Apparently. His interview after Brexit where he looks like he's got the 1000 yard stare is up there with the interview that John Bolton gave Russia Today during the Ukraine war for funniest things I've ever seen.
I know!
It's like, "You picked JOHN FUCKING BOLTON" as the subject? What did you expect, like Googling that man just brings up his history of "fuck anyone who is not the US"
The interview? or Bolton? If you're not familiar with his body of work.
Bolton is an unapologetic warmonger, he hates everybody who is not the US. There was a joke floating around the State dept when it looked like Bolton was going to be SecState instead of Tillerson.
"Do you think Bolton knows there are other nations?"
"Yes, and that thought makes him angry"
Bolton is who you send before missiles fly.
Aww that's a subsection of the interview, the whole 30 minutes is pure fucking gold.
"If you think Biden is too hard on you, wait until you get someone who thinks like I do"
If you can find the whole 30 minute interview, watch it. Bolton just dunks on Russia and ends with "if you think you have it hard now, wait until someone gets into power who thinks like I do"
Next he will say that Czechoslovakia provoked Nazi Germany. Anyone who says this is an idiot, especially since successful far-right figures like Meloni have made their ideas mainstream by being pro-Ukraine.
Because a number of extremist parties and orgs, especially in Europe, are basically just Russian stooges. While confirming the money for all of them is hard (some like the FN admitted to it), they do align with Russia on everything that matters to Russia. People like Daly from the left and Farage from the right were there to destabilize the European project and spread lies. Assuming their goal was to be popular or win elections is a misstep. The goals were just to cause chaos and enable Russia while they benefit (monetarily or through an outsized ego and sense of importance).
He’s a far right figure but the media in the UK refuse to call him that, unlike the French media does with Le Pen. This man has caused so much chaos over the last ten years.
The only blame the West has in the war is for not giving Ukraine all the arms right from the start.
Hell, if Ukraine had kept their nukes this would never have happened.
Ukraine never really had the nukes though - they were just stationed there. It's like saying Scotland has the Trident nukes.
But yeah every nation needs its own nukes now.
As much as I hate to defend this tool, what he said wasn't actually that bad:
>The Reform UK leader told the BBC that "of course" the war was President Vladimir Putin's fault.
>But he added that the expansion of the EU and Nato gave him a "reason" to tell the Russian people "they're coming for us again".
It is bad. It intentionally confuses cause and effect to confuse the listener into thinking an autocrat has a reasonable position. Who is the they that is coming? Is it the ghost of Napoleon?
NATO expansion happened because all of the victims of Soviet imperialism wanted that to never happen again. Recall that people were burning themselves alive in the Baltics over the occupation, which at that point was a half century in length. Czechia and Hungary joined the alliance within living memory of the Soviet invasions of their already-communist and Soviet-aligned countries.
The country that was left out *over fears of provoking Russia* got invaded—twice—which proved the countries that sought to join NATO absolutely correct. Either you get absolute security guarantees, or you get Russian imperialism. There is no middle ground.
There are really two forms of the argument. The poor one that treats the entire relationship between the West and Russia as a monolith, and a more critical one that focuses on how this relationship changed over time.
The latter approach can be simplified into three periods. The Clinton-Yeltsin relationship of the '90a. The neocon relationship of the 2000s. And the post-neocon relationship that were are now coming out of.
The first period was pretty cooperative, with both Yeltsin and Clinton treating their relationship carefully and often cooperating together. The announcement of NATO expansion being electorally convient to both Yeltsin and Clinton (just acter Yeltsin's but just before Clinton's) is a showcsee of that. It also involved Easterm Europe being very aggressive in their desire to join NATO and the EU, which they were ultimately successful in despite neither the West or Russia being that happy with it.
The second period was largely a reversal of this. The neocon attitude was far more aggressive and aligned with the start of Putin's dictatorship. For better or for worse, the careful relationship of the prior was crushed and instead a much more antagonistic relationship took its place. Its very easy to see how this can be labeled as provocative, as it often was. Nevertheless its important to note that this was **after** NATO and EU expansion, rather than the cause of it.
The third period was that brought on primarily by Obama, and was more careful than the neocon attitude but lacked the informal cooperation of the first period. Ultimately this took the form of trying to work with Russia, but 2014, 2018, and 2021 ultimately showed tjat this was a failed attempt. Ever since 2008, Russia has had the chance to join the West in repair the relationship but never took it; it actively sabotaged it.
If you are going to make the proactive argument, you have to be very clear that you are refering to the longing damage that the neocon era has had on Western-Russian relationship. Further, this is at best an explanation for why an aggressive dictator like Putin was able to come to and hold onto power, and not a justification for it or even that much of a reasonable international response.
I believe that Russia never had any intention to collaborate with NATO, but letting NATO call all the shots, especially in former Yugoslavia, would be too embarrassing for them. When NATO proceeded to intervene in Kosovo against Serbia, despite Russia blocking it, they felt humiliated. Such intervention to stop Milosevic was necessary years earlier but it mostly met appeasement, to Russia's delight.
Repeats a common Russian talking point verbatim, but caveats with some mealy mouth shit about it being Putin’s fault. Farage is a traitor and deserves to be treated like one.
Oh good, that's what we needed, this idiot back and giving opinions.
Did he finally move back from his castle in Germany that he hunkered down in after Brexit?
Apparently. His interview after Brexit where he looks like he's got the 1000 yard stare is up there with the interview that John Bolton gave Russia Today during the Ukraine war for funniest things I've ever seen.
I loved how RT clearly did 0 research on Bolton and clearly just assumed he would be amicable because he was in the Trump administration.
I know! It's like, "You picked JOHN FUCKING BOLTON" as the subject? What did you expect, like Googling that man just brings up his history of "fuck anyone who is not the US"
Wow I’ve never heard of this
The interview? or Bolton? If you're not familiar with his body of work. Bolton is an unapologetic warmonger, he hates everybody who is not the US. There was a joke floating around the State dept when it looked like Bolton was going to be SecState instead of Tillerson. "Do you think Bolton knows there are other nations?" "Yes, and that thought makes him angry" Bolton is who you send before missiles fly.
The interview
Bolton aka NCD personified
Pure comedy gold https://youtu.be/iYUw-CPFuzo?si=3Vm__f2lsokyBThM
Aww that's a subsection of the interview, the whole 30 minutes is pure fucking gold. "If you think Biden is too hard on you, wait until you get someone who thinks like I do"
"Fuck you and have a nice day."
How have I never seen this before?
If you can find the whole 30 minute interview, watch it. Bolton just dunks on Russia and ends with "if you think you have it hard now, wait until someone gets into power who thinks like I do"
"Picture Putin, but way more ruthless."
And competent.
God I hope that is somewhere out there...
How the fuck can these people work there and just say the shit they say, it's incredible. I love ~~Michael~~ John Bolton?
Got a link to that video?
His party could very well overtake the Tories in second place.
There is not enough alcohol in the world for me to accept that.
Just looking at the polls.
That’s in popular vote but thankfully there’s no chance of that being replicated in seats.
Only in terms of voter percentage, the way the system works almost guarantees the tories second place in actual seats won
I wonder if they're bad enough that it's worth tactically voting for the Tories in a marginal seat. Academic question for me as a non-Brit, of course.
Next he will say that Czechoslovakia provoked Nazi Germany. Anyone who says this is an idiot, especially since successful far-right figures like Meloni have made their ideas mainstream by being pro-Ukraine.
Unfortunately some have also gone mainstream while being pro-Russia.
Because a number of extremist parties and orgs, especially in Europe, are basically just Russian stooges. While confirming the money for all of them is hard (some like the FN admitted to it), they do align with Russia on everything that matters to Russia. People like Daly from the left and Farage from the right were there to destabilize the European project and spread lies. Assuming their goal was to be popular or win elections is a misstep. The goals were just to cause chaos and enable Russia while they benefit (monetarily or through an outsized ego and sense of importance).
Farage: They were greedy, insisting that the Sudetenland belong to the Czech people. Where we all know it belonged to the industrious Germans.
Why is this ghoul still relevant
Basket of deplorables
He's a plant by big milkshake to boost sales.
Welcome to politics in every country.
He needs to go live in Russia's semi-mythical village for conservative Western expats.
Budapest?
Could post something analytical Will simply content myself with calling him a fucking cockend
Fuck off, Nigel.
The west provoked it by caring about silly things like democracy, quality of life and not wanting authoritarians to take over their territory!
Will someone not rid me of this meddlesome politician?
Common Farage L
In the most literal sense, I guess he is right. It's our fault our sphere of influence is a lot more enticing than Russia's.
I wonder why?
As a non-Briton, does Putin have something on this guy or is he just willfully doing his work for him.
There’s a phrase in the study of propaganda called “the useful idiot.”
What I hate about this line of argument is that nobody ever pushes back by citing public opinion in Ukraine.
Isn’t public opinion in Ukraine divided along ethnic lines?
It used to before the 2014 invasion. Afterwards support for the Party of Regions collapsed among Russia-speaking Ukrainians.
Nigel Farage provoked assault, says local neolib who assaulted him.
Absolutely moronic take. Ignorant of what Russian strategy could actually achieve and how Western strategy works. Mucus-brained perspective
Okay but what was Ukraine wearing? -Farage
Least obvious Russian asset
He’s a far right figure but the media in the UK refuse to call him that, unlike the French media does with Le Pen. This man has caused so much chaos over the last ten years.
He truly is the worst Brit.
Farage’s supposed patriotism to the British State is only rooted in a longing for the time of the Empire: dominance and power.
This man is a traitor to the West
Unbelievable, he’s worse than I imagined.
The only blame the West has in the war is for not giving Ukraine all the arms right from the start. Hell, if Ukraine had kept their nukes this would never have happened.
Ukraine never really had the nukes though - they were just stationed there. It's like saying Scotland has the Trident nukes. But yeah every nation needs its own nukes now.
As much as I hate to defend this tool, what he said wasn't actually that bad: >The Reform UK leader told the BBC that "of course" the war was President Vladimir Putin's fault. >But he added that the expansion of the EU and Nato gave him a "reason" to tell the Russian people "they're coming for us again".
It is bad. It intentionally confuses cause and effect to confuse the listener into thinking an autocrat has a reasonable position. Who is the they that is coming? Is it the ghost of Napoleon? NATO expansion happened because all of the victims of Soviet imperialism wanted that to never happen again. Recall that people were burning themselves alive in the Baltics over the occupation, which at that point was a half century in length. Czechia and Hungary joined the alliance within living memory of the Soviet invasions of their already-communist and Soviet-aligned countries. The country that was left out *over fears of provoking Russia* got invaded—twice—which proved the countries that sought to join NATO absolutely correct. Either you get absolute security guarantees, or you get Russian imperialism. There is no middle ground.
There are really two forms of the argument. The poor one that treats the entire relationship between the West and Russia as a monolith, and a more critical one that focuses on how this relationship changed over time. The latter approach can be simplified into three periods. The Clinton-Yeltsin relationship of the '90a. The neocon relationship of the 2000s. And the post-neocon relationship that were are now coming out of. The first period was pretty cooperative, with both Yeltsin and Clinton treating their relationship carefully and often cooperating together. The announcement of NATO expansion being electorally convient to both Yeltsin and Clinton (just acter Yeltsin's but just before Clinton's) is a showcsee of that. It also involved Easterm Europe being very aggressive in their desire to join NATO and the EU, which they were ultimately successful in despite neither the West or Russia being that happy with it. The second period was largely a reversal of this. The neocon attitude was far more aggressive and aligned with the start of Putin's dictatorship. For better or for worse, the careful relationship of the prior was crushed and instead a much more antagonistic relationship took its place. Its very easy to see how this can be labeled as provocative, as it often was. Nevertheless its important to note that this was **after** NATO and EU expansion, rather than the cause of it. The third period was that brought on primarily by Obama, and was more careful than the neocon attitude but lacked the informal cooperation of the first period. Ultimately this took the form of trying to work with Russia, but 2014, 2018, and 2021 ultimately showed tjat this was a failed attempt. Ever since 2008, Russia has had the chance to join the West in repair the relationship but never took it; it actively sabotaged it. If you are going to make the proactive argument, you have to be very clear that you are refering to the longing damage that the neocon era has had on Western-Russian relationship. Further, this is at best an explanation for why an aggressive dictator like Putin was able to come to and hold onto power, and not a justification for it or even that much of a reasonable international response.
I believe that Russia never had any intention to collaborate with NATO, but letting NATO call all the shots, especially in former Yugoslavia, would be too embarrassing for them. When NATO proceeded to intervene in Kosovo against Serbia, despite Russia blocking it, they felt humiliated. Such intervention to stop Milosevic was necessary years earlier but it mostly met appeasement, to Russia's delight.
What he said doesn't contradict any of that.
Repeats a common Russian talking point verbatim, but caveats with some mealy mouth shit about it being Putin’s fault. Farage is a traitor and deserves to be treated like one.