Did Boris’s announcement yesterday that up to six people from different households will be able to gather outside from Monday sound the death knell for the lockdown? It certainly feels that way for those of us who’ve been out and about on this glorious Summer day. Guy de la Bédoyère, who’s contributed many fine things to this site, has sent me a note about a motorcycle ride he took this afternoon. Sounds like things are returning to normal in Middle England…
It’s another afternoon of piercing sunshine in England on the last Friday of May 2020. The trees are in full leaf, the hedges thick and verdant. It’s a day out of one’s childhood, a summer day filled with memories of past times. I pull out one of my vintage motorcycles and set off for a short run through the countryside and villages as a break from a day of proof-reading my next book. Immediately I notice a change from other days in recent weeks. I have to wait to turn onto the main road. An endless stream of cars and vans keep me waiting. What’s this? For weeks I have been able to turn out almost without bothering to look. As I hurtle on I pass the Joint Services Flying School. The carpark is full. More vans and trucks pass me. I reach a crossroads in one of the larger villages and actually have to wait in a small queue. I turn left and pass a garage. Outside a gaggle of eight or nine children aged between 9 and 14 are on their bicycles all gathered together and enjoying a Friday afternoon like no other. It’s half-term of course but these are the days of Covid aren’t they? How many of their parents won’t be sending them back to school any time soon “because it’s not safe”. You could hardly have got 2 metres between the whole crowd of children let alone any two of them. If what some parents say is true and if one of the children is infected they’ll all be dead along with their families in a couple of weeks.
I accelerate on, watching the glint of sunshine on car roofs ahead as they approach me on the other side of the road, each one whizzing past. I head on into a road that crosses National Trust property. The stately home and its gardens are closed but there’s a public footpath and carpark on one side. It’s packed with vehicles, no doubt belonging to furloughed workers and those “working at home”. I have to dodge several joggers on the road, often running in pairs and side by side, adding to the numerous cyclists I’ve passed too (in one instance four of them in a formation barely two metres across), and also more commercial vans: painters, decorators, TV aerial vans, builders and many more. And so on and back home and once more it’s a wait to get back on the main road near my house as the cars churn past. This is the world of those who have gone back to work and those still eking out their time at home or on leisure outings before the Day of Reckoning. Some are going to look back on this as the best of times, and others the worst of times. Either way, the lockdown is dwindling and there’s one unalterable fact about summers – they always come to an end.
More Dodgy Covid Data From the Financial Times
Yesterday, the Financial Times published the above chart purporting to show that countries which had locked down the quickest had a lower excess death toll. I was immediately suspicious because it’s at odds with the numerous other papers and surveys I’ve linked to on this site showing that there’s no statistical correlation between a country’s Covid death toll and whether or not it locked down, the date at which it locked down, and how severe its restrictions are/were.
Today, my financial journalist friend who’s made many contributions to this site got in touch to tell me I was right to be suspicious. The chart is nonsense.
I’ve had a look at yesterday’s Financial Times story by John Burn-Murdoch and Chris Giles suggesting a link between excess deaths during the COVID-19 pandemic and the speed with which countries entered lockdown. Countries that locked down early had had fewer excess deaths than those which locked down later, according to the story. It confirms the widespread view among the Government’s critics that the UK’s high death rate is linked to Boris Johnson’s tardy decision to enter lockdown. A chart was published alongside the piece showing a near perfect correlation between the estimated number of infections on lockdown day and the total number of excess deaths (see below). To drive this point home, the chart’s title read: “Locking down in the early stages of the spread of the virus is linked to a reduced excess death toll.”
A sceptic might have marvelled at such a good statistical fit, particularly as we’ve never seen it before. A second sceptical thought suggested itself to me: how had the FT estimated its lockdown day infections? The methodology wasn’t explained. Still, if the data were correct, it was game over for the lockdown sceptics. At last, there appeared to be definitive statistical evidence that lockdowns saved lives.
Later in the day, however, the pink paper pulled its original chart and replaced it with a new chart [the one at the top of this article]. The new chart showed the total excess deaths per million of the population against the estimated lockdown infections per million of the population. That seemed like a sensible way of comparing countries with different population sizes. This chart carried the same title as the original and supposedly showed the same thing – the earlier a country locked down, the lower its Covid death toll.
But the data told a completely different story. The link between lockdown day infections and deaths had broken down. The US, for instance, had a much greater infection rate on lockdown day (30 infections per million) than the Netherlands (7.5 per million), but suffered far fewer excess deaths. Although the new FT chart had a regression line drawn through the data points, it was clear that there was no statistical correlation between estimated lockdown infections and a country’s excess deaths. You can see from looking at the FT’s scatter plot that the regression coefficient (R-squared) for its new, revised chart is very low and not statistically meaningful. Most of the dots are quite far away from the regression line, whereas in the first chart the dots all cluster around the line.
In fact, the new chart appears to support the recent claim from the Norwegian Health Ministry that there is no evidence that Norway’s own lockdown saved lives. Yet the FT’s original text was not revised to reflect this profound change. Instead, a note was added to the bottom of the article, stating: “This article has been modified to replace a chart linking excess deaths to lockdown dates with one linking excess deaths per million.” A puzzling comment and hardly a proper retraction. Later on the same day, the headline was changed again to account for new data which showed that Spain, rather than the UK, had the highest excess death rate in Europe.
I ran the FT’s data on excess deaths against the Blavatnik index of lockdown severity (from the end of April). In the chart I came up with, the Regression score (R-squared) is 0.16 which is STATISTICALLY MEANINGLESS. Thus, from the FT’s own data it appears that lockdown stringency has had no meaningful impact on excess deaths in either Europe or the US.
Recalculating the UK’s IFR Based On the ONS’s Antibody Survey
Yesterday, I did a back-of-envelope calculation to work out the infection fatality rate (IFR) in the UK based on the just-released results of the ONS’s seroprevalence survey which estimates that 6.78% of the population has antibodies. The survey didn’t include people in hospitals or care homes, just those “in the community”. Consequently, I stripped out the deaths that have occurred in care homes from the latest UK totals, but not hospitals, assuming that the people who’ve died in hospitals were originally “in the community”. I ended up with an IFR of 0.82% and because this is so at odds with the latest CDC estimate I concluded that either the numerator or the denominator must be wrong.
However, the number-crunching genius Alistair Haimes has been in touch to say I miscalculated.
Just gone through your calculation of the UK IFR from yesterday – I’d actually used those results and got to an IFR of 0.25% which is strikingly close to the CDC’s estimate of 0.26%.
You need to make the following changes to your calculation:
1. You assumed that only 21% of deaths are care home residents based on the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control data, but actually ONS figures show it’s 37.4% (as at May 1st: 12,526 care home residents out of the 33,480 Covid deaths til then = 37.4%). Very sneakily, the ONS only generally shows “care home deaths” as those where the death is actually inside the care home, but in a release on May 15th they also include care home residents in England and Wales who die in hospital.
2. You also need to remove infections acquired in hospitals, where the percentage of infected people is far higher than “in the community”. That is “somewhere between 10% and 20%” according to the NHS figures from recent Guardian article. Say mid-way, 15%.
3. If we deduct those care home deaths (37.4% of 47,343 is 17,706) and those who caught the virus in hospital (15% of 47,343 is ~7,000), the total number of deaths “in the community” comes to 22,637.
4. Having sorted out the numerator, you now need to look at the denominator. That means accounting for the percentage of people who fight off the virus (so should be included in the number who’ve been infected) using antibodies from other coronaviruses. According to the implications of this article in Cell, you might well have to double the percentage of the population testing positive for antibodies in a seroprevalence survey to get the true figure. That means doubling the 6.78% to 13.56%. 13.5% x 67 million = 9,085,200.
5. So what’s the IFR? 9,085,200 ÷ 22,637 = 401.34 and 100 ÷ 401.34 = 0.249, so an IFR of ~0.25%.
Canadian Columnist Fired For Covid Dissent
Brian Jones, a columnist for a Canadian newspaper called the St John’s Telegram, has lost his weekly gig after writing a piece in which he pointed out that public sector workers in Canada are having an easier time of it during lockdown than private sector employes. The former have been furloughed on full pay, while the latter are expected to subsist on $2,000 a month. Here’s an extract:
It is more proof, as if any were needed, that Government workers enjoy a special status paid for by everyone else, even by people who lose jobs and then receive a measly $2,000 per month.
A laughable explanation is that Government employees are working from home, when possible. Please. Civil servants move at half speed even when they’re in the workplace.
Although, to give them their due, there were credible reports of Transportation and Works employees taking shovels home so they could lean on them in their living rooms.
Needless to say, this provoked a storm on Canadian Twitter, with hundreds of outraged readers demanding that Jones be fired for wrongthink. So what did the Telegram‘s editors do? Tell the hashtag activists to take a running jump? Alas not. They fired the heretical columnist. Here’s how they announced the decision – on Twitter, naturally:
Dear Readers, as a daily news publication we aim to offer you an informative mix of features, news, fun diversions and diverse opinions. With opinions, in particular, sometimes we push the edges and explore unpopular opinions. When we go too far, you tell us.
We’re always grateful for that. This week, you stepped up once again with scores of readers responding to Brian Jones’s May 20th column. Your feedback was an important gauge for us and for him, and, in response, he has decided that that this week’s column will be his last.
As excuses go, that’s right up there with being told your opinions “violate our Community Guidelines”. Solidarity, brother.
Dodgy Death Statistics
A reader provides yet another anecdote of a doctor ascribing a death to COVID-19 when it clearly wasn’t. I get a lot of these.
I met up with a friend of mine the other day and he mentioned he had spoken to a mutual friend of ours the other week. He said that our friend’s gran sadly passed away in a care home the other week. However, on the death certificate – you guessed it – cause of death COVID-19.
She tested positive six weeks ago, recovered form the virus (two Covid tests to confirm she was negative) the following week. Then sadly she died last week as she was very unwell before hand.
I don’t understand how the cause of death can be COVID-19 after testing negative to show she had fought the virus off, she can pass away a month later and then have her death go down as a Covid death?
Donor-Conceived Babies Cannot Find Out Who Their Biological Parents Are
Following last week’s news that it’s nigh-on impossible to register a new birth at the moment – because of the lockdown, natch – a reader has contacted me to point out that donor-conceived people cannot obtain any information about who their biological parents are while the crisis continues.
A notice on the website of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority informs people that: “Due to COVID-19, we cannot currently process any applications for information.” It blames it on the fact that fertility clinics, which it depends on to help it access this information, are not “fully operational”. It then adds: “We estimate it will be several months before sufficient support is available across the sector to enable the… services to restart.”
President of Tanzania is Sceptic of the Week
Among the heroes to emerge from the coronavirus pandemic, Dr John Pombe Magufuli, the President of Tanzania, is one of the least likely. Yet hero he is, having sacked his chief health advisor after a goat and a papaya tested positive for COVID-19 in the Government lab, and refused to lockdown the country. According to Worldometers, the death toll in Tanzania currently stands at 21. That’s since the beginning of the year, not in the last 24 hours.
In his latest audacious move, President Magufuli has banned face masks, as well as ordered schools and businesses to reopen. He also recently told the American envoy to Tanzania not to “cause panic” after the American embassy in the capital, Dar es Salaam, wrongly claimed that the chances of contracting the virus were “extremely high”.
Top man.
An American in London Writes…
Nice blog post from the writer Michael Hurley about what it’s like being an American ex-pat living in London during lockdown. It’s entitled “Land of Fear and Loathing“. He’s one of us, but more pessimistic than me. Here are a couple of paragraphs:
Unlike some, I do not kindle hope that the many able commentators who keep pointing out the continuing tragedy of the lockdown policy and the absurdity of the “new normal” of social distancing will eventually win the argument with their fellow Britons. There is no argument to be won. As the American cartoon character Pogo would say, “I have met the enemy, and he is us.”
We are the new normal. We are not the people our grandparents were. We are the ones eagerly participating in this extravagant charade that we are all about to die from shaking hands with our neighbours or walking outside without a mask. We have the power to choose the kind of society we live in by refusing to give aid and comfort to the scaremongers through our silence. Too many of us simply refuse to speak.
Worth reading the whole thing.
Sign Petition to Get Club Cricket Back Up and Running
A reader sent me this Change.org petition calling on the England and Wales Cricket Board (ECB) to stop being such big girls blouses and allow county cricket to restart. The ECB recently announced a further delay to the start of the professional domestic cricket season, with no domestic cricket to be played until August. As the author of the petition writes:
I’m urging people to sign this petition and plead with the ECB/UK Government to work hard at making all forms of recreational cricket matches possible from early July 2020.
No cricket season in 2020 will have a major effect on many clubs across the country financially.
No cricket at club level this year could see participation levels and interest in the sport drop which is not what anyone wishes to see especially within the younger generation.
Please sign the petition.
In Wales, the First Minister is Granting People “Permission” to Leave Their Homes!
I got an email from a disgruntled reader in Wales following yesterday’s announcement by the First Minister about the easing of lockdown restrictions.
Had to comment on the latest measures here in Wales which tells us that we’re allowed to leave our homes, but have to stay local and within five miles. I do understand that the FM has said there’s room for interpretation as we do not have a bus within five miles of here, never mind a shop or a relation. But will the police give us this same latitude?
One thing that really annoyed me though was his use of the phrase “we are offering people permission…” Sorry? I thought this was a free country? I understand we have emergency powers in place, but shouldn’t the politicians be talking about “we are returning some of the civil liberties we have withdrawn” instead?
I think if I were to write down the emotion I feel whenever I hear such words as “permission” being used, it would be GRRRRR.
“It’s all bullshit,” says Russia’s Head of Coronavirus Information
In Russia, the doctor and television presenter Alexander Myasnikov has been given the task of informing the Russian people about coronavirus treatment and prevention methods and to battle “fake news” about COVID-19. He recently called the country’s reported low death rate a “Russian miracle”. But in a moment of candour, when he thought he was off air, he blurted out the truth, according to the Moscow Times.
In an interview that aired Wednesday, Myasnikov gestured for the cameras to stop running and said candidly: “It’s all bullsh*t.”
“It’s all exaggerated. It’s an acute respiratory disease with minimal mortality,” he told television personality Ksenia Sobchak in the interview for her YouTube project.
“Why has the whole world been destroyed? That I don’t know,” Myasnikov said.
Round-Up
And on to the round-up of all the stories I’ve noticed, or which have been been brought to my attention, in the last 24 hours:
- ‘Prevalence of “silent” COVID-19 infection may be higher than thought‘ – Article in a medical journal pointing out that 80% of passengers on a cruise ship infected with Covid were asymptomatic
- ‘Why No One Can Explain the Drop in Coronavirus Cases in Israel‘ – Meirav Arlosoroff points out that the number of new cases has fallen in Israel since lockdown was eased, contrary to the prediction of many. Why were the experts’ models so mistaken?
- ‘Let’s learn from this pandemic to be better prepared for the really big one‘ – Professor Ramesh Thakur on the rise and fall of coronavirus modelling
- ‘Japan’s Covid success is a mystery‘ – Philip Patrick in the Spectator marvels at well Japan has navigated the crisis, with no lockdown
- ‘Was the lockdown worth it?‘ – Inaya Folarin asks a question to which the answer is no in Spiked
- ‘Easyjet’s 30% cut in jobs bigger than feared‘ – Job losses at EasyJet continue to mount
- ‘Car production fell to just 197 vehicles in April‘ – Things aren’t looking good for the British motor industry, reports the Times
- ‘Bodyguards for Italian leaders amid anger at economic woe‘ – Will Boris Johnson and Dominic Cummings soon require the same service?’
- ‘Seven in ten testing positive show no symptoms‘ – More data from yesterday’s ONS survey
- ‘People asked to self-isolate will not be told name of informant amid fears of reprisals‘ – The Telegraph reports on precautions being taken to protect Covid informants to Matt Hancock’s test-and-trace task force. But won’t this increase the likelihood of vexatious reports?
- ‘Extent of Covid-19 Deaths Failed to Be Captured by Most Countries‘ – The Wall St Journal delves into the dodgy Covid death statistics
Small Businesses That Have Reopened
A couple of weeks ago, Lockdown Sceptics launched a searchable directory of open businesses across the UK. The idea is to celebrate those retail and hospitality businesses that have reopened, as well as help people find out what has opened in their area. But we need your help to build it, so we’ve created a form you can fill out to tell us about those businesses that have opened near you. Please visit the page and let us know about those brave folk who are doing their bit to get our country back on its feet.
Shameless Begging Bit
Thanks as always to those of you who made a donation in the last 24 hours to pay for the upkeep of this site. It still takes me about nine hours a day, what with doing these updates, moderating your comments and commissioning original material. If you feel like donating, however paltry the amount, please click here. And if you want to flag up any stories or links I should include in tomorrow’s update, email me here.
And Finally…
This picture is for fans of the John Carpenter movie They Live, a cult classic about how aliens are living among us and use subliminal messages to ensure compliance with their diabolical plans. To most people in the film, they appear normal. But occasionally they get to see what the aliens really look like…
For more on the psychological techniques being used by the Government to control the population, see this YouTube video by Dr Vernon Coleman. Watch it before it’s taken down…
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
A disappointing hatchet job from a writer who should know better.
No mention of the alleged unaudited billions flowing into the Ukraine for arms and aid.
No mention of Zelensky’s refusal to allow the citizens a voice over the conflict.
No mention of the EU & UK buying oil and gas from Russia, using middle men, despite the official sanctions. All to cover up the Nut Zero nonsense and leaving Russia as wealthy as before.
Also that US LNG wont sell itself whilst other gas suppliers are available.
Farcical isn’t it.
On Farage’s point about NATO “expansionism”, I’m not going to repeat myself by going over why that argument is false (I’ve spilt a lot of ink on that already)
Clown show. So engaging in coups, putting in ‘advisers’, missiles and 40 biolabs on the Russian border in what used to be essentially a satrapy of Moscow, does not in anyway constitute aggression. Contravening the Minsk and other agreements does not – this clown’s world view’ – mean that you have broken a contract and are acting in bad faith.
I think the Russians should follow the American template and do the same in say Mexico or Cuba.
More falsehoods from Ian Rons.
The Maidan coup was in direct response to a US/EU coup against the democratically elected government of Ukraine.
The election in Ukraine in 2010 was a 49% to 45% victory for the pro Russian Victor Yanukovych and the election was declared to be above board and totally legal. He had huge support in the east and south of the country.
Even ex US Presidential candidate Ron Paul acknowledged in 2015 that Maidan was a US coup.
http://www.ronpaulinstitute.org/archives/featured-articles/2015/february/22/interventionism-kills-post-coup-ukraine-one-year-later/
Crimea wasn’t “invaded” by Russia.
Russia’s “annexation” of Crimea (by military personnel already stationed there for their Black Sea fleet, no Russian troops needed to be sent as they have been there by agreement for decades) was more of a “reunification” and was with a 96% approval rating by the 1.5 million people of Crimea in a referendum. They needed to vote in 2014 as they saw the rise of the ultranationalists and neo-Nazis after the US led Maidan coup and the persecution of ethnic Russians in the east and south of Ukraine.
“The men occupying Crimea’s parliament came to be recognised by locals and by international media as Russian soldiers without insignia. For the pro-Russian groups that believed that Right Sector and other Ukrainian nationalists were a threat, the gunmen became a symbol of salvation and safety.”
The West called them “little green men” but the Crimeans called them “the polite people”.
https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/odr/how-ordinary-crimeas-helped-russia-annex-their-home/
Farage is in good company in believing that Russia was “provoked”.
Russia WAS provoked by the US via Ukraine as admitted by such luminaries as Noam Chomsky, Henry Kissinger, Robert Kennedy Jr, John Pilger, Peter Hitchens etc. etc. etc.
Noam Chomsky continued, “Of course, it was provoked. Otherwise, they wouldn’t refer to it all the time as an unprovoked invasion.”
https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/not-justification-provocation-chomsky-root-causes-russia-ukraine-war
“So, as you can see, the notion that this war is “unprovoked” is a fairy tale for idiots and children; there’s no excuse for a grown adult with internet access and functioning brain matter to ever say such a thing.”
https://consortiumnews.com/2023/01/08/caitlin-johnstone-unprovoked/?eType=EmailBlastContent&eId=d523aa2a-0e68-46e9-9783-a9c05d1c7232
“Nearly a year after Russia’s invasion, the western narrative of an ‘unprovoked’ attack has become impossible to sustain”.
https://www.jonathan-cook.net/2023-01-10/russia-ukraine-war-us-pave-invasion/
“It is an old tactic in high-stakes diplomacy to provoke your enemy into an unwise war, in the hope you will then destroy him”. Peter Hitchens.
https://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/2022/04/peter-hitchens-the-usa-wants-this-war-so-it-can-drive-russia-back-to-the-stone-age.html?cid=6a00d8341c565553ef0282e14d5a0c200b
We (that is: the United States, France and the European Union in the lead) have created the conditions for a conflict to break out.
Colonel Jacques Baud of Nato.
https://www.sott.net/article/466340-Retired-Swiss-Military-Intelligence-Officer-Is-it-Possible-to-Actually-Know-What-Has-Been-And-is-Going-on-in-Ukraine
The War in Ukraine Was Provoked.
The Biden administration’s insistence on NATO enlargement has made Ukraine a victim of misconceived and unachievable U.S. military aspirations, writes Jeffrey D. Sachs.
https://consortiumnews.com/2023/05/24/the-war-in-ukraine-was-provoked/?eType=EmailBlastContent&eId=ff658442-9aa8-49c9-8bd1-1bf7ccef308e
Henry Kissinger “I think the offer to put Ukraine into NATO was a grave mistake and led to this war,”
https://tass.com/world/1623817
This was stated by US presidential candidate Robert Kennedy Jr. He recalled that there was an agreement between Russia and Ukraine in April last year and Russian troops withdrew from the outskirts of Kiev. However, the United States intervened.
“And now we have killed 350,000 young people there. And I am not an apologist for Vladimir Putin. It was a brutal war. But we also need to look at our role in provocations since 1997,” he said.
https://t.me/NewResistance/21012
“But Nato’s military encirclement has accelerated, along with US-orchestrated attacks on ethnic Russians in Ukraine. If Putin can be provoked into coming to their aid, his pre-ordained “pariah” role will justify a Nato-run guerrilla war that is likely to spill into Russia itself.” John Pilger May 2014
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/may/13/ukraine-us-war-russia-john-pilger
This War Wasn’t Just Provoked — It Was Provoked Deliberately.
http://ronpaulinstitute.org/archives/featured-articles/2023/september/25/this-war-wasnt-just-provoked-it-was-provoked-deliberately/
My first sentence should have read …….
The Maidan riots were a US/EU led coup against the democratically elected government of Ukraine.
L Rons Hubbard et al believe that the endless eastward expansion of NATO and engendering coups in the Uketopia is ‘proof’ that the Uketopians want to be ingested into the US empire. No such proofs exist.
What the criminal US empire wants is a forever war (money laundering, potential to lock down their society, all-war footing etc etc); and the resources in Ukeland.
Ukeland is already a 51rst US State, it would not exist without US military and budget investments. A fact that L Rons seems to ignore.
Did the Uketopians vote to join the US or its German puppet the EUrinal? Can L Rons point out that referendum?
Excellent synopsis.
Bravo.
Just a shame that the uptickers on here cannot seem to engage their brains when it comes to the Genocide occuring in the western med.
Still, that’s the power of 80 years worth of propaganda…
Eastern Med.
It is a conundrum.
Many can see that Russia were totally justified in their actions even though there is a blanket ban in the UK of Russian media outlets.
Most of the geopolitical analysts I have been following for decades support Russia AND Palestine.
I can only assume that many people have succumbed to the 80 years of Zionist propaganda that you mention.
Diligent work. If you can do this, so can Farage.
Let me get this right. It’s GOOD for Farage to have got us out of the evil EU empire, but also GOOD for Ukraine to be shoehorned into the very same empire, as the unelected EU European Council agreed just three days ago, by negotiating with a Ukrainian government under a President whose tenure has expired and who has cancelled elections.
Let me think about this…
There is also the factor that the very same expired President decreed that no ethnic Russians, a third of the Ukrainian population, can hold public office or vote. A minor point of course which, strangely, the MSM seem to have missed.
“Honest, the Ukrainians are far better off in a corrupt EU with NATO pointing missiles from their main border”.
Re: “ethnic Russians”, that’s completely false.
Really Ian? This is only part of it:
“KIEV (Reuters) – Ukraine’s parliament approved a law on Thursday that grants special status to the Ukrainian language and makes it mandatory for public sector workers, a move Russia described as divisive and said discriminated against Russian-speakers.
The law, which obliges all citizens to know the Ukrainian language and makes it a mandatory requirement for civil servants, soldiers, doctors, and teachers, was championed by outgoing President Petro Poroshenko.”
https://www.reuters.com/article/world/ukraine-passes-language-law-irritating-president-elect-and-russia-idUSKCN1S110Y/
Yes, Ukrainian is the official language of Ukraine. After decades of Moscow trying to eradicate it. But that’s not what you said — you claimed “ethnic Russians” aren’t allowed to vote or hold public office, which is false.
I clearly say in the piece that I find it odd that Ukrainians want to join the EU, but they believe it’s in their interests and they have the right to try to join if they want to. This is basic self-determination. Agree or disagree, but for most Ukrainians, the EU is seen as a non-corrupt shining light that’ll help drag their country out of the corruption that became endemic during the Soviet era (and the oligarchic corruption that happened later). To some degree, that argument is valid in my opinion – it has forced them to deal with some corruption, and joining the customs union would undoubtedly provide economic advantages for them. There’s a reason why countries like Romania wanted to join so badly, after all.
As for Ukraine being “shoehorned”, no this is a settled matter within Ukraine and quite the opposite is true. If you watch Servant of the People, you’ll see the desperation of the main character (played by Zelenskyy) to join the EU is lampooned quite viciously, although back in 2014 the country wasn’t as incredibly pro-EU as they are now.
Ian, I’m none too sure you understood Jon’s point. Now, as I have pointed out in this thread the basic thrust of Farages comment was that Russia used two facts as an excuse.
Are you aware of what he actually said? I’d hope so.
Therefore, is it, or is not, the case that NATO wanted Ukraine to join and accept missiles on their land? Yes or No will do fine.
Did the EU, in conjunction with the EU, offer membership to Ukraine? Yes or No will do fine.
Given that the answers are both Yes, how was Farage wrong in saying that those two factual things were the excuse Russia used? That is the essence of this. You seek to turn it into something it really is not. It is quite clear that Russia did use those facts.
No. Ukraine has never been in a position to join NATO. Also, NATO isn’t a monolithic entity but a collection of states, all of whom have to agree on new members. However, I think what you’re trying to get at is whether the leading nations in NATO (I mean particularly the US and UK) were trying to push Ukraine in that direction, but I don’t accept that framing – there was hope that Ukraine would be less screwed up and take the path of peaceful co-operation in Europe, but that wouldn’t necessarily mean NATO membership (or why doesn’t NATO try to get Austria to join?). Also, why do you think Putin wanted to join NATO? You talk about NATO membership like it’s some kind of bad thing for a country – and no, it’s not about trying to get “missiles” (I assume you mean nuclear weapons) onto other countries’ territory, like that’s some condition of membership (it certainly isn’t, and anyway you need to understand the US nuclear triad).
No. Many of the same points as re: NATO apply here, but they were effectively offered something that could have later become a pathway to eventual membership subject to a lot of conditions, which is not the same thing.
I addressed this point in my article, and said that this is one thing that Russia does use as an excuse. I think you’re being quite obtuse.
It seems you have an endless supply of hairs to split.
Which Ukrainians are you talking about? Those who have fled the country, those who have been marginalised or worse by their own goverment for the unforgivable sin of speaking Russian. Those who were promised autonomy by their goverment who then totally reneged on the agreement. Those who have decided not to bother with simple things like elections. Those who have banned opposition political parties. Certainly not those hundreds of thousands of dead Ukrainian soldiers.
Ukraine has been factionalised almost since its foundation.
Russia has intervened on behalf of the Marginalised Ukrainians. It was broadly welcomed into Crimea, and its “invasion” was timed to divert a major Ukrainian assault on Donbass.
Those Ukrainians who see the EU as a paragon of virtue are viewing it from the point of view of what has consistently been accused of being the moast corrupt nation in Europe. Given the corruption in EU it of course would welcome like minds.
Marginalised Russian speakers like Zelenskyy, you mean? Loads of people speak Russian in Ukraine, your points are just not accurate at all. Crimea had autonomy, and its own parliament. But I suppose you’re probably thinking of Minsk, which I covered in a previous article. Political parties controlled by foreign countries are banned in every country, including here. You seem to paint Russia as some kind of saviour, which is absurd.
Not any more they don’t. You need to keep up to date.
What do you mean you covered Minsk. You gave an interpretation of Minsk.
“Political parties controlled by foreign countries are banned in every country” – have you never heard of colour revolutions? Are you trying to say that the West had no hand in funding and trying to empower these? They are by definition Western initiatives.
As for Zelensky, his wife said a couple of days ago “without Ukrainian, you can’t do anything. It’s unpleasant to speak Russian now. This is the language of those who came to kill us. It is important not to speak their language.” If that is not marginalisation of Russian speakers I don’t know what is.
Can you please provide a link to that statement by Olena Zelenskyy? Plenty of people in Ukraine speak Russian, it’s normal to hear it in Kyiv, so I assume what she’s saying is that most people choose to speak Ukrainian instead now.
As for “colour revolutions”, that’s a bigger topic but a lot of that comes out of the US anti-Vietman movement with people like Gene Sharp, although of course the US and the West were absolutely not against them.
Here is a link to the statement by Olena. As reported by The Telegraph.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tf7WyZ80xL4
In the video, Olena Zelenskyy doesn’t say anything of the sort. A shameless lie.
https://t.me/Slavyangrad/101978
the unelected EU European Council
Members of the European CouncilThe members of the European Council are the heads of state or government of the 27 EU member states, the European Council President and the President of the European Commission.
https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/european-council
And these heads of state or government have certainly been elected.
It’s funny that on the one hand western interference in Ukraine didn’t really have much influence on how Ukrainians felt about NATO or the EU (according to Rons) and yet on the other hand, Russia (supposedly) is constantly trying to interfere in our elections with “misinformation” and social media activity and this is an enormous threat to our democracy.
I’ll wager that western activity in Ukraine to influence public opinion and drive the politics and decisions in that country was many many orders of magnitude greater than anything Russians may or may not do to influence the minds of British, American and EU voters.
Yet for some inexplicable reason, when we do it, we’re promoting democracy. When Russia does it it threatens democracy.
What people like Rons don’t get is that the number of people waking up to this stupidity is growing. And they’re really fed up. Fed up of being treated like idiots.
That’s probably why Farage is getting so much traction and why his Russia comments will probably help him rather than hurt him.
Russian influence in Ukraine consisted of a lot more than a few bot-farms spouting ridiculous propaganda to no effect (like in the 2016 US Presidential election), in fact Putin controlled a lot of Ukrainian media and the disappearances and murders of journalists was not uncommon while politicians like Yuschenko got poisoned. I’d suggest you read The War Came to Us by Christopher Miller for a taste of this.
On the other hand, the EU didn’t really have to do much for people to want to join it, when compared with what being in the Russkiy mir is like.
Ian you are fighting a valiant rear guard rather like Richard III, I think better to quit whilst you are ahead. I can imagine you arguing that we should expel the communists from Korea in the 50s or that involvement in Vietnam in 60s was a cracking good idea. Are there any US foreign adventures of which you disapprove?
You seem to think you know about my opinions, but it ain’t so.
Oh dear me, I expected far better. There are two facts that matter above all else:
1. NATO wanted, and still want, Ukraine to accept missiles on their soil
1a. In April 2024 the Secretary General of NATO delivered a speech in Ukraine and stated that “when the time is right Ukraine will immediately be admitted”
2. The EU, in conjunction with NATO wanted, and still want. Ukraine to join
Quite frankly you really do not need to understand more than those two things. Everything else is nuance, smoke and mirrors.
With regard to the “article”, sadly I have to say it is probably the worst article on DS I have ever read. The author deliberately sidesteps the important facts and tries to do an MSM on Farage.
Any thinking person can read what Farage said, look up the facts of the CIA, NATO and EU involvement and come to more or less the conclusion I outlined above. Sure there are other factors but the basics are that the West deliberately, and knowingly, provoked Russia.
The author can twist and turn in the wind from his bottom as much as he likes but facts are facts.
“Worst article ever!” OK, tell me, what was the CIA’s involvement again?
You have deliberately avoided even printing what Farage said and attempted to use smoke and mirrors and arguments that are not pertinent to the facts of what Farage said.
You, by ommission, in your reply admit that Farage was absolutely correct. If you do not know how America was involved in the overthrow of the previous President then you really have not done any research.
Why do you find it impossible to admit Farage was right and you have disappeared down an MSM Rabbit Warren dreaming of things he did not say nor imply?
It really is simple Ian: NATO planned to put missiles in the Ukraine. The EU want Ukraine to join.
Seriously, seriously simple. Putin used those facts as his excuse. It makes no difference what nuance you dream up, it makes no difference what Putin also said. He had plausable provocation.
Is it true or is it not? You know the answer, man up and admit you are wrong.
Mention Victoria Nuland. I dare you. I double dare you!
That really is so childish, Ian.
Why? Everyone was mentioning Victoria Nuland all the time, until they realised the problem there… but that’s the basis for the CIA coup claim, isn’t it?
It is not what you said but the immature way you said it.
Please explain, I’m not up to speed. What is this new information you have about Nuland?
It was in the New York Times at the time. She was there to negotiate between the protesters and Yanukovych about who he should appoint to his government (PM, Interior Minister, etc.) to resolve the dispute, and it was all done publicly. The leaked call was a bit awkward but hardly evidence of a CIA plot. In the end there was no agreement.
Victoria Nuland is an imbecile whose record does not warrant her elevated position, there I mentioned her.
Incidentally, I stand by what I said. Your article is so badly written you didn’t even print what he said. That is not Journalism, that is MSM.
How on earth can you comment and pillory something you are not even willing to print?
Mr Farage’s position on Ukraine is just plain silly.
He claims to have been telling the truth. That makes no sense.
In fact he was offering an opinion.
What evidence has he offered in order to back up his opinion?
Britain and the U.S.A. gave Ukraine security assurances in 1994 in return for the surrender of Ukraine’s 5,000+ nuclear warheads. That was a hostage to fortune right there.
The U.S. turned down a workable peace deal over Kosovo at Rambouillet in 1999, subsequently bombing Serbia. That set a precedent and embarrassed Russia.
Putin’s invasion of 2014 triggered the security assurances of 1994, which then led to the 2022 invasion.
If Farage had said that the two invasions of Ukraine had their roots in the inept and bloody resolution of the Kosovo crisis in 1999 and the Budapest Memorandum of 1994, he would have made some sense.
Instead of nonsense.
There can be no excuse, no justification for two invasions of a neighbouring country, the killing of hundreds of thousands of Russians, Ukrainians, the displacement of millions, in pursuit of a frankly lunatic delusion of imperial grandeur.
Putin is, apparently, not mad, so he must be suffering from some form of psychopathy.
Did you actually listen to, not read, what Farage said? Clearly not. You read headlines and made assumptions.
As to your amateur and childish claims about mental health. Go away. Come back when you have grown up. Pathetic doesn’t come close. There are grown ups in here.
Certainly the bombing of Serbia was a big shock for Russians. But I think the collapse of the Russian economy in 1998 could be said to have been more important. And then you could go back to 1993 constitutional crisis, and the West’s response to that. In every respect, they failed to transition to a free-market democracy and the West does have some collective responsibility for what happened.
However, I have a different take on the Budapest Memorandum: in reality, Ukraine was broke and couldn’t afford the upkeep of very high-maintenance nuclear warheads – even if they had the technical know-how, which is actually somewhat doubtful. The problems of dealing with all the 1,240 strategic warheads would have been immense, and it’s really no wonder they gave them up. Of course that doesn’t change the fact that Russia broke that agreement, I just think the calculus at the time was quite different (and yes, in hindsight quite naive).
I don’t believe Britain and the U.S. had any alternative other than to sign the Budapest Memorandum. The idea of 5,000+ nuclear warheads still stored in a country invaded twice and well capable, as we have seen, of engineering delivery systems doesn’t bear thinking about.
The mistake, in my view, that Britain, the U.S. made was unilaterally disarming in Europe at the same time that every other Western European country disarmed.
No Western European nation capable of deploying a fully established armoured division, no conventional deterrent any longer existed and any nuclear deterrent quite clearly did not cover Ukraine.
That Poland has recently signed orders for 1250+ Main Battle Tanks is telling.
We basically agree with each other, but just on the point about nukes, it’s not actually clear to me that the Ukrainians could have used a lot of them – whatever ESD and PAL systems the Russians used might have been a mystery to them (i.e., they might not have had the launch codes for one thing), but I’m no expert and a lot of that stuff is of course shrouded in secrecy. I was thinking of writing an article on the topic of Russian nukes and the old Soviet stock that was in Ukraine, but key facts are quite hard to come by. I’d recommend The Nuclear Express if you’re interested in all this stuff, and if you haven’t already read it.
Of course, the question of whether Ukraine could have deployed the warheads was kinda irrelevant when the danger of all that fissile material falling into the wrong hands was so very real. Although of course it did fall into the wrong hands…
It must be such a relief for Munro to have a friend. You may have noticed he or she does not have a lot of support around here.
yes i am really enjoying reading all of this. real debate and so well written everyone!
A man of discernment, clearly.
‘“We use discourse analysis to analyse his interviews, his discourse and the rhetoric that he uses as we are not in a clinical situation with him. What he does is demonstrate a high level of control and what is generally known as sociopathy or psychopathy. This psychopathic nature that he manifests is not a clinical term but an umbrella term that has been utilised to almost integrate a number of personality traits.”
Dr A. Cassidy, Psychological Practitioner with a background in political psychology
‘What is psychopathy? I’m using the Clecklian definition of psychopathy. Hervey Cleckley says in his “The Mask of Sanity” (1941) that a psychopath looks normal and does everything to look normal. But if you look at the center, the core traits, they’re all low in emotional empathy. They’re very manipulative, they’re very predatorial, they’re very aggressive. They all tend to be fearless at least for a while, they are ruthless, they have no remorse or guilt. They’re callous and they have a grandiose sense of self…..A sociopath understands that what they’re doing is immoral, or wrong, or evil but does it anyway, whereas a psychopath thinks what he is doing is really okay. They believe this. It is a part of the story of your own inherent personality, as a true psychopath: you really believe your own stuff. It is not a ruse in the usual sense for normal people acting badly. Putin appears to have these traits.’
Prof. James Fallon, American neuroscientist, University of California, specializing in psychopathic disorders
Quite frankly I cannot see how you can claim someone is a physchopath from a speech which is translated from a language you are not fluent in. An analysis in a book can make more or less any politician or business leader a nutcase.
For example this certainly applies to Starmer, Blair, Cameron, Bush to name just a few:
“they’re all low in emotional empathy. They’re very manipulative, they’re very predatorial, they’re very aggressive. They all tend to be fearless at least for a while, they are ruthless, they have no remorse or guilt. They’re callous and they have a grandiose sense of self”
There is also, of course, that few, if any speeches, are written by one person. Are they all cases for the loony bin?
We are constantly being told what Putin’s intentions are by Western commentators, and by yourself too.
I thought that one of the traits of pschopaths is their unpredictability.
You presumablyare referring to the NATO bombing of Serbia, giving the lie to NATO being purely a defensive organisation and allowing Russia to understand that NATO protestations about not having offensive intent are not reliable, however NATO might try to justify its actions.
The USA also gave assurances to Yeltsin – no NATO in Ukraine.
That clearly has not been honoured.
Over a year ago, a peace deal – brokered by the Turkish – initialled by Russia and Ukraine was ready to end the conflict.
This was deliberately sabotaged by the USA delivered to Zelenskyy by Boris Johnson when PM.
Isn’t that provocation and doesn’t it confirm that the US and its NATO stooges wanted the war and did whatever they could to ensure there was one?
If you sincerely believe that, I would be most grateful for a reference regarding the evidence that you are relying on.
All of which is an interesting discussion of history but what we need now is credible way forward. If NATO is not about to mobilise a massive army and march into Ukraine, then we need to be realistic about what happens next?
To borrow a phrase used by a regular contributor to Ukraine discussions on this site, what is really going on? Why is the international community not coming together to press Ukraine and Russia to come to a peace discussion with no pre-conditions. Is it because there are huge vested interests in prolonging this war with its appalling loss of lives on both sides?
From what Putin has said recently he could go along with a deal that left a neutral Ukraine which would include Kiev and Odessa. What would be so wrong with talking to Russia about such a deal? OK it might mean the alleged aggressor gets to keep much of what has been gained but what is the alternative? As it is at the moment, for many Ukrainians and Russians, talking about the future is academic as the continuation of this war will seem them dead and in their graves.
To those that say you cannot trust Russia, I would say that you cannot trust any of them, you need skilled statesmen and diplomats to set up and monitor an agreement that then has a strong chance of lasting.
“Is it because there are huge vested interests in prolonging this war with its appalling loss of lives on both sides?”
Monro’s statements that the aim is to keep the Russians occupied and blunt their ability to invade other places seem quite plausible. I’m not saying they do want to invade other places, but if you believe they do, or pretend to believe that, then letting the Ukrainians slug it out with them forever sort of makes sense, especially if it’s just costing you £££s and not the lives of your own citizens.
It is certainly the case that the massive degradation of the Russian military is exceedingly good news.
Are you serious? Russia is attacking on multiple fronts and now outnumbers Ukraine, they are developing new weapons and introducing them constantly. FAB 3000 anyone. Even the most staunch Western observers concede that Russian military production is many times greater than the combined West’s. There also appears to be increasing actions against Ukraine infrastructure by resistance groups
It’s ok Ian is probably wetting the bed that a million ppl have died needlessly. I’m guessing he’s an atheist so equates humans dying to ants dying or something
That would be an inaccurate guess. I’m a Christian and very much not indifferent to the loss of life, and I pray for Russia and Russians, including Russian soldiers sent to take human life in Ukraine. Nothing about this situation brings me any kind of joy.
The Ukrainians and Russians are also Christians. All those icons and magnificently adorned churches. The sea of candles and black-shrouded women.
Both pray to the same God. Both worship the Prince of Peace. Does the Almighty feel an apocalypse coming on?
I’d disagree with that assessment, but it’d take me a while to go into the details so let’s just agree to disagree for the present. I might come back to it later.
I look forward to it, but please don’t include any Western assessments because I won’t believe them.
Western assessments, especially military ones, have been shown to be totally out of touch with reality. I can’t remember how many times the Russians have “exhausted” their supplies of missiles, drones, ammunition and men.
Well they have run out of some stuff, although manpower isn’t one of them.
Go on, give us a clue.
They are learning a thing or two. Battle hardened is of high value.
Killing russians is great, in other news we are blessed Ian Rons was not around in Germany in the 1940s otherwise he’d have argued killing Russians is exceedingly good news also.
You do know the Nazis were allied with the Soviets in 1940, don’t you?
Really? Such erudition, I am in awe.
Not good news is the fact that, unlike in the Cold War when Nixon’s policy kept Russia and China apart, both have now put aside their suspicions of each other and their differences, and become eternal friends.
As the Russian military haven’t yet captured a single major Ukrainian city, their forces don’t look too massive in strength.
And the degradation has reached the West. Stockpiles of shells and anti-aircraft missiles have been depleted. Even from combat units. Production cannot keep up. As Ben Wallace tetchily observed, the West gives Ukraine more weapons and the Ukrainians treat NATO ‘like Amazon’.
A hard border is beginning to form along the massive minefields that both sides are laying. Ukraine is now the most heavily mined territory in the world. Under current rates of clearance it will take over 700 years to remove. Poor Diana will be turning in her island grave.
What a disgusting and cowardly comment.
Still, you’ve no need to worry have you with hundreds of thousands of mainly young men dying (especially the Russians) on your behalf.
You’re in the same bracket as Lyndsey Graham – rejoicing in the fact that Russians are dying with no human cost to the USA.
And there was me thinking drafting all these young people was just to give them a Trade to learn and appease the old voters who like the idea. Irony for those with none;-)
Unfortunately, there is no possible deal that would lead to a lasting peace and that would not merely be a convenient stop on the way to Putin and his cohorts later going on to attack again. That’s just how they operate. And what would happen to the people left in Russian-controlled areas? You’re talking about people’s families – mothers, sisters, etc.
In that case why is everyone pussy-footing around and not making an all-out assault on Russia. It is clear, even to many in senior position in the USA, that there is no way that Ukraine can win militarily with diminishing if not vanishing manpower, military hand-me-downs from the West and a track record of failed sanctions.
“You’re talking about people’s families – mothers, sisters etc. [sic]” (surely it should be et al.), but anyway all sides in a war suffer civilian casualties, which is why everything must be done to stop all wars. Why are we not doing everything we can to bring this conflict to an end? Why? Because there is clearly a hidden agenda.
Regardless of anything else, the USA are bullies. Russia is European and should be our friend and that should be the UK’s end goal. The Russians are nice people.
An opinion poll shows that two thirds of Ukrainian refugees living in Western countries don’t want to return to their country. Who can blame them.
If lasting peace is not possible, these people will never return. If lasting peace is not possible, it must be lasting war. This is a self-fulfilling prophesy.
As for the dream of Russia collapsing, how does this make anyone safe? Once Putin goes to his account, whoever takes over will, as Mr Hitchens has put it, make the Russian autocrat look like a walking olive branch.
Well Boris was not the answer, despite proclaiming himself as Churchill 2.0.
The idea that Russia is anywhere near some kind of victory is, frankly, dotty.
The Russian Army still do not have the training, communications, command and control capability to conduct operations larger than battalion size.
They can take a village but not always hold it.
Their best chance, while Congress stalled over the aid package, has now gone. By end 2025, they will struggle to replace battlefield equipment, already a challenge.
Morale within Russian forces is low. Commanders of various Donetsk People’s Republic (DNR) units are severely mistreating their wounded subordinates. 1st DNR Slavic Brigade (1st DNR Army Corps) is holding its own wounded personnel in prison-like conditions in Donetsk City, instead of providing them with the treatment that they require.
https://x.com/wartranslated/status/1805197698879902099?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Etweet
Rand Research Paper 09 Feb 2024
Planning for the Aftermath. Assessing Options for U.S. Strategy Toward Russia After the Ukraine War’
The United States may be able to influence the conflict outcome to promote its long-term postwar interests
The United States cannot determine the outcome of the war on its own; its decisions will never have the same impact as those of the two combatants. But Washington does have policy options to try to affect the trajectory of the conflict.
A longer, more violent war would lock in adverse consequences for U.S. interests
For example, a longer war could significantly undermine Ukraine’s postwar recovery.
U.S. policy during and after the war can reduce the risk of Russia-Ukraine conflict recurrence
The United States has instruments to increase the likelihood that any peace endures.
Ramping up military pressure on Russia in Europe after the war could pose more risks than benefits
The war has weakened Russia and shown that the North Atlantic Treaty Organization has a strong deterrent against Russian attacks on allies. Further forward deployments and other measures are likely unnecessary to deter opportunistic Russian aggression, but may make war by misperception about U.S. intentions more likely.
Conclusion
A short term end to the war is desirable to avoid dramatically increased reconstruction costs. That will also enable a swift build up of Ukraine’s defence forces and defence industry. The end goal is a ‘porcupine’ Ukraine too strong defensively to be attacked but too weak offensively to attack. That work is already underway.
A robust ceasefire is required within two years; end result: a frozen conflict; neither side willing to give up territory. Ukraine joins the EU but remains non aligned with regard to NATO.
Major economic support is provided to Ukraine Defence Forces and Ukraine Defence Industry in the aftermath of the war to speedily accomplish the desired ‘porcupine’ result.
https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RRA2510-2.html
Major economic support from US & EU taxpayers.
That is why cutting the defence budget is, has always been, a false economy.
There is this weird binary attitude towards Ukraine/Russia within the Neocons and their MSM lickspittles; either you are 100% behind ‘Russia man bad/mad, plucky Uke good – send us all your cash’ or you are a ‘Kremlin stooge’.
No room for nuance in this debate it seems, and woe betide anyone who thinks otherwise!
I didn’t call Farage a “Kremlin stooge”, in fact I was bending over backwards to be civil. There are things about his past I could have raised if I’d wanted to, but I chose not to.
Utterly predicable from a Putinophobe.
Stoltenberg (Chief of NATO) made it clear in Sept 2023 that he agreed with Nigel (quoting from an article by Jeff Sachs)
In testimony to the European Union Parliament, Stoltenberg made clear that it was America’s relentless push to enlarge NATO to Ukraine that was the real cause of the war and why it continues today. Here are Stoltenberg’s revealing words:
Boris, John Pilger et al all have come out and said much the same thing.
The wretch Cameron was even quoted in the Guardian back in 2013 saying this:
“EU should extend further into former Soviet Union, says David Cameron
Speaking in Kazakhstan, British PM says European Union should stretch from the Atlantic to the Urals” Headline direct quote from the Guardian.
If nobody thought this would provoke Putin (he’s canny and will use any excuse given to him on a plate like these incendiary comments) they need their head examining.
For anyone unfamiliar with geography, the Urals are well to the East of Moscow…just saying.
I rest my case m’lud.
Prof Jeffrey Sachs schools the cretinous Piers Moron on USA foreign policy realities with chapter and verse over a 30 minute two way discussion. Recent Youtube. Fascinating viewpoint from an American academic.
Link here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mULVrUGh6wo
Noah Carl begs to differ – Nigel has made credible comments and observations:
https://unherd.com/newsroom/nigel-farages-ukraine-comments-arent-disgraceful/
There are plenty of reasons for Putin’s invasion of Ukraine given by those a great deal closer to the action than Mr Farage….and none of them mention NATO
What reasons does the Russian State Newspaper give for invading Ukraine?
Denazification
‘Denazification as the goal of a special military operation within the framework of this operation itself is understood as a military victory over the Kiev regime, the liberation of territories from armed supporters of the Nazis, the elimination of implacable Nazis, the capturing of war criminals, and the creation of systemic conditions for the subsequent denazification in peacetime.’
RIA NOVOSTI 04 04 2022
What reasons are documented inside the Kremlin?
Establishment of a Union State
‘….the strategy document…….belongs to the Presidential Directorate for Cross-Border Cooperation, a subdivision of Putin’s Presidential Administration,……The rather innocuously named directorate’s actual task is to exert control over neighboring countries that Russia sees as in its sphere of influence: Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Belarus, Ukraine and Moldova.’
‘The directorate is headed by Alexey Filatov, who reports directly to Dmitri Kozak, the deputy chief of the Presidential Administration. Filatov’s team was tasked to come up with new strategies that would detail Russia’s strategic goals in all six countries,…..Russia’s domestic, foreign and military intelligence services — the FSB, SVR, GRU, respectively — in addition to the General Staff of the Armed Forces, all actively contributed to the Union State plan.
The resulting document was presented to Kozak in the fall of 2021.
What reason does Putin himself give?
The Union State
‘….you are here to discuss the significance of Ukraine’s civilisational choice. This is not just Ukraine’s civilisational choice. Here at this site, at the baptismal site on the Dnieper River, a choice was made for the whole of Holy Rus, for all of us. Our ancestors who lived in these lands made this choice for our entire people……..at the foundations of this heritage are the common spiritual values that make us a single people.’
Putin 27 July 2013
What reason does one of Britain’s foremost scholars regarding Russian leaders give?
‘…his invasion of Ukraine is a miscalculated gamble motivated by a desire to restore Russian glory harking back to the 18th century.
his invasion was not a surprise “but the latest phase in a rising momentum of power imposed by violence starting from Chechnya to Syria and now Ukraine.
….he’s projecting a vision of Russia that he was brought up with that many people in Russia still adhere to – a vision of the Russian state as an empire that has to expand, and expansion is how you judge leaders
He said Putin had probably planned to take back the southern coast as far as Odesa as part of Russia, and keep northern Ukraine and the capital Kyiv as a republic but governed by a puppet leader like Alexander Lukashenko in Belarus
“…..he just felt now is his time to take his place in history, to join Peter the Great and Stalin and based on poor intelligence he gambled for it and I think he didn’t think it was as a big a gamble.’
Montefiore 20 March 2022
Yet more copy & paste B.S from global bot.
Ian, I believe your motives are sincere, but here’s the thing: I don’t give a toss about Ukraine. There are many, many evils going on and our involvement in Ukraine has made that one much worse. I don’t want my money spent on that ghastly war. I don’t want the risk of World War 3. I don’t want Russia and China as a belligerent alliance against the UK/USA.
Those items are legitimate concerns for a UK government, not Russo-Ukrainian historical grievances.
Best comment on here.
@thelightcavalry The risk of World War 3 goes up a lot if aggression by a nuclear power goes unchecked. The longer-term problem is that China might decide to start annexing countries not under any nuclear umbrella because the West is weak. At that point, all bets would be off.
There are three nuclear powers who are doing that – USA, Britain and France.
Russia has only ever promised to respond in kind if attacked first.
Utter “street furniture” AGAIN.
“Ukraine and its people…”
Ukraine has no ‘people’ except in the sense, Africa and its people… which people? Ukraine is multi-cultural, has a 20% Russian ethnic group.
Multiple cultures = multiple societies = tribalism = conflict = warfare.
That is the history of the World, the root cause of all wars – one culture deciding it should dominate or afraid it will be consumed by another.
That’s where we are heading.
The article misses out – in 2014 Russia had agreed Ukraine could have closer EU ties, bug no NATO as had been promised pre-Putin. The ousting of Yanukovych was orchestrated by the USA Obama regime. Then there is the attacks on ethnic Russians and the fact they did not vote to elect the USA’ s choice if replacement.
When the USSR collapsed, NATO had no function, so why does it still exist?
It is a bureaucracy. The primary focus of any bureaucracy is to ensure it survives by increasing its scope and scale. To say there is no NATO expansion is naïve or not telling truth. The head of NATO admitted expansion into Ukraine was to take place and admitted this proved Putin.
The things Russia agreed to which supposedly the USA, France & Germany endorsed were not honoured by them. The ‘West’ has consistently behaved in bad faith towards Russia, still stuck in Cold War thinking.
There is no doubt Russia was provoked, whether or not one agrees with its subsequent action, doesn’t alter that fact.
And some might like to ponder: in 1939 Britain and France declared war on Germany even though Germany had done nothing to either. Do we then say, that didn’t provoke the Germans, that was no reason for Germany to invade France and bomb Britain?
Britain’s & France’s cover story was Germany had invaded Poland. But a few days later the USSR also invaded Poland by agreement with Germany, but we didn’t then declare war on the USSR. Why not?
Mostly an irrelevant article. Whatever the history, the West is now stupidly up to its neck in an unwinnable war against a highly armed nuclear state. That really takes some doing.
Who will work for an off ramp? No-one but Farage and Trump, as far as I can tell.
I’m late to the party on this, sadly.
DS must be getting desperate for clickbait having to wheel out Mr. Rons to justify US/Zionist banking hegemony.
Never mind, he’ll soon be sitting comfortably when WW3 kicks off.
Which will all be Putin’s fault of course.
Just take a read of the GHF comment and you might learn something.
After August 1914, how the crisis came about and who was responsible for starting the war was never discussed.
Before the USA entered the war, President Woodrow Wilson made several attempts to negotiate a peace. These were sabotaged by the British government. The German government showed a willingness to enter into these talks until their armies made unexpected gains. Does this look rather familiar from the early phase of this Ukraine war?
How to end this Ukraine war needs to be discussed. There is no effort to even de-escalate. Both sides repeatedly do the opposite in small increments. What is the destination of this? Is it really possible to conduct a perma-war of small increments and not reach a point of a fatal catastrophe?
The situation is unique in history. Missiles are fired into Russia. Nuclear submarines are in Cuba. Yet there is no sense of alarm among the public.
When Biden suggests, as he did in 2022, that this war would likely end in a negotiated settlement, there was no fuss. When Farage suggests that is one way wars end, it is treated as treason.
Ukraine has trillions of dollars worth of mineral reserves. Iron, coal, lithium, gas. It is not in Washington’s interests that this wealth falls into the hands of Russia or China. In the EU and NATO, Ukraine can be severed from her Chinese trading partner.
And to think that Jean Monnet started the whole EU project as the European Coal and Steel Community. The object being to prevent a re-occurrence of the Great War; a war that needed vast amounts of coal and steel to make it possible.
A war that Imperial Germany wanted to fight to dismantle the Russian Empire and acquire the mineral and agricultural wealth of Ukraine; a territory that became a state under the joint sponsorship of Lenin’s Russia and Berlin but immediately became the contested client of both.
History isn’t fated to repeat itself. It’s wise not to assist it to do so. Only now after a century is it possible to understand what the Great War meant. It didn’t mean what many thought it would in the last days of the July crisis when political elites were recklessly confident and the Tory press barons in Britain were rabid for war. Only now is it possible to understand that war because, though it ended European civilisation, it didn’t end the world.
It is very frustrating that every article on Ukraine by this author willfully ignores the clearly documented evidence that NATO expansion (contrary to assurances previously given to Russia not to do so) and sustained US meddling in Ukraine formed part of an existential threat to Russia, that it simply could not ignore. Jeffrey Sachs recently schooled a for once silent Piers Morgan on the relevant facts, & this article also articulates them:
https://x.com/ivanopanetti/status/1805118754273087712?s=19
https://www.cato.org/commentary/us-nato-helped-trigger-ukraine-war-its-not-siding-putin-admit-it
The DS has a complete blind spot about the totally unbalanced views of this author on this particular subject. I have read other articles of his on different subjects, where he presents a much more balanced and accurate picture.
Totalitarian states, leaders, struggle to coexist with free market democracies.
Mr Farage’s logic, taken to its conclusion, is that free market democracy is a provocation to Putin. In that, he is correct.
The key distinction here is that it is not a deliberate provocation, but it is a necessary one if the lot of the citizen still living under a totalitarian regime is ever to have some kind of hope.
Neither you nor Mr Farage appear to be able to see that….which makes you both part of the problem.
Nowhere did either Farage or I make that conclusion. The main point both he and I am making is that the facts prove that Nato expansion after specifically giving Russia an assurance that they would not do so, and US meddling in the affairs of another nation (which they have done ruinously in so many countries including Ukraine) provided an existential threat to Russia that they could not ignore. Listen to the Jeffrey Sachs interview & read the Cato article, and provide evidence to refute their articulation of the facts.
Further evidence here in 2018 from the current CIA Director William Burns:
https://x.com/MLiamMcCollum/status/1805604657563418842?s=19
A slightly different view on the evidence for Putins intentions;
https://open.substack.com/pub/sandrews/p/in-our-democratic-world-some-narratives?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android&r=16e1vo
“However, it’s worth noting that Farage claims to have a unique insight into these matters. ”
Rubbish, he did no such thing.
Yes he did.
Great article. I too was going to vote Reform, because of their sensible conservative policies, but this gave me pause too. And it is not an insignificant point.
The truth and facts are a problem??
The facts are never a problem but the truth can be more elusive. I subscribe to Daily Sceptic and Free Speech Union because I like an open debate, like this thread.
There is ample evidence of the Washington involvement in Ukraine politics since very early after the fall of the Wall and including Maidan (Nuland et al). There is ample evidence of Russian’s position regarding no NATO nearby (the US promised Gorbatchov, no, not Putin, that NATO wouldn’t budge an inch to the east; even the Baltics are in NATO now). Russians want their own geographical, military and economic security, fair. That means a neutral Ukraine (why some argue so strongly against?), definition of their borders north and south (they never know what’s coming in the future) and a clean up of nazi/nationalist ideologies in Kiev (the same that prevented Zelensky from reaching peace in the civil war (which was the platform he was elected on) which they see and rightly so (Minsk agreements) as a clear threat.
Victoria Nuland, eh? That secret CIA mission that was written up in the New York Times? If you let other people do your research and your thinking for you, you might end up looking silly one day.
Instead of assuming you should ask questions that would or wouldn’t confirm your assumptions. I don’t know of the NYT piece or the CIA secret mission. It was more the telephone call with the US ambassador in 2014 as an example of the US efforts to broker a deal in Ukraine (source BBC), in other words, US direct involvement in Ukraine politics.
You’re talking about Victoria Nuland, but you don’t know it because you’re too lazy to do any research.
I’m sorry, Ian, but your article displays a level of ignorance about Ukraine. As such, it says more about you than the subject about which you were writing.
You say: “The choice for Ukrainians in 2013–14 was stark: accept a never-ending customs union with Russia… or stand up and protest against it. This customs union with Russia was to be foisted on them by the Russian-sponsored President Yanukovych.”
That is utter rubbish. Yanukovych was ELECTED by the Ukrainian people. His party was the Party of the Regions. This party received most but not all of its support from Russian speaking areas like Donbass and Crimea.
The issue about trade ties with Russia or the EU was this: Ukraine was heavily dependant on trade with Russia. The EU wanted Ukraine to adopt EU standards before it could join. (“Sound familiar?”) This would have meant very heavy damage to Ukraine’s trade with Russia and therefore destruction of Ukraine’s economy.
You claim that Yanukovych “start[ed] shooting [his] opponents, attempt[ed] to start a civil war and finally [fled]”.
That is gaslighting on a grand scale. Did Yanukovych shoot the police officers who were killed during the protests as well as the protestors? This article from the BBC in 2014 reminds us what the situation was like:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-26249330
Yanukovich did not “attempt to start a civil war”. Why would he do that? Why would that have been in his interests?
None of this says anything about the Russian invasion of Ukraine. But please don’t mischaracterise those events of 2014.
You’re offering Remainer-type arguments and clearly don’t know the facts. Yes, Yanukovych did try to split the country shortly after he fled Kyiv. He did that in another city beginning with a “K”, I’ll let you find out which one.
It is clear from reading a lot of the comments below that DailySceptic needs to do some work to control the Russian bots that have clearly mobbed this particular article.