid, because they're literally the arguments that Russia use to justify themselves, when the reason for NATO "expansion" is entirely down to themselves.
I know you don't believe the invasion was justified, I've never claimed otherwise, I'm simply explaining why the arguments you are using are not actually based in reality. It's literally nothing to do with anyone thinking they are objectively "right", it's about the countries bordering Russia having a right to act in their own interest when they feel understandably threatened by their neighbour, and Russia not having the right to act like they're the victim when that happens, especially not to justify their invasion.
If the president of the US was acting like he believed Mexico should belong to the US and a few years ago said the same about Canada before invading them, and then Mexico joined a defensive pact, I would absolutely accuse the US of the same thing, that's a total non-sequitur.
He even mentioned his previous comments about admiring Putin in the interview a few days ago:
>“I said I disliked him as a person, but I admired him as a political operator because he’s managed to take control of running Russia.”
If that doesn't set alarm bells ringing in and of itself about the kind of country he wants, then I don't know what to say.
You csn admire someone's skills etc as being of a high grade or quality without wanting to emulate them.
Again I hate Farage for a number of reasons, lying for Brexit being highest on the list.
But the war in Ukraine is not going to be won militarily. Without Western troops, which csnt happen due to WW3, Ukraine is being eroded slowly due to manpower and too large a military deficit.
The best we can hope for is they fight Russia to a draw, give up some territory, gain a guarantee of protection and we all help to rebuild the nation for the Ukrainians.
Any other goal is ridiculous at this stage. They should have driven Russia to the negotiating table when they had that successful counter attack nearly 18 months ago. They would've lost a lot of the Donbas and Crimea, but that's the best they can hope for. It's likely there now going to lose more.
Ukraine are consistently getting very good trades in terms of troops and equipment. The counteroffensive last year ended in failure, but since then (and indeed, since Autumn 2022) the Russians have made no major gains, and have paid dearly for the relatively small advances they have made. They also came within a hair's breadth of a military coup this time last year and the state of the equipment available to them is in decline.
Meanwhile, Ukraine's equipment available to them is increasing in quantity and quality, and there appear to be no obvious signs of the Ukrainian state being in any danger from within.
This is going to go on until one side undergoes a morale collapse, either at the front or with another mutiny in the rear, and if I had to bet on which one will break first, my money would currently be on the Russians.
I admire your optimism and I hope to be wrong, but I doubt it. There's a widescale lack of manpower on the Ukrainian side.
The lines are pretty much drawn and they will push and shove until it costs too many lives to make any measurable gain. I expect the lines to be within 10km of where they are now in 9-12 months time.
And Ukraine is a sovereign country. He said it gave Russian people reason to say they are ‘coming for us again’. Yes, of course, engaging with this rhetoric is not legitimising it. Is this a piss-take. You see no rationale why ex-Soviet countries my not want the ‘shield’ of NATO - even after invasion.
BBC panorama to Nick Robinson. I dislike him [Putin] as a person, but I admired him as a political operator because he’s managed to take control of running Russia.
Look, we won’t agree, I think you’re head is in the sand, but the idea that this isn’t fodder as Russian propaganda is absurd. ‘Western’ politicians admiring authoritarian leaders/dictators shouldn’t be spun positively.
So he admired the skill in which he took over this country? That doesn't endorse something.
No, it speaks to the heart of the issue: we aren't interested in having an objective, factual discussion about the conflict. The reality is that the best Ukraine can hope for, and this has been from the start, is fighting hard and well enough to force a workable peace. They're losing part of their territory, as painful to take as that is. The only alternative is more innocent people dying, through lack of hospitals, bombing, lack of power, food, etc.
But stating anything of those lines gets ridiculed and spun as some Putin crony.
I'm no Farage fan, but the fact that we don't have any plans as to how to end this war other than "keep it going, supplying them with arms and money" when everyone knows Ukraine can't win is the definition of insanity.
Out plan was to isolate Russia, economically, but if anything it's economy is stronger now as its pivoted to India, China, NK, Africa etc. BRIC is now a trading block that might actually challenge the G7 rather than the joke it was prior to the war.
Sorry to rant, as you weren't raising those specific points, but I do get frustrated that as soon as any politician tries to get us to consider a different approach, they're treated as a pariah.
The West has given £150bn since Ukraine held the most amount of land it had done since the Invasion began and if anything they hold less land now. We need to end the war.
"keep it going, supplying them with arms and money" when everyone knows Ukraine can't win is the definition of insanity."
No, it's the definition of realpolitik. The objective of this war is, if there's a winner it's ukraine, if there's a loser it's Russia even if it wins in ukraine.
You look at it from a point of view" it's so tiresome". NATO looks at it as a way to incapacitate Russia.
Farage knows this.
But it's failed, so when does the calculation change.
The West cut off money and purchasing of oil etc, so Russia with OPEC drove up the price and sold it to India and has largely road the sanctions well. Hits to GDP have largely stalled and in some sectors reversed back into positive growth.
It has stronger economic ties to India, China and several other countries.
So its not going to work. So at what point do we look at the human factors, or atleast the cold light of day and acknowledge that it's costing us as much as it is them.
It hasn't failed. It succeed immensely . NATO hasn't deployed troops, yet, Russian military manufacturing is capped, Russian military is being decimated with their more advanced equipment being destroyed in piles, Russian economy is being propped up by their dwindling exports, Russian main exports like oil and military equipment is being targeted. Thats why Russia is pointing itself to its quislings, like Farage, le Pen and so on.
Except it's economy is growing, it has more trade deals, it's getting more raw resources than prior to the war due to deals with Iran, India, China and NK.
So no, if anything the international standing of Russia has increased, much to my dismay. To think otherwise shows a lack of awareness of how this conflict is discussed in South America, Africa, the middle east and China/India.
Their economy isn't growing, they are burning through cash. It's being propped up. Any economic indicator coming from Russia is manipulated by the Kremlin.
How this conflict is being discussed in public in those areas it's irrelevant as they are prime targets for Russian disinfo.
Absolute lie, this is the exact spin the headlines put on it.
Nigel said he didn’t like Putin and disagrees with the war - he however did say that he saw it coming years ago due to western expansion towards Russia.
It is depressing how basic most people’s approach is to issues like this. If I was parroting the same things as the political establishment and The Sun then I would at least go back and think about the issue more carefully.
I know everyone has stopped caring if what they say actually forms a coherent narrative anymore but if he was a Russian agent, or if Russia wanted him to do well .. they wouldn't be saying this.
Sounds like a UK First point of view. America First was the version in the USA circa 1940 that was sympathetic to the fascists and wanted to stay out of Europe’s war. That was a bad position then, and the same is true today.
Ireland and the Swiss had to appease the fascists. Then they reaped the benefits of the allies winning. If the Allies lost, they would not have been happy. Well, at least those who didn’t support fascism.
Argentina was a fascist sympathizing state.
He has somewhat of a point, although I still believe Russia is more culpable for this war than the West. Both sides are problematic in different ways though.
America has been funding a genocide in Gaza, and we’re complicit, so what’s really happening is different sides funding civilian destruction in different parts of the world to further their own interests.
It’s really just sad to see these escalations and provocations, especially considering that I doubt our country would be prepared if war spreads in Europe.
> I still believe Russia is more culpable for this war than the West.
In what way is the West to blame for Putin's invasion of Ukraine, please? Ukraine had no ambition to attack Russia. Ukraine engaged in no threats, in no sabre rattling. All Ukraine wanted was to be left to make its own decisions about its future, and a chance at a peaceful existence. "The West" certainly weren't enthusiastic about engaging more closely with Ukraine; the hope was that Ukraine would slowly increase its trade with other countries, and would steadily improve its democracy. "The West" wasn't providing arms of any significance to Ukraine, or trying to locate weapons there.
You say you think Russia is "more culpable" than the West. Fine. But if the West is not in any way culpable, why not just say "This war is Russia's fault". The fact that you don't say this suggests you think some element of culpability falls on the head of the West. What is this element, please?
> America has been funding a genocide in Gaza, and we’re complicit, so what’s really happening is different sides funding civilian destruction in different parts of the world to further their own interests.
But that isn't his point.
His argument is that the EU and Nato are partly to blame by talking to Ukraine. His position is that Ukraine shouldn't be allowed to enter into negotiations with the EU, nor should anyone East of the Berlin Wall. He's all for national sovereignty but it only goes one way; countries he likes or needs to suck up to get national sovereignty, countries he doesn't care about (like Ukraine) don't.
His "point" is that the EU and Nato should appease President Putin and the Russian Government. They should concede that everywhere east of the Berlin Wall is "Russian" and leave it to Russia. "Russia wouldn't need to invade Ukraine if they were just allowed to take it over through subversion, economic, diplomatic and military threats!"
Which is text-book Russian propaganda, as part of their drive to recreate the Soviet Union.
>He has somewhat of a point
There is no point in us allowing an invaded ally to be slaughtered as the swiftest of all possible means of "ending the war and bringing about peace". Neither is there a point in appeasing an imperialist dictator. I'd be interested in what middle ground of a point you've given Farage here? How has the West been problematic with Ukraine in any way?
I concede that geopolitics 101 means that a dictator cannot allow a neighbour state to flourish as a free democracy outside of its sphere of influence. But we are not problematic for helping Ukraine to flourish as a free democracy. You have a right to self determination *even if* a reactive bear who hates freedom is around. You've a right to push the bear back if it lunges, and if the bear loses face, fuck that bear for not choosing freedom and democracy *for itself*.
>I doubt our country would be prepared if war spreads in Europe.
Funding Ukraine is the single best method to prevent war spreading into Europe.
>a genocide in Gaza
International courts disagree. The conflict is an **urban war** with a *lower than average* civilian-to-militant death ratio. By calling it a genocide you are participating in the ideological proxy issues rather than describing what is really happening on the ground.
>different sides funding civilian destruction in different parts of the world to further their own interests.
As the world has always been, sadly. All we can call for as voters is to recognise autonomous nation states in their 21st century context and not keep invading people for land or resources like in every century before it. That means keeping Russia out of Ukraine & Europe and giving Palestine its own state while not destroying Israel's.
> How has the West been problematic with Ukraine in any way?
2014 with Euro Maidan Is a good start. Even I’m a layman but it’s so difficult when so many people freshly started with 2022. I guess one thing is you need to 30+ to remember even the 2004 elections in Ukraine. Ukraine is NOT the country you think it was, it’s a Belgium type issue. It was a corrupt hellhole with a tug-o-war between Russian and Western influence and when you try to take the entire cake then the gloves have to come off, you’re giving Putin no choice.
2014 is a story of a pro-Russian president going against the express wish of parliament and people for closer ties with Europe and failing to face off the revolt with deadly force. The outcome of such a revolt would be illegitimate were it not followed by the immediate democratic election that took place, in which Ukrainians reaffirmed at the ballot their commitment to European-style liberal democracy. They still had a lot of work to do to end corruption, yes. They were working on it and then they got invaded. (As far as I know. I'm a layman with access to Wikipedia. I will hedge my bets for democratic votes over dictatorships every single time, and pretty safely too, I'd imagine.)
I have conceded already why Russia can't justify *to itself* allowing Ukrainians to be free, but there is a higher realm of right and wrong that usurps that. Of course we're also serving ourselves by aiding a sovereign country in its own decision to turn towards Europe. But the difference is that Russia helps itself through negative encouragement (threats, war, slaughter) and Europe does it through positive encouragement (freedom, trade deals, security).
The crucial issue here is that is really pisses dictators off when you treat their neighbours as autonomous nations rather than as proxy "cake" states. You say Putin had no choice, but a free Ukraine poses no direct threat to Russia. It certainly poses the indirect threat of making the Russian people question why they live under a dictatorship while neighbours are prosperous and free, but there is no moral argument for that being Ukraine's problem.
A key disagreement we have is the moral one and how we might reach for notions of freedom and democracy or rights as “justification” (need a better word here) for this or that. I had it put to me in the past few days, “Does might make right, that’s what you believe?”, and I definitely put my heart away when it comes to matters on this scale and I accept the inevitable outcomes from an action. You’re dealing with a monster that can’t be beaten and you must meet the monster halfway. Trying to do that without conceding ground is the true art, and neutering the monsters misbehaviour, but you must never overextend, which I think is the case.
Your take is completely understandable, it has heart but I find myself too cynical for that anymore. I thought the 2014 response was righteous at the time, but in hindsight it should’ve tried to diffuse the whole thing way more than what happened, maybe even then ceding the eastern regions including Crimea. Then it would be over. “So we just give in to tyrants?” was the next question. In this case yes, he would have to build a new case against us but from a PR point of view I guess we can’t be conceding. And we can’t be abandon those juicy fuel reserves under the ground of central-east Ukraine… In fact this might have been the biggest motivation for Russias actions that nobody much mentions about Kharkiv and Poltava regions, for me aligns with the sudden pushes on Kharkiv. Armchair theory.
Short thoughts is the war needs to end by the start of 2025 and I believe it will provided nothing stupid happens. Putin knows the clock is running down if Trump comes into the picture Again.
There’s a reason he’s not taking Finland. Ukraine is a special case in terms of history, culture and identity. The issue with Moldova has always been a curious case but nothing will come of it. Romania is a no also, as far as other countries near the EU/NATO sphere, this is as far as he can ever go or we will rightfully take it seriously. He knows there’s a redline he can’t be seen to be crossing.
Snapshot of _Nigel Farage praised by Russian state media over Ukraine war comments_ : An archived version can be found [here](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://inews.co.uk/news/politics/nigel-farage-praised-russian-state-media-ukraine-3127555) or [here.](https://archive.ph/?run=1&url=https://inews.co.uk/news/politics/nigel-farage-praised-russian-state-media-ukraine-3127555) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Between this and the Tory betting scandal, Labour really just has to do nothing to have a good final week until the election.
You’d be surprised. I’m with the in laws and they all think that Farage is the only one “making any sence” at the moment
I'm so sick and tired of the "he tells it like it is" attitude with Farage. He quite literally tells the opposite of "like it is". He could not be further from "like it is". He just tells you what he knows you want to hear and makes you feel validated in the fact that you feel uncomfortable around non-white people.
Farage is a confidence trickster, his rhetoric is delivered with such confidence and zeal that it persuades many to believe him. He's a truly dangerous operator, especially given where his loyalties appear to lie.
Serial liars quickly evolve the ability to be good speakers. Someone concerned with truth, and navigating complexity, will tend to be more hesitant in how they speak about subjects. A liar, in contrast, will just bulldoze ahead.
I was half expecting him to suggest replacing HS2 with a giant North Haverbrook style monorail as part of the Reform manifesto/contract.
Is there a chance the track could bend?
Not on your life my Hindu frien—- wait no, not my friend, have to deport you. Monorail!
only when you clean the leaves off it
He's a confidence trickster with a dog whistle that he knows how to use. "He tells it like it is" is code for "I think he'd stick it to people I am prejudiced against". He's very good at speaking in ways that appeal to people's baser emotions.
People are gullible idiots. He made it to 3rd place on I'm a Celeb. He made my skin crawl more from just watching him than the insects would. Nothing about him felt sincere on the show (a lot like his politics), but occasionally his mask would slip and you'd get a real good look at his cold, barely beating heart. Absolute slimeball.
What i hate is how much the right has weaponised Godwin's law to the point that they go "hurr durr Godwin's law" when you do any kind of comparison to the nazis. You don't have to believe current day politicians are about to commit the holocaust, to be able to use the nazis as a cautionary tale about populist right tactics and how they are trying to lead you down the wrong path. The nazis didn't win the 1933 election with a manifesto that said they were literally going to commit genocide. It was a 25 point "program", that largely proposed stuff that wasn't really that controversial aside from suggesting shutting immigration and tightening the rules of German citizenship and voting. It was very much a "telling people what they want to hear and make them feel validated in the fact that you feel uncinfortable around non-German people" manifesto. It was a manifesto filled with implausible promises and an incredibly anti-immigration but that were ultimately popular with the German people. It's obvious comparisons can be made with modern populist right groups. And it's frustrating that making the comparison is so taboo that it isn't possible to properly discuss how "we've literally done this game before, for the love of God they're taking you for a dangerous ride".
The Nazis were "National Socialists" surely?
tells it like it is actually means confirms my biases
its maga mentality.
This is it, it’s the same with Trump, the supporters like them because they feel it gives them licenses to be bigots. Far more people than we would admit work on “I feel, so is”, they just look for somebody who validates what they feel, even if it isn’t reality. They feel migrants are ruining the country, so to they look for that view to be validated and in doing so ignore the structural inequality, lack of building, regional inequality and wealth hoarding that would be causing the same problems in a nation with zero migration. But they feel that migration is the problem, they feel, so is.
Migration is *a* problem for the nation, but not *the*problem. If Labour does not deal with this problem, they leave more room for parasitic gargoyles like Farage to exist.
> Migration is a problem for the nation, but not theproblem. It's more complicated than this even. You are corect, it is a problem, you are also correct that it's not THE problem. To complicate matters, it's also actually been being used by the Tories as a temporary 'sticking plaster' short term "quick-fix" solution to a bunch of our other problems However where things get even stickier, is that some people have been convinced that not only is it THE problem, it's also responsible for other stuff that in reality it isn't. Where it really gets nasty is if we stop it tomorrow, all of the underlying issues that need long term, hard work solutions will suddenly be big problems for us. Whilst only actually 'fixing' the problem of some people not liking the foreigns, and slowing the increasing pressure on the housing market (but definitely not fixing the housing issue, which is actually caused by a lack of building new houses).
This is what worries me, I dont see Starmer taking a strong position on this (or anything), and he must, otherwise Farage is going to hoover up the right vote for the 2029 election. When you add Tory+Reform even now, Labour only has a small lead. Thats easily eroded by an emboldened Farage.
If Starmer does not develop a seam of policy to control and regulate mass inward migration he will not get a second term.
Yeah, that's what I am saying
"A" problem , surely plays it down? On current figures the UK imports a population the size of the city of Glasgow, every year. There is no sign of this reducing in the future. There is every sign, from world events and population growth, that figure will increase. That means 75 more "Glasgows " by the end of the century. Complacency seems to be misplaced.
I meant that migration is a factor in the country's problems, but is not the singular source of all our woes. The present rate of migration is destructive to our social fabric, and must not be tolerated. Migrants, however, are not the sole source of all problems.
Has anyone said that they are? Problem is that your last line is used by so many to imply that massive inward migation causes no problems. Foolish yes, difficult to understand what drives that pretence.
A part of me wonders if a change in government and them perhaps de-emphasising it may take it out of the public consciousness to some extent. Most people don’t live in areas that would see high migration, the west coast or people living in the north are less likely to see migrants. I hate to say it but most of the things that the public get angry about are just the things they can see right now. If it’s not put in their faces all the time I’m not sure how much people would notice migration outside of the south east.
I beg to differ. Migration is not a problem. Seriously. Every migrant either spends a sh¡tload of money here, or works for us, making us money. They have to travel, to eat, to wear clothes, to live somewhere. All that means money that flows from them to us. Skilled migrants? Do valuable jobs. Unskilled migrants? Work for you, for low pay. We win, every time. But what about housing, schools, benefits, the NHS? Your problem accessing those services is because of UNDERINVESTMENT, not migrants. Migrants just make us richer. It's public spending cuts that wreck the nation.
>Skilled migrants? Do valuable jobs. >Unskilled migrants? Work for you, for low pay. Both of these factors allow companies and the government to keep wages not just low, but actually shrinking as the migrants that come here are usually more willing to take lower wages and 9/10 times a company will hire the lower paid worker
The global anti intellectual, anti truth, far right is sponsored by Putin.
What, you've never had a public spat with an exclusive bank about whether you're eligible for a millionaire's bank account. He's just like us!
Quite. "Saying something controversial" and "telling it like it is" aren't the same. His appeal to some seems more to centre around the idea that he says things which they'd like to say, but feel unable to say anymore.
In what way is the “non-white people” comment appropriate here? What has he said against non-white people?
He tells it like it is with abit of "over the top" added on, water it down and hes right.
I think a lot of people would be surprised at how self involved most people's voting decisions are. They don't care about Putin, Ukraine, Israel or Palestine. They just want to pay less money out, get more money in and make sure the value of their property doesn't start going down instead of up. Even when they claim to care about something other than themselves, they will happily drop it if caring about that thing is stopping them from getting something they think they deserve.
> I think a lot of people would be surprised at how self involved most people's voting decisions are. They don't care about Putin, Ukraine, Israel or Palestine. They just want to pay less money out, get more money in and make sure the value of their property doesn't start going down instead of up. The problem isn't specifically what's happening Putin/Ukrain, but what Farage stance and the comments being made say about him, and his reliability/trustworthyness. If you elect a grifting liar who is known to be a grifting liar, endorsed by a warmongering dictator, on a platform of economically debunked fantasy policies, then you don't really get the right to pretend you didn't know he wasn't going to do the stuff you expected.
Same, members of my family were saying that he's right and that NATO/the EU antagonized Russia by expanding. They also said that Putin just wants Russian speaking lands etc. and that he's "holding back". One of them even said Farage is a grifter but they'll still vote for him because "all politicians are grifters."
Did they think like this in 2022, I have to wonder. And if they didn't, wth are they reading?
Social media algorithms + smart phone curated news feeds + GB News + Right Wing Newspapers will probably do what Fox, social media and Sinclair Media did in the US: they'll push the Tories into becoming UK MAGA.
Disgusting language, especially given the lives lost and atrocities committed this far. I wouldn't be able to be around it. Fair play to you.
Oh yeah where have we heard the just wanting 'insert language here' reason before? That once they have x land, we will have peace and nothing more will come from it, just try appeasement once more right? RIGH?
> "all politicians are grifters." Which is why the "They're all the same" narative really needs to stop, in all it's forms. Including the salty JC left groups that keep insisting that Labour is just "Red Tories". They really aren't, and coming out unironically with ridiculous things like "They are further right on immigration than Reform" is just assinine and makes everyone aware that your political opinion should be, at best, taken with a grain of salt.
Fight fire with fire. Don't use rationality, use rhetorical tricks to trip them up. If they say that Putin wants to "unite Russian speaking lands" then just say, "oh wow, so why are you even voting if you don't believe in democracy?". They'll say "huh?", and you reply "Well, in 1991 Ukraine had a referendum to leave the Soviet Union and be their own independent country". If they are Brexit fans then add "Just like we did when we voted to leave the EU and be an independent country". Remember - doesn't matter if it isn't partly or wholly true, it just has to pluck their strings. After all, if the UK can vote to leave the EU then Ukraine can vote to leave Russia, right? And if they start talking on cultural terms just say (as smugly as you can), "Well, akshally, Kyiv is the home of the Russian speaking people, they should be in charge as they were the original power. Moscow should answer to Kyiv, not the other way around!". Then move on to ask them how they can justify killing children to achieve political aims. Or more specifically "How many children do you think it is acceptable to kill, in order to force another country to bend to your will because you don't like what they are doing? A hundred? A thousand?". You can't use rationality to lead someone away from an opinion that they didn't use rationality to arrive at.
>oh wow, so why are you even voting if you don't believe in democracy?". Tbf, one of them isn't because "they don't believe in government". They have gone full "government shouldn't exist and all taxation is theft". Basically US style "anarcho-capatalist", because they spend all their time in Qanon/similar groups on Facebook and Twitter. Although he did say he'd vote for Putin if he could... Even when I brought up freedom of speech (which is in limited supply in Russia), because they always bang on about cancel culture, they just changed the subject. >"Well, in 1991 Ukraine had a referendum to leave the Soviet Union and be their own independent country Did bring that up, they said part of the agreement was that NATO/the EU wouldn't expand past Germany. They said "Putin/Russia upheld their side of the bargain by dissolving the Warsaw Pact" and that NATO should've been dissolved after the fall of the Soviet Union, and that if it had then Georgia/Ukraine wouldn't have happened. Their argument was that Ukraine was meant to be independent and by aiming to join NATO/the EU they had broken that agreement. They also said the maidan revolution was led by the CIA and they'd seen videos of "US soldiers in balaclavas in 2014". There's no arguing with them, I just got bored and said I'm not talking about this anymore. Not worth the effort when they spend so much time in bubbles online and I only speak to them every few months.
>They also said that Putin just wants Russian speaking lands How very National Socialist of Putin. 🤡
> Same, members of my family were saying that he’s right and that NATO/the EU antagonized Russia by expanding What? You think he’s wrong in saying this? NATO expansion **has indeed** antagonised Russia. You don’t need to be a political expert to know that.
Only in the same way a woman "antagonises" a rapist by wearing a short skirt.
Not quite, the effect of historical events on the russian psyche have been profound The UK has not been invaded for near 1000 years. That makes a difference to how the populus think.
Enlighten me then. Do you think NATO/the EU have **pacified** Russia by expanding NATO?
Did I say that? If countries (apart from Russia) want to join NATO or the EU, then that's none of Putin's business.
True. But then you’re proving my point correct. If expansion of NATO didn’t **pacify** Russia, then it **antagonised** Russia.
This is a false dichotomy. You're ignoring the possibility that the expansion of NATO neither pacified or antagonised Russia.
Not true. I watched the Russian media for years, and I can tell you for certain that the Russians weren’t neutral about NATO’s expansion. You’d have to be a complete idiot to suggest that Russia was indifferent to the expansion of NATO.
I took a shit this morning. It didn't pacify Russia. Does that mean I antagonised Russia?
My dad (elderly) genuinely compared him to jesus this week, made me do a bit of sick in my mouth I don't care much for Jesus but I don't want him dead like Farage
Great, where can I get tickets to the crucifixtion?
Agreed, I think Labour know they don’t have to ‘win’ this election, they just have to wait and watch the Tories lose it. 14 years of misery left Labour with a massive majority without even having to do anything. Now they can afford to be coy, without any flagship policies or concrete plans for the core issues, because they can afford to lose 5% of voters
I've had some pretty abrupt conversations with my parents about Farage, they think the sun shines out of him
Two Tory scandals in a 6 week campaign and we have 10 days left to go. Who’s up for a bet there’s another one
The problem as I see it is all of labour think they've already won so maybe they won't even bother to vote. Whereas all the Tory's think they can't possibly win so some of them might vote reform instead. So we could end up with a shock result if we're unlucky
A fall in the Reform vote results in fewer seats for Labour. This is bad for Labour.
A smarter remark than most here. Top class
Definitely the snartest I've seen.
It’s gemius
Oh, I don't know about that. I know a lot of people who like Farage.
It's time for Farage and the Reform/UKIP party members to come clean about why they are forever cosying up to the Russians. Back during the pre-Brexit period, from 2015 onwards, major UKIP donor Arron Banks and his sidekick Andy Wigmore had multiple meetings with Russian officials at the Russian embassy in London. Why did Banks need to meet them even once let alone so many times? And now we have Farage making pathetic excuses for Putin's totally unnecessary war. None of this looks or sounds right, so what exactly is going on here, between these former UKIPers and the Putin regime? It's high time that Farage and his team came clean on this issue.
[удалено]
£33k won't even get you a full specced-out 'cheap' car anymore.
Nonsense. I can PCP a brand new BMW i4 M Sport for 4 years for about £33k, give it back at the end of the term. Ownership is for plebs - you need to start thinking like a Tory MP.
That’s a good deal nowadays, I looked at an i4 Sport (not even M Sport) and even if you go poverty spec (no options and base grey colour) it worked out 39k with 10% deposit over 4 years. Was roughly 800 a month. Dang interest rates.
They are cosying up to the Russians because the Russian are probably funding them indirectly (and other European right wing/antiestablishment parties). The Russians want to the UK and the EU to breakup for their own geopolitical purposes and dividing nations is a good way to do that. See also SNP/Independence referendum, Brexit (the Russia report was hushed up because it would’ve delegitimised the result), Johnson being cosy with Lebedev (although that didn’t workout for Russia because Johnson was good on Ukraine), Trump, Le Penn, etc
Johnson was only on the right side on Ukraine because he saw the chance to do his Churchill cosplay. I firmly believe if UK public opinion was slanted the other way and Johnson saw the opportunity to get something out of it he would have done the complete opposite and gone for maximum appeasement.
it really doesnt matter, thats the outcome the world needed. Jeremy Corbyn was constant in his beliefs and would have done the wrong thing because of his tendency towards pacifism . From the point of view of Ukraine it was better we had the liar narcissist who made the right call than the consistent campaigner who would have made the wrong call. Thank god both of them are consigned to history now.
Agreed, I voted for Corbyn, but he would have been one of the worst people possible to have leading the country when Russia invaded the rest of Ukraine. Boris, for all his many faults did the right thing on that one.
Too right. When we voted to leave the EU, Farage and his cronies would have been out celebrating. But on that same night, some 1,500 miles to the east, Vladimir Putin and his team would also have been cheering to the rafters. When you tihink about it, it's extraordinary just how well the Farage agenda meshes with the Putin agenda.
[удалено]
People just aren't aware enough of the US's involvement in pushing brexit, although strong allies the US and EU are economic rivals and with us out it weakened them in a big way, as well as us.
The fundamental difference is that US private money funded Brexit, alongside Russian state money
Yeah fair, although I'm certain the Us gov would have been well aware and individuals will have had conversations about it, unofficially giving it the green light I mean.
Exactly. The Brexit brigade was constantly bemoaning the fact that the UK was a net contributor to the EU. However, the flip side is that the UK was investing in the rapid economic development of many former soviet states who, in time, would come to serve as huge economic trading partners and strong allies in the event of any future conflict with Russia.
I missed that aspect of European membership so makes even more sense why Putin is so opposed to EU unity which why he’s been funding the likes of UKIP and Reform.
Johnson's switch on Ukraine has me baffled to this day. I am certain he was under Russian influence, but what was the game here? I actually wonder if they were using Johnson to learn of the whereabouts of Zelensky, with those high profile meet and greets. Things were definitely not as straightforward as Johnson doing the right thing.
we already know the answer. they're fickle traitors who would sell their nation's interests for money. if farage gets in I absolutely guarantee he will be shouting in the commons about how we should be buying cheap Russian gas.
And, after the Russia report, we have learned nothing.
If Kier Starmer has any sense he'll do another investigation into Russian influence early on. We've underestimated Russia for a very long time in my opinion and we need to have a pretty thorough look at which of our pies the Kremlin has a finger in.
So….McCarthyism. It’s getting a bit tired now. There has been zero evidence regarding a Russian state relationship with Trump, the Scottish Independence movement, Brexit, or Reform. Absolutely nothing. It’s politically motivated hysteria. Boris Johnson lead the charge against the Russian invasion of Ukraine. He still remains passionate about it, and yet, half of you can’t work out if he’s also a secret Russian agent. It’s laughable. Either you’re all unable to think critically and understand nuance, or it’s just deliberate disingenuous nonsense. It is awfully convenient it’s all directed at people you already disagree with isn’t it?
> There has been zero evidence regarding https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jul/21/russia-report-reveals-uk-government-failed-to-address-kremlin-interference-scottish-referendum-brexit See no evil, hear no evil. >Boris Johnson lead the charge against the Russian invasion of Ukraine. He still remains passionate about it Sure, but the argument is that, since 2011, when the US/UK had good intelligence about Putin's expansionist ambitions, the Tories chased rubles and cozied up to Russians, rather than were conscious of geopolitical realities. They granted export licenses, opened up domestic markets to Russian oligarchs, and overlooked massive levels of money laundering. Their free market fundamentalism - trade will eradicate the need for all conflict! - made them naive, and less willing to take certain steps against Russia, steps that may have even made invasion less likely.
I’m already aware Russia uses so called bots on Twitter to stir up division. Scottish Independence and Trump are both in Russia’s favour, it doesn’t mean they are directed by the Russian state. The point still stands there has been zero evidence of any Russian money or connection to the SNP, to Trump, or to Reform. The accusation is these are essentially Russian agents taking money from the Russian state. Zero evidence. It’s politically motivated hysteria, and you know full well it is. It absolutely is McCarthyism.
Exactly what a Russian bot would say
Go back to r / conspiracy
Was just a joke tbf
Katya Banks, Katia Zatuliveter
"Why did Banks need to meet them even once let alone so many times?" He needed to drop in receipts for his expenses.
Thanks. That clears that up, then.
I find these conspiracy theories to be so strange. I've listened to Farage a lot over the years and he tends to be a) a nationalist b) a conservative, and c) a europhobe. His comments about Russia tick all of the boxes, but not becuase he's somehow 'cosying up the Russians'. Its a weird attack line. You can call him protectionist, a little englander, but a pro-russian? Its bullshit.
His entire career has been built around opposing the UK's strategic interests and wrapping it in a Union Jack,. He is on record saying he admires Putin, and this week he has repeated almost word for word the Russian propaganda line that the war is a result of NATO and EU expansion. He has made dozens of appearances on RT and Sputnik. If he's *not* bought by the Kremlin, then he's doing an amazing job at pretending he is. He literally couldn't do a better job at being an instrument of the will of the Russian state if he tried, which in this case strongly suggests he *is* trying.
> He is on record saying he admires Putin He said he admires Putin as a political operator, not a person. Provide context when talking others down.
If you'd really like to pull further on that thread then let's do so. Within a month of that interview where he said he admires Putin as a political operator, he also: * Expressed doubt that Russian-backed Syrian dictator Al Assad used chemical weapons in Ghouta (spoilers: Assad in fact did). * Said that Russia had been provoked and that the EU had blood on its hands for trying to force Ukraine to choose between itself and Russia. * Doubled down on his Putin comments, making the usual caveats: I said I don't like him, I wouldn't trust him and I wouldn't want to live in his country, but compared with the kids who run foreign policy in this country, I've more respect for him than our lot." * Said that the EU was anti-democratic and that its leadership were "the worst people we have seen in Europe since 1945". Note the stark contrast, the bluster with which he furiously condemns Western politicians and policy, but when it comes to Putin or Assad the nuance is suddenly dialled right up and, oh, we might not *like* them but ooh, we should give them a chance, and you have to admit they're very clever, and if they do something wrong, it's because we made them." The man is scum; he is an enemy to this country and the West, a tool of Kremlin policy. I don't know what he has to do to prove that to people.
[удалено]
Obviously?
I can also call him a user of Russian propaganda and someone that engaged with Russians for political gain. You know, a pro-russian 😉
I agree. There's absolutely no evidence for Farage being pro-Russian. Absolutely none. Only a nutcase would suggest otherwise. Like all those nutcases who think the Earth is round.
That's a great point, I wonder what the old gang are up to and if these completely innocent meetings are still happening.
It's true! My real name is Symyen Symyenovich of the 3rd Guards Cyberwarfare Regiment of Russia and we are currently running disinformation efforts in your area! I also infiltrated UK a few days ago pretending to be used shoe salesman, I get bonus payment to go to polls and rig your election for Comrade Farage, he is good friend of ours, yes yes.
I read this whole thing in the voice of that meerkat from the adverts.
Of course, him and Galloway are Russia’s men in UK. One attacks from the right the other from the left.
The fact they both use the term 'western expansionism' which is a well used Russian propaganda term to describe countries that moved away from Russia and voluntarily joined a defence pact says it all. They both know exactly what the term means and it's used deliberately, under Order I presume.
After the Cold War the West should have pursued constructive dialogue with Russia about maintaining the neutrality of the former Soviet states to act as a buffer zone between NATO/EU and Russia. Instead as soon as the Berlin Wall fell and probably well before NATO and probably the EU started to agitate for eastward expansion despite being warned by geopolitical analysts that doing so would risk upsetting the stability of the region.
There is no issue with stability. Nato is a defensive alliance. People align with it and the EU because they see it as an advantage. An advantage against what? Against Russia's bullshit. Don't be a despotic wanna-be empire, and people won't align themselves with each other against you.
NATO invaded Afghanistan it is incorrect to call it defensive. Of course stability has been upset, there is now a war, because we didn’t pursue the path that I recommended. It doesn’t matter how much countries want to join NATO/EU the implications need to be considered, in the same way that if we admitted Taiwan into NATO it would stir up a hornet’s nest.
If we had pursued neutrality in Poland, the baltics etc we would be talking about a Russian invasion of Poland rather than Ukraine
Should Finland and Sweden not have been allowed to join NATO? It seems to me that Russia wanted Crimea (at least) due to it being the only warm water port in the west for Russia. Russia didn't respect Ukraine's sovereignty or the [Budapest Memorandum](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum); Under the agreement the Russian Federation provided security assurances to Ukraine in the form of promising to neither attack nor threaten attack them. The other signatories (the United States, United Kingdom and France) pledged non-military support to Ukraine in exchange for its adherence to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. The west effectively attempted to appease Russia by not intervening when Russia invaded Ukraine's Crimea region in 2014, and Ukraine requested assistance when Russia continued their invasion under the guise of "demilitarisation" of Ukraine, which is pretty rich as Ukraine only increased their military due to being invaded by Russia.
Afghanistan harboured the group that destroyed the twin towers. That's as defensive as you can get. It wasn't a war of conquest, that's a Russian speciality.
Bin Laden was a CIA asset originally, 9/11 would probably never have happened if USA hadn’t poured money into training and arming extremist Afghans in the 1980s.
Nope. Bin Laden received no training, funding or support from the CIA. It was kind of the point of the foreign Arab Mujahideen, they were self funded with support from Saudi Arabia. Most of the ISI funding, who the CIA funneled their money through, went to Afghan Pashtun groups. Arab Mujahideen played a negligible role in fighting the Soviets and received no CIA funding, they were a primarily Saudi benefactor. The Taliban were a post-Soviet occupation group, funded and organised solely by the Pakistanis well after US funding stopped. They had little to do with the previous Mujahideen and were a response to the disintegration between Mujahideen factions during the Afghan civil war. This is why a knowledge of history is important to understanding modern conflicts.
After the cold war there should have been no need for neutral or buffer zones or whatever, we tried treating Russia as an equal opening up trade etc and they did the same, peace time conditions. There were no plans to invade Russia nor could anyone due to obvious reasons. Former Soviet countries felt they couldn't trust Russia not to invade at some point so joined nato to prevent this. The aim was to integrate our economies so that conflict could never be an option, obviously Russias actions since have proved this was a mistake. The 'nato expansion' they take about was simply sovereign countries close to Russia not trusting them that they wouldn't invade at some point an as Ukraine shows they were bang on with that prediction.
Galloway attacks from whatever side he truly believes in this hour. The man’s possibly more of a crank than Farage, at least Farage is somewhat consistent in his bullshit.
Doesn’t really matter at the end of the day. In a sane world, neither man should get anywhere near office.
They should just go round vox-popping Clacton and attribute some of the Putin-loving statements to Jeremy Corbyn and film their reaction. Reality is, as with Brexit, people - often with nothing to be fair to them (either materially or in terms of time left) - will leverage anything and everything to get the thing they want it seems. Would be interested to hear what some of these Farage supporters *wouldn't* give up in return for no/minimal immigration.
Clacton is something like 98% white. There aren't any immigrants there. I mean, who the fuck would migrate to Clacton? Immigrants go to where the money is, or to where other immigrants are. Not to some failed shithole of a town.
Any chance of a western intelligence agency waking the fuck up? It could be that Farage is a useful idiot, but surely he's too much of a grifter for that?
Well this is all you need to know about the guy.
I'm surprised that Russian state media is praising Farage. Aren't they undermining Farage by reducing his electoral chances? And isn't Farage amplifying the effect by suing the Mail on Sunday? Maybe this is all for Russian internal consumption and Putin isn't interested in promoting Farage any more now that brexit is done?
Russian agents doing Russian agent things like weakening Britain, disrupting the EU (Brexit) and spreading propaganda about Russian genocide.
Is he going to sue the Russian state media for besmirching his "good" name as well?
Which bits of the UK and its citizens would Farage negotiate away to an occupying aggressor, ‘for peace’?
He reminds me of Mr Toad in The Wind in the Willows by Kenneth Graham. He dashes about boasting, making a lot of noise driving one of his large collection of cars . He spouts nonsense. He is a ridiculous man but unfortunately not very funny. Toot toot !
The more time Farage has in the spotlight the more utterly gormless and horrible he comes across. I’d say that this is a negative for him, but the people who support him probably lap this drivel up.
More Reform candidates supporting putin https://www.thelondoneconomic.com/politics/nigel-farage-isnt-the-only-reform-uk-member-backing-putin-377509/
Farage is going for the senile old fart Wetherspoons vote. Saying nutty things helps him.
Yeah but it doesn't help him get the votes he needs from Labour or the cons, the sort of voters who will see him siding with putin over the 'west' as totally unacceptable similar to Corbyn.
[удалено]
I know a lawyer who loves Farage; it was never about income. One thing I've noticed about him: he lacks curiosity about other people. Like, the whole world is a joke to him, and he just doesn't get the point of listening to different opinions (other than to argue against them) or having real friends. He's just a clown, really. I don't want to assume what your life looks like but I find that Reform UK tends to appeal to people who are emotionally bored and think being noticed is a substitute for being cared about. In case that sounds like you, I have to say life's much better when you're kind and curious. Try getting to know someone you don't relate to, it's a lot of fun. Or don't. Hey, maybe Nigel Farage will make Brexit work like he keeps saying he would have if he were in charge.
>I agree with a lot of what he says. What exactly do you agree with? His seeking the endorsement of Enoch Powell, the racist guy who wanted to kick (and kill!) your Caribbean ancestors out of the UK? Or his stance on immigration, which obfuscates that the population growth rate in this country (0.3 percent since the 1960s, 0.6 percent in recent years) is far below the global average (3.9 percent). ie - once you factor in deaths, and people leaving the UK, the UK is actually a low immigration country. Or perhaps you love Farage's economic policies. Remember, Farage wants to take immigration down to zero, which implies that he's either an idiot, or that he's figured out a way to run capitalism - essentially a debt ponzi which requires a constant influx of immigrants to jack up production/consumption rates and so avoid collapse - without increasing immigration. He's implying that he's figured out a way to run the NHS, and reverse low birth rates, and maintain economic growth, and build houses (225,000 immigrants are in construction- they're building the homes!), and that he's personally solved all of capitalism's manifold contradictions and antagonisms, which far smarter economists have been wrestling with for centuries. What a genius! Meanwhile, in the real world, no far-right populist has ever done what Farage promises to do. Even Japan, the poster child for low immigration (it used to take in 80,000 to 100,000 a year), is now targeting 647,000 working-age immigrants per year (as a starting point!). And most countries which vote into power far-right anti immigration parties themselves tend to vote them out when the economic effects of low immigration begin to bite. Hungary, for example, which is rabidly anti immigration, has wages below the EU average, high youth unemployment, a demographic crisis, and inflation well above the EU average. So these are structural issues which Farage's free market fundamentalism is incapable of addressing; he hates the symptoms of the system he loves. Or perhaps you simply love Farage's plan to cut taxes for millionaires, which you hope to one day be. In which case, go for it. Farage has you covered.
Farage is a bigot who appeals to bigots. The black millennial with the six figure salary is right, i.e. bigotry is not confined to class/race/gender etc.. There are plenty across the board who will eat up his message.
I've read his manifesto and listened to his points. I agree with a lot of what he says too and I hate Farage. That's the whole problem with him. He only says those things because they are likeable. His manifesto/contract plan is laughable unworkable in reality. It makes Liz Truss seem like a sensible person with good, grounded ideas. His manifesto is basically - "We support everything you like and we oppose everything you don't like!"
There's lots of wealthy backers that like him, like property tycoons. His manifesto favours people with money who believe the public services should be further cut or privatised. It's just that the uneducated Wetherspoons people believe the lie that Farage will help struggling people, as long as they aren't immigrants.
Ah .. the apologist of our day, Farage getting praised by dictator. Read your history books people; Neville Chamberlain, Munich Agreement, Appeasement; down this road leads only to horror
As much as I think farage shouldn'tbe making excuses for putin.... This is just some easy shit stiring from the Russians.
It's good for their home narrative. I wouldn't jump so quickly to assume it's geared towards stirring shit here. It's pretty weak in that regard anyway. At least compared to the stirring caused by Farage himself
Exactly, lol. If Farage were actually a Russian stooge, the last thing Russia would do is stir the pot some more with a move like this. He's clearly not, if you actually listen to what he's saying closely (and have a good understanding of the historical backdrop of the region...which almost nobody in the UK does, to be completely frank). Are his takes good overall? Personally, I don't agree with them. But I don't see 'Russia simp' anywhere in what he says...because I've seen actual Russia simps talk, and the actual pro-Russia propaganda rhetoric is 500 miles apart.
Farage and Galloway, the Vatnik and the Commie. Its like the start of a bad joke, I really despise how these type have somehow become normalised.
Reform actually had a fairly good chance of getting a big vote share. Farage is an absolute idiot for this. Not just from a moral standpoint, but a political one as well
I find it incredible that anybody in the UK falls for Nigel’s BS. I know he’s a talented manipulator, but the sham seems just so obvious.
all labour has too do is keep quiet, cos anyone who votes Labour must have a very short memory, and if Labour get in power, it's the end of Britain
Farage reminds me of Mr. Toad from the Wind in the willows. He runs around boasting, making a lot of noise. Toor toot!!
This feels like a forced narrative. Farage said that Russia was deplorable for invading Ukraine. He also said that NATO expansion past agreed lines gave Russia the appearance of legitimacy to other world powers about the invasion, which it has done. I'm not sure how this is being managed go be spun into a false/Russian shill narrative but it makes me wonder who's profiting from that.
The leader of a British ‘political party’ stating he admires Vladimir Putin (an authoritarian kleptocrat) while feeding the narrative the Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has legitimacy (with the West bearing responsibility) and you find it difficult to understand how it could be spun or seen as shilling for Russia. Baffling.
Not to be rude, can you provide proof of admiration? Because the articles in question and his appearance on TV, he said the exact opposite. He specifically stated it lacked legitimacy, but that Putin could argue legitimacy. The simple fact is that it does not excuse Russias invasion, but the World doesn't share NATO or the West's views or ideology. There is fairly widescale support in other major nations that NATO expansion in Eastern Europe is seen as provocative to Russia. Western bias or blinkered opinioning =/= necessarily the universal opinion.
He quite literally said he admires Putin as a political operator for how he managed to take control of Russia. If you Google the words "Farage admire" you will find plenty of news articles discussing it. And personally him "admiring" someone for essentially being a dictator is just the teensiest bit concerning don't you think? And you still seem to be completely missing the point. The idea that NATO "expanded" is literally a russian propaganda point. Simply him saying that is bad enough, no matter how much he qualifies it with negative things about Russia. NATO did not "expand", because that paints an image like NATO was going round forcing countries to join. These nations asked to join NATO because they felt threatened by Russia, and framing it like it was the other way round is precisely what Russia wants.
Sorry but expansions =/= forced takeovers. Expansion means growth. NATO is now on Russias direct border. Whether you want to take the view that a self governing country can join whatever alliance or economic group that it likes, which I agree with, there are going to be consequences. Hell there was talk early on into Putins reign that he wanted to join NATO but didn't want to go through the usual hoops beforehand. The consequences being, whether you agree with them or not, that Russia will respond in certain ways if it feels itself "hemmed in". It wants buffers. NATO knows this, but went ahead either way. It doesn't justify the war, but it does explain it.
I'm not saying that it's literally the same thing, but that Russia specifically uses that terminology to paint a specific picture of these countries joining NATO. And Farage repeating those arguments helps nobody but Putin. >It doesn't justify the war, but it does explain it. Again, this is russian propaganda. Putin has been very clear about his goals of reclaiming the lands of the historical Russian empire, because he believes they belong to Russia. It has absolutely nothing to do with some notion of being threatened, he would have done the exact same thing regardless of what NATO has done. In fact if anything he'd probably have done more because the Baltic states would not have had protection. It very literally is, quite simply, the line that Russia uses to justify it's invasion. It does not explain it, because the actual reasons are clear. So again, Farage repeating those lies only legitimises Putin's propaganda, as evidenced by the fact that you're out here repeating and defending it.
Yeah, but no. Russia has done the same thing for 1000 years. It expands westward to build buffers between it's biggest and most vital areas, which due to geographic pressures, are all in the West of the country. The Tsars did it, the Communists did it and Putin does it. The Russians are a pretty paranoid people, probably because they keep getting invaded from the West, Nepolean, Nazis, etc. So they always want to have more and more land between them. Is that Empire building? Perhaps, but less out of the usual reasons of empire building and more out of their own, relatively well founded paranoia of western invasions. That's not propaganda, that's history. Again, it's not a justification for invading Ukraine, but it's an explanation.
It's impressive you're managing to acknowledge Russia's expansionism, but then still manage to miss that Russia is deliberately framing countries joining NATO (you know, so that they don't become one of these buffer states you mentioned) as the same thing as their previous history of being invaded. *That's* the propaganda. And people repeating it as if it's a legitimate concern is exactly what Putin wants, because it gives him sympathy and give legitimacy to those claims that they're just protecting themselves. In 2024, it literally is not a well founded paranoia, and pretending like it is just demonstrates how well the propaganda works.
Propaganda or just a different view point? NATO is a military alliance, whose members are now including states that border it's territory. You keep throwing around these terms because I think you feel the rest of the world views things the same way as the West. It doesn't. There are plenty of places in the world that view the G7 and NATO with extreme skepticism. Advancement in borders by membership of a military alliance is controversial to a lot of countries. The US would feel exactly the same if Mexico joined some "defensive military alliance" which the US was not a part of as well. Again, you can get as dismissive of this point of view as you like, again I feel like I've said this a dozen times, I don't condone the invasion. But not every country views or makes calculations in the same way that the West does, and the arrogance and the mistake that the West makes is viewing decision s through its own ideological and moral lens - like its the objectively "right" one. Many may agree with them, but there are plenty that don't.
Just propaganda. Because these would all be perfectly valid points if not for the fact that the countries joining NATO literally did so **because they felt threatened by Russia**. NATO did not force anyone to join. It actually matters fuck all what the rest of the world thinks of NATO, you don't get be expansionist and threatening, and then when your neighbours get anxious and act to protect themselves, act like you're the one under attack. I'm not being dismissive, I'm calmly and reasonably explaining why the arguments you are making are not valid, because they're literally the arguments that Russia use to justify themselves, when the reason for NATO "expansion" is entirely down to themselves. I know you don't believe the invasion was justified, I've never claimed otherwise, I'm simply explaining why the arguments you are using are not actually based in reality. It's literally nothing to do with anyone thinking they are objectively "right", it's about the countries bordering Russia having a right to act in their own interest when they feel understandably threatened by their neighbour, and Russia not having the right to act like they're the victim when that happens, especially not to justify their invasion. If the president of the US was acting like he believed Mexico should belong to the US and a few years ago said the same about Canada before invading them, and then Mexico joined a defensive pact, I would absolutely accuse the US of the same thing, that's a total non-sequitur.
He even mentioned his previous comments about admiring Putin in the interview a few days ago: >“I said I disliked him as a person, but I admired him as a political operator because he’s managed to take control of running Russia.” If that doesn't set alarm bells ringing in and of itself about the kind of country he wants, then I don't know what to say.
You csn admire someone's skills etc as being of a high grade or quality without wanting to emulate them. Again I hate Farage for a number of reasons, lying for Brexit being highest on the list. But the war in Ukraine is not going to be won militarily. Without Western troops, which csnt happen due to WW3, Ukraine is being eroded slowly due to manpower and too large a military deficit. The best we can hope for is they fight Russia to a draw, give up some territory, gain a guarantee of protection and we all help to rebuild the nation for the Ukrainians. Any other goal is ridiculous at this stage. They should have driven Russia to the negotiating table when they had that successful counter attack nearly 18 months ago. They would've lost a lot of the Donbas and Crimea, but that's the best they can hope for. It's likely there now going to lose more.
Ukraine are consistently getting very good trades in terms of troops and equipment. The counteroffensive last year ended in failure, but since then (and indeed, since Autumn 2022) the Russians have made no major gains, and have paid dearly for the relatively small advances they have made. They also came within a hair's breadth of a military coup this time last year and the state of the equipment available to them is in decline. Meanwhile, Ukraine's equipment available to them is increasing in quantity and quality, and there appear to be no obvious signs of the Ukrainian state being in any danger from within. This is going to go on until one side undergoes a morale collapse, either at the front or with another mutiny in the rear, and if I had to bet on which one will break first, my money would currently be on the Russians.
I admire your optimism and I hope to be wrong, but I doubt it. There's a widescale lack of manpower on the Ukrainian side. The lines are pretty much drawn and they will push and shove until it costs too many lives to make any measurable gain. I expect the lines to be within 10km of where they are now in 9-12 months time.
And Ukraine is a sovereign country. He said it gave Russian people reason to say they are ‘coming for us again’. Yes, of course, engaging with this rhetoric is not legitimising it. Is this a piss-take. You see no rationale why ex-Soviet countries my not want the ‘shield’ of NATO - even after invasion. BBC panorama to Nick Robinson. I dislike him [Putin] as a person, but I admired him as a political operator because he’s managed to take control of running Russia. Look, we won’t agree, I think you’re head is in the sand, but the idea that this isn’t fodder as Russian propaganda is absurd. ‘Western’ politicians admiring authoritarian leaders/dictators shouldn’t be spun positively.
So he admired the skill in which he took over this country? That doesn't endorse something. No, it speaks to the heart of the issue: we aren't interested in having an objective, factual discussion about the conflict. The reality is that the best Ukraine can hope for, and this has been from the start, is fighting hard and well enough to force a workable peace. They're losing part of their territory, as painful to take as that is. The only alternative is more innocent people dying, through lack of hospitals, bombing, lack of power, food, etc. But stating anything of those lines gets ridiculed and spun as some Putin crony. I'm no Farage fan, but the fact that we don't have any plans as to how to end this war other than "keep it going, supplying them with arms and money" when everyone knows Ukraine can't win is the definition of insanity. Out plan was to isolate Russia, economically, but if anything it's economy is stronger now as its pivoted to India, China, NK, Africa etc. BRIC is now a trading block that might actually challenge the G7 rather than the joke it was prior to the war. Sorry to rant, as you weren't raising those specific points, but I do get frustrated that as soon as any politician tries to get us to consider a different approach, they're treated as a pariah. The West has given £150bn since Ukraine held the most amount of land it had done since the Invasion began and if anything they hold less land now. We need to end the war.
"Can you provide proof of admiration" ...Provides proof of admiration "YEAH, BUT..." You lost the argument dude.
"keep it going, supplying them with arms and money" when everyone knows Ukraine can't win is the definition of insanity." No, it's the definition of realpolitik. The objective of this war is, if there's a winner it's ukraine, if there's a loser it's Russia even if it wins in ukraine. You look at it from a point of view" it's so tiresome". NATO looks at it as a way to incapacitate Russia. Farage knows this.
But it's failed, so when does the calculation change. The West cut off money and purchasing of oil etc, so Russia with OPEC drove up the price and sold it to India and has largely road the sanctions well. Hits to GDP have largely stalled and in some sectors reversed back into positive growth. It has stronger economic ties to India, China and several other countries. So its not going to work. So at what point do we look at the human factors, or atleast the cold light of day and acknowledge that it's costing us as much as it is them.
It hasn't failed. It succeed immensely . NATO hasn't deployed troops, yet, Russian military manufacturing is capped, Russian military is being decimated with their more advanced equipment being destroyed in piles, Russian economy is being propped up by their dwindling exports, Russian main exports like oil and military equipment is being targeted. Thats why Russia is pointing itself to its quislings, like Farage, le Pen and so on.
Except it's economy is growing, it has more trade deals, it's getting more raw resources than prior to the war due to deals with Iran, India, China and NK. So no, if anything the international standing of Russia has increased, much to my dismay. To think otherwise shows a lack of awareness of how this conflict is discussed in South America, Africa, the middle east and China/India.
Their economy isn't growing, they are burning through cash. It's being propped up. Any economic indicator coming from Russia is manipulated by the Kremlin. How this conflict is being discussed in public in those areas it's irrelevant as they are prime targets for Russian disinfo.
Absolute lie, this is the exact spin the headlines put on it. Nigel said he didn’t like Putin and disagrees with the war - he however did say that he saw it coming years ago due to western expansion towards Russia.
It is depressing how basic most people’s approach is to issues like this. If I was parroting the same things as the political establishment and The Sun then I would at least go back and think about the issue more carefully.
I know everyone has stopped caring if what they say actually forms a coherent narrative anymore but if he was a Russian agent, or if Russia wanted him to do well .. they wouldn't be saying this.
and thus you've fallen into their trap "but if he was their puppet this wouldn't happen"
Reform will do much better than most people think. People are seeing through the facade.
I think you mean "Reform will do much better than most people think, because not enough people are seeing through Reform's facade".
Maybe we should be solving our own problems and shouldn’t be needlessly involved in the Ukraine/Russia conflict?
What about the problems that Russia has been causing the UK, with their hostile acts against us, even prior to them invading an innocent country?
Sounds like a UK First point of view. America First was the version in the USA circa 1940 that was sympathetic to the fascists and wanted to stay out of Europe’s war. That was a bad position then, and the same is true today.
Ireland, Switzerland, Argentina appear happy and civilized. Maybe you are just beholden to the military industrial war machine.
Ireland and the Swiss had to appease the fascists. Then they reaped the benefits of the allies winning. If the Allies lost, they would not have been happy. Well, at least those who didn’t support fascism. Argentina was a fascist sympathizing state.
Maybe Russia shouldn't have murdered multiple people on our soil. Russia sowed the wind...
He has somewhat of a point, although I still believe Russia is more culpable for this war than the West. Both sides are problematic in different ways though. America has been funding a genocide in Gaza, and we’re complicit, so what’s really happening is different sides funding civilian destruction in different parts of the world to further their own interests. It’s really just sad to see these escalations and provocations, especially considering that I doubt our country would be prepared if war spreads in Europe.
> I still believe Russia is more culpable for this war than the West. In what way is the West to blame for Putin's invasion of Ukraine, please? Ukraine had no ambition to attack Russia. Ukraine engaged in no threats, in no sabre rattling. All Ukraine wanted was to be left to make its own decisions about its future, and a chance at a peaceful existence. "The West" certainly weren't enthusiastic about engaging more closely with Ukraine; the hope was that Ukraine would slowly increase its trade with other countries, and would steadily improve its democracy. "The West" wasn't providing arms of any significance to Ukraine, or trying to locate weapons there. You say you think Russia is "more culpable" than the West. Fine. But if the West is not in any way culpable, why not just say "This war is Russia's fault". The fact that you don't say this suggests you think some element of culpability falls on the head of the West. What is this element, please?
> America has been funding a genocide in Gaza, and we’re complicit, so what’s really happening is different sides funding civilian destruction in different parts of the world to further their own interests. But that isn't his point. His argument is that the EU and Nato are partly to blame by talking to Ukraine. His position is that Ukraine shouldn't be allowed to enter into negotiations with the EU, nor should anyone East of the Berlin Wall. He's all for national sovereignty but it only goes one way; countries he likes or needs to suck up to get national sovereignty, countries he doesn't care about (like Ukraine) don't. His "point" is that the EU and Nato should appease President Putin and the Russian Government. They should concede that everywhere east of the Berlin Wall is "Russian" and leave it to Russia. "Russia wouldn't need to invade Ukraine if they were just allowed to take it over through subversion, economic, diplomatic and military threats!" Which is text-book Russian propaganda, as part of their drive to recreate the Soviet Union.
>He has somewhat of a point There is no point in us allowing an invaded ally to be slaughtered as the swiftest of all possible means of "ending the war and bringing about peace". Neither is there a point in appeasing an imperialist dictator. I'd be interested in what middle ground of a point you've given Farage here? How has the West been problematic with Ukraine in any way? I concede that geopolitics 101 means that a dictator cannot allow a neighbour state to flourish as a free democracy outside of its sphere of influence. But we are not problematic for helping Ukraine to flourish as a free democracy. You have a right to self determination *even if* a reactive bear who hates freedom is around. You've a right to push the bear back if it lunges, and if the bear loses face, fuck that bear for not choosing freedom and democracy *for itself*. >I doubt our country would be prepared if war spreads in Europe. Funding Ukraine is the single best method to prevent war spreading into Europe. >a genocide in Gaza International courts disagree. The conflict is an **urban war** with a *lower than average* civilian-to-militant death ratio. By calling it a genocide you are participating in the ideological proxy issues rather than describing what is really happening on the ground. >different sides funding civilian destruction in different parts of the world to further their own interests. As the world has always been, sadly. All we can call for as voters is to recognise autonomous nation states in their 21st century context and not keep invading people for land or resources like in every century before it. That means keeping Russia out of Ukraine & Europe and giving Palestine its own state while not destroying Israel's.
> How has the West been problematic with Ukraine in any way? 2014 with Euro Maidan Is a good start. Even I’m a layman but it’s so difficult when so many people freshly started with 2022. I guess one thing is you need to 30+ to remember even the 2004 elections in Ukraine. Ukraine is NOT the country you think it was, it’s a Belgium type issue. It was a corrupt hellhole with a tug-o-war between Russian and Western influence and when you try to take the entire cake then the gloves have to come off, you’re giving Putin no choice.
2014 is a story of a pro-Russian president going against the express wish of parliament and people for closer ties with Europe and failing to face off the revolt with deadly force. The outcome of such a revolt would be illegitimate were it not followed by the immediate democratic election that took place, in which Ukrainians reaffirmed at the ballot their commitment to European-style liberal democracy. They still had a lot of work to do to end corruption, yes. They were working on it and then they got invaded. (As far as I know. I'm a layman with access to Wikipedia. I will hedge my bets for democratic votes over dictatorships every single time, and pretty safely too, I'd imagine.) I have conceded already why Russia can't justify *to itself* allowing Ukrainians to be free, but there is a higher realm of right and wrong that usurps that. Of course we're also serving ourselves by aiding a sovereign country in its own decision to turn towards Europe. But the difference is that Russia helps itself through negative encouragement (threats, war, slaughter) and Europe does it through positive encouragement (freedom, trade deals, security). The crucial issue here is that is really pisses dictators off when you treat their neighbours as autonomous nations rather than as proxy "cake" states. You say Putin had no choice, but a free Ukraine poses no direct threat to Russia. It certainly poses the indirect threat of making the Russian people question why they live under a dictatorship while neighbours are prosperous and free, but there is no moral argument for that being Ukraine's problem.
A key disagreement we have is the moral one and how we might reach for notions of freedom and democracy or rights as “justification” (need a better word here) for this or that. I had it put to me in the past few days, “Does might make right, that’s what you believe?”, and I definitely put my heart away when it comes to matters on this scale and I accept the inevitable outcomes from an action. You’re dealing with a monster that can’t be beaten and you must meet the monster halfway. Trying to do that without conceding ground is the true art, and neutering the monsters misbehaviour, but you must never overextend, which I think is the case. Your take is completely understandable, it has heart but I find myself too cynical for that anymore. I thought the 2014 response was righteous at the time, but in hindsight it should’ve tried to diffuse the whole thing way more than what happened, maybe even then ceding the eastern regions including Crimea. Then it would be over. “So we just give in to tyrants?” was the next question. In this case yes, he would have to build a new case against us but from a PR point of view I guess we can’t be conceding. And we can’t be abandon those juicy fuel reserves under the ground of central-east Ukraine… In fact this might have been the biggest motivation for Russias actions that nobody much mentions about Kharkiv and Poltava regions, for me aligns with the sudden pushes on Kharkiv. Armchair theory. Short thoughts is the war needs to end by the start of 2025 and I believe it will provided nothing stupid happens. Putin knows the clock is running down if Trump comes into the picture Again.
Then transnistria, then Moldova, then Romania. The, then, then
There’s a reason he’s not taking Finland. Ukraine is a special case in terms of history, culture and identity. The issue with Moldova has always been a curious case but nothing will come of it. Romania is a no also, as far as other countries near the EU/NATO sphere, this is as far as he can ever go or we will rightfully take it seriously. He knows there’s a redline he can’t be seen to be crossing.
Yes, there's a reason. They got mauled. Theyd have a worse time now even before pulling to the border.
Labour paid Russia to hurt Reform’s chances, shock.
Did they pay Farage to make the pro-Russian comments too?
He hasn’t made any pro-Russian comments, so he should take their money if it’s on offer 🤦🏻♂️