My simple comment regarding anything that Fiona Hill says is to simply realize that when she states “That’s why I went into government in 2016. I didn’t go in there to serve Donald Trump. I went in there to deal with a national security crisis after the Russians launched an influence operation to basically subvert the US 2016 presidential election.”, it is evident that she is both delusional and living in cloud cuckoo land. Russian interference in the 2016 election was insignificant. Basically a zero. Now compare that to interference from big tech (google, facebook, twitter, etc…) in the 2020 election. In other words, despite being a so-called expert, she doesn’t really know what she’s talking about. And that’s so unfortunate when one has people influencing and making policy decisions not based on reality but how they think the world should be.
Silly. Just because she says things about Russian interference in 2016 that you don’t like, you write off all her experience dealing with Putin and Ukraine. Not very clever.
Oh she just told a massive tangential lie to the subject matter we are supposed to rely on her expertise on. What’s the big deal? Really? I don’t know if you have been paying attention, but much of the support behind United States opposing Russia at all costs is because many resistance liberals still believe Putin hacked the 2016 election to install Donald Trump as president. You know the same people who liked to call people who disagreed with them “Putin puppets” before Ukraine was even invaded? This claim has been proven false several times over now and is still tearing the country apart. Don’t act like it is nothing.
Why is it a lie? Most of things I’ve read suggest that the Russians did try and interfere with the US election. I don’t believe there was any collusion with Trump, or that they intervened to help any particular side but instead inflame the culture wars and sow discord, but it’s still interference
Yanis Varoufakis was asked if he thought Russia had tried to influence the US 2016 election and his response was “Yes of course it did, but then again so did I. So what?”
To have a balanced view you have to also ask how much influence did Russia have, was the 2016 US election the only election they tried to influence, do other people and nations also seek to influence elections, and most of all does the USA do this to other nations on a routine basis?
The answers, respectively are “almost none”, “no”, “yes” and “obviously yes”.
The only real significance of the 2016 US election is that Trump got elected and this pissed off a bunch of self-righteous liberal-fascist arseholes who think they own the American government. Had that not happened, none of them would be throwing accusations about like a baby throwing its toys out of the pram. It’s nothing more than a proxy for complaining about democracy itself without officially admitting that that’s what it really is.
NB – I am not a Trump supporter, just someone who nonetheless recognises that Trump does annoy all the right people. As a president, despite a small number of notable successes, he was a failure.
‘Almost no influence’ is probably an exaggeration. The manufactured panic about those Hilary mails did help Trump a lot, and the leaks gave some of the ammunition. One could argue that relying on a foreign intelligence service to hack your opponents mails is going a bit too far – much like bugging the campaign headquarters of the opposition actually. But OK, Trump won. You cannot claim that he stole the election.
With all due respect, we only have the word of the DNC and Crowdstrike that the DNC emals were hacked by the Russians. They never allowed the FBI to look at the computers and do a forensic investigation. So the bottom line is we have a side with a vested interested in claiming Russian hacking, who cooked up the Steele report and the Russian collusion nonsense. That’s hardly reliable evidence. What I can say, given that I live in the US, and I might add close to Washington DC, that I didn’t notice anything that the Russians might or might not have done. Did they broadcast propaganda of one sort or another on Russia Today – no doubt but the viewership of Russia Today is so small and so to be effectively zero. Now compare that to what big tech did in the 2020 election where burying the Hunder Biden labtop story likely swung the election Biden’s way, and where one Presidential candidate, Trump (whether you like him or not) was deplatformed on Twitter and Facebook. Similarly when Zuckerberg messed around with the election in Wisconsin, later deemed to be illegal, although he only got a slap on the wrist (i.e. a minute fine relative to his wealth). Now that’s real interference.
Here’s how it works: a “scandal” is cooked up, lie nuggets are given – not “leaked” – to reliable minions in the media who then publish a shock horror story. Government hacks use said story to “open an investigation”, and media minions have that manufactured fiction to pump for however long it’s necessary. Both side do this, but the Democrats own the media, so it’s like breathing to them. And then, when sh*t dies down, the world finds out that – like Covid – it was all made up.
Covid is real. You are possibly not. And Democrats certainly do not ‘own’ the media -. But people to the left of the Democratic Party do not get their voice heard well.
Covid is real, and it specifically targeted the elderly, the obese, and those who were chronic or seriously compromised. So it was a pandemic for these individuals–but it was merely a flu like disorder for over 90% of those who got it. In the hands of Fauci and the media, it became a Panic-demic–a dress rehearsal for mass disinformation, violation of individual rights, and herd think. Science–which involves debate and exploration of options–was discouraged. Vaccilnes were promoted as the only solution. The vaccines did not deliver, and we have yet to see the end of the MRNA question.
The clear and obvious solution was outlined by the Gt Barrington Declaration, as indeed I proposed myself, as a world class risk management consultant, from the very beginning, ie isolate the vulnerable (easy) not the virus (impossible).. Of course no one listened.. too much money to be made from Tory slush funds!
It depends what you mean by ‘real’. As for ‘pandemic’ it certainly was not. To say ‘it was a ‘pandemic for the obese,etc’ ; means it was not a pandemic.
You totally, 100% misunderstood my comment. Obese was used as an example, perhaps I should have said Seniors. the fact remains all I was pointing out was that it was not a Pandemic.
You totally, 100% misunderstood my comment. Obese was used as an example, perhaps I should have said Seniors. the fact remains all I was pointing out was that it was not a Pandemic.
Ironic that the Far Right automatically assumes everything they don’t hear on Fox News must be a lie, yet they naively believe everything they see there must be absolutely true. Both the Left and the Right push propaganda, but are blind to the lies coming from their “side”.
Ironic that the Far Right automatically assumes everything they don’t hear on Fox News must be a lie, yet they naively believe everything they see there must be absolutely true. Both the Left and the Right push propaganda, but are blind to the lies coming from their “side”.
Covid is a danger to people with damaged immune systems. Elderly, obese, and disabled individuals who did NOT have compromised immune systems mostly were fine.
There were elderly individuals over a hundred years old who survived both Covid and the 1918 flu (antibodies were still present). One characteristic people in those groups had in common was a higher tendency toward Vitamin D deficiency, which is bad for immune response, but not all had this problem. In fact, obese people are a higher percentage of the population now than before Covid. If it had been true that they were uniquely vulnerable just because they’re fat, more would have died.
The clear and obvious solution was outlined by the Gt Barrington Declaration, as indeed I proposed myself, as a world class risk management consultant, from the very beginning, ie isolate the vulnerable (easy) not the virus (impossible).. Of course no one listened.. too much money to be made from Tory slush funds!
It depends what you mean by ‘real’. As for ‘pandemic’ it certainly was not. To say ‘it was a ‘pandemic for the obese,etc’ ; means it was not a pandemic.
Covid is a danger to people with damaged immune systems. Elderly, obese, and disabled individuals who did NOT have compromised immune systems mostly were fine.
There were elderly individuals over a hundred years old who survived both Covid and the 1918 flu (antibodies were still present). One characteristic people in those groups had in common was a higher tendency toward Vitamin D deficiency, which is bad for immune response, but not all had this problem. In fact, obese people are a higher percentage of the population now than before Covid. If it had been true that they were uniquely vulnerable just because they’re fat, more would have died.
Covid is real, and it specifically targeted the elderly, the obese, and those who were chronic or seriously compromised. So it was a pandemic for these individuals–but it was merely a flu like disorder for over 90% of those who got it. In the hands of Fauci and the media, it became a Panic-demic–a dress rehearsal for mass disinformation, violation of individual rights, and herd think. Science–which involves debate and exploration of options–was discouraged. Vaccilnes were promoted as the only solution. The vaccines did not deliver, and we have yet to see the end of the MRNA question.
You’re right. The Democrats don’t own the media. The MSM is own by the people who own the Democrats! They also own the GOP btw.. and the Tories in the UK. Governments today are merely well bribed, bought and paid for puppets.. There are a few notable exceptions but even they are slapped down and beaten into line, eg Bernie Sanders on support for the war/MIC.. they soon put him right; the coward.
You’re right. The Democrats don’t own the media. The MSM is own by the people who own the Democrats! They also own the GOP btw.. and the Tories in the UK. Governments today are merely well bribed, bought and paid for puppets.. There are a few notable exceptions but even they are slapped down and beaten into line, eg Bernie Sanders on support for the war/MIC.. they soon put him right; the coward.
Covid is real. You are possibly not. And Democrats certainly do not ‘own’ the media -. But people to the left of the Democratic Party do not get their voice heard well.
You need to back up your claims with proven sources. No one should be taking the allegations of neo-con warmongers seriously anymore without concrete evidence.
If you knew anything about goverment security, you would not claim that Hilary emails story was “manufactured panic”.
You would be sacked and charged if you did what she did.
If you can explain source of Clinton couple wealth, great. I am all ears.
Otherwise most likely explanation for usage of private email server is concealment of illegal activity….
With all due respect, we only have the word of the DNC and Crowdstrike that the DNC emals were hacked by the Russians. They never allowed the FBI to look at the computers and do a forensic investigation. So the bottom line is we have a side with a vested interested in claiming Russian hacking, who cooked up the Steele report and the Russian collusion nonsense. That’s hardly reliable evidence. What I can say, given that I live in the US, and I might add close to Washington DC, that I didn’t notice anything that the Russians might or might not have done. Did they broadcast propaganda of one sort or another on Russia Today – no doubt but the viewership of Russia Today is so small and so to be effectively zero. Now compare that to what big tech did in the 2020 election where burying the Hunder Biden labtop story likely swung the election Biden’s way, and where one Presidential candidate, Trump (whether you like him or not) was deplatformed on Twitter and Facebook. Similarly when Zuckerberg messed around with the election in Wisconsin, later deemed to be illegal, although he only got a slap on the wrist (i.e. a minute fine relative to his wealth). Now that’s real interference.
Here’s how it works: a “scandal” is cooked up, lie nuggets are given – not “leaked” – to reliable minions in the media who then publish a shock horror story. Government hacks use said story to “open an investigation”, and media minions have that manufactured fiction to pump for however long it’s necessary. Both side do this, but the Democrats own the media, so it’s like breathing to them. And then, when sh*t dies down, the world finds out that – like Covid – it was all made up.
You need to back up your claims with proven sources. No one should be taking the allegations of neo-con warmongers seriously anymore without concrete evidence.
If you knew anything about goverment security, you would not claim that Hilary emails story was “manufactured panic”.
You would be sacked and charged if you did what she did.
If you can explain source of Clinton couple wealth, great. I am all ears.
Otherwise most likely explanation for usage of private email server is concealment of illegal activity….
Why do we forget that the Soviets influenced elections in the US for decades and did so masterfully? And not only elections, but wide swaths of US domestic policy, from marriage, the rearing of children, trade union formation, sexual mores, and you name it. Why do we forget that Alger Hiss stood behind Rosevelt at Yalta? Why do we forget, most all, that the political left in the US applauded the Soviets as they did these things, even dug in behind them? How is it that all this hypocrisy does not get noticed?
Actually, Roosevelt saved American capitalism. Without him, the U.S. would have become a dictatorship run by some strongman, whether socialist or fascist. If Roosevelt hadn’t created all the public works projects and other government programs to help starving people, there would have been a revolution that would have swept democracy away.
I don’t disagree. My point was a factual one. Alger Hiss was a member of the CPUSA. He also worked for the State Department. Whittaker Chambers was also a member of the CPUSA and came to know Hiss in that capacity. Chambers would in time come to doubt the Soviet cause and to expose both Hiss and himself as agents of the Soviet Union. In the late 1940s, Hiss was tried, and convicted, in the US senate, of espionage. The lawyer who prosecuted Hiss was a man named Richard M. Nixon, who would become vice president of the USA in 1952 and president in 1968. Chambers wrote a book about the trial entitled “Witness.” It is, if I may say so, a great read. Chambers makes clear in the book just how deeply integrated the CPUSA was many aspects of American life (labor unions, education, the arts, politics, the military, etc.). There is a photo in the book of Hiss standing with Rosevelt, Churchill and Stalin. It is no great secret that many in the USA at the time, and not only at that time, saw the Soviet way as the great hope of mankind. My point is that the Soviets not only endeavored to influence American elections but to transform American life altogether and, what’s more, that many in American applauded this cause. This does not mean that I look upon Pres. Nixon with rose colored glasses. He lied relentlessly about the war in southeast Asia, and caused untold suffering and death in the process. I would point here to Hannah Arendt’s book “On Lying and Politics.”
That’s controversial, actually. There is some good evidence to suggest that it was Herbert Hoover’s measures that set the basis for the post-1929 crash recovery, but the benefits arrived too late to save his presidency. There is evidence in the economic data, too, that many of Roosevelt’s measures did lasting economic damage that would have become unavoidable if the second world war hadn’t justified a further massive increase in state spending, which in turn then was only saved because the US dollar became the world’s reserve currency in 1944.
Under Roosevelt the US was a near dictatorship run by a strongman! We still suffer today under the burden of administrative state programs which his narcissism prevented him from sundowning. Don’t romanticize history. There are damned few real heroes.
I don’t disagree. My point was a factual one. Alger Hiss was a member of the CPUSA. He also worked for the State Department. Whittaker Chambers was also a member of the CPUSA and came to know Hiss in that capacity. Chambers would in time come to doubt the Soviet cause and to expose both Hiss and himself as agents of the Soviet Union. In the late 1940s, Hiss was tried, and convicted, in the US senate, of espionage. The lawyer who prosecuted Hiss was a man named Richard M. Nixon, who would become vice president of the USA in 1952 and president in 1968. Chambers wrote a book about the trial entitled “Witness.” It is, if I may say so, a great read. Chambers makes clear in the book just how deeply integrated the CPUSA was many aspects of American life (labor unions, education, the arts, politics, the military, etc.). There is a photo in the book of Hiss standing with Rosevelt, Churchill and Stalin. It is no great secret that many in the USA at the time, and not only at that time, saw the Soviet way as the great hope of mankind. My point is that the Soviets not only endeavored to influence American elections but to transform American life altogether and, what’s more, that many in American applauded this cause. This does not mean that I look upon Pres. Nixon with rose colored glasses. He lied relentlessly about the war in southeast Asia, and caused untold suffering and death in the process. I would point here to Hannah Arendt’s book “On Lying and Politics.”
That’s controversial, actually. There is some good evidence to suggest that it was Herbert Hoover’s measures that set the basis for the post-1929 crash recovery, but the benefits arrived too late to save his presidency. There is evidence in the economic data, too, that many of Roosevelt’s measures did lasting economic damage that would have become unavoidable if the second world war hadn’t justified a further massive increase in state spending, which in turn then was only saved because the US dollar became the world’s reserve currency in 1944.
Under Roosevelt the US was a near dictatorship run by a strongman! We still suffer today under the burden of administrative state programs which his narcissism prevented him from sundowning. Don’t romanticize history. There are damned few real heroes.
And why are so many resolutely looking back at the days of the Russki under the bed phobia? Is this retro fixation possibly being “influenced” by a far more malign and dangerous power farther to the East?
Actually, Roosevelt saved American capitalism. Without him, the U.S. would have become a dictatorship run by some strongman, whether socialist or fascist. If Roosevelt hadn’t created all the public works projects and other government programs to help starving people, there would have been a revolution that would have swept democracy away.
And why are so many resolutely looking back at the days of the Russki under the bed phobia? Is this retro fixation possibly being “influenced” by a far more malign and dangerous power farther to the East?
A somewhat better argument although I don’t agree with the term self righteous liberal-fascist. Its a nonsense phrase -just a way of expressing your deep irritation at sanctimoniousness perhaps? I for my part loathe Trump for all sorts of reasons.
Liberal fascism is a fairly well defined concept and it does apply to large parts of the modern Left. That’s controversial obviously – left-wingers themselves are usually furious at the designation – but that that doesn’t mean that the concept is wrongly applied or is meaningless.
You forgot the Far Right. Extremists on both the Left AND the Right hate democracy and freedom of speech. It’s only because Russia turned fascist with Putin that the Right suddenly loves Russia. That and they are afraid of him.
I “forgot” the Far Right simply because it’s not part of the context of this particular thread. I am defending the notion that Fascism is a left-wing extremism alongside Communism and the other traditional variants. The common factor they possess is belief in a large, powerful, expensive State. No right-wing ideology shares this, and since Fascism does support a large powerful State, it cannot be right-wing.
This is not to say that right-wing extremisim does not exist of course, merely that it has nothing to do with what I’m describing here.
I take issue, too, with the idea that the modern Right “loves Russia” as you put it. What draws the modern Right to oppose the West’s Ukraine War involvement is more based upon a defective libertarian assessment that it is not the West’s problem. I say this as a libertarian myself, I just reckon that on this case many of my fellow libertarians have got this one wrong, and that there can be no way this isn’t our problem.
The view is more extreme in America, where the libertarian position is that America should abdicate entirely its role as world’s policeman, so you can see why European libertarians in NATO countries are not about to agree with that idea.
I “forgot” the Far Right simply because it’s not part of the context of this particular thread. I am defending the notion that Fascism is a left-wing extremism alongside Communism and the other traditional variants. The common factor they possess is belief in a large, powerful, expensive State. No right-wing ideology shares this, and since Fascism does support a large powerful State, it cannot be right-wing.
This is not to say that right-wing extremisim does not exist of course, merely that it has nothing to do with what I’m describing here.
I take issue, too, with the idea that the modern Right “loves Russia” as you put it. What draws the modern Right to oppose the West’s Ukraine War involvement is more based upon a defective libertarian assessment that it is not the West’s problem. I say this as a libertarian myself, I just reckon that on this case many of my fellow libertarians have got this one wrong, and that there can be no way this isn’t our problem.
The view is more extreme in America, where the libertarian position is that America should abdicate entirely its role as world’s policeman, so you can see why European libertarians in NATO countries are not about to agree with that idea.
You forgot the Far Right. Extremists on both the Left AND the Right hate democracy and freedom of speech. It’s only because Russia turned fascist with Putin that the Right suddenly loves Russia. That and they are afraid of him.
Liberal fascism is a fairly well defined concept and it does apply to large parts of the modern Left. That’s controversial obviously – left-wingers themselves are usually furious at the designation – but that that doesn’t mean that the concept is wrongly applied or is meaningless.
The people of Ukraine and other countries that suffered under the former Soviet Union still remember well how horrific it was, and need no other motivation to resist Putin’s dictatorship. They have recently had a taste of freedom and will now fight to the death to keep it. That and the brutal reality that Putin has already mass murdered thousands of Ukrainians, so it is either win or die as a people for them.
Once again I read an appeal to the sentimental. Given, that Ukraine is well within Russia’s sphere of influence, and that Putin, whatever else he is (I leave it to the Almighty to weigh his soul) is a nationalist. Given that the current Ukrainian state is in violation of the Minsk accords, corrupt, undemocratic and suppresses dissent and religious freedom. Given that a certain percentage of the Ukraine thinks of themselves as more Russian than “Ukrainian”. Question: How can the UN justify its expensive existence if it isn’t to solve such conflicts? Obviously a rhetorical question.
Once again I read an appeal to the sentimental. Given, that Ukraine is well within Russia’s sphere of influence, and that Putin, whatever else he is (I leave it to the Almighty to weigh his soul) is a nationalist. Given that the current Ukrainian state is in violation of the Minsk accords, corrupt, undemocratic and suppresses dissent and religious freedom. Given that a certain percentage of the Ukraine thinks of themselves as more Russian than “Ukrainian”. Question: How can the UN justify its expensive existence if it isn’t to solve such conflicts? Obviously a rhetorical question.
The people of Ukraine and other countries that suffered under the former Soviet Union still remember well how horrific it was, and need no other motivation to resist Putin’s dictatorship. They have recently had a taste of freedom and will now fight to the death to keep it. That and the brutal reality that Putin has already mass murdered thousands of Ukrainians, so it is either win or die as a people for them.
This is accurate. Democracy means respecting the will of the people as expressed through elections. Complaining about the electoral college and stating that Trump lost the popular vote is a very democratic criticism. Whining that a dishonest ad campaign from a foreign power unduly influenced voters is disrespectful to the process and dehumanizing to the voters. If you only support democracy when people elect leaders from a list of ‘acceptable’ candidates, you do not actually support democracy.
In fact, ad campaigns and other interference in U.S. elections by foreign powers is, and has been, highly illegal for decades (22 USC § 2708(k)(4) . It’s still illegal, whether or not it convinces people. American elections are only for American citizens.
You never had to select candidates from a list, and you still don’t. You can write in whoever you want, but I wouldn’t bother writing in Mickey Mouse like way too many do. It even works occasionally: Lisa Murkowski won re-election through a write in campaign.
I seem to remember they didn’t just verbally complain that Trump supposedly lost an election. That’s minimizing something that was far from benign. There was among, other things awful things, an insurrection, loss of life, and a lot of trauma and suffering. And, two years later the “complaining” is still going on.
In fact, ad campaigns and other interference in U.S. elections by foreign powers is, and has been, highly illegal for decades (22 USC § 2708(k)(4) . It’s still illegal, whether or not it convinces people. American elections are only for American citizens.
You never had to select candidates from a list, and you still don’t. You can write in whoever you want, but I wouldn’t bother writing in Mickey Mouse like way too many do. It even works occasionally: Lisa Murkowski won re-election through a write in campaign.
I seem to remember they didn’t just verbally complain that Trump supposedly lost an election. That’s minimizing something that was far from benign. There was among, other things awful things, an insurrection, loss of life, and a lot of trauma and suffering. And, two years later the “complaining” is still going on.
‘Almost no influence’ is probably an exaggeration. The manufactured panic about those Hilary mails did help Trump a lot, and the leaks gave some of the ammunition. One could argue that relying on a foreign intelligence service to hack your opponents mails is going a bit too far – much like bugging the campaign headquarters of the opposition actually. But OK, Trump won. You cannot claim that he stole the election.
Why do we forget that the Soviets influenced elections in the US for decades and did so masterfully? And not only elections, but wide swaths of US domestic policy, from marriage, the rearing of children, trade union formation, sexual mores, and you name it. Why do we forget that Alger Hiss stood behind Rosevelt at Yalta? Why do we forget, most all, that the political left in the US applauded the Soviets as they did these things, even dug in behind them? How is it that all this hypocrisy does not get noticed?
A somewhat better argument although I don’t agree with the term self righteous liberal-fascist. Its a nonsense phrase -just a way of expressing your deep irritation at sanctimoniousness perhaps? I for my part loathe Trump for all sorts of reasons.
This is accurate. Democracy means respecting the will of the people as expressed through elections. Complaining about the electoral college and stating that Trump lost the popular vote is a very democratic criticism. Whining that a dishonest ad campaign from a foreign power unduly influenced voters is disrespectful to the process and dehumanizing to the voters. If you only support democracy when people elect leaders from a list of ‘acceptable’ candidates, you do not actually support democracy.
Often a fan, but that bit of sweeping generalization did not do justice to the subject, nor to your wit. Bear in mind, that today’s US is far less homogenized than in earlier times. I do agree with your remarks as applied to our chattering classes and imperial administrators in Versailles-on-the-Potomac. No, let me amend: Versailles-on-the-Cloaca-Maxima. You might find that Flyover America is stubbornly attached to the values of civilization. Are they undereducated? Sadly … I pine for the days when I thought Idiocracy was dystopian future fiction.
Often a fan, but that bit of sweeping generalization did not do justice to the subject, nor to your wit. Bear in mind, that today’s US is far less homogenized than in earlier times. I do agree with your remarks as applied to our chattering classes and imperial administrators in Versailles-on-the-Potomac. No, let me amend: Versailles-on-the-Cloaca-Maxima. You might find that Flyover America is stubbornly attached to the values of civilization. Are they undereducated? Sadly … I pine for the days when I thought Idiocracy was dystopian future fiction.
I’m afraid you continue to be delusional and are eating far too much pie in the sky. Try a little commonsense and logic instead.. you’ll see things very differently!
There is nothing new here – cccp-russia has interfered for decades. What is new here is that dems used russia’s business as usual as an extraordinary attack on US democracy in order to prevent Trump from becoming president. Dems didn’t stop there and continued to sabotage and slander the legitimately elected president for all 4 years, weakening the state, pushed the country to a bloody anarchist isurection, adopted the strategy “power at all costs” and rigged elections with the help of big tech, leftists maisnstream media and offended European governments, because Trump demanded to spend money ontheir own millitary and be careful with russia. But this time, Fiona Hill decided that everything was in order.
Yanis Varoufakis was asked if he thought Russia had tried to influence the US 2016 election and his response was “Yes of course it did, but then again so did I. So what?”
To have a balanced view you have to also ask how much influence did Russia have, was the 2016 US election the only election they tried to influence, do other people and nations also seek to influence elections, and most of all does the USA do this to other nations on a routine basis?
The answers, respectively are “almost none”, “no”, “yes” and “obviously yes”.
The only real significance of the 2016 US election is that Trump got elected and this pissed off a bunch of self-righteous liberal-fascist arseholes who think they own the American government. Had that not happened, none of them would be throwing accusations about like a baby throwing its toys out of the pram. It’s nothing more than a proxy for complaining about democracy itself without officially admitting that that’s what it really is.
NB – I am not a Trump supporter, just someone who nonetheless recognises that Trump does annoy all the right people. As a president, despite a small number of notable successes, he was a failure.
I’m afraid you continue to be delusional and are eating far too much pie in the sky. Try a little commonsense and logic instead.. you’ll see things very differently!
There is nothing new here – cccp-russia has interfered for decades. What is new here is that dems used russia’s business as usual as an extraordinary attack on US democracy in order to prevent Trump from becoming president. Dems didn’t stop there and continued to sabotage and slander the legitimately elected president for all 4 years, weakening the state, pushed the country to a bloody anarchist isurection, adopted the strategy “power at all costs” and rigged elections with the help of big tech, leftists maisnstream media and offended European governments, because Trump demanded to spend money ontheir own millitary and be careful with russia. But this time, Fiona Hill decided that everything was in order.
It has very little to do with that, which is why Sens. McConnell and Graham, not to mention people who, like me, never bought into Trump Derangement Syndrome are supportive of Ukraine. So maybe it’s not “nothing,” but it isn’t all that much, either.
Lindsay Graham has never known a war he doesn’t like, and McConnell can see the money flowing in from the military-industrial complex. The US is laughing all the way to the bank on this war.
No doubt you would have also surrendered to Hitler to avoid war. More fool you to surrender to mass murderers and become one of their victims without even fighting back.
Today, Putin is the REAL “merchant of death”. The mass graves of thousands of innocent people in Ukraine were on his orders.
People who rely on simplistic slogans, and are too lazy to learn anything, also know nothing. They repeat the same mistakes that caused the death of millions not so long ago.
No doubt you would have also surrendered to Hitler to avoid war. More fool you to surrender to mass murderers and become one of their victims without even fighting back.
Today, Putin is the REAL “merchant of death”. The mass graves of thousands of innocent people in Ukraine were on his orders.
People who rely on simplistic slogans, and are too lazy to learn anything, also know nothing. They repeat the same mistakes that caused the death of millions not so long ago.
For individuals with shares yes. It is costly to the nation and far more costly to the world if they simply do nothing about China and Russian hegemony in their claimed modern day ‘spheres’ which grow larger every moment & only curbed by resistance. Listen to Fiona Hill’s message about ultimate diplomacy required.
For individuals with shares yes. It is costly to the nation and far more costly to the world if they simply do nothing about China and Russian hegemony in their claimed modern day ‘spheres’ which grow larger every moment & only curbed by resistance. Listen to Fiona Hill’s message about ultimate diplomacy required.
McConnell and Graham want Republicans to win, so why would they object when it happens? They support Ukraine, because it is in U.S. interest to let Ukraine fight Putin there, so we don’t have to fight Putin here. We’re getting a bargain deal from Ukraine. We only have to send them a few extra weapons (a tiny fraction of the U.S. military budget), and they do all the fighting and dying. If Putin wins in Ukraine, he won’t stop there any more than Hitler stopped with Austria.
The U.S. doesn’t need to fight Putin at all, and many of those who suggest it does, are invested in the growing power farther to the East and wish to distract. For a segment of the political-industrial clique, Ukraine represents their money laundry and bioweapons shenanigans, and their support of it is self-interested. Ironically, the “war” in Ukraine has improved Russia’s economic picture considerably! Personally, I doubt very much that Putin has a grand scheme of conquest. He is in his home stretch and would very much like a solid accomplishment to his legacy before he hangs up the Tsar’s crown, which, I am told, he uses as a tea cozy on most days.
The U.S. doesn’t need to fight Putin at all, and many of those who suggest it does, are invested in the growing power farther to the East and wish to distract. For a segment of the political-industrial clique, Ukraine represents their money laundry and bioweapons shenanigans, and their support of it is self-interested. Ironically, the “war” in Ukraine has improved Russia’s economic picture considerably! Personally, I doubt very much that Putin has a grand scheme of conquest. He is in his home stretch and would very much like a solid accomplishment to his legacy before he hangs up the Tsar’s crown, which, I am told, he uses as a tea cozy on most days.
Lindsay Graham has never known a war he doesn’t like, and McConnell can see the money flowing in from the military-industrial complex. The US is laughing all the way to the bank on this war.
McConnell and Graham want Republicans to win, so why would they object when it happens? They support Ukraine, because it is in U.S. interest to let Ukraine fight Putin there, so we don’t have to fight Putin here. We’re getting a bargain deal from Ukraine. We only have to send them a few extra weapons (a tiny fraction of the U.S. military budget), and they do all the fighting and dying. If Putin wins in Ukraine, he won’t stop there any more than Hitler stopped with Austria.
‘Proved false’? Where? When? AFAIAC it is proved that Russia *did* run an influence operation, because they preferred Trump to Hilary. Otherwise, who leaked those Democrat emails? Did it swing the election? Most likely not. Did it make Trump’s victory invalid? Definitely not (alas). Did Trump collude or collaborate ahead of time? Well, there was no sufficient evidence that he did, and quite likely he was innocent of that – at least within the rather wide bounds of what people from both sides are usually able to get away with in US elections. But the claims of a Russian influence operation have not been proved false, any more than it has been proved who killed OJ Simpsons wife.
What do they admit, exactly? Some accusations against Trump are thoroughly discredited, such as the cavorting with prostitutes in Moscow. Other claims I’d consider proved. Again, who did leak those Democrat emails? Sorry to be repetitive, but if you could give me a link I could check just what the NYT is and is not admitting.
Rasmus, Julian Assange said Wikileaks did not get the emails from Russia (CNN interview 4th Jan 2017) – text from Washington Post here. A single definitive source who would know. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2017/01/05/julian-assanges-claim-that-there-was-no-russian-involvement-in-wikileaks-emails/
Now it would be great if the world could double-check with Mr Assange over the whole affair, but he’s been incommunicado in Belmarsh prison for nearly four years – unconvicted, yet living through an inhumane and tortuously slow extradition procedure – a journalist imprisoned for doing journalism. What could you read into that?
Well, Bill Clinton said he did not have s–x–l relations with Monica Lewinsky. Assange, like Bill Clinton then, has every reason to hide or distort the truth. Do you take him at his unsupported word? If he, or someone else ,can say who *did* leak those mails, and provide some convincing evidence, then we can talk about it.
Your bias and complete inability to think logically really shines through. Frankly, it seems to that you are a CIA or MI5/MI6 bot. Now go prove me wrong! That’s the sum total of your logic. Further, I would venture to say, that since you live in the UK, your knowledge and direct experience of american politics is close to zero. In other words you have no idea what you’re talking about but you’re very good at repeating the “approved narrative” whether this be Russian interference in the 2016 election or Covid policy.
Why does Assange have a reason to hide or distort the truth? He’s not a politician, or a spy or secret agent, or anonymous commentator. Wikileaks published document troves that they took great pains to validate and check that they were true. Assange built his reputation on his veracity.
This is in contrast to the mass of fake and false reporting on Russian collusion promulgated by people connected to the Clinton campaign.
So, turn it around, why would you choose to believe them over the persecuted journalist with a stellar track record?
If he did get that material from Russia, either directly or indirectly, admitting it would put him in a very bad light, and might make him more likely of ending up in an American prison. If he got it in some other way he could reveal his sources to prove it, but then he is not going to do that. Bayesian reasoning: his denying that the material came from Russia is worthless, because he would say that whether it was true or not.
False Bayesian reasoning. Denying Russia provided it, does not say anything about where it did come from – it just removes Russia from the list of possibilities. Assange was already locked in the Ecuadorian embassy, being pursued by the Americans (including a subsequent CIA assassination plot), saying it was Russia wouldn’t have made a blind bit of difference.
At the time (2017) information from Russia was not an issue in any way legally, Steele supposedly (later proven untrue) got information from Russia, or the FBI’s connections to Deripaska. If you’re trademark is truth, why say something false?
I think you’ve heavily bought into the narrative, without enough background. Remember when you confused Hillary’s emails with the DNC or Podesta dump? Or took a joke as a demand? The actors pushing this stuff for political gain are not reliable sources.
Let us get a bit more Bayesian, here. Assume he got those data from somewhere else. He would say he did not get them from Russia, because it would be true. Now assume that he *did* get those data, directly or indirectly from the FSB. Would he say so? I strongly doubt it. It would ruin his image as an independent and honest voice, reduce him to a tool of Russian interests in the public eye, and weaken the people, legally and politically, who are trying to keep him from being extracted to the US. If those data came form the FSB he would have nothing to gain and much to lose by admitting it. You seem to think Assange is very reliable and the data could not possibly have come from Russia. That may or may not be the case (though I obviously disagree), but whether you believe that or not, his denial has no value as evidence.
Now you’re deep in conspiracy theory generation territory to keep your narrative alive (nothing but a might-have). We know lots of the Russia-did-it stories were fake and deliberately spread for political gain. We also know Assange has a history of veracity. So we have a witness statement from a credible witness with a history of truth telling versus a ‘might have’ from dubious sources. I could be wrong, but when I weigh both pieces of data, I know which way my priors shift.
Now you’re deep in conspiracy theory generation territory to keep your narrative alive (nothing but a might-have). We know lots of the Russia-did-it stories were fake and deliberately spread for political gain. We also know Assange has a history of veracity. So we have a witness statement from a credible witness with a history of truth telling versus a ‘might have’ from dubious sources. I could be wrong, but when I weigh both pieces of data, I know which way my priors shift.
Let us get a bit more Bayesian, here. Assume he got those data from somewhere else. He would say he did not get them from Russia, because it would be true. Now assume that he *did* get those data, directly or indirectly from the FSB. Would he say so? I strongly doubt it. It would ruin his image as an independent and honest voice, reduce him to a tool of Russian interests in the public eye, and weaken the people, legally and politically, who are trying to keep him from being extracted to the US. If those data came form the FSB he would have nothing to gain and much to lose by admitting it. You seem to think Assange is very reliable and the data could not possibly have come from Russia. That may or may not be the case (though I obviously disagree), but whether you believe that or not, his denial has no value as evidence.
Oh, “admitting it” “would put him in a very bad light” (somehow), as opposed to where he is now, bathing in glory and not at all under threat from the US security establishment.
False Bayesian reasoning. Denying Russia provided it, does not say anything about where it did come from – it just removes Russia from the list of possibilities. Assange was already locked in the Ecuadorian embassy, being pursued by the Americans (including a subsequent CIA assassination plot), saying it was Russia wouldn’t have made a blind bit of difference.
At the time (2017) information from Russia was not an issue in any way legally, Steele supposedly (later proven untrue) got information from Russia, or the FBI’s connections to Deripaska. If you’re trademark is truth, why say something false?
I think you’ve heavily bought into the narrative, without enough background. Remember when you confused Hillary’s emails with the DNC or Podesta dump? Or took a joke as a demand? The actors pushing this stuff for political gain are not reliable sources.
Oh, “admitting it” “would put him in a very bad light” (somehow), as opposed to where he is now, bathing in glory and not at all under threat from the US security establishment.
Yep, spot on! Odd isn’t it.. these mouthpieces lie over and over and over again but the suckers continue to believe in their lies, distortions and propaganda.. how stupid can these guys be?
If he did get that material from Russia, either directly or indirectly, admitting it would put him in a very bad light, and might make him more likely of ending up in an American prison. If he got it in some other way he could reveal his sources to prove it, but then he is not going to do that. Bayesian reasoning: his denying that the material came from Russia is worthless, because he would say that whether it was true or not.
Yep, spot on! Odd isn’t it.. these mouthpieces lie over and over and over again but the suckers continue to believe in their lies, distortions and propaganda.. how stupid can these guys be?
Why do you even still care that Bill lied about sex with Monica? If Hillary wanted to divorce him for it, that was their business and no one else’s. If lying about cheating on your wife was a crime, half the men in America would be in prison.
I do not care and I never did. I always thought that the entire impeachment process was a pretext and a farce – and was even quite happy when Clinton met this shameless political operation with a barefaced “depends on what you mean by ‘is'”. I just thought it was a good example of why you cannot believe people just because they deny things.
I do not care and I never did. I always thought that the entire impeachment process was a pretext and a farce – and was even quite happy when Clinton met this shameless political operation with a barefaced “depends on what you mean by ‘is'”. I just thought it was a good example of why you cannot believe people just because they deny things.
Your bias and complete inability to think logically really shines through. Frankly, it seems to that you are a CIA or MI5/MI6 bot. Now go prove me wrong! That’s the sum total of your logic. Further, I would venture to say, that since you live in the UK, your knowledge and direct experience of american politics is close to zero. In other words you have no idea what you’re talking about but you’re very good at repeating the “approved narrative” whether this be Russian interference in the 2016 election or Covid policy.
Why does Assange have a reason to hide or distort the truth? He’s not a politician, or a spy or secret agent, or anonymous commentator. Wikileaks published document troves that they took great pains to validate and check that they were true. Assange built his reputation on his veracity.
This is in contrast to the mass of fake and false reporting on Russian collusion promulgated by people connected to the Clinton campaign.
So, turn it around, why would you choose to believe them over the persecuted journalist with a stellar track record?
Why do you even still care that Bill lied about sex with Monica? If Hillary wanted to divorce him for it, that was their business and no one else’s. If lying about cheating on your wife was a crime, half the men in America would be in prison.
Assange won the Martha Gellhorn prize for journalism in 2011 (among others including an Australian Walkley Award for Most Outstanding Contribution to Journalism). Presumably the prize givers knew what a journalist was, as did the Guardian when they reported it. https://www.theguardian.com/media/2011/jun/02/julian-assange-martha-gelhorn-prize
Putin’s propaganda is due exactly the same in-depth skepticism as the Clinton-campaign-driven, and now-debunked, Russian conspiracy theory, where they made up false stories to smear their opponents. You wouldn’t want to be believing one of those, in the same way you wouldn’t want to be believing Putin.
Assange won the Martha Gellhorn prize for journalism in 2011 (among others including an Australian Walkley Award for Most Outstanding Contribution to Journalism). Presumably the prize givers knew what a journalist was, as did the Guardian when they reported it. https://www.theguardian.com/media/2011/jun/02/julian-assange-martha-gelhorn-prize
Putin’s propaganda is due exactly the same in-depth skepticism as the Clinton-campaign-driven, and now-debunked, Russian conspiracy theory, where they made up false stories to smear their opponents. You wouldn’t want to be believing one of those, in the same way you wouldn’t want to be believing Putin.
Well, Bill Clinton said he did not have s–x–l relations with Monica Lewinsky. Assange, like Bill Clinton then, has every reason to hide or distort the truth. Do you take him at his unsupported word? If he, or someone else ,can say who *did* leak those mails, and provide some convincing evidence, then we can talk about it.
Rasmus, Julian Assange said Wikileaks did not get the emails from Russia (CNN interview 4th Jan 2017) – text from Washington Post here. A single definitive source who would know. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2017/01/05/julian-assanges-claim-that-there-was-no-russian-involvement-in-wikileaks-emails/
Now it would be great if the world could double-check with Mr Assange over the whole affair, but he’s been incommunicado in Belmarsh prison for nearly four years – unconvicted, yet living through an inhumane and tortuously slow extradition procedure – a journalist imprisoned for doing journalism. What could you read into that?
What do they admit, exactly? Some accusations against Trump are thoroughly discredited, such as the cavorting with prostitutes in Moscow. Other claims I’d consider proved. Again, who did leak those Democrat emails? Sorry to be repetitive, but if you could give me a link I could check just what the NYT is and is not admitting.
I assume you’re English. and you make a lot of unproven assertions. It has absolutely not been proven that Russia ran an influence operation, and if they did nobody was aware of it because nobody read anything or viewed anything in the outlets they used. As for leaking the DNC emails, far more likely is that a disgruntled employee of the DNC did this. Further, there is no evidence whatsoever that the Russians preferred Trump. In fact, for Russia Hilary would have been far more accommodating, as she had been in the past.
Finally your logical is totally flawed. Anybody and any party can make a claim. It’s not up to others to prove that this clam is false, rather it’s up to the people making the claim to prove that it’s indeed correct.
For example, I could claim that you’re an MI5 agent but that doesn’t make it so, and it’s not up to you to prove that claim false. Rather it’s up to those making the claim to prove it to be true.
It is a troll-like strategy: attempt to bog down the thread by posting myriad questions and so on. I stopped replying to him a few days ago. It’s a waste of time.
It is a troll-like strategy: attempt to bog down the thread by posting myriad questions and so on. I stopped replying to him a few days ago. It’s a waste of time.
Youa make a 100% valid point! Hence the downticks.. on UnHerd logic, commonsense and reason are not popular.. silly conjecture and baseless, slavish credulity are valued!
Youa make a 100% valid point! Hence the downticks.. on UnHerd logic, commonsense and reason are not popular.. silly conjecture and baseless, slavish credulity are valued!
Seriously, ask yourself why Russia would prefer Trump over Clinton. The Clintons have always had a gigantic For Sale sign as their personal motto (ask Haiti about it). Clinton would have been easy to work with, as was Obama (“tell Vlad, in my second term, I’ll have more flexibility”). Trump’s only “crime” was inadvertently kicking over the DC corruption rock by being elected and thinking that Washington actually wanted to solve problems. Once he was in office, he discovered the exact opposite to be the case, and, as the odious Chuck Schumer said – on camera – the FBI had “six ways to Sunday” to f*ck him up. And they did. What’s the lesson here? It wasn’t really about Trump. It was anyone who gets in the way of the Washington crime syndicate, [D] or [R]. Just look at what they’re doing to DeSantis. Sheesh, they were prepared to make big floppy Mitt Romney look like Simon Legree (“He’s gonna put y’all back in chains”). I marvel at the inability of people to see this stuff. It’s not as hidden, it’s not artful, it’s right there, in your face, daring you to do something about it.
They would prefer Trump because he admired autocrats like Putin, because he was divisive and produced chaos and polarisation, and because he was not going to do much to keep Russia within limits.
Seriously? He strenuously warned the entire European Union to beware of dependency on Russian energy – the only thing they’ve got to sell. As for being divisive, that’s politics: people have principles. It was, however, the Washington establishment that turned him into Emanuel Goldstein.
..who turned him into an orange lunatic? such a pity, he probably had a valid case a lot of the time.. out of the mouths of babes and sucklings I guess?
Nah, I saw him myself; I heard him too.. the p***y grabbing, the slap him in the mouth remark, build the wall and make Mexico pay for it.. nah, definitely a lunatic. He did get one or two things right.. but even a busted clock tells the right time twice a day!
Nah, I saw him myself; I heard him too.. the p***y grabbing, the slap him in the mouth remark, build the wall and make Mexico pay for it.. nah, definitely a lunatic. He did get one or two things right.. but even a busted clock tells the right time twice a day!
..who turned him into an orange lunatic? such a pity, he probably had a valid case a lot of the time.. out of the mouths of babes and sucklings I guess?
Seriously? He strenuously warned the entire European Union to beware of dependency on Russian energy – the only thing they’ve got to sell. As for being divisive, that’s politics: people have principles. It was, however, the Washington establishment that turned him into Emanuel Goldstein.
Correct.. hence the downticks: the more valid, the more truthful, the more obvious, the clearer, the more logical, the more reasoned the more downticks.. maybe the downticks come from the CIA? who knows?
They would prefer Trump because he admired autocrats like Putin, because he was divisive and produced chaos and polarisation, and because he was not going to do much to keep Russia within limits.
Correct.. hence the downticks: the more valid, the more truthful, the more obvious, the clearer, the more logical, the more reasoned the more downticks.. maybe the downticks come from the CIA? who knows?
The Democrat emails were hacked and published via wikileaks. By whom, if not the Russians – who were anyway identified as the likely culprits by the people who invetigated the breach? There have been various reports of Russian botnets pouring out tweets etc. Admittedly I do not have specific links – just seen it all over the press – but if you still care enough to ask I shall do some googling.
The Democrat emails were hacked and published via wikileaks. By whom, if not the Russians – who were anyway identified as the likely culprits by the people who invetigated the breach? There have been various reports of Russian botnets pouring out tweets etc. Admittedly I do not have specific links – just seen it all over the press – but if you still care enough to ask I shall do some googling.
I assume you’re English. and you make a lot of unproven assertions. It has absolutely not been proven that Russia ran an influence operation, and if they did nobody was aware of it because nobody read anything or viewed anything in the outlets they used. As for leaking the DNC emails, far more likely is that a disgruntled employee of the DNC did this. Further, there is no evidence whatsoever that the Russians preferred Trump. In fact, for Russia Hilary would have been far more accommodating, as she had been in the past.
Finally your logical is totally flawed. Anybody and any party can make a claim. It’s not up to others to prove that this clam is false, rather it’s up to the people making the claim to prove that it’s indeed correct.
For example, I could claim that you’re an MI5 agent but that doesn’t make it so, and it’s not up to you to prove that claim false. Rather it’s up to those making the claim to prove it to be true.
Seriously, ask yourself why Russia would prefer Trump over Clinton. The Clintons have always had a gigantic For Sale sign as their personal motto (ask Haiti about it). Clinton would have been easy to work with, as was Obama (“tell Vlad, in my second term, I’ll have more flexibility”). Trump’s only “crime” was inadvertently kicking over the DC corruption rock by being elected and thinking that Washington actually wanted to solve problems. Once he was in office, he discovered the exact opposite to be the case, and, as the odious Chuck Schumer said – on camera – the FBI had “six ways to Sunday” to f*ck him up. And they did. What’s the lesson here? It wasn’t really about Trump. It was anyone who gets in the way of the Washington crime syndicate, [D] or [R]. Just look at what they’re doing to DeSantis. Sheesh, they were prepared to make big floppy Mitt Romney look like Simon Legree (“He’s gonna put y’all back in chains”). I marvel at the inability of people to see this stuff. It’s not as hidden, it’s not artful, it’s right there, in your face, daring you to do something about it.
Some of us here are British and are more interested in her views on the conflict in The Ukraine than on internal American political disputes. I understand that these matters cannot be completely separated, but Trump v Biden is a sideshow for me. I’m sure that all participants have erred, but we Brits long ago learnt that it is the last battle that counts.
On Ukraine she makes sense. I agree with her that Russia cannot be defeated in any conventional sense: Putin has to be manoeuvred into accepting that the game isn’t worth the candle. The problem for him, as for all autocrats, is that such a move is highly dangerous for ones health.
That’s hardly true if your battles are fought over a 100 year period? ie the earlier battles can count for quite a bit! Europe has been fighting Russia for a long time under the leadership of Napoleon Bonapart, Adolf Hitler and now Joe Biden.. I’m pretty sure many of the battles were really important!
Also, if the last battle Europe fights against Russia is the only one that counts we may have to wait for hundreds of years more.. maybe forever even? ..or maybe it’ll end for sure quite soon in the nuclear holocaust the US seems intent on bringing about.. if that happens then I truly will agree with you.. It will indeed be the last battle that counts, 10, 9, 8, 7….
You keep repeating your lies about Russia as if people did not know Russia real history of centuries of genocidal imperialism.
It was Soviet Union which started ww2 with Hitler by invading Poland and then supported Hitler war machine with grain and raw material while invading Finland and Baltic States.
Ukrainians are fighting for their lives because they well remember genocide committed on them in 1930s.
You keep repeating your lies about Russia as if people did not know Russia real history of centuries of genocidal imperialism.
It was Soviet Union which started ww2 with Hitler by invading Poland and then supported Hitler war machine with grain and raw material while invading Finland and Baltic States.
Ukrainians are fighting for their lives because they well remember genocide committed on them in 1930s.
That’s hardly true if your battles are fought over a 100 year period? ie the earlier battles can count for quite a bit! Europe has been fighting Russia for a long time under the leadership of Napoleon Bonapart, Adolf Hitler and now Joe Biden.. I’m pretty sure many of the battles were really important!
Also, if the last battle Europe fights against Russia is the only one that counts we may have to wait for hundreds of years more.. maybe forever even? ..or maybe it’ll end for sure quite soon in the nuclear holocaust the US seems intent on bringing about.. if that happens then I truly will agree with you.. It will indeed be the last battle that counts, 10, 9, 8, 7….
Prigozhin set up a company especially to interfere with the U.S election in support of Trump.Prigozhin has admitted that and bragged about it.You need to be better informed and more intelligent.
..and he succeeded in achieving that exactly how? Did he brainwash 40 million idiot Americans? ..or did he get the FSB to spend $5bn in the US to topple Clinton? Oh no, I’m getting confused with the CIA in Ukraine aren’t I.. silly me!
..and he succeeded in achieving that exactly how? Did he brainwash 40 million idiot Americans? ..or did he get the FSB to spend $5bn in the US to topple Clinton? Oh no, I’m getting confused with the CIA in Ukraine aren’t I.. silly me!
She is really good and you don’t like it. Putin did not install Donald Trump. They tried to assist with misinformation via bots and trolls on big tech platforms. Such epithets you use as resistance liberals (who are they?) and United States opposing Russia at all costs are hyperbole. At all costs means Nuclear. Listen to Fiona. She is measured and does not use hyperbole.
The story of the Ukraine kerfuffle doesn’t start with Putin’s invasion. Look up the Minsk accords, the fall of democracy to a totalitarian regime, the Ukraine’s refusal to deal with wishes for referenda and plebiscites, the governmental sponsorship of shady financial deals and hosting of bioweapons labs in contravention of the Geneva Conventions…Granted, it was adventurism on Putin’s part, but he has not done badly for himself and Russia, and unfortunately in some measure, Ukraine is getting what it was asking for. Now we can add Putin Derangement Syndrome (PDS) to the host of contemporary ills and delusions.
The story of the Ukraine kerfuffle doesn’t start with Putin’s invasion. Look up the Minsk accords, the fall of democracy to a totalitarian regime, the Ukraine’s refusal to deal with wishes for referenda and plebiscites, the governmental sponsorship of shady financial deals and hosting of bioweapons labs in contravention of the Geneva Conventions…Granted, it was adventurism on Putin’s part, but he has not done badly for himself and Russia, and unfortunately in some measure, Ukraine is getting what it was asking for. Now we can add Putin Derangement Syndrome (PDS) to the host of contemporary ills and delusions.
much of the support behind United States opposing Russia at all costs is because many resistance liberals still believe Putin hacked the 2016 election to install Donald Trump as president.
Comedic drivel. The driving force is the same one that oposed the similar imperialism of Nazi Germany
Why is it a lie? Most of things I’ve read suggest that the Russians did try and interfere with the US election. I don’t believe there was any collusion with Trump, or that they intervened to help any particular side but instead inflame the culture wars and sow discord, but it’s still interference
It has very little to do with that, which is why Sens. McConnell and Graham, not to mention people who, like me, never bought into Trump Derangement Syndrome are supportive of Ukraine. So maybe it’s not “nothing,” but it isn’t all that much, either.
‘Proved false’? Where? When? AFAIAC it is proved that Russia *did* run an influence operation, because they preferred Trump to Hilary. Otherwise, who leaked those Democrat emails? Did it swing the election? Most likely not. Did it make Trump’s victory invalid? Definitely not (alas). Did Trump collude or collaborate ahead of time? Well, there was no sufficient evidence that he did, and quite likely he was innocent of that – at least within the rather wide bounds of what people from both sides are usually able to get away with in US elections. But the claims of a Russian influence operation have not been proved false, any more than it has been proved who killed OJ Simpsons wife.
Some of us here are British and are more interested in her views on the conflict in The Ukraine than on internal American political disputes. I understand that these matters cannot be completely separated, but Trump v Biden is a sideshow for me. I’m sure that all participants have erred, but we Brits long ago learnt that it is the last battle that counts.
On Ukraine she makes sense. I agree with her that Russia cannot be defeated in any conventional sense: Putin has to be manoeuvred into accepting that the game isn’t worth the candle. The problem for him, as for all autocrats, is that such a move is highly dangerous for ones health.
Prigozhin set up a company especially to interfere with the U.S election in support of Trump.Prigozhin has admitted that and bragged about it.You need to be better informed and more intelligent.
She is really good and you don’t like it. Putin did not install Donald Trump. They tried to assist with misinformation via bots and trolls on big tech platforms. Such epithets you use as resistance liberals (who are they?) and United States opposing Russia at all costs are hyperbole. At all costs means Nuclear. Listen to Fiona. She is measured and does not use hyperbole.
much of the support behind United States opposing Russia at all costs is because many resistance liberals still believe Putin hacked the 2016 election to install Donald Trump as president.
Comedic drivel. The driving force is the same one that oposed the similar imperialism of Nazi Germany
Johann makes more sense than you do. She actually has very little experience of dealing with Russia (all problems lead back to Russia.) – not a very sound world-view policy.
Or perhaps one could look more deeply into the US State Department’s dismal sorority…It benefits them to be warhawks. In terms of careerist feminism this is not unexpected, but it seems to me a sordid mystery that it undermines their own country’s position, to mistake a rival for an enemy. They are digging their hole deeper when they go on to forget that the enemy of your enemy is not necessarily your friend.
Oh she just told a massive tangential lie to the subject matter we are supposed to rely on her expertise on. What’s the big deal? Really? I don’t know if you have been paying attention, but much of the support behind United States opposing Russia at all costs is because many resistance liberals still believe Putin hacked the 2016 election to install Donald Trump as president. You know the same people who liked to call people who disagreed with them “Putin puppets” before Ukraine was even invaded? This claim has been proven false several times over now and is still tearing the country apart. Don’t act like it is nothing.
Johann makes more sense than you do. She actually has very little experience of dealing with Russia (all problems lead back to Russia.) – not a very sound world-view policy.
Or perhaps one could look more deeply into the US State Department’s dismal sorority…It benefits them to be warhawks. In terms of careerist feminism this is not unexpected, but it seems to me a sordid mystery that it undermines their own country’s position, to mistake a rival for an enemy. They are digging their hole deeper when they go on to forget that the enemy of your enemy is not necessarily your friend.
Nah. Russia tried plenty to interfere, from its helping hack Democratic party accounts (separately and in connection to Wikileaks) to its army of trolls and bots and widespread disinformation to Paul Manafort’s connections to Konstantin Kilimnik and Oleg Deripaska and more.
If Trump didn’t actively collude with the Russians, it certainly wasn’t for lack of trying.
Big tech if anything has assisted the neo-fascist GOP. See Facebook and Cambridge analytica, the well-known right-wing biases in Youtube and Twitter algorithms, and much more. That is the case up to today. Big tech, after all, is owned by billionaires that don’t want to pay taxes, and guess which party that aligns them with?
Big tech has been a force for the spread of right-wing evil.
Clearly you are living in some altered reality. I can tell you, as somebody who reads a lot of politics and follows these things, and more importantly lives in the centre of US politics (i.e. Washington DC) that whatever you may have read in the press either from the US or the UK, if there was any Russian interference it sure wasn’t apparent or felt. That’s in sharp contrast to direct and explicit interference in UK politics from Obama who, if you recall, threatened to put the UK at the back of the queue in any trade talks, if the UK dared to vote in favor of Brexit. Now that’s interference and bullying, and the US does that all the time, all over the world. They also did the same sort of thing in Israeli elections. So rather ironic when the pot calls the kettle black, don’t you think.
Hacking the DNC didn’t help influence the election that much because — surprise, surprise — the Democrats’ emails were whistle clean! That hardly means the Russians didn’t try hard to rig things.
As it turned out, those hacked emails were nevertheless important, because they were released, at Roger Stone’s request, just hours after Trump’s Access Hollywood rape-loving comments went public.
Hacking the DNC didn’t help influence the election that much because — surprise, surprise — the Democrats’ emails were whistle clean! That hardly means the Russians didn’t try hard to rig things.
As it turned out, those hacked emails were nevertheless important, because they were released, at Roger Stone’s request, just hours after Trump’s Access Hollywood rape-loving comments went public.
Money talks. The budget of that potential interference was somewhere below $30 mil. Within a BILLION-budgeted campaign they must be pretty damn effective!
As if the real budget for a campaign like that is public information. Look at Jared Kushner suddenly getting $2 billion for his hedge fund from the Saudis. Nothing to see here folks. Just business as usual. Definitely no quid pro quo.
As if the real budget for a campaign like that is public information. Look at Jared Kushner suddenly getting $2 billion for his hedge fund from the Saudis. Nothing to see here folks. Just business as usual. Definitely no quid pro quo.
Yikes. I’ll pass on whatever you’re smoking. If Big Tech sided with the GOP, no one would be declaring their pronouns, mutilating the sexual organs of children, and threatening Harry Potter fans for buying a video game. Dude, go out and touch grass.
If Big Tech didn’t side with the GOP, you wouldn’t have neo-nazis running through the capital trying to murder congresspeople, urged on by the most unqualified, lying, vile “president” in US history. And you wouldn’t have such scum getting 74 million votes after numerous instances of treasonous conduct.
If Big Tech didn’t side with the GOP, you wouldn’t have neo-nazis running through the capital trying to murder congresspeople, urged on by the most unqualified, lying, vile “president” in US history. And you wouldn’t have such scum getting 74 million votes after numerous instances of treasonous conduct.
Big tech has assisted the “neo-fascist GOP”? You do know that Facebook, YouTube, Google etc. is dominated by left leaning liberal staff and owners. Anything will be banned and cancelled if it has the slightest anti-MSM content. Facebook and up till recently Twitter were owned by Democrat sympathising owners. As we see with ex-Employees of Twitter, they not only shadow- banned, but openly cancelled any publication, which could endanger Democratic election victory, like the story about Hunter Biden’s Laptop.
You do know that Face, Youtube, Google, etc are owned by rich people who above all don’t want to pay taxes, right? They want whatever gets the most views, and that means the algorithms serve up the most racist, sexist garbage imaginable.
The algorithms are FAR FAR more powerful than some random decision about some utter nonsense hunter biden story.
The algorithms lead people down the road to hatred, conspiracy thinking, and right-wing extremism. It’s well-documented.
And plenty of people in Silicon Valley are not liberals but libertarians, meaning, again the worship of $$$ above all, selfishness and greed above all. That all aligns with the neo-fascists.
You do know that Face, Youtube, Google, etc are owned by rich people who above all don’t want to pay taxes, right? They want whatever gets the most views, and that means the algorithms serve up the most racist, sexist garbage imaginable.
The algorithms are FAR FAR more powerful than some random decision about some utter nonsense hunter biden story.
The algorithms lead people down the road to hatred, conspiracy thinking, and right-wing extremism. It’s well-documented.
And plenty of people in Silicon Valley are not liberals but libertarians, meaning, again the worship of $$$ above all, selfishness and greed above all. That all aligns with the neo-fascists.
Right wing biases on Twitter or Facebook etc?
So you don’t know about Big Tech ignoring Hunter Biden laptop story and Twitter banning Trump and changing it algorithms to effectively censor any views not following covid policies idiocy of Biden and Fauci?
Clearly you are living in some altered reality. I can tell you, as somebody who reads a lot of politics and follows these things, and more importantly lives in the centre of US politics (i.e. Washington DC) that whatever you may have read in the press either from the US or the UK, if there was any Russian interference it sure wasn’t apparent or felt. That’s in sharp contrast to direct and explicit interference in UK politics from Obama who, if you recall, threatened to put the UK at the back of the queue in any trade talks, if the UK dared to vote in favor of Brexit. Now that’s interference and bullying, and the US does that all the time, all over the world. They also did the same sort of thing in Israeli elections. So rather ironic when the pot calls the kettle black, don’t you think.
Money talks. The budget of that potential interference was somewhere below $30 mil. Within a BILLION-budgeted campaign they must be pretty damn effective!
Yikes. I’ll pass on whatever you’re smoking. If Big Tech sided with the GOP, no one would be declaring their pronouns, mutilating the sexual organs of children, and threatening Harry Potter fans for buying a video game. Dude, go out and touch grass.
Big tech has assisted the “neo-fascist GOP”? You do know that Facebook, YouTube, Google etc. is dominated by left leaning liberal staff and owners. Anything will be banned and cancelled if it has the slightest anti-MSM content. Facebook and up till recently Twitter were owned by Democrat sympathising owners. As we see with ex-Employees of Twitter, they not only shadow- banned, but openly cancelled any publication, which could endanger Democratic election victory, like the story about Hunter Biden’s Laptop.
Right wing biases on Twitter or Facebook etc?
So you don’t know about Big Tech ignoring Hunter Biden laptop story and Twitter banning Trump and changing it algorithms to effectively censor any views not following covid policies idiocy of Biden and Fauci?
Thank you for that assessment Mr Strauss. In other words Hill is yet another one of these self centred Bimbos, rather like the Pelosi creature?
Some, not I, may even call them Gorgons.
Hey Charlie! How come your name has to be in CAPITALS when the rest of us make do with lower case? It’s hardly fair, is it? Are you an attention seeker?
Hey Charlie! How come your name has to be in CAPITALS when the rest of us make do with lower case? It’s hardly fair, is it? Are you an attention seeker?
Yes, I too got to exactly this point in the discussion and begun to think there is something unserious about her – though much of her analysis is very cogent and interesting.
Have to agree: this one statement completely undoes Hill’s credibility as a political/policy analyst…
“ I went in there to deal with a national security crisis after the Russians launched an influence operation to basically subvert the US 2016 presidential election.”
Absolutely nothing there. Never was.
As well, intelligence now indicates that the US may indeed have sabotaged Nordstream pipeline.
It has been proven they spent about a million dollars on twitter bots, most of whom interacted with Antifa and Qanon followers. However that pales in comparison to our ongoing meddling in Ukranian elections over the past 20 year.
It has been proven they spent about a million dollars on twitter bots, most of whom interacted with Antifa and Qanon followers. However that pales in comparison to our ongoing meddling in Ukranian elections over the past 20 year.
F.Hill never seemed to answer Freddy’s question, HOW to start diplomatic negotiations. She always tends to give the same reply: the United Nations and “other countries”… What other countries? Did she mean the B(R)ICs, who currently don’t seem to have any interest at all in the European conflict. German Chancellor Scholz was actually given the cold shoulder by the Brazilian President Lula about the Ukrainian war and China is even considering to supply weapons to Russia.
As you so rightly said, there seem to be so many political “experts” in various U.S. administrations, trying to influence policy based not in reality but how they think the world should be. For some reason Anthony Fauci sprang to mind, who for years was THE “expert” in infectious diseases and director of NIAID, serving every administration for over 40 years and presidents solely seemed to rely on him instead of a huge pool of other competent scientists.
I agree. She identified the problem, stated where we need to end up, but had no realistic recommendations on how to get there. Fiona played her cards but had nothing.
I agree. She identified the problem, stated where we need to end up, but had no realistic recommendations on how to get there. Fiona played her cards but had nothing.
Yes, she is both saying that Russia can’t be defeated but doesn’t explain how Russia can be persuaded to negotiate while not being defeated.
Then she admits that allowing Russia to not be defeated means that Russia will try later either in Ukraine or elsewhere.
If this is top Russia expert in Washington God help us…
Yes, she is both saying that Russia can’t be defeated but doesn’t explain how Russia can be persuaded to negotiate while not being defeated.
Then she admits that allowing Russia to not be defeated means that Russia will try later either in Ukraine or elsewhere.
If this is top Russia expert in Washington God help us…
It is a simple comment Johann. Too simple. Fiona is neither delusional nor living in cloud cuckoo land. You on the other hand could be. She neither said Russian interference (which you acknowledge) was either successful nor more powerful than the effect of manipulation of platforms such as Google, FB and twitter (a tool Trump used to help himself). Russia used bots and trolls of course subverting those same big tech platforms to their own ends.
As a Trumper, of course you would say that, wouldn’t you?
However, between January 2015 and August 2017, Facebook linked 80,000 publications to the Russian company Internet Research Agency through more than 470 different accounts. At the same time, a total of 50,258 Twitter accounts were linked to Russian bots – fake accounts programmed to share false information – during the 2016 election period. The bots are responsible for more than 3.8 million tweets, about 19% of the total tweets related to the 2016 US presidential election. Approximately 80% of these bots behaved in a way that supported Donald Trump, mostly using the hashtags #donaldtrump, #trump2016, #neverhillary and #trumppence16.
You can call that “basically a zero” if you wish, but it odes make you seem rather “delusional and living in cloud cuckoo land”.
Most of the early allegations and reports regarding Russian twitter bots are subsequently been proven false or hugely blown out of proportion. All of these links are 2018 and earlier, when deep-state aligned actors pumping out very questionable “evidence” regarding Russia’s multi-billion dollar twitter bot campaign. These reports are trash, Russia spent at most a few million on totally in-effective twitter bots.
Most of the early allegations and reports regarding Russian twitter bots are subsequently been proven false or hugely blown out of proportion. All of these links are 2018 and earlier, when deep-state aligned actors pumping out very questionable “evidence” regarding Russia’s multi-billion dollar twitter bot campaign. These reports are trash, Russia spent at most a few million on totally in-effective twitter bots.
“despite being a so-called expert, she doesn’t really know what she’s talking about.”
If she’s a policy wonk, it explains why the West is in the mess it’s in.
As you say, she seems muddled on a lot of things, seems to not have a clue as to approaching Russia strategically and so is reduced to making the kind of statements that night be made by a child. For example :
“South Africa is carrying out naval exercises with China and Russia — that’s just not on”.
Why not ? Is AUKUS allows to do drills off the coast of Japan ? If so, why ?
She comes across as a bit of a midwit.
Silly. Just because she says things about Russian interference in 2016 that you don’t like, you write off all her experience dealing with Putin and Ukraine. Not very clever.
Nah. Russia tried plenty to interfere, from its helping hack Democratic party accounts (separately and in connection to Wikileaks) to its army of trolls and bots and widespread disinformation to Paul Manafort’s connections to Konstantin Kilimnik and Oleg Deripaska and more.
If Trump didn’t actively collude with the Russians, it certainly wasn’t for lack of trying.
Big tech if anything has assisted the neo-fascist GOP. See Facebook and Cambridge analytica, the well-known right-wing biases in Youtube and Twitter algorithms, and much more. That is the case up to today. Big tech, after all, is owned by billionaires that don’t want to pay taxes, and guess which party that aligns them with?
Big tech has been a force for the spread of right-wing evil.
Thank you for that assessment Mr Strauss. In other words Hill is yet another one of these self centred Bimbos, rather like the Pelosi creature?
Some, not I, may even call them Gorgons.
Yes, I too got to exactly this point in the discussion and begun to think there is something unserious about her – though much of her analysis is very cogent and interesting.
Have to agree: this one statement completely undoes Hill’s credibility as a political/policy analyst…
“ I went in there to deal with a national security crisis after the Russians launched an influence operation to basically subvert the US 2016 presidential election.”
Absolutely nothing there. Never was.
As well, intelligence now indicates that the US may indeed have sabotaged Nordstream pipeline.
F.Hill never seemed to answer Freddy’s question, HOW to start diplomatic negotiations. She always tends to give the same reply: the United Nations and “other countries”… What other countries? Did she mean the B(R)ICs, who currently don’t seem to have any interest at all in the European conflict. German Chancellor Scholz was actually given the cold shoulder by the Brazilian President Lula about the Ukrainian war and China is even considering to supply weapons to Russia.
As you so rightly said, there seem to be so many political “experts” in various U.S. administrations, trying to influence policy based not in reality but how they think the world should be. For some reason Anthony Fauci sprang to mind, who for years was THE “expert” in infectious diseases and director of NIAID, serving every administration for over 40 years and presidents solely seemed to rely on him instead of a huge pool of other competent scientists.
It is a simple comment Johann. Too simple. Fiona is neither delusional nor living in cloud cuckoo land. You on the other hand could be. She neither said Russian interference (which you acknowledge) was either successful nor more powerful than the effect of manipulation of platforms such as Google, FB and twitter (a tool Trump used to help himself). Russia used bots and trolls of course subverting those same big tech platforms to their own ends.
As a Trumper, of course you would say that, wouldn’t you?
However, between January 2015 and August 2017, Facebook linked 80,000 publications to the Russian company Internet Research Agency through more than 470 different accounts. At the same time, a total of 50,258 Twitter accounts were linked to Russian bots – fake accounts programmed to share false information – during the 2016 election period. The bots are responsible for more than 3.8 million tweets, about 19% of the total tweets related to the 2016 US presidential election. Approximately 80% of these bots behaved in a way that supported Donald Trump, mostly using the hashtags #donaldtrump, #trump2016, #neverhillary and #trumppence16.
You can call that “basically a zero” if you wish, but it odes make you seem rather “delusional and living in cloud cuckoo land”.
“despite being a so-called expert, she doesn’t really know what she’s talking about.”
If she’s a policy wonk, it explains why the West is in the mess it’s in.
As you say, she seems muddled on a lot of things, seems to not have a clue as to approaching Russia strategically and so is reduced to making the kind of statements that night be made by a child. For example :
“South Africa is carrying out naval exercises with China and Russia — that’s just not on”.
Why not ? Is AUKUS allows to do drills off the coast of Japan ? If so, why ?
She comes across as a bit of a midwit.
You are the one separated from reality, misrepresenting your opinions as fact.
Johann Strauss
1 year ago
My simple comment regarding anything that Fiona Hill says is to simply realize that when she states “That’s why I went into government in 2016. I didn’t go in there to serve Donald Trump. I went in there to deal with a national security crisis after the Russians launched an influence operation to basically subvert the US 2016 presidential election.”, it is evident that she is both delusional and living in cloud cuckoo land. Russian interference in the 2016 election was insignificant. Basically a zero. Now compare that to interference from big tech (google, facebook, twitter, etc…) in the 2020 election. In other words, despite being a so-called expert, she doesn’t really know what she’s talking about. And that’s so unfortunate when one has people influencing and making policy decisions not based on reality but how they think the world should be.
martin logan
1 year ago
I see some very naive readings of Russia here.
All the colonial powers were nations before they were empires. Giving their colonies up was traumatic, but didn’t threaten their identities.
Muscovy, however, was an empire since the middle ages. It’s the heir of Rome.
To Putin and many others, giving up colonies like Ukraine or Kazakhstan really does mean the end of Russia.
No “agreement” however generous, would ever make people like him give up on Ukraine or the Russian imperial project.
For Russia, Ukraine and Kazakhstan are utterly different cases.
For many Russians, Triune Rus is a powerful symbol of Slavic unity – like England, Wales and Scotland for Unionist in the UK (let’s leave Northern Ireland to one side).
Great Russia (Russia), White Russia (Belarus) and Little Russia (Ukraine) really are seen as frateral and indivisible by many. Kazakhstan is Kazakh, and though it was Soviet, it was NEVER Russian.
A good part of Kazakstan, particularly in the north, IS ethnic Russian. The latter form large minorities in most Former Soviet republics. Indeed my best Russian meal ever was in Tashkent.
And every post-Soviet republic now fears and despises Putin’s Russia.
Kazakhstan even opened “Yurts of Invincibility” in Kyiv.
ALL of them know that Putin’s goal is to recreate the Russian/Soviet empire. ALL of them are in the same boat as Ukraine. It is Putin’s destiny.
Sorry if none of this was in that WW2 doc you saw.
Russians can think what they want. As we see, it rarely has anything to do with reality.
There is zero legal difference between a Ukrainian Russian and a Kazakh Russian.
Anyone thinking that there is simply a Russian Neo-colonialist.
No different from Pied Noirs in Algeria.
Russians can think what they want. As we see, it rarely has anything to do with reality.
There is zero legal difference between a Ukrainian Russian and a Kazakh Russian.
Anyone thinking that there is simply a Russian Neo-colonialist.
No different from Pied Noirs in Algeria.
OK, most posters here against Russian invasion of Ukraine understand the Russian delusions about their former colonies.
But it does not mean we need to accept them and then ignore Russian genocidal aggression which is a result of this delusions.
Russia just does not want to accept their diminished circumstances of post colonial period.
UK, France, Spain etc did and let go….
A good part of Kazakstan, particularly in the north, IS ethnic Russian. The latter form large minorities in most Former Soviet republics. Indeed my best Russian meal ever was in Tashkent.
And every post-Soviet republic now fears and despises Putin’s Russia.
Kazakhstan even opened “Yurts of Invincibility” in Kyiv.
ALL of them know that Putin’s goal is to recreate the Russian/Soviet empire. ALL of them are in the same boat as Ukraine. It is Putin’s destiny.
Sorry if none of this was in that WW2 doc you saw.
OK, most posters here against Russian invasion of Ukraine understand the Russian delusions about their former colonies.
But it does not mean we need to accept them and then ignore Russian genocidal aggression which is a result of this delusions.
Russia just does not want to accept their diminished circumstances of post colonial period.
UK, France, Spain etc did and let go….
For Russia, Ukraine and Kazakhstan are utterly different cases.
For many Russians, Triune Rus is a powerful symbol of Slavic unity – like England, Wales and Scotland for Unionist in the UK (let’s leave Northern Ireland to one side).
Great Russia (Russia), White Russia (Belarus) and Little Russia (Ukraine) really are seen as frateral and indivisible by many. Kazakhstan is Kazakh, and though it was Soviet, it was NEVER Russian.
All the colonial powers were nations before they were empires. Giving their colonies up was traumatic, but didn’t threaten their identities.
Muscovy, however, was an empire since the middle ages. It’s the heir of Rome.
To Putin and many others, giving up colonies like Ukraine or Kazakhstan really does mean the end of Russia.
No “agreement” however generous, would ever make people like him give up on Ukraine or the Russian imperial project.
It’s simply treasonous.
Might work in Hampstead, but not in the Kremlin.
Last edited 1 year ago by martin logan
John Riordan
1 year ago
Extremely interesting read, I must say.
“Do you think, had he (Trump) still been President, Russia would have invaded?FH: No, probably. Putin would have anticipated that he could get Ukraine handed over without the necessity of invading.”
I know the logic of this is dealt with further down, but I’m still not clear on what she’s really saying here? Would Trump really have simply stood back and allowed Putin to “take” Ukraine? How would that have worked? And how could it possibly have happened in any way that would not have loooked like an abdication of the role of the global policeman by the USA, and consequently made Trump personally look weak (if we accept the view that only his personal standing mattered to him, which I don’t)?
Isn’t it more likely that the bungled Afghanistan withdrawal – which was only a political promise by Biden, not Trump – would not have happened at all, and that consequently Putin would have faced a USA unembarrassed by that fiasco?
Last edited 1 year ago by John Riordan
John Riordan
1 year ago
Extremely interesting read, I must say.
“Do you think, had he (Trump) still been President, Russia would have invaded?FH: No, probably. Putin would have anticipated that he could get Ukraine handed over without the necessity of invading.”
I know the logic of this is dealt with further down, but I’m still not clear on what she’s really saying here? Would Trump really have simply stood back and allowed Putin to “take” Ukraine? How would that have worked? And how could it possibly have happened in any way that would not have loooked like an abdication of the role of the global policeman by the USA, and consequently made Trump personally look weak (if we accept the view that only his personal standing mattered to him, which I don’t)?
Isn’t it more likely that the bungled Afghanistan withdrawal – which was only a political promise by Biden, not Trump – would not have happened at all, and that consequently Putin would have faced a USA unembarrassed by that fiasco?
Last edited 1 year ago by John Riordan
Juffin Hully
1 year ago
Freddie has chosen a rather misrepresenting headline. Other quotes from the interview would have worked so much better. Consider this: “NATO has become a red herring”. Or: “We’re justifying what Russia is doing to Ukraine because of our irritation with the United States”.
Its been pointed out many times that the authors, or in this case interviewer, don’t ‘choose’ the headlines, or subheads, which occasionally have been changed due to criticism in Comments.
Whoever is responsible does so from a clickbait point of view, which is annoying but not fatal.
Its been pointed out many times that the authors, or in this case interviewer, don’t ‘choose’ the headlines, or subheads, which occasionally have been changed due to criticism in Comments.
Whoever is responsible does so from a clickbait point of view, which is annoying but not fatal.
If she had had the stones to baldly state that “NATO has become a red herring”, I would have respected her a little more.
Juffin Hully
1 year ago
Freddie has chosen a rather misrepresenting headline. Other quotes from the interview would have worked so much better. Consider this: “NATO has become a red herring”. Or: “We’re justifying what Russia is doing to Ukraine because of our irritation with the United States”.
Last edited 1 year ago by Juffin Hully
Rasmus Fogh
1 year ago
Brilliant and convincing analysis. So good, in fact, that I am willing to believe the positive things she says about Trump.
‘I went in there to deal with a national security crisis after the Russians launched an influence operation to basically subvert the US 2016 presidential election.’
Gosh, an election denier getting tons of space on Unherd.
Steven Carr
1 year ago
‘I went in there to deal with a national security crisis after the Russians launched an influence operation to basically subvert the US 2016 presidential election.’
Gosh, an election denier getting tons of space on Unherd.
martin logan
1 year ago
Very good interview with someone who Perhaps knows Russia and Putin better than anyone else.
Especially good about understanding that any concessions to Putin would simply mean more and larger conflicts.
I rarely disagree with you but it is not my reading of her interview.
She keeps talking about negotiated solution while saying Russia can not be defeated.
Not explaining at all how we stop future Russian aggressions (and other aggressors) without Russia being defeated and seen to be defeated by the world.
If you were countries like South Korea, Japan, Australia, Sweden, Finland, Poland etc what conclusion would you draw if USA and Europe gave up on Ukraine?
Surely that they need their own nukes ASAP.
I rarely disagree with you but it is not my reading of her interview.
She keeps talking about negotiated solution while saying Russia can not be defeated.
Not explaining at all how we stop future Russian aggressions (and other aggressors) without Russia being defeated and seen to be defeated by the world.
If you were countries like South Korea, Japan, Australia, Sweden, Finland, Poland etc what conclusion would you draw if USA and Europe gave up on Ukraine?
Surely that they need their own nukes ASAP.
martin logan
1 year ago
Very good interview with someone who Perhaps knows Russia and Putin better than anyone else.
Especially good about understanding that any concessions to Putin would simply mean more and larger conflicts.
M Lux
1 year ago
That woman, much like Sandbrooks article earlier today, is here to reinforce the MSM narrative (to say the least). I understand that it might be something of a coup for unherd to get her on record, but the interview disappoints immensely after the beginning.
The first part actually sounded like she might offer some nuanced insight into the workings of the US foreign service and theories on US-Russia relations, but then she massively veers off into typical neocon “we must preserve the end of history/unipolarity, or else the world shall end!” twattle (AKA Putin is mad and let’s not talk about America).
I guess I shouldn’t be surprised, this is a woman who worked her way up the greasy poll under bush, obama and then trump – whom she couldn’t stomach and so jumped ship to give the establishment something to beat him over the head with.
Your comment captures my sense of this interview. I was aware of Fiona Hill but certainly don’t have a detailed knowledge of her career and beliefs in the area of geopolitics and international relations. Throughout the interview I kept asking myself, “So, who is Fiona Hill? What is her agenda? What does she hope to accomplish by giving this interview?”
I couldn’t answer any of those questions, but my instinctive reaction to her is in line with your assessment: she’s a highly accomplished careerist within “the blob” and she does nothing without an agenda behind it.
On a more positive note, I liked her suggestion that we have to rethink many/most or our global organizations, such as the UN. Covid really shook the world up and laid bare the weaknesses. Most of our institutions are no longer fit for purpose. My sense, though, is that she wants to recreate these institutions in a form that reinforces American-led unipolarity and I don’t believe that’s healthy, not least because the liberal values America once cherished and hoped to export to the rest of the world are no longer valued or practiced by those in power in America.
Anyway, great interview, Unherd. Much food for thought.
Sandbrook may soon be awarded a Knighthood for ‘Services to Journalism’, or perhaps even be elevated to the House of Lords, rather like those other luminaries, Julian Fellows and Andrew Roberts.
Your comment captures my sense of this interview. I was aware of Fiona Hill but certainly don’t have a detailed knowledge of her career and beliefs in the area of geopolitics and international relations. Throughout the interview I kept asking myself, “So, who is Fiona Hill? What is her agenda? What does she hope to accomplish by giving this interview?”
I couldn’t answer any of those questions, but my instinctive reaction to her is in line with your assessment: she’s a highly accomplished careerist within “the blob” and she does nothing without an agenda behind it.
On a more positive note, I liked her suggestion that we have to rethink many/most or our global organizations, such as the UN. Covid really shook the world up and laid bare the weaknesses. Most of our institutions are no longer fit for purpose. My sense, though, is that she wants to recreate these institutions in a form that reinforces American-led unipolarity and I don’t believe that’s healthy, not least because the liberal values America once cherished and hoped to export to the rest of the world are no longer valued or practiced by those in power in America.
Anyway, great interview, Unherd. Much food for thought.
Sandbrook may soon be awarded a Knighthood for ‘Services to Journalism’, or perhaps even be elevated to the House of Lords, rather like those other luminaries, Julian Fellows and Andrew Roberts.
M Lux
1 year ago
That woman, much like Sandbrooks article earlier today, is here to reinforce the MSM narrative (to say the least). I understand that it might be something of a coup for unherd to get her on record, but the interview disappoints immensely after the beginning.
The first part actually sounded like she might offer some nuanced insight into the workings of the US foreign service and theories on US-Russia relations, but then she massively veers off into typical neocon “we must preserve the end of history/unipolarity, or else the world shall end!” twattle (AKA Putin is mad and let’s not talk about America).
I guess I shouldn’t be surprised, this is a woman who worked her way up the greasy poll under bush, obama and then trump – whom she couldn’t stomach and so jumped ship to give the establishment something to beat him over the head with.
Last edited 1 year ago by M Lux
Max Rottersman
1 year ago
I love Freddy! But he shies away from asking questions where the asking of that question might paint him in a brutish light. Putin is not going to negotiate. Hill said it. He agreed. The sanctions aren’t working. Both agree. He asks how do you deal with it. She says international talks…about what? Putin is NOT going to negotiate. That’s why there’s a war. It doesn’t matter what she wants, or thinks everyone wants. It’s going to be decided on the battlefield. But Freddy won’t say that. He won’t say, “If Putin won’t negotiate shouldn’t the U.S. and Europe enter the war to end it.”
Perhaps she’d say, “there’s a fear of nuclear war”, and he says “right, but if just give land to the one who threatens nuclear weapons then eventually there will be a nuclear war because we’ll run out of nations that don’t have them.” Or, “Hitler didn’t use gas, why would Putin use nukes” etc. I’m not arguing that the U.S. should go to war with Russia, only that it’s worth asking the question if we’re going to get there anyway save some lives by starting now? Again, just a question.
This is Freddy’s weak point. He has his generation’s fear of sounding like a neocon or, put simply, an asshole. If he avoids certain lines of questions certain lines of solutions will also be avoided.
Brilliant analysis.
People who believe that giving in to Putin will result in more stable and peaceful world are delusional.
For a start there would be dozen countries which would acquire nuclear weapons ASAP.
There is no other logical response to success of Russian invasion of Ukraine, if USA is seen as abandoning Ukraine.
I hope that people in Washington see it as an end of American Century and would do anything to avoid this outcome.
Brilliant analysis.
People who believe that giving in to Putin will result in more stable and peaceful world are delusional.
For a start there would be dozen countries which would acquire nuclear weapons ASAP.
There is no other logical response to success of Russian invasion of Ukraine, if USA is seen as abandoning Ukraine.
I hope that people in Washington see it as an end of American Century and would do anything to avoid this outcome.
Max Rottersman
1 year ago
I love Freddy! But he shies away from asking questions where the asking of that question might paint him in a brutish light. Putin is not going to negotiate. Hill said it. He agreed. The sanctions aren’t working. Both agree. He asks how do you deal with it. She says international talks…about what? Putin is NOT going to negotiate. That’s why there’s a war. It doesn’t matter what she wants, or thinks everyone wants. It’s going to be decided on the battlefield. But Freddy won’t say that. He won’t say, “If Putin won’t negotiate shouldn’t the U.S. and Europe enter the war to end it.”
Perhaps she’d say, “there’s a fear of nuclear war”, and he says “right, but if just give land to the one who threatens nuclear weapons then eventually there will be a nuclear war because we’ll run out of nations that don’t have them.” Or, “Hitler didn’t use gas, why would Putin use nukes” etc. I’m not arguing that the U.S. should go to war with Russia, only that it’s worth asking the question if we’re going to get there anyway save some lives by starting now? Again, just a question.
This is Freddy’s weak point. He has his generation’s fear of sounding like a neocon or, put simply, an asshole. If he avoids certain lines of questions certain lines of solutions will also be avoided.
Nik Jewell
1 year ago
Fascinating interview.
In the Sandbrook article yesterday, I said we were transitioning to a multi-polar world, but Fiona Hill would clearly disagree. However, I was struck by her obvious irritation with South Africa for not playing ball. It reminded me of this CNN interview with Hardeep Singh Puri, India’s energy minister, who isn’t playing ball either.
Nik Jewell
1 year ago
Fascinating interview.
In the Sandbrook article yesterday, I said we were transitioning to a multi-polar world, but Fiona Hill would clearly disagree. However, I was struck by her obvious irritation with South Africa for not playing ball. It reminded me of this CNN interview with Hardeep Singh Puri, India’s energy minister, who isn’t playing ball either.
Liam O'Mahony
1 year ago
I listened intently and at first thought what an intelligent take on the situation, but sadly and slowly but surely she exposed herself as as a fully bought and paid for mouthpiece for Western propaganda, distortions and downright lies.. Indeed Freddie himself seemed taken aback at the answers she gave.. All I could think of were the immortal words of John McEnroe: “You cannot be serious!” I suppose given her salary slip it wasn’t too bright to expect any different.
Rarely have I heard such a shallow, onesided, ill thought out and at times just silly and childishly simplistic assessment of a complex situation.. all that knowledge and yet such stupid analyses! Her take on Nordstream2 was laughable.
Freddie, can you interview Sy Hersch instead please.. or someone who isn’t a mere mouthpiece of what we know to be a parcel of lies, distortions, onesidedness and quite frankly silliness.
Liam O'Mahony
1 year ago
I listened intently and at first thought what an intelligent take on the situation, but sadly and slowly but surely she exposed herself as as a fully bought and paid for mouthpiece for Western propaganda, distortions and downright lies.. Indeed Freddie himself seemed taken aback at the answers she gave.. All I could think of were the immortal words of John McEnroe: “You cannot be serious!” I suppose given her salary slip it wasn’t too bright to expect any different.
Rarely have I heard such a shallow, onesided, ill thought out and at times just silly and childishly simplistic assessment of a complex situation.. all that knowledge and yet such stupid analyses! Her take on Nordstream2 was laughable.
Freddie, can you interview Sy Hersch instead please.. or someone who isn’t a mere mouthpiece of what we know to be a parcel of lies, distortions, onesidedness and quite frankly silliness.
Peter Lee
1 year ago
I cannot believe that Unherd would publish an article by Fiona Hill. She is part of the US Foreign Affairs Swamp. Did you listen to her testimony at Pres. Trump’s fake impeachment hearing? Most of it was nonsense.
The most ludicrous statement in the article on whether Russia would have invaded Ukraine under Pres. Trump and I quote
“No, probably. Putin would have anticipated that he could get Ukraine handed over without the necessity of invading”.
What more needs to be said about FH.
I would recommend listening to her on the Lex Friedman podcast. May change some of your opinions of her. I find her to be rather brilliant in many aspects, lacking in others for sure; but that doesn’t eliminate the positives for me. Each to their own.
Indeed. What good is scholarship if one wears ideological blinkers? The assertion that Trump would have “handed over” the Ukraine is even more extreme than the many who say that Biden’s voluntary renunciation of America’s energy independence was an invitation to Putin to move on a long-cherished goal.
I would recommend listening to her on the Lex Friedman podcast. May change some of your opinions of her. I find her to be rather brilliant in many aspects, lacking in others for sure; but that doesn’t eliminate the positives for me. Each to their own.
Indeed. What good is scholarship if one wears ideological blinkers? The assertion that Trump would have “handed over” the Ukraine is even more extreme than the many who say that Biden’s voluntary renunciation of America’s energy independence was an invitation to Putin to move on a long-cherished goal.
Peter Lee
1 year ago
I cannot believe that Unherd would publish an article by Fiona Hill. She is part of the US Foreign Affairs Swamp. Did you listen to her testimony at Pres. Trump’s fake impeachment hearing? Most of it was nonsense.
The most ludicrous statement in the article on whether Russia would have invaded Ukraine under Pres. Trump and I quote
“No, probably. Putin would have anticipated that he could get Ukraine handed over without the necessity of invading”.
What more needs to be said about FH.
Iris C
1 year ago
The UN Charter was “violated” before the conflict in Ukraine.
The Charter’s Founding Fathers had witnessed the invasion of Abyssinia by the Italians and European sovereign states by Hitler and thus the main aim of the Charter was to ensure that such invasions never happened again. When it did happen,first with the break-up of Serbia-dominated Yugoslavia and then the invasion of Iraq, Article 2 of the Charter was altered by the UN (under pressure from the US?) to allow the invasion of sovereign states in order to impose democracy.
Once the conflict in Ukraine is at an end, this should be readdressed
.
.
The UN Charter was “violated” before the conflict in Ukraine.
The Charter’s Founding Fathers had witnessed the invasion of Abyssinia by the Italians and European sovereign states by Hitler and thus the main aim of the Charter was to ensure that such invasions never happened again. When it did happen,first with the break-up of Serbia-dominated Yugoslavia and then the invasion of Iraq, Article 2 of the Charter was altered by the UN (under pressure from the US?) to allow the invasion of sovereign states in order to impose democracy.
Once the conflict in Ukraine is at an end, this should be readdressed
.
.
Antonino Ioviero
1 year ago
She doesn’t even mention the Minsk agreements.
I presume that Unherd got the interview because the Deep State know they’re losing public support as the truth about the war becomes evident.
I presume that Unherd got the interview because the Deep State know they’re losing public support as the truth about the war becomes evident.
Howard Gleave
1 year ago
Whichever way Hill turns this it always comes back to this: that Putin believed, and has openly stated, that he saw the collapse of the Soviet Union as the most calamitous event of post WW2 history and was determined to reverse it. If it is true that Putin demanded that the US withdraw from Europe and give Russia a free hand, failing which he would invade Ukraine, then by more than strong implication the Baltics will be next up.
If Putin wants to replug to Asia, having been unplugged from Europe, let him. This will inevitably result in Russia being no more than a provider of raw materials to China.
According to Hill, Putin will simply keep throwing more men and equipment into his war of conquest in Ukraine. The Baltics, and the other Eastern European countries Putin thinks are no more than Russia’s “near abroad” will at least be relatively safe while Russia is so embroiled in Ukraine.
Some things don’t lend themselves to a solution. A stalemate can be relatively peaceful. The Korean peninsula comes to mind.
If Putin wants to bet rhe ranch on Ukraine, the West should protect Ukraine to the max with ever more air defence systems, maintain and strengthen the sanctions on Russia, and give Ukraine the wherewithal to kill as many Russians as Putin wants to sacrifice. If Putin won’t negotiate, unless he’s rewarded with Ukrainian territory, thereby encouraging China to follow suit, we should ensure Russia is bled white.
your Putin statement is used over and over again as ‘evidence’ Putin wants to rebuild the Russian empire. But the second half of his sentence is always conveniently omitted. Putin said it was a disaster for the Russians who then found themselves estranged living in countries outside of Russia. A completely different meaning. Which is why mainstream media – and you – deliberately misrepresent what he said.
Listen to Gary Kasporov – he’s one of many Russians who’s been warning people from the get-go of Putin’s intentions to rebuild Russia, territorially, and of his modus operandi – neo-chekist kleptocratic thuggery.
If they don’t like living in other countries they can move to Russia.
This is the same argument Hitler used to invade Czechoslovakia and then Poland (together with Soviet Union).
Making Putin analogous to Hitler can be taken too far. In any case, the Ukraine is part of Russia, historically, not just part of the Russian sphere of influence. A sphere of influence, particularly when more or less geographically contiguous, has a gravity all its own, regardless of regime in power.
Making Putin analogous to Hitler can be taken too far. In any case, the Ukraine is part of Russia, historically, not just part of the Russian sphere of influence. A sphere of influence, particularly when more or less geographically contiguous, has a gravity all its own, regardless of regime in power.
Listen to Gary Kasporov – he’s one of many Russians who’s been warning people from the get-go of Putin’s intentions to rebuild Russia, territorially, and of his modus operandi – neo-chekist kleptocratic thuggery.
If they don’t like living in other countries they can move to Russia.
This is the same argument Hitler used to invade Czechoslovakia and then Poland (together with Soviet Union).
your Putin statement is used over and over again as ‘evidence’ Putin wants to rebuild the Russian empire. But the second half of his sentence is always conveniently omitted. Putin said it was a disaster for the Russians who then found themselves estranged living in countries outside of Russia. A completely different meaning. Which is why mainstream media – and you – deliberately misrepresent what he said.
Whichever way Hill turns this it always comes back to this: that Putin believed, and has openly stated, that he saw the collapse of the Soviet Union as the most calamitous event of post WW2 history and was determined to reverse it. If it is true that Putin demanded that the US withdraw from Europe and give Russia a free hand, failing which he would invade Ukraine, then by more than strong implication the Baltics will be next up.
If Putin wants to replug to Asia, having been unplugged from Europe, let him. This will inevitably result in Russia being no more than a provider of raw materials to China.
According to Hill, Putin will simply keep throwing more men and equipment into his war of conquest in Ukraine. The Baltics, and the other Eastern European countries Putin thinks are no more than Russia’s “near abroad” will at least be relatively safe while Russia is so embroiled in Ukraine.
Some things don’t lend themselves to a solution. A stalemate can be relatively peaceful. The Korean peninsula comes to mind.
If Putin wants to bet rhe ranch on Ukraine, the West should protect Ukraine to the max with ever more air defence systems, maintain and strengthen the sanctions on Russia, and give Ukraine the wherewithal to kill as many Russians as Putin wants to sacrifice. If Putin won’t negotiate, unless he’s rewarded with Ukrainian territory, thereby encouraging China to follow suit, we should ensure Russia is bled white.
R Wright
1 year ago
This person sounds like they wandered straight out of 2005. The Blob groupthink is a terrifying thing.
R Wright
1 year ago
This person sounds like they wandered straight out of 2005. The Blob groupthink is a terrifying thing.
Andy E
1 year ago
Just another expert going for her own political goal. C’mon, we all remember how the Istanbul peace talks ended:
Day 2 “We have got our positions closer, there is a good base for a treaty”
Day 3 Boris Johnson’s unexpected visit to Kiyev
Day 4 Ukrainian team walks away from the talks.
Last edited 1 year ago by Andy E
Andy E
1 year ago
Just another expert going for her own political goal. C’mon, we all remember how the Istanbul peace talks ended:
Day 2 “We have got our positions closer, there is a good base for a treaty”
Day 3 Boris Johnson’s unexpected visit to Kiyev
Day 4 Ukrainian team walks away from the talks.
Last edited 1 year ago by Andy E
Su Mac
1 year ago
Well done Freddy for asking the difficult questions politely on behalf of sceptics. I found her reasoning pretty weak.
One minute she says she was convinced the Russians had blown up the pipeline on the basis that Russian did infrastructure sabotage in WW2. Is that it !? EVERYONE did sabotage in WW2.
Then she states she now thinks it was most likely the Ukes because they partially blew up a bridge with a truck bomb. So clearly they must be capable of the technicalities of sending divers/submarines/whatever to the sea bed off another country, comprehensively mining a pipeline and remotely detonating it all without detection. Plus I think the “leaky sieve” U.S.A has leaked if you are paying attention – see S Hersch…
Then she says Putin could predict he would be “handed” Ukraine without war if Trump was President. But when it was Biden who was negotiating, that Ukraine was not a chattel for the U.S.A to give away to Russia. Which is it??
Her reason for the Turkey peace talks collapsing at a late stage is not the West telling Zelensky he would not be supported if he made a deal, but atrocities in Bucha. Russia denied these and asked for a UN investigation for verification. Which the USA vetoed.
Buy hey – if she can keep whispering into nutty American ears that we/Ukraine cannot win this, maybe it is time to negotiate I am grateful for that!!
I’m with you on all of that.. sadly, it’s only me. Most of the contributors are gung-ho armchair warriors, aching for Russian blood and disinterested in Ukrainian blood! Sad isn’t it?
I’m with you on all of that.. sadly, it’s only me. Most of the contributors are gung-ho armchair warriors, aching for Russian blood and disinterested in Ukrainian blood! Sad isn’t it?
Su Mac
1 year ago
Well done Freddy for asking the difficult questions politely on behalf of sceptics. I found her reasoning pretty weak.
One minute she says she was convinced the Russians had blown up the pipeline on the basis that Russian did infrastructure sabotage in WW2. Is that it !? EVERYONE did sabotage in WW2.
Then she states she now thinks it was most likely the Ukes because they partially blew up a bridge with a truck bomb. So clearly they must be capable of the technicalities of sending divers/submarines/whatever to the sea bed off another country, comprehensively mining a pipeline and remotely detonating it all without detection. Plus I think the “leaky sieve” U.S.A has leaked if you are paying attention – see S Hersch…
Then she says Putin could predict he would be “handed” Ukraine without war if Trump was President. But when it was Biden who was negotiating, that Ukraine was not a chattel for the U.S.A to give away to Russia. Which is it??
Her reason for the Turkey peace talks collapsing at a late stage is not the West telling Zelensky he would not be supported if he made a deal, but atrocities in Bucha. Russia denied these and asked for a UN investigation for verification. Which the USA vetoed.
Buy hey – if she can keep whispering into nutty American ears that we/Ukraine cannot win this, maybe it is time to negotiate I am grateful for that!!
Richard Abbot
1 year ago
Well that escalated quickly!
Richard Abbot
1 year ago
Well that escalated quickly!
Terry M
1 year ago
This woman is a fool. Trump was playing good cop/bad cop with Putin, Kim Jong-un, and the rest and she couldn’t see it.
And she sees Biden’s incompetence in Afghanistan as a strength when it comes to not making competent statements about Ukraine.
She’s no fool, but an operative for the military industrial complex. I put as much faith in her words as I would in those of Paul Wolfowitz or Richard Perle 18 years ago. It’s a PR campaign for endless NATO expansion and funding.
She’s no fool, but an operative for the military industrial complex. I put as much faith in her words as I would in those of Paul Wolfowitz or Richard Perle 18 years ago. It’s a PR campaign for endless NATO expansion and funding.
Terry M
1 year ago
This woman is a fool. Trump was playing good cop/bad cop with Putin, Kim Jong-un, and the rest and she couldn’t see it.
And she sees Biden’s incompetence in Afghanistan as a strength when it comes to not making competent statements about Ukraine.
Dougie Undersub
1 year ago
Giving up land for peace didn’t work well for Israel, so why would it work for Ukraine?
Giving up land for peace didn’t work well for Israel, so why would it work for Ukraine?
Dick Illyes
1 year ago
Imagine that China sets up a communist puppet government in Canada and starts pouring in massive amounts of high tech weapons.
Imagine a Che type creating a militia in the southwestern Canadian areas that starts killing peoperty owners and local elected officials. In Ukraine it was actual Nazis.
Imagine that the locals in the southwest Canadian areas ask the US for help and indicate a desire to join the US.
Then add in outlawing English as a legally allowed language for contracts and you have a somewhat comparable situation to the Ukraine that the US Deep State has brought about.
It is an incredible mess and Russia will never accept defeat. Putin is not the problem, Russia will follow the same course if he dies tomorrow. He will not be replaced by a peacemaker but by a war leader. It will go nuclear as tactical nukes are deployed by Russia. All rail, sea, road and air access will be destroyed. Ukraine will be a wasteland for a generation.
I think Trump could have brought peace with Russia and created a common front against China if the Deep State had not needed Russia as an enemy to justify their existence.
Elon Musk had the only workable solution, plebiscites across Ukraine on Russian or Ukrainian affiliation. When you look at voting patterns over the last fifteen years a very clear division exists between Russian and EU leaning areas.
FH is the face of the US Deep State. Clueless and evil. Russia Russia Russia. Driven by the military industrial complex and the desire for endless high paying government jobs heroically ruling the world.
Biden deliberately goaded Russia by holding a press conference telling Ukraine they could join NATO in December 2021. Biden expected Russia to grab a piece and stop, which would guarantee huge new weapon system purchases as Ukraine joined NATO and the NATO countries upgraded.
Follow the money explains almost everything. The US Deep State in their opaque Blue Bubble explains the rest.
Dick Illyes
1 year ago
Imagine that China sets up a communist puppet government in Canada and starts pouring in massive amounts of high tech weapons.
Imagine a Che type creating a militia in the southwestern Canadian areas that starts killing peoperty owners and local elected officials. In Ukraine it was actual Nazis.
Imagine that the locals in the southwest Canadian areas ask the US for help and indicate a desire to join the US.
Then add in outlawing English as a legally allowed language for contracts and you have a somewhat comparable situation to the Ukraine that the US Deep State has brought about.
It is an incredible mess and Russia will never accept defeat. Putin is not the problem, Russia will follow the same course if he dies tomorrow. He will not be replaced by a peacemaker but by a war leader. It will go nuclear as tactical nukes are deployed by Russia. All rail, sea, road and air access will be destroyed. Ukraine will be a wasteland for a generation.
I think Trump could have brought peace with Russia and created a common front against China if the Deep State had not needed Russia as an enemy to justify their existence.
Elon Musk had the only workable solution, plebiscites across Ukraine on Russian or Ukrainian affiliation. When you look at voting patterns over the last fifteen years a very clear division exists between Russian and EU leaning areas.
FH is the face of the US Deep State. Clueless and evil. Russia Russia Russia. Driven by the military industrial complex and the desire for endless high paying government jobs heroically ruling the world.
Biden deliberately goaded Russia by holding a press conference telling Ukraine they could join NATO in December 2021. Biden expected Russia to grab a piece and stop, which would guarantee huge new weapon system purchases as Ukraine joined NATO and the NATO countries upgraded.
Follow the money explains almost everything. The US Deep State in their opaque Blue Bubble explains the rest.
Jay Chase
1 year ago
The fact that this deep state swamp creature is agreeing to go on Unherd is very interesting. Imagine if it was 2004 and Unherd was around then, Richard Perle would be the one giving this interview.
For all her lies, this is hopefully a sign that the deep state is aware the endless meddling in foreign elections, distant military adventures, and the subsequent debt are losing their appeal with taxpayers.
Jay Chase
1 year ago
The fact that this deep state swamp creature is agreeing to go on Unherd is very interesting. Imagine if it was 2004 and Unherd was around then, Richard Perle would be the one giving this interview.
For all her lies, this is hopefully a sign that the deep state is aware the endless meddling in foreign elections, distant military adventures, and the subsequent debt are losing their appeal with taxpayers.
siclarke111
1 year ago
I was looking forward to this and yet I was disappointed in what she offered. Good probing questions as usual. You were spot on Freddy to ask where the negotiations starting point would be and the answer just shows they have nothing that Russia would negotiate from.
Why now. Why not when Trump was in. No real material change apart from Biden and the West’s distraction.
Excellent eye roll, mirrored what I was thinking.
siclarke111
1 year ago
I was looking forward to this and yet I was disappointed in what she offered. Good probing questions as usual. You were spot on Freddy to ask where the negotiations starting point would be and the answer just shows they have nothing that Russia would negotiate from.
Why now. Why not when Trump was in. No real material change apart from Biden and the West’s distraction.
Excellent eye roll, mirrored what I was thinking.
Cheryl Cheston
1 year ago
But he won’t stop unless he thinks that Russia’s interests are going to be imperilled.
shouldn’t that say ‘not’ going to be?
Cheryl Cheston
1 year ago
But he won’t stop unless he thinks that Russia’s interests are going to be imperilled.
shouldn’t that say ‘not’ going to be?
Mark epperson
1 year ago
Kaja Kallas, Estonia’s Prime Minister, put it best. Putin does not recognize Win-Win, only Win or Lose. It will either be a protracted war that will get much nastier for a long time or an Afghanistan-type withdrawal. Our present Western leaders are inept, lack moral courage, and couldn’t lead two people out of an elevator. I vote for the long protracted war. Russia should never be underestimated, the suffering they can endure and the risk of tactical nuclear warfare if cornered.
Mark epperson
1 year ago
Kaja Kallas, Estonia’s Prime Minister, put it best. Putin does not recognize Win-Win, only Win or Lose. It will either be a protracted war that will get much nastier for a long time or an Afghanistan-type withdrawal. Our present Western leaders are inept, lack moral courage, and couldn’t lead two people out of an elevator. I vote for the long protracted war. Russia should never be underestimated, the suffering they can endure and the risk of tactical nuclear warfare if cornered.
martin logan
1 year ago
It’s now very doubtful that this war will end before Putin’s fall.
The only acceptable outcome for him is a clear win. Taking portions of a few provinces is a clear loss, compared to the obliteration of his standing army and the undermining of his economy.
He must thus keep putting more “mobiks” on the gaming table, and eventually lose any prospect of even a military stalemate.
The failure of his most advanced Sarmat missile just shows the whole rotten structure is collapsing.
Putin is no longer important.
It’s what comes after that should concern us all.
If the same generals and FSB vets remain in charge, the country will just become Northwest Korea.
But if a real civilian leader obtains real power, we might actually have someone to deal with.
The nicest response I cana make to you is… WALOB..
martin logan
1 year ago
It’s now very doubtful that this war will end before Putin’s fall.
The only acceptable outcome for him is a clear win. Taking portions of a few provinces is a clear loss, compared to the obliteration of his standing army and the undermining of his economy.
He must thus keep putting more “mobiks” on the gaming table, and eventually lose any prospect of even a military stalemate.
The failure of his most advanced Sarmat missile just shows the whole rotten structure is collapsing.
Putin is no longer important.
It’s what comes after that should concern us all.
If the same generals and FSB vets remain in charge, the country will just become Northwest Korea.
But if a real civilian leader obtains real power, we might actually have someone to deal with.
George Scipio
1 year ago
Hill is a real insider and has a valid perspective. It’s rare to see such high quality intelligence applied to contemporary affairs. Good read, a lot to learn.
Hill is a real insider and has a valid perspective. It’s rare to see such high quality intelligence applied to contemporary affairs. Good read, a lot to learn.
Michael Furse
1 year ago
спасибо, товарищ
Michael Furse
1 year ago
спасибо, товарищ
TheElephant InTheRoom
1 year ago
The problem with people like Fiona Hill – they enable the neo-con visions, which are shocking and psychopathic to the rest of the world. No one feels safe or secure about these policies and the people behind them.
On another note, it was not enough that the Soviet Union fairly smoothly unwound. That a skirmish is happening in the context of the history of Russia and Ukraine really should not come as a surprise to anyone. The fact that this war was nurtured by the neo-cons for decades, with their ultimate goal to destroy and Balkanise Russia is something that other new world powers have watched in horror.
If the US wants to survive and be respected, they need to wind their necks in and take care of their own people, and their own hemisphere. What do they offer? To anyone? Such a pity – the nation that had all the potential has blown it all in a storm of corruption and wanton violence.
Rasmus they are always the nearest strongman and would-be empire. They blackmail, extort, rob, interfere, vandalise and kill civilians and militants without discrimination – international carpet baggers desperate to keep their speculative economy afloat whilst simultaneously destroying their own country from the inside out. At one time they held a moral ground; the past 25 years has shown a very different persona.
“To be an enemy of the US is dangerous, but to be a friend is fatal” Kissinger
Check that quote out. I did. Kissinger said, when it was proposed deposing Nguen Van Thieu (some years after having deposed and had killed Ngo Dinh Diem) “We had better not do that, or they will say that to be an enemy of the US is dangerous, but to be a friend is fatal.” Exactly the opposite of what you are quoting him for.
Check that quote out. I did. Kissinger said, when it was proposed deposing Nguen Van Thieu (some years after having deposed and had killed Ngo Dinh Diem) “We had better not do that, or they will say that to be an enemy of the US is dangerous, but to be a friend is fatal.” Exactly the opposite of what you are quoting him for.
Easy to say that if you’re living in a white, Christian country with little or no oil. Now if you were brown, Muslim and oil rich you might take the opposite view! Did you see the tumultuous welcome the Russian people game Putin today? Popular guy!
For once we might agree.
If you are not in Europe.
But this war is in Europe and Russia is an aggressor here.
Welcome given to Putin is not really relevant here.
Hitler was given even better one….
For once we might agree.
If you are not in Europe.
But this war is in Europe and Russia is an aggressor here.
Welcome given to Putin is not really relevant here.
Hitler was given even better one….
We’d rather not. Senile Biden shows up for the Ukrainians but can’t tend to people suffering on the US southern border or in Ohio. That’s some craven shxt.
Follow the votes and the money. It probably doesn’t matter much to British readers, but it does go to the character of the current Deep US State. Everyone knows Biden is a husk, a dummy, a zombie. Now more folks are noticing that the “government for the people” seems to be honored more in the breach than the observance.
Follow the votes and the money. It probably doesn’t matter much to British readers, but it does go to the character of the current Deep US State. Everyone knows Biden is a husk, a dummy, a zombie. Now more folks are noticing that the “government for the people” seems to be honored more in the breach than the observance.
Rasmus they are always the nearest strongman and would-be empire. They blackmail, extort, rob, interfere, vandalise and kill civilians and militants without discrimination – international carpet baggers desperate to keep their speculative economy afloat whilst simultaneously destroying their own country from the inside out. At one time they held a moral ground; the past 25 years has shown a very different persona.
“To be an enemy of the US is dangerous, but to be a friend is fatal” Kissinger
Easy to say that if you’re living in a white, Christian country with little or no oil. Now if you were brown, Muslim and oil rich you might take the opposite view! Did you see the tumultuous welcome the Russian people game Putin today? Popular guy!
We’d rather not. Senile Biden shows up for the Ukrainians but can’t tend to people suffering on the US southern border or in Ohio. That’s some craven shxt.
The people running the US don’t give a sh*t about us. In fact, we’re an impediment to their nefarious plans because we’re so stubbornly prosperous and independent, despite their machinations. Oh, and a lot of us are armed.
Couldn’t agree more.. Poor old Eisenhaur must be spinning in his grave having warned the US of the wickedness of the Military Industrial Complex all those years ago..
The people running the US don’t give a sh*t about us. In fact, we’re an impediment to their nefarious plans because we’re so stubbornly prosperous and independent, despite their machinations. Oh, and a lot of us are armed.
Couldn’t agree more.. Poor old Eisenhaur must be spinning in his grave having warned the US of the wickedness of the Military Industrial Complex all those years ago..
TheElephant InTheRoom
1 year ago
The problem with people like Fiona Hill – they enable the neo-con visions, which are shocking and psychopathic to the rest of the world. No one feels safe or secure about these policies and the people behind them.
On another note, it was not enough that the Soviet Union fairly smoothly unwound. That a skirmish is happening in the context of the history of Russia and Ukraine really should not come as a surprise to anyone. The fact that this war was nurtured by the neo-cons for decades, with their ultimate goal to destroy and Balkanise Russia is something that other new world powers have watched in horror.
If the US wants to survive and be respected, they need to wind their necks in and take care of their own people, and their own hemisphere. What do they offer? To anyone? Such a pity – the nation that had all the potential has blown it all in a storm of corruption and wanton violence.
B Emery
1 year ago
This is becoming insane.
So this lady says actually russia was p*ssed off about nato expansion. That the us did not handle it well. She then says ukrainian victory is not possible. But the us will keep fuelling the fire until russia ‘no longer wants to expand’, even though actually, we probably did piss them off in the first place. On the flip side we need to negotiate because:
‘We basically have to think differently about this. It’s not going to be settled on the battlefield. This isn’t going to be like the First or Second World War, with some satisfying armistice peace treaty’
Um, why not have an armistice treaty? How on earth are we going to solve this? America wants to fight but knows it must negotiate but wont do a treaty, they are talking of sending aircraft into a war we aren’t sure we can win. My head cannot cope with the contradictions from this lady in this interview.
Oh wow they are going to pin the nord stream and the kersh bridge on ukraine?
‘The United States can be a leaky sieve in terms of information. Some of my colleagues who have been looking at this think Ukraine could have done it’
Both of those explosions caused a retaliation from Russia and escalated this. It has been widely discussed ukraine would not have the capability to blow the nordstream. America is being very irresponsible towards its ‘allies’. I’m done mincing words, this is getting seriously dangerous. This is getting out of hand.
DIPLOMACY NOW. NO NATO WAR. NO DECOUPLING. FREE TRADE.
Ukraine does have the most plausible motive – assuming it gets away with nobody ever finding proof of its involvement. It is more plausible than either the USA or Russia doing it.
Regardless who did it, it is wholly irresponsible for someone with her standing from the US at this point to start saying it was ukraine when they have apparently up to this point been on the record, officially, adament they got no evidence about who did it. The us are officially supposed to be ukraines ally. Basically telling russia they think ukraine did it is going to what? Only cause more trouble for ukraine that is already destroyed. Irresponsible.
As far as I had read, ukraines naval capacity is diabolical at best.
There’s a bit pf pearl-clutching going on here, I think. She’s not out of order in speculating who’s responsible, especially given that the rest of the world is freely doing the same. And she has been very careful to emphasise that she doesn’t know because there’s no hard evidence.
There’s a bit pf pearl-clutching going on here, I think. She’s not out of order in speculating who’s responsible, especially given that the rest of the world is freely doing the same. And she has been very careful to emphasise that she doesn’t know because there’s no hard evidence.
Regardless who did it, it is wholly irresponsible for someone with her standing from the US at this point to start saying it was ukraine when they have apparently up to this point been on the record, officially, adament they got no evidence about who did it. The us are officially supposed to be ukraines ally. Basically telling russia they think ukraine did it is going to what? Only cause more trouble for ukraine that is already destroyed. Irresponsible.
As far as I had read, ukraines naval capacity is diabolical at best.
Re-read the article. The Russian goal is not safety from threats. It is imperial control over neighbouring countries. Do you want to give them that in return for stopping the fighting (for now)? Yes or no?
I only told you late yesterday what I want to do. In many words and posts, I am going to copy and paste save myself the trouble for today:
The west puts its grown up diplomatic head on and reaches out to the east, china are still open to talking to us. Isn’t that part of the reason for the un? So people can do diplomacy? We decide that actually kicking the crap out of each has historically only resulted in lots of dead people and destruction. We recognise that nuclear escalation is stupid. We remember that sensible free trade between nations is beneficial.
We lift all sanctions on every nation. They do not work, people just find ways around them and they hurt ordinary people. It may also help bring inflation under control.
We stop trying to decouple from the east. If countries want to reshore this needs to be done over a protracted period with both costs for resources and energy under control, on a country by country basis as they choose, not all at once in a mad rush to cut off the east, in the current climate, it is very difficult for Europe to reshore, we have shortages of some things already.
The dollar is in a bit of trouble perhaps, perhaps talking with China and Russia that could also go over to some kind of gold standard? If we continue to trade with them they have no need to be isolationist too? We are going to have to accept that they will want more say on the whole power balance, perhaps it would be a good idea to at least try and talk with them and try and see this as a completely new start for world relations, with a more even balance of power? I understand both china and Russia have plenty of bad stuff in their history, but so do we, maybe it is time to move on from the old cold war mentality and at least give it one go. Perhaps we could at least get rid of the nukes, everywhere. At least try one more time, to solve ukraine and Taiwan without turning this into ww3 multi polar dystopia. Perhaps we could try just once to stop this all falling down. If we fail, well then we will have to fight anyway.
On ukraine:
Right. Crimea stays as russias, acknowledged here that that might happen now anyway.
“Russia would withdraw to its position on February 23, when it controlled part of the Donbas region and all of Crimea, and in exchange, Ukraine would promise not to seek NATO membership and instead receive security guarantees from a number of countries.”
That. Sounds reasonable. Something like that. Considering the global consequences this war is having and that it could end in nuclear conflict sounds a reasonable compromise.
I read it the first time. And you are dodging the question. My prediction is that if we stop supporting Ukraine, stop sanctions, keep buying Russian oil and gas, and keep trade flowing with China, Russia will impose a puppet government on Ukraine, and shortly start putting mililtary pressure on the next target nation to get more vassal states. After all they will know that it is not going to cost them anything, Tell me why you think I am wrong. Or tell me that you think this is a price worth paying. But, ffs, answer the question.
Why would russia be able to do that if ukraine has its security guaranteed by other nations as I have posted? If everyone agreed to the above, ukraine joins the EU there is no reason zelenskyys government has to go.
If Russia agrees to the above, there is no problem. My prediction is that Russia will *not* agree to the above. That *is* the problem. Can you give a good reason why you think they would agree, or are you just whistling in the wind?
As for security guarantees, Ukrainian territorial integrity was guaranteed by Russia and the US back when they gave up their nukes. As you see, it did not help. A security guarantee is worthless unless the guarantors are able and willing to deter e.g. Russia from breaking it. The only nations who can do that is NATO, and Russia specifically wants NATO to not be in a position to enforce a guarantee.
You are not living in a hypothetical world, and you are beginning to sound like the economist marooned on a desert island. His solution began with “Assuming that we have a boat…”.
Well it was an assuming we have a boat question you asked me yesterday really, I’m just one woman stuck at home caring for people ridden with chicken pox.
Now. If you do not want to live in a world where food shortages, energy shortages and collapsing economies are common place we need to start getting radical.
So Mr fogh. What is your solution?
You answer me some questions now, since you like to troll my comments.
How are we going to continue to arm ukraine when NATO has admitted we cannot keep up with their ammo use?
How far would you escalate this conflict before you consider it time to negotiate?
What would you do about Pakistan? Can you guarantee me the next nuclear threat isn’t going to come from there, because we bought all their gas, the situation there is only getting worse.
You can predict what you like but if you write them off before you have even tried an agreement this is only going to escalate.
Again, you are not answering my question. That is disappointing – if you are proposing some radical solution I think you have a *moral* obligation to face up to the potential consequences. If you cannot do that it probably means that there is something wrong with your solution. Until I hear further I shall assume that you *do* think we ought to allow Russia to control Ukraine and be free to extend its reach afterwards, but that you are not willing to take responsibility for the consequences. I shall try to answer your questions – the short version is that I think Fiona Hill has got it pretty much right.
How are we going to continue arming Ukraine? I’d have to leave it to the professionals to see what is possible. There are loud voices on either side saying both that Russia is going to lose in short order and that Ukraine is. I am not exactly optimistic, but I do not understand enough about the situation to judge what is possible.
How far would I escalate the conflict? I would not send in NATO troops, that is for sure, unless Russia attacked NATO territory. I might give longer-range missiles, depending on the situation. If Ukraine was clearly losing, I would recommend to accept defeat – and heavily fortify the Baltic states afterwards. And I would negotiate on a solution that left Ukraine (possibly with territorial concessions) free to e.g. join the EU without having to ask Russia for permission. Always assuming that Russia could find a way of making a credible offer. As Fiona Hill says, the aim is to get where Russia is willing to do so.
What would I do about Pakistan? The best I could, I guess, but I am not sure there is that much one could do about Pakistan, they have too many messes there. Whatever the situation, I could not *guarantee* anything about where the next nuclear risk would come from – you do the best you can and then you pray.
The problem with ‘just trying’ is that if you try and fail you do not get a second chance. If a rich Nigerian prince offers you a fortune if only you will send your life savings to help get him out of jail you do not ‘just try’ to see if he can be trusted, you try to predict the likely outcome. You may think that the situation is so desperate that we should gamble on even the smallest chance – nuclear war is a pretty desperate risk. But if you do that you must admit openly that the price of avoiding nuclear war that way is likely to be that the Russian empire re-establishes its control over Ukraine and much of the old Warsaw Pact countries. And the people who live there.
I think your whole first paragraph is incredibly unfair, you put words in my mouth, accuse me of ducking questions I am fairly sure I have really now, done my best to answer. I did not condone anything you have written in the first paragraph.
In your third paragraph you basically say what I have suggested, that this is not worth a nato war, which is exactly what I am calling to stop. You say if ukraine is loosing you would tell them to admit defeat – if they are defeated they are not in a position to negotiate, surely it is better to do it before that?
‘ if you are proposing some radical solution I think you have a *moral* obligation to face up to the potential consequences.’
We have to stop here. We do not understand each other, we are both repeating ourselves, and I am spending way too much time on this. The best neutral summary I can give is that your plan would give great results, but it will only work if the Russians decide to play nice. I see no reason to think the Russians want to play nice and every reason to think they won’t – and I think you are not considering that possibility, or the likely consequences. in the way you should. As it is, the Ukrainians seem to think that any deal they could get now is so unattractive that they prefer to take the chance to fight and gain a better one.
Anyway, I respect your sincerity – and your stubbornness. Do Svidania.
We have to stop here. We do not understand each other, we are both repeating ourselves, and I am spending way too much time on this. The best neutral summary I can give is that your plan would give great results, but it will only work if the Russians decide to play nice. I see no reason to think the Russians want to play nice and every reason to think they won’t – and I think you are not considering that possibility, or the likely consequences. in the way you should. As it is, the Ukrainians seem to think that any deal they could get now is so unattractive that they prefer to take the chance to fight and gain a better one.
Anyway, I respect your sincerity – and your stubbornness. Do Svidania.
May I 9ffer a comment on each paragraph of your contribution:
p1 Yes, clearly Russia should be allowed to control Ukraine just as the US controls the EU nations and UK.
p2. The US and rump Nato cannot arm Ukraine adequately to continue fighting. Fgs they cannot replenish their own arms stocks!
p.3 Ukraine is clearly losing. Most of its army is dead or wounded.. its weapons are running out.. its situation is hopeless. Russia can go on fighting ad infinitum. Of course Russia will control the Donbas and Crimea as part of a deal.
p.4 Ot is the War hawks in the US that are pushing for nuclear war.. they’ve already said they now claim the right to strike first!
p.5 Russia has zero plans to invade the former Warsaw Pact nations.. nor any plan to invade ANY Nato country. Ukraine is far better off as part of Russia than under the sick, corrupt, nei Nazi regime in Kyev!
I think your whole first paragraph is incredibly unfair, you put words in my mouth, accuse me of ducking questions I am fairly sure I have really now, done my best to answer. I did not condone anything you have written in the first paragraph.
In your third paragraph you basically say what I have suggested, that this is not worth a nato war, which is exactly what I am calling to stop. You say if ukraine is loosing you would tell them to admit defeat – if they are defeated they are not in a position to negotiate, surely it is better to do it before that?
‘ if you are proposing some radical solution I think you have a *moral* obligation to face up to the potential consequences.’
May I 9ffer a comment on each paragraph of your contribution:
p1 Yes, clearly Russia should be allowed to control Ukraine just as the US controls the EU nations and UK.
p2. The US and rump Nato cannot arm Ukraine adequately to continue fighting. Fgs they cannot replenish their own arms stocks!
p.3 Ukraine is clearly losing. Most of its army is dead or wounded.. its weapons are running out.. its situation is hopeless. Russia can go on fighting ad infinitum. Of course Russia will control the Donbas and Crimea as part of a deal.
p.4 Ot is the War hawks in the US that are pushing for nuclear war.. they’ve already said they now claim the right to strike first!
p.5 Russia has zero plans to invade the former Warsaw Pact nations.. nor any plan to invade ANY Nato country. Ukraine is far better off as part of Russia than under the sick, corrupt, nei Nazi regime in Kyev!
Again, you are not answering my question. That is disappointing – if you are proposing some radical solution I think you have a *moral* obligation to face up to the potential consequences. If you cannot do that it probably means that there is something wrong with your solution. Until I hear further I shall assume that you *do* think we ought to allow Russia to control Ukraine and be free to extend its reach afterwards, but that you are not willing to take responsibility for the consequences. I shall try to answer your questions – the short version is that I think Fiona Hill has got it pretty much right.
How are we going to continue arming Ukraine? I’d have to leave it to the professionals to see what is possible. There are loud voices on either side saying both that Russia is going to lose in short order and that Ukraine is. I am not exactly optimistic, but I do not understand enough about the situation to judge what is possible.
How far would I escalate the conflict? I would not send in NATO troops, that is for sure, unless Russia attacked NATO territory. I might give longer-range missiles, depending on the situation. If Ukraine was clearly losing, I would recommend to accept defeat – and heavily fortify the Baltic states afterwards. And I would negotiate on a solution that left Ukraine (possibly with territorial concessions) free to e.g. join the EU without having to ask Russia for permission. Always assuming that Russia could find a way of making a credible offer. As Fiona Hill says, the aim is to get where Russia is willing to do so.
What would I do about Pakistan? The best I could, I guess, but I am not sure there is that much one could do about Pakistan, they have too many messes there. Whatever the situation, I could not *guarantee* anything about where the next nuclear risk would come from – you do the best you can and then you pray.
The problem with ‘just trying’ is that if you try and fail you do not get a second chance. If a rich Nigerian prince offers you a fortune if only you will send your life savings to help get him out of jail you do not ‘just try’ to see if he can be trusted, you try to predict the likely outcome. You may think that the situation is so desperate that we should gamble on even the smallest chance – nuclear war is a pretty desperate risk. But if you do that you must admit openly that the price of avoiding nuclear war that way is likely to be that the Russian empire re-establishes its control over Ukraine and much of the old Warsaw Pact countries. And the people who live there.
“gave up their nukes.”
Wow. Those were not Ukrainian nukes. They were USSR’s. Russia took over all USSR legal matters (including paying huge debts) so technically those nukes were I guess USSR->Russian, but not Ukrainian in any case.
Well it was an assuming we have a boat question you asked me yesterday really, I’m just one woman stuck at home caring for people ridden with chicken pox.
Now. If you do not want to live in a world where food shortages, energy shortages and collapsing economies are common place we need to start getting radical.
So Mr fogh. What is your solution?
You answer me some questions now, since you like to troll my comments.
How are we going to continue to arm ukraine when NATO has admitted we cannot keep up with their ammo use?
How far would you escalate this conflict before you consider it time to negotiate?
What would you do about Pakistan? Can you guarantee me the next nuclear threat isn’t going to come from there, because we bought all their gas, the situation there is only getting worse.
You can predict what you like but if you write them off before you have even tried an agreement this is only going to escalate.
“gave up their nukes.”
Wow. Those were not Ukrainian nukes. They were USSR’s. Russia took over all USSR legal matters (including paying huge debts) so technically those nukes were I guess USSR->Russian, but not Ukrainian in any case.
“…no reason why Zelenskyy’s government has to go” is a most interesting phrase. I find I cannot think of a single reason to recommend keeping it, starting with the character of Mr. Zelenskyy and continuing with a blatantly anti-democratic state. This conflict has been a financial windfall to both Putin and Zelenskyy. Neither is invested in peace, although I suspect Putin would save face by taking his whack and going. For the failed comedian, this is his only boat. He is totally invested in conflict. “The fox knows many things, but the hedgehog knows one great thing” as Archilocus observed so long ago.
Well it’s not really up to us to decide the Ukrainians government and he is the man in charge at the moment. Whether he is suitable is a different question. I didn’t really consider what the Ukrainian government would look like, I assumed it would be more or less unchanged until they elect a new one?
Perhaps you are right, I think we will be lucky to avoid escalation at this point, we will see, I have seen that zelensky has at least agreed to talk with the Chinese over their latest peace proposal which I think includes a return to the Minsk agreements or something similar, so I suppose time will tell.
Well it’s not really up to us to decide the Ukrainians government and he is the man in charge at the moment. Whether he is suitable is a different question. I didn’t really consider what the Ukrainian government would look like, I assumed it would be more or less unchanged until they elect a new one?
Perhaps you are right, I think we will be lucky to avoid escalation at this point, we will see, I have seen that zelensky has at least agreed to talk with the Chinese over their latest peace proposal which I think includes a return to the Minsk agreements or something similar, so I suppose time will tell.
If Russia agrees to the above, there is no problem. My prediction is that Russia will *not* agree to the above. That *is* the problem. Can you give a good reason why you think they would agree, or are you just whistling in the wind?
As for security guarantees, Ukrainian territorial integrity was guaranteed by Russia and the US back when they gave up their nukes. As you see, it did not help. A security guarantee is worthless unless the guarantors are able and willing to deter e.g. Russia from breaking it. The only nations who can do that is NATO, and Russia specifically wants NATO to not be in a position to enforce a guarantee.
You are not living in a hypothetical world, and you are beginning to sound like the economist marooned on a desert island. His solution began with “Assuming that we have a boat…”.
“…no reason why Zelenskyy’s government has to go” is a most interesting phrase. I find I cannot think of a single reason to recommend keeping it, starting with the character of Mr. Zelenskyy and continuing with a blatantly anti-democratic state. This conflict has been a financial windfall to both Putin and Zelenskyy. Neither is invested in peace, although I suspect Putin would save face by taking his whack and going. For the failed comedian, this is his only boat. He is totally invested in conflict. “The fox knows many things, but the hedgehog knows one great thing” as Archilocus observed so long ago.
First, Russia is not the old Soviet Union intent on world revolution and domination. Second, the current government in Ukraine, since 2014, is a US puppet. So what exactly is your point here.
The fundamental truth is that the West is not saintly and the East is not evil. There is good and bad on both sides. For sure the Russian and Chinese political systems are not democratic, and for sure their citizen’s rights are not enshrined in a constitution (although the UK doesn’t actually have one but it does have a huge body of common law dating from the signing of the Magna Carta). But, in time I suspect that both countries will become more democratic – might take several hundred years but think how long it took the UK to become democratic in the modern sense of the word.
As for the long term history of how the West became civilised, firstly this in no sense provides a basis for moral relativism in the context of any modern phenomenon, and secondly there is no excuse for uncivilised parts of the planet to take their time becoming civilised now that humanity knows it’s possible and how to do it.
You have some very thoughtful observations. However, IMO your last paragraph could have been lifted from nineteenth century missionary complex writings. Civilisation is aspirational. When people see something they like, or something that “works” better than what they have, they emulate it. Civilisation in general, and democratic political processes in particular, cannot be imposed. It is only authentic when it is a grass-roots phenomenon. We can refuse to buy exports produced by slave labor, but we cannot tell China what to think. Exporting civilisation is a noble impulse, but as it involves living it, not just talking it, it’s inevitably a slow process. Anyway, who’s to say that the fabled Missing Link between the ape and civilised man is not — us?
Thank you for your reply. I don’t entirely agree with the parallel with the 19th century missionary stuff, which was based on spreading Christianity, not democracy etc.
But either way, the dangers of trying to impose new moral and political codes – which are real and serious, I agree – should not blind us to the fact that failing to achieve this does come with large human costs for those unfortunate enough to have to live in regimes where people do not possess sufficient protection from their governments or rulers. My point is that it’s not all morally relativistic as many people would have us believe: there are objective tests of whether a particualr place can be considerdd civilised or not, and there is a limit to how long civilised peoples should tolerate the human suffering caused by the lack of civilisation.
That doesn’t make it an easy choice mind you: the 2003 invasion of Iraq and the huge suffering caused by the dishonest agenda behind it stands out as lesson in how not to go about improving the world. But this means it has to be done better, not that the challenge must be abdicated.
Thank you for your reply. I don’t entirely agree with the parallel with the 19th century missionary stuff, which was based on spreading Christianity, not democracy etc.
But either way, the dangers of trying to impose new moral and political codes – which are real and serious, I agree – should not blind us to the fact that failing to achieve this does come with large human costs for those unfortunate enough to have to live in regimes where people do not possess sufficient protection from their governments or rulers. My point is that it’s not all morally relativistic as many people would have us believe: there are objective tests of whether a particualr place can be considerdd civilised or not, and there is a limit to how long civilised peoples should tolerate the human suffering caused by the lack of civilisation.
That doesn’t make it an easy choice mind you: the 2003 invasion of Iraq and the huge suffering caused by the dishonest agenda behind it stands out as lesson in how not to go about improving the world. But this means it has to be done better, not that the challenge must be abdicated.
You have some very thoughtful observations. However, IMO your last paragraph could have been lifted from nineteenth century missionary complex writings. Civilisation is aspirational. When people see something they like, or something that “works” better than what they have, they emulate it. Civilisation in general, and democratic political processes in particular, cannot be imposed. It is only authentic when it is a grass-roots phenomenon. We can refuse to buy exports produced by slave labor, but we cannot tell China what to think. Exporting civilisation is a noble impulse, but as it involves living it, not just talking it, it’s inevitably a slow process. Anyway, who’s to say that the fabled Missing Link between the ape and civilised man is not — us?
As for the long term history of how the West became civilised, firstly this in no sense provides a basis for moral relativism in the context of any modern phenomenon, and secondly there is no excuse for uncivilised parts of the planet to take their time becoming civilised now that humanity knows it’s possible and how to do it.
Why would russia be able to do that if ukraine has its security guaranteed by other nations as I have posted? If everyone agreed to the above, ukraine joins the EU there is no reason zelenskyys government has to go.
First, Russia is not the old Soviet Union intent on world revolution and domination. Second, the current government in Ukraine, since 2014, is a US puppet. So what exactly is your point here.
The fundamental truth is that the West is not saintly and the East is not evil. There is good and bad on both sides. For sure the Russian and Chinese political systems are not democratic, and for sure their citizen’s rights are not enshrined in a constitution (although the UK doesn’t actually have one but it does have a huge body of common law dating from the signing of the Magna Carta). But, in time I suspect that both countries will become more democratic – might take several hundred years but think how long it took the UK to become democratic in the modern sense of the word.
You guys have got some bot power. Well done, I’m flattered you would bother with me.
Well Mr logan we will see won’t we. I hope that you get say I told you so.
You guys have got some bot power. Well done, I’m flattered you would bother with me.
Well Mr logan we will see won’t we. I hope that you get say I told you so.
But remember that Ukraine had security guarantees already from Russia, uk and USA.
Why would anyone believe Russia word?
What other countries apart from USA and Nato would be willing to provide security guarantees to Ukraine and be seen to being able to act in case Russia renage on any agreement?
Reality ie that only membership of Nato or Ukraine having own nukes could work from Ukraine perspective.
So your peace plan is like Munich 1938 but without willing participants …
I read it the first time. And you are dodging the question. My prediction is that if we stop supporting Ukraine, stop sanctions, keep buying Russian oil and gas, and keep trade flowing with China, Russia will impose a puppet government on Ukraine, and shortly start putting mililtary pressure on the next target nation to get more vassal states. After all they will know that it is not going to cost them anything, Tell me why you think I am wrong. Or tell me that you think this is a price worth paying. But, ffs, answer the question.
But remember that Ukraine had security guarantees already from Russia, uk and USA.
Why would anyone believe Russia word?
What other countries apart from USA and Nato would be willing to provide security guarantees to Ukraine and be seen to being able to act in case Russia renage on any agreement?
Reality ie that only membership of Nato or Ukraine having own nukes could work from Ukraine perspective.
So your peace plan is like Munich 1938 but without willing participants …
I agree with this. What’s interesting is that Fiona Hill in this comment section is (on balance) being treated as too dove-ish on Ukraine despite the fact that she, too, understands that it would be dangerous to attempt compromise with Putin on any basis in which his 2022 invasion gives Russia any serious territorial or strategic gains. So she’s actually a hawk compared with a great deal of the consensus emerging on the pacifist side of the debate.
I only told you late yesterday what I want to do. In many words and posts, I am going to copy and paste save myself the trouble for today:
The west puts its grown up diplomatic head on and reaches out to the east, china are still open to talking to us. Isn’t that part of the reason for the un? So people can do diplomacy? We decide that actually kicking the crap out of each has historically only resulted in lots of dead people and destruction. We recognise that nuclear escalation is stupid. We remember that sensible free trade between nations is beneficial.
We lift all sanctions on every nation. They do not work, people just find ways around them and they hurt ordinary people. It may also help bring inflation under control.
We stop trying to decouple from the east. If countries want to reshore this needs to be done over a protracted period with both costs for resources and energy under control, on a country by country basis as they choose, not all at once in a mad rush to cut off the east, in the current climate, it is very difficult for Europe to reshore, we have shortages of some things already.
The dollar is in a bit of trouble perhaps, perhaps talking with China and Russia that could also go over to some kind of gold standard? If we continue to trade with them they have no need to be isolationist too? We are going to have to accept that they will want more say on the whole power balance, perhaps it would be a good idea to at least try and talk with them and try and see this as a completely new start for world relations, with a more even balance of power? I understand both china and Russia have plenty of bad stuff in their history, but so do we, maybe it is time to move on from the old cold war mentality and at least give it one go. Perhaps we could at least get rid of the nukes, everywhere. At least try one more time, to solve ukraine and Taiwan without turning this into ww3 multi polar dystopia. Perhaps we could try just once to stop this all falling down. If we fail, well then we will have to fight anyway.
On ukraine:
Right. Crimea stays as russias, acknowledged here that that might happen now anyway.
“Russia would withdraw to its position on February 23, when it controlled part of the Donbas region and all of Crimea, and in exchange, Ukraine would promise not to seek NATO membership and instead receive security guarantees from a number of countries.”
That. Sounds reasonable. Something like that. Considering the global consequences this war is having and that it could end in nuclear conflict sounds a reasonable compromise.
I agree with this. What’s interesting is that Fiona Hill in this comment section is (on balance) being treated as too dove-ish on Ukraine despite the fact that she, too, understands that it would be dangerous to attempt compromise with Putin on any basis in which his 2022 invasion gives Russia any serious territorial or strategic gains. So she’s actually a hawk compared with a great deal of the consensus emerging on the pacifist side of the debate.
Completely agree. and the notion that Ukraine could have blown up the Nordstream pipelines, a really difficult operation, is just simply insane. One really wonders whether Fiona Hill is living in her own Neocon lala land or in the real world. God help us when we have people like that who sound superficially very smart (especially with that nice British accent which makes americans weak at the knees) but are in fact the exact opposite, run our foreign policy. No wonder every single foreign US adventure from Vietnam onwards has ended up in complete and total disaster and left things worse than before the US interfered.
Ukraine does have the most plausible motive – assuming it gets away with nobody ever finding proof of its involvement. It is more plausible than either the USA or Russia doing it.
Re-read the article. The Russian goal is not safety from threats. It is imperial control over neighbouring countries. Do you want to give them that in return for stopping the fighting (for now)? Yes or no?
Completely agree. and the notion that Ukraine could have blown up the Nordstream pipelines, a really difficult operation, is just simply insane. One really wonders whether Fiona Hill is living in her own Neocon lala land or in the real world. God help us when we have people like that who sound superficially very smart (especially with that nice British accent which makes americans weak at the knees) but are in fact the exact opposite, run our foreign policy. No wonder every single foreign US adventure from Vietnam onwards has ended up in complete and total disaster and left things worse than before the US interfered.
The inevitable third round of this, after an armistice, will kill far more people, than decisively beating Russia now.
Putin’s present offensive is failing, and he has no more Russians to shove into the hopper.
B Emery
1 year ago
This is becoming insane.
So this lady says actually russia was p*ssed off about nato expansion. That the us did not handle it well. She then says ukrainian victory is not possible. But the us will keep fuelling the fire until russia ‘no longer wants to expand’, even though actually, we probably did piss them off in the first place. On the flip side we need to negotiate because:
‘We basically have to think differently about this. It’s not going to be settled on the battlefield. This isn’t going to be like the First or Second World War, with some satisfying armistice peace treaty’
Um, why not have an armistice treaty? How on earth are we going to solve this? America wants to fight but knows it must negotiate but wont do a treaty, they are talking of sending aircraft into a war we aren’t sure we can win. My head cannot cope with the contradictions from this lady in this interview.
Oh wow they are going to pin the nord stream and the kersh bridge on ukraine?
‘The United States can be a leaky sieve in terms of information. Some of my colleagues who have been looking at this think Ukraine could have done it’
Both of those explosions caused a retaliation from Russia and escalated this. It has been widely discussed ukraine would not have the capability to blow the nordstream. America is being very irresponsible towards its ‘allies’. I’m done mincing words, this is getting seriously dangerous. This is getting out of hand.
DIPLOMACY NOW. NO NATO WAR. NO DECOUPLING. FREE TRADE.
Cathy Carron
1 year ago
It’s hard to take Fiona Hill seriously after her involvement in Trump’s faux impeachment. She lied. It’s that simple. That’s all.
Cathy Carron
1 year ago
It’s hard to take Fiona Hill seriously after her involvement in Trump’s faux impeachment. She lied. It’s that simple. That’s all.
Benjamin Greco
1 year ago
If there were “negotiations” in February and March of last year, it was after the beginning of hostilities. If Ms. Hill knows who was there why didn’t she mention any names or what Western countries sent representatives or what level of the foreign service they were from. This was the most important revelation in the interview and it would have been nice had she been pressed for more information.
It sounds more like someone sent out feelers after the war started to see where Russia stood instead of a negotiation.
The time to stop this war was before it started, and I see no evidence that America and Europe tried very hard to negotiate any kind settlement and that is not Russian disinformation.
As I understand it, the negotiations in Turkey were between Russia and Ukraine – who are after all the people who are fighting. Further, shortly before the invasion, Russia published a proposed treaty with the US, on the basis that the US should withdraw militarily from the ex-Warsaw-Pact countiries and let Russia have a free hand in managing Eastern Europe (and Ukraine) as its sphere of influence. The West did indeed refuse to negotiate on that basis. But short of giving in to Russian demands, what kind of settlement could they have aimed for?
Who knows? They didn’t even try did they? Weakening Russia was far too tempting for the RedsundertheBed Americans and the puppets in Europe just did as they were commanded by Big Brother!
Who knows? They didn’t even try did they? Weakening Russia was far too tempting for the RedsundertheBed Americans and the puppets in Europe just did as they were commanded by Big Brother!
As I understand it, the negotiations in Turkey were between Russia and Ukraine – who are after all the people who are fighting. Further, shortly before the invasion, Russia published a proposed treaty with the US, on the basis that the US should withdraw militarily from the ex-Warsaw-Pact countiries and let Russia have a free hand in managing Eastern Europe (and Ukraine) as its sphere of influence. The West did indeed refuse to negotiate on that basis. But short of giving in to Russian demands, what kind of settlement could they have aimed for?
The downticks are clear evidence of the good sense you make. Sadly that’s how it works on UnHerd.
Benjamin Greco
1 year ago
If there were “negotiations” in February and March of last year, it was after the beginning of hostilities. If Ms. Hill knows who was there why didn’t she mention any names or what Western countries sent representatives or what level of the foreign service they were from. This was the most important revelation in the interview and it would have been nice had she been pressed for more information.
It sounds more like someone sent out feelers after the war started to see where Russia stood instead of a negotiation.
The time to stop this war was before it started, and I see no evidence that America and Europe tried very hard to negotiate any kind settlement and that is not Russian disinformation.
Ian Johnston
1 year ago
“all of the incredible violence and atrocities that we have seen there. [Crimea].
This gem makes me question everything else she says frankly. Which is a shame because she seems to be inching towards some level of realism in much of the rest of the interview.
As indeed are the Ukrainian war crimes, as indeed are the ear crimes committed by the US over the last 50 years.. ‘doesn’t mean there’ll be any prosecutions though does it?
As indeed are the Ukrainian war crimes, as indeed are the ear crimes committed by the US over the last 50 years.. ‘doesn’t mean there’ll be any prosecutions though does it?
The crimes committed by Russian soldiers over the course of the war are well documented
Ian Johnston
1 year ago
“all of the incredible violence and atrocities that we have seen there. [Crimea].
This gem makes me question everything else she says frankly. Which is a shame because she seems to be inching towards some level of realism in much of the rest of the interview.
Allison Barrows
1 year ago
The very fact that this woman colluded with the criminals who impeached Donald Trump for crimes Biden committed – and the world knows it, even if Freddie Sayers does not – demonstrates that UnHerd is just another rag in the wanna-be world of whatever media is now.
Agreed!
In fact it is all a bit complicated because originally she (Ms Hill) was one of us. A miners daughter from County Durham no less, the absolute zenith of working class aristocracy. She then had a little trouble at Oxford from the ‘smart set’ because of her accent and appearance and thus fled to an equally Anglo-Saxon elitist University, of St Andrews *.
From there on ‘you’ had her, and eventually she floated to the surface of the ‘pit of eternal stench’. Finally, in true Shakespearean form she plunged the crinkly dagger in to the back of the unsuspecting Mr Trump.
Now she’s back with us.
(* Despite the unimaginable misfortune of actually being located in Fife, North Britain, sometimes also known as Scotland.)
I certainly have Charlie.. it’s good stuff.. but of course you know it’s called port don’t you? From the Douro valley via Porto.. The sherry is from Spain, Jerez to be accurate.. but I know what you mean. ‘ever been abroad (overseas I think you call it)?
Thanks for the rally, boys. A little levity. But the “abroad” vs “overseas” dig makes one wonder, no matter your tipple, if you don’t sometimes eat spiders for breakfast?
Thanks for the rally, boys. A little levity. But the “abroad” vs “overseas” dig makes one wonder, no matter your tipple, if you don’t sometimes eat spiders for breakfast?
I certainly have Charlie.. it’s good stuff.. but of course you know it’s called port don’t you? From the Douro valley via Porto.. The sherry is from Spain, Jerez to be accurate.. but I know what you mean. ‘ever been abroad (overseas I think you call it)?
We are talking about the interview, Liam. Certainly their comments would appear that way. I just wonder how many people knew about FH and her troubled foreign affairs past.
We are talking about the interview, Liam. Certainly their comments would appear that way. I just wonder how many people knew about FH and her troubled foreign affairs past.
Agreed!
In fact it is all a bit complicated because originally she (Ms Hill) was one of us. A miners daughter from County Durham no less, the absolute zenith of working class aristocracy. She then had a little trouble at Oxford from the ‘smart set’ because of her accent and appearance and thus fled to an equally Anglo-Saxon elitist University, of St Andrews *.
From there on ‘you’ had her, and eventually she floated to the surface of the ‘pit of eternal stench’. Finally, in true Shakespearean form she plunged the crinkly dagger in to the back of the unsuspecting Mr Trump.
Now she’s back with us.
(* Despite the unimaginable misfortune of actually being located in Fife, North Britain, sometimes also known as Scotland.)
Couldn’t agree more. Seems like the Brits on this thread aren’t up to speed.
Allison Barrows
1 year ago
The very fact that this woman colluded with the criminals who impeached Donald Trump for crimes Biden committed – and the world knows it, even if Freddie Sayers does not – demonstrates that UnHerd is just another rag in the wanna-be world of whatever media is now.
Elliott Bjorn
1 year ago
”“a Deep State stiff with a nice accent”.
Hahaaaa – even more than just Deep State, she is a Global Agenda stiff. When the Democrats steal the next election, with Michaell Obama as President and Hillary as the VP, this woman will be their head of the Department of: Censoring, Owning Nothing, Pods and ‘Eat Your Bugs’.
That anyone could listen to this silly creature lying her way through the interview and not skip fast forward would surprise me. Lady Haw-Haw with a weird accent……
Looks like Elliot is in the lead with -17, closely followed by Alison on -16, whilst Cathy, you and I
are trailing badly with -10, -10, & -9:respectively!
Stick in the O’ will you.. my lot never took the soup! ..in case you’re unfamiliar with Irish history you lot provided soup to the starving Irish provided they drop the O’ or Mc in their surnames..
We are familiar with Irish history.
Going by your views about Russia and Ukraine, would not you agree that Ireland is not real country but little England and should be controlled by uk?
We are familiar with Irish history.
Going by your views about Russia and Ukraine, would not you agree that Ireland is not real country but little England and should be controlled by uk?
Stick in the O’ will you.. my lot never took the soup! ..in case you’re unfamiliar with Irish history you lot provided soup to the starving Irish provided they drop the O’ or Mc in their surnames..
Looks like Elliot is in the lead with -17, closely followed by Alison on -16, whilst Cathy, you and I
are trailing badly with -10, -10, & -9:respectively!
Hahaaaa – even more than just Deep State, she is a Global Agenda stiff. When the Democrats steal the next election, with Michaell Obama as President and Hillary as the VP, this woman will be their head of the Department of: Censoring, Owning Nothing, Pods and ‘Eat Your Bugs’.
That anyone could listen to this silly creature lying her way through the interview and not skip fast forward would surprise me. Lady Haw-Haw with a weird accent……
My simple comment regarding anything that Fiona Hill says is to simply realize that when she states “That’s why I went into government in 2016. I didn’t go in there to serve Donald Trump. I went in there to deal with a national security crisis after the Russians launched an influence operation to basically subvert the US 2016 presidential election.”, it is evident that she is both delusional and living in cloud cuckoo land. Russian interference in the 2016 election was insignificant. Basically a zero. Now compare that to interference from big tech (google, facebook, twitter, etc…) in the 2020 election. In other words, despite being a so-called expert, she doesn’t really know what she’s talking about. And that’s so unfortunate when one has people influencing and making policy decisions not based on reality but how they think the world should be.
Silly. Just because she says things about Russian interference in 2016 that you don’t like, you write off all her experience dealing with Putin and Ukraine. Not very clever.
Oh she just told a massive tangential lie to the subject matter we are supposed to rely on her expertise on. What’s the big deal? Really? I don’t know if you have been paying attention, but much of the support behind United States opposing Russia at all costs is because many resistance liberals still believe Putin hacked the 2016 election to install Donald Trump as president. You know the same people who liked to call people who disagreed with them “Putin puppets” before Ukraine was even invaded? This claim has been proven false several times over now and is still tearing the country apart. Don’t act like it is nothing.
Why is it a lie? Most of things I’ve read suggest that the Russians did try and interfere with the US election. I don’t believe there was any collusion with Trump, or that they intervened to help any particular side but instead inflame the culture wars and sow discord, but it’s still interference
Yanis Varoufakis was asked if he thought Russia had tried to influence the US 2016 election and his response was “Yes of course it did, but then again so did I. So what?”
To have a balanced view you have to also ask how much influence did Russia have, was the 2016 US election the only election they tried to influence, do other people and nations also seek to influence elections, and most of all does the USA do this to other nations on a routine basis?
The answers, respectively are “almost none”, “no”, “yes” and “obviously yes”.
The only real significance of the 2016 US election is that Trump got elected and this pissed off a bunch of self-righteous liberal-fascist arseholes who think they own the American government. Had that not happened, none of them would be throwing accusations about like a baby throwing its toys out of the pram. It’s nothing more than a proxy for complaining about democracy itself without officially admitting that that’s what it really is.
NB – I am not a Trump supporter, just someone who nonetheless recognises that Trump does annoy all the right people. As a president, despite a small number of notable successes, he was a failure.
‘Almost no influence’ is probably an exaggeration. The manufactured panic about those Hilary mails did help Trump a lot, and the leaks gave some of the ammunition. One could argue that relying on a foreign intelligence service to hack your opponents mails is going a bit too far – much like bugging the campaign headquarters of the opposition actually. But OK, Trump won. You cannot claim that he stole the election.
With all due respect, we only have the word of the DNC and Crowdstrike that the DNC emals were hacked by the Russians. They never allowed the FBI to look at the computers and do a forensic investigation. So the bottom line is we have a side with a vested interested in claiming Russian hacking, who cooked up the Steele report and the Russian collusion nonsense. That’s hardly reliable evidence. What I can say, given that I live in the US, and I might add close to Washington DC, that I didn’t notice anything that the Russians might or might not have done. Did they broadcast propaganda of one sort or another on Russia Today – no doubt but the viewership of Russia Today is so small and so to be effectively zero. Now compare that to what big tech did in the 2020 election where burying the Hunder Biden labtop story likely swung the election Biden’s way, and where one Presidential candidate, Trump (whether you like him or not) was deplatformed on Twitter and Facebook. Similarly when Zuckerberg messed around with the election in Wisconsin, later deemed to be illegal, although he only got a slap on the wrist (i.e. a minute fine relative to his wealth). Now that’s real interference.
Yep, always looking at the wrong “election interference”
Yep, always looking at the wrong “election interference”
Here’s how it works: a “scandal” is cooked up, lie nuggets are given – not “leaked” – to reliable minions in the media who then publish a shock horror story. Government hacks use said story to “open an investigation”, and media minions have that manufactured fiction to pump for however long it’s necessary. Both side do this, but the Democrats own the media, so it’s like breathing to them. And then, when sh*t dies down, the world finds out that – like Covid – it was all made up.
Covid is real. You are possibly not. And Democrats certainly do not ‘own’ the media -. But people to the left of the Democratic Party do not get their voice heard well.
While Covid is indeed a flu, the Covid Pandemic was a manufactured panic war-gamed in October 2019 via Event 201: https://www.centerforhealthsecurity.org/our-work/exercises/event201/
Where do Democrats go when they leave the hands-on political arena? The media. Please.
Thank you for posting that and for that insight into US politics, of which I am blissfully unaware.
..you are blissfully unaware of almost everything that has occurred since the middle ages Charlie!
Lucky you. Anyway, QED: https://chicago.suntimes.com/movies-and-tv/2023/2/21/23609740/jen-psaki-former-biden-administration-spokesperson-to-debut-sunday-msnbc-show
Thank you so much, I must admit I’ve missed most of this stuff.
.
Remind me where Steve Bannon came from and went after the Whitehouse.
Thank you so much, I must admit I’ve missed most of this stuff.
.
Remind me where Steve Bannon came from and went after the Whitehouse.
..you are blissfully unaware of almost everything that has occurred since the middle ages Charlie!
Lucky you. Anyway, QED: https://chicago.suntimes.com/movies-and-tv/2023/2/21/23609740/jen-psaki-former-biden-administration-spokesperson-to-debut-sunday-msnbc-show
Covid is real, and it specifically targeted the elderly, the obese, and those who were chronic or seriously compromised. So it was a pandemic for these individuals–but it was merely a flu like disorder for over 90% of those who got it. In the hands of Fauci and the media, it became a Panic-demic–a dress rehearsal for mass disinformation, violation of individual rights, and herd think. Science–which involves debate and exploration of options–was discouraged. Vaccilnes were promoted as the only solution. The vaccines did not deliver, and we have yet to see the end of the MRNA question.
The clear and obvious solution was outlined by the Gt Barrington Declaration, as indeed I proposed myself, as a world class risk management consultant, from the very beginning, ie isolate the vulnerable (easy) not the virus (impossible).. Of course no one listened.. too much money to be made from Tory slush funds!
It depends what you mean by ‘real’. As for ‘pandemic’ it certainly was not. To say ‘it was a ‘pandemic for the obese,etc’ ; means it was not a pandemic.
You must be so disappointed that most fat people survived. An infectious disease that very few people die of is not a pandemic.
You totally, 100% misunderstood my comment. Obese was used as an example, perhaps I should have said Seniors. the fact remains all I was pointing out was that it was not a Pandemic.
You totally, 100% misunderstood my comment. Obese was used as an example, perhaps I should have said Seniors. the fact remains all I was pointing out was that it was not a Pandemic.
You must be so disappointed that most fat people survived. An infectious disease that very few people die of is not a pandemic.
Yep! it appears that many UnHerd readers have become well and truly herded by the propaganda and lies that are the ‘bread and butter’ of the MSM.
Ironic that the Far Right automatically assumes everything they don’t hear on Fox News must be a lie, yet they naively believe everything they see there must be absolutely true. Both the Left and the Right push propaganda, but are blind to the lies coming from their “side”.
Ironic that the Far Right automatically assumes everything they don’t hear on Fox News must be a lie, yet they naively believe everything they see there must be absolutely true. Both the Left and the Right push propaganda, but are blind to the lies coming from their “side”.
Point taken.
Covid is a danger to people with damaged immune systems. Elderly, obese, and disabled individuals who did NOT have compromised immune systems mostly were fine.
There were elderly individuals over a hundred years old who survived both Covid and the 1918 flu (antibodies were still present). One characteristic people in those groups had in common was a higher tendency toward Vitamin D deficiency, which is bad for immune response, but not all had this problem. In fact, obese people are a higher percentage of the population now than before Covid. If it had been true that they were uniquely vulnerable just because they’re fat, more would have died.
The clear and obvious solution was outlined by the Gt Barrington Declaration, as indeed I proposed myself, as a world class risk management consultant, from the very beginning, ie isolate the vulnerable (easy) not the virus (impossible).. Of course no one listened.. too much money to be made from Tory slush funds!
It depends what you mean by ‘real’. As for ‘pandemic’ it certainly was not. To say ‘it was a ‘pandemic for the obese,etc’ ; means it was not a pandemic.
Yep! it appears that many UnHerd readers have become well and truly herded by the propaganda and lies that are the ‘bread and butter’ of the MSM.
Point taken.
Covid is a danger to people with damaged immune systems. Elderly, obese, and disabled individuals who did NOT have compromised immune systems mostly were fine.
There were elderly individuals over a hundred years old who survived both Covid and the 1918 flu (antibodies were still present). One characteristic people in those groups had in common was a higher tendency toward Vitamin D deficiency, which is bad for immune response, but not all had this problem. In fact, obese people are a higher percentage of the population now than before Covid. If it had been true that they were uniquely vulnerable just because they’re fat, more would have died.
Thank you for posting that and for that insight into US politics, of which I am blissfully unaware.
Covid is real, and it specifically targeted the elderly, the obese, and those who were chronic or seriously compromised. So it was a pandemic for these individuals–but it was merely a flu like disorder for over 90% of those who got it. In the hands of Fauci and the media, it became a Panic-demic–a dress rehearsal for mass disinformation, violation of individual rights, and herd think. Science–which involves debate and exploration of options–was discouraged. Vaccilnes were promoted as the only solution. The vaccines did not deliver, and we have yet to see the end of the MRNA question.
You’re right. The Democrats don’t own the media. The MSM is own by the people who own the Democrats! They also own the GOP btw.. and the Tories in the UK. Governments today are merely well bribed, bought and paid for puppets.. There are a few notable exceptions but even they are slapped down and beaten into line, eg Bernie Sanders on support for the war/MIC.. they soon put him right; the coward.
You Right wingers are as cowardly as the Far Left. You both kiss Putin’s a**, because you’re so afraid of him. All bullies are cowards.
You Right wingers are as cowardly as the Far Left. You both kiss Putin’s a**, because you’re so afraid of him. All bullies are cowards.
While Covid is indeed a flu, the Covid Pandemic was a manufactured panic war-gamed in October 2019 via Event 201: https://www.centerforhealthsecurity.org/our-work/exercises/event201/
Where do Democrats go when they leave the hands-on political arena? The media. Please.
You’re right. The Democrats don’t own the media. The MSM is own by the people who own the Democrats! They also own the GOP btw.. and the Tories in the UK. Governments today are merely well bribed, bought and paid for puppets.. There are a few notable exceptions but even they are slapped down and beaten into line, eg Bernie Sanders on support for the war/MIC.. they soon put him right; the coward.
Yep.. sounds like the rules of the game to me! All you need is 40 million US suckers to believe all that crap.. how hard can that be?
Not hard, obviously. I live here. You’d wouldn’t believe what is believed.
I would.. I do.. I’ve had some contact with them.. scary zombies, aaarrgh!
I would.. I do.. I’ve had some contact with them.. scary zombies, aaarrgh!
Not hard, obviously. I live here. You’d wouldn’t believe what is believed.
Covid is real. You are possibly not. And Democrats certainly do not ‘own’ the media -. But people to the left of the Democratic Party do not get their voice heard well.
Yep.. sounds like the rules of the game to me! All you need is 40 million US suckers to believe all that crap.. how hard can that be?
No I can’t, nor do I care, nor does anyone outside of the US probably..
You need to back up your claims with proven sources. No one should be taking the allegations of neo-con warmongers seriously anymore without concrete evidence.
If you knew anything about goverment security, you would not claim that Hilary emails story was “manufactured panic”.
You would be sacked and charged if you did what she did.
If you can explain source of Clinton couple wealth, great. I am all ears.
Otherwise most likely explanation for usage of private email server is concealment of illegal activity….
With all due respect, we only have the word of the DNC and Crowdstrike that the DNC emals were hacked by the Russians. They never allowed the FBI to look at the computers and do a forensic investigation. So the bottom line is we have a side with a vested interested in claiming Russian hacking, who cooked up the Steele report and the Russian collusion nonsense. That’s hardly reliable evidence. What I can say, given that I live in the US, and I might add close to Washington DC, that I didn’t notice anything that the Russians might or might not have done. Did they broadcast propaganda of one sort or another on Russia Today – no doubt but the viewership of Russia Today is so small and so to be effectively zero. Now compare that to what big tech did in the 2020 election where burying the Hunder Biden labtop story likely swung the election Biden’s way, and where one Presidential candidate, Trump (whether you like him or not) was deplatformed on Twitter and Facebook. Similarly when Zuckerberg messed around with the election in Wisconsin, later deemed to be illegal, although he only got a slap on the wrist (i.e. a minute fine relative to his wealth). Now that’s real interference.
Here’s how it works: a “scandal” is cooked up, lie nuggets are given – not “leaked” – to reliable minions in the media who then publish a shock horror story. Government hacks use said story to “open an investigation”, and media minions have that manufactured fiction to pump for however long it’s necessary. Both side do this, but the Democrats own the media, so it’s like breathing to them. And then, when sh*t dies down, the world finds out that – like Covid – it was all made up.
No I can’t, nor do I care, nor does anyone outside of the US probably..
You need to back up your claims with proven sources. No one should be taking the allegations of neo-con warmongers seriously anymore without concrete evidence.
If you knew anything about goverment security, you would not claim that Hilary emails story was “manufactured panic”.
You would be sacked and charged if you did what she did.
If you can explain source of Clinton couple wealth, great. I am all ears.
Otherwise most likely explanation for usage of private email server is concealment of illegal activity….
Why do we forget that the Soviets influenced elections in the US for decades and did so masterfully? And not only elections, but wide swaths of US domestic policy, from marriage, the rearing of children, trade union formation, sexual mores, and you name it. Why do we forget that Alger Hiss stood behind Rosevelt at Yalta? Why do we forget, most all, that the political left in the US applauded the Soviets as they did these things, even dug in behind them? How is it that all this hypocrisy does not get noticed?
I say that was a gross distortion of the truth but it would fall so far short of the mark as to be an understatement of unforgivable magnitude.
Actually, Roosevelt saved American capitalism. Without him, the U.S. would have become a dictatorship run by some strongman, whether socialist or fascist. If Roosevelt hadn’t created all the public works projects and other government programs to help starving people, there would have been a revolution that would have swept democracy away.
I don’t disagree. My point was a factual one. Alger Hiss was a member of the CPUSA. He also worked for the State Department. Whittaker Chambers was also a member of the CPUSA and came to know Hiss in that capacity. Chambers would in time come to doubt the Soviet cause and to expose both Hiss and himself as agents of the Soviet Union. In the late 1940s, Hiss was tried, and convicted, in the US senate, of espionage. The lawyer who prosecuted Hiss was a man named Richard M. Nixon, who would become vice president of the USA in 1952 and president in 1968. Chambers wrote a book about the trial entitled “Witness.” It is, if I may say so, a great read. Chambers makes clear in the book just how deeply integrated the CPUSA was many aspects of American life (labor unions, education, the arts, politics, the military, etc.). There is a photo in the book of Hiss standing with Rosevelt, Churchill and Stalin. It is no great secret that many in the USA at the time, and not only at that time, saw the Soviet way as the great hope of mankind. My point is that the Soviets not only endeavored to influence American elections but to transform American life altogether and, what’s more, that many in American applauded this cause. This does not mean that I look upon Pres. Nixon with rose colored glasses. He lied relentlessly about the war in southeast Asia, and caused untold suffering and death in the process. I would point here to Hannah Arendt’s book “On Lying and Politics.”
That’s controversial, actually. There is some good evidence to suggest that it was Herbert Hoover’s measures that set the basis for the post-1929 crash recovery, but the benefits arrived too late to save his presidency. There is evidence in the economic data, too, that many of Roosevelt’s measures did lasting economic damage that would have become unavoidable if the second world war hadn’t justified a further massive increase in state spending, which in turn then was only saved because the US dollar became the world’s reserve currency in 1944.
Under Roosevelt the US was a near dictatorship run by a strongman! We still suffer today under the burden of administrative state programs which his narcissism prevented him from sundowning. Don’t romanticize history. There are damned few real heroes.
Giuseppe Garibaldi perhaps?
What is it about my comment that makes you think I WAS romanticising history?
Giuseppe Garibaldi perhaps?
What is it about my comment that makes you think I WAS romanticising history?
I don’t disagree. My point was a factual one. Alger Hiss was a member of the CPUSA. He also worked for the State Department. Whittaker Chambers was also a member of the CPUSA and came to know Hiss in that capacity. Chambers would in time come to doubt the Soviet cause and to expose both Hiss and himself as agents of the Soviet Union. In the late 1940s, Hiss was tried, and convicted, in the US senate, of espionage. The lawyer who prosecuted Hiss was a man named Richard M. Nixon, who would become vice president of the USA in 1952 and president in 1968. Chambers wrote a book about the trial entitled “Witness.” It is, if I may say so, a great read. Chambers makes clear in the book just how deeply integrated the CPUSA was many aspects of American life (labor unions, education, the arts, politics, the military, etc.). There is a photo in the book of Hiss standing with Rosevelt, Churchill and Stalin. It is no great secret that many in the USA at the time, and not only at that time, saw the Soviet way as the great hope of mankind. My point is that the Soviets not only endeavored to influence American elections but to transform American life altogether and, what’s more, that many in American applauded this cause. This does not mean that I look upon Pres. Nixon with rose colored glasses. He lied relentlessly about the war in southeast Asia, and caused untold suffering and death in the process. I would point here to Hannah Arendt’s book “On Lying and Politics.”
That’s controversial, actually. There is some good evidence to suggest that it was Herbert Hoover’s measures that set the basis for the post-1929 crash recovery, but the benefits arrived too late to save his presidency. There is evidence in the economic data, too, that many of Roosevelt’s measures did lasting economic damage that would have become unavoidable if the second world war hadn’t justified a further massive increase in state spending, which in turn then was only saved because the US dollar became the world’s reserve currency in 1944.
Under Roosevelt the US was a near dictatorship run by a strongman! We still suffer today under the burden of administrative state programs which his narcissism prevented him from sundowning. Don’t romanticize history. There are damned few real heroes.
And why are so many resolutely looking back at the days of the Russki under the bed phobia? Is this retro fixation possibly being “influenced” by a far more malign and dangerous power farther to the East?
I say that was a gross distortion of the truth but it would fall so far short of the mark as to be an understatement of unforgivable magnitude.
Actually, Roosevelt saved American capitalism. Without him, the U.S. would have become a dictatorship run by some strongman, whether socialist or fascist. If Roosevelt hadn’t created all the public works projects and other government programs to help starving people, there would have been a revolution that would have swept democracy away.
And why are so many resolutely looking back at the days of the Russki under the bed phobia? Is this retro fixation possibly being “influenced” by a far more malign and dangerous power farther to the East?
A somewhat better argument although I don’t agree with the term self righteous liberal-fascist. Its a nonsense phrase -just a way of expressing your deep irritation at sanctimoniousness perhaps? I for my part loathe Trump for all sorts of reasons.
Liberal fascism is a fairly well defined concept and it does apply to large parts of the modern Left. That’s controversial obviously – left-wingers themselves are usually furious at the designation – but that that doesn’t mean that the concept is wrongly applied or is meaningless.
You forgot the Far Right. Extremists on both the Left AND the Right hate democracy and freedom of speech. It’s only because Russia turned fascist with Putin that the Right suddenly loves Russia. That and they are afraid of him.
I “forgot” the Far Right simply because it’s not part of the context of this particular thread. I am defending the notion that Fascism is a left-wing extremism alongside Communism and the other traditional variants. The common factor they possess is belief in a large, powerful, expensive State. No right-wing ideology shares this, and since Fascism does support a large powerful State, it cannot be right-wing.
This is not to say that right-wing extremisim does not exist of course, merely that it has nothing to do with what I’m describing here.
I take issue, too, with the idea that the modern Right “loves Russia” as you put it. What draws the modern Right to oppose the West’s Ukraine War involvement is more based upon a defective libertarian assessment that it is not the West’s problem. I say this as a libertarian myself, I just reckon that on this case many of my fellow libertarians have got this one wrong, and that there can be no way this isn’t our problem.
The view is more extreme in America, where the libertarian position is that America should abdicate entirely its role as world’s policeman, so you can see why European libertarians in NATO countries are not about to agree with that idea.
I “forgot” the Far Right simply because it’s not part of the context of this particular thread. I am defending the notion that Fascism is a left-wing extremism alongside Communism and the other traditional variants. The common factor they possess is belief in a large, powerful, expensive State. No right-wing ideology shares this, and since Fascism does support a large powerful State, it cannot be right-wing.
This is not to say that right-wing extremisim does not exist of course, merely that it has nothing to do with what I’m describing here.
I take issue, too, with the idea that the modern Right “loves Russia” as you put it. What draws the modern Right to oppose the West’s Ukraine War involvement is more based upon a defective libertarian assessment that it is not the West’s problem. I say this as a libertarian myself, I just reckon that on this case many of my fellow libertarians have got this one wrong, and that there can be no way this isn’t our problem.
The view is more extreme in America, where the libertarian position is that America should abdicate entirely its role as world’s policeman, so you can see why European libertarians in NATO countries are not about to agree with that idea.
You forgot the Far Right. Extremists on both the Left AND the Right hate democracy and freedom of speech. It’s only because Russia turned fascist with Putin that the Right suddenly loves Russia. That and they are afraid of him.
Of course, it would be nice to hear one (‘all sorts of reasons’, that was both truthfull and correct factually.
PS I note they never do.
Liberal fascism is a fairly well defined concept and it does apply to large parts of the modern Left. That’s controversial obviously – left-wingers themselves are usually furious at the designation – but that that doesn’t mean that the concept is wrongly applied or is meaningless.
Of course, it would be nice to hear one (‘all sorts of reasons’, that was both truthfull and correct factually.
PS I note they never do.
Try this: did the US (via the CIA and €5bn) try to influence Ukraine’s politics? lol.. get a grip Fiona!
The people of Ukraine and other countries that suffered under the former Soviet Union still remember well how horrific it was, and need no other motivation to resist Putin’s dictatorship. They have recently had a taste of freedom and will now fight to the death to keep it. That and the brutal reality that Putin has already mass murdered thousands of Ukrainians, so it is either win or die as a people for them.
Once again I read an appeal to the sentimental. Given, that Ukraine is well within Russia’s sphere of influence, and that Putin, whatever else he is (I leave it to the Almighty to weigh his soul) is a nationalist. Given that the current Ukrainian state is in violation of the Minsk accords, corrupt, undemocratic and suppresses dissent and religious freedom. Given that a certain percentage of the Ukraine thinks of themselves as more Russian than “Ukrainian”. Question: How can the UN justify its expensive existence if it isn’t to solve such conflicts? Obviously a rhetorical question.
It can’t.
It can’t.
Once again I read an appeal to the sentimental. Given, that Ukraine is well within Russia’s sphere of influence, and that Putin, whatever else he is (I leave it to the Almighty to weigh his soul) is a nationalist. Given that the current Ukrainian state is in violation of the Minsk accords, corrupt, undemocratic and suppresses dissent and religious freedom. Given that a certain percentage of the Ukraine thinks of themselves as more Russian than “Ukrainian”. Question: How can the UN justify its expensive existence if it isn’t to solve such conflicts? Obviously a rhetorical question.
The people of Ukraine and other countries that suffered under the former Soviet Union still remember well how horrific it was, and need no other motivation to resist Putin’s dictatorship. They have recently had a taste of freedom and will now fight to the death to keep it. That and the brutal reality that Putin has already mass murdered thousands of Ukrainians, so it is either win or die as a people for them.
This is accurate. Democracy means respecting the will of the people as expressed through elections. Complaining about the electoral college and stating that Trump lost the popular vote is a very democratic criticism. Whining that a dishonest ad campaign from a foreign power unduly influenced voters is disrespectful to the process and dehumanizing to the voters. If you only support democracy when people elect leaders from a list of ‘acceptable’ candidates, you do not actually support democracy.
In fact, ad campaigns and other interference in U.S. elections by foreign powers is, and has been, highly illegal for decades (22 USC § 2708(k)(4) . It’s still illegal, whether or not it convinces people. American elections are only for American citizens.
You never had to select candidates from a list, and you still don’t. You can write in whoever you want, but I wouldn’t bother writing in Mickey Mouse like way too many do. It even works occasionally: Lisa Murkowski won re-election through a write in campaign.
I seem to remember they didn’t just verbally complain that Trump supposedly lost an election. That’s minimizing something that was far from benign. There was among, other things awful things, an insurrection, loss of life, and a lot of trauma and suffering. And, two years later the “complaining” is still going on.
In fact, ad campaigns and other interference in U.S. elections by foreign powers is, and has been, highly illegal for decades (22 USC § 2708(k)(4) . It’s still illegal, whether or not it convinces people. American elections are only for American citizens.
You never had to select candidates from a list, and you still don’t. You can write in whoever you want, but I wouldn’t bother writing in Mickey Mouse like way too many do. It even works occasionally: Lisa Murkowski won re-election through a write in campaign.
I seem to remember they didn’t just verbally complain that Trump supposedly lost an election. That’s minimizing something that was far from benign. There was among, other things awful things, an insurrection, loss of life, and a lot of trauma and suffering. And, two years later the “complaining” is still going on.
‘Almost no influence’ is probably an exaggeration. The manufactured panic about those Hilary mails did help Trump a lot, and the leaks gave some of the ammunition. One could argue that relying on a foreign intelligence service to hack your opponents mails is going a bit too far – much like bugging the campaign headquarters of the opposition actually. But OK, Trump won. You cannot claim that he stole the election.
Why do we forget that the Soviets influenced elections in the US for decades and did so masterfully? And not only elections, but wide swaths of US domestic policy, from marriage, the rearing of children, trade union formation, sexual mores, and you name it. Why do we forget that Alger Hiss stood behind Rosevelt at Yalta? Why do we forget, most all, that the political left in the US applauded the Soviets as they did these things, even dug in behind them? How is it that all this hypocrisy does not get noticed?
A somewhat better argument although I don’t agree with the term self righteous liberal-fascist. Its a nonsense phrase -just a way of expressing your deep irritation at sanctimoniousness perhaps? I for my part loathe Trump for all sorts of reasons.
Try this: did the US (via the CIA and €5bn) try to influence Ukraine’s politics? lol.. get a grip Fiona!
This is accurate. Democracy means respecting the will of the people as expressed through elections. Complaining about the electoral college and stating that Trump lost the popular vote is a very democratic criticism. Whining that a dishonest ad campaign from a foreign power unduly influenced voters is disrespectful to the process and dehumanizing to the voters. If you only support democracy when people elect leaders from a list of ‘acceptable’ candidates, you do not actually support democracy.
And the US is not at the same thing all day every day?
But it is really isn’t it? A passionate devotion to wealth beyond all other considerations such as morality, truth, decency, humanity etc.
Often a fan, but that bit of sweeping generalization did not do justice to the subject, nor to your wit. Bear in mind, that today’s US is far less homogenized than in earlier times. I do agree with your remarks as applied to our chattering classes and imperial administrators in Versailles-on-the-Potomac. No, let me amend: Versailles-on-the-Cloaca-Maxima. You might find that Flyover America is stubbornly attached to the values of civilization. Are they undereducated? Sadly … I pine for the days when I thought Idiocracy was dystopian future fiction.
Often a fan, but that bit of sweeping generalization did not do justice to the subject, nor to your wit. Bear in mind, that today’s US is far less homogenized than in earlier times. I do agree with your remarks as applied to our chattering classes and imperial administrators in Versailles-on-the-Potomac. No, let me amend: Versailles-on-the-Cloaca-Maxima. You might find that Flyover America is stubbornly attached to the values of civilization. Are they undereducated? Sadly … I pine for the days when I thought Idiocracy was dystopian future fiction.
But it is really isn’t it? A passionate devotion to wealth beyond all other considerations such as morality, truth, decency, humanity etc.
I’m afraid you continue to be delusional and are eating far too much pie in the sky. Try a little commonsense and logic instead.. you’ll see things very differently!
There is nothing new here – cccp-russia has interfered for decades. What is new here is that dems used russia’s business as usual as an extraordinary attack on US democracy in order to prevent Trump from becoming president. Dems didn’t stop there and continued to sabotage and slander the legitimately elected president for all 4 years, weakening the state, pushed the country to a bloody anarchist isurection, adopted the strategy “power at all costs” and rigged elections with the help of big tech, leftists maisnstream media and offended European governments, because Trump demanded to spend money ontheir own millitary and be careful with russia. But this time, Fiona Hill decided that everything was in order.
Yanis Varoufakis was asked if he thought Russia had tried to influence the US 2016 election and his response was “Yes of course it did, but then again so did I. So what?”
To have a balanced view you have to also ask how much influence did Russia have, was the 2016 US election the only election they tried to influence, do other people and nations also seek to influence elections, and most of all does the USA do this to other nations on a routine basis?
The answers, respectively are “almost none”, “no”, “yes” and “obviously yes”.
The only real significance of the 2016 US election is that Trump got elected and this pissed off a bunch of self-righteous liberal-fascist arseholes who think they own the American government. Had that not happened, none of them would be throwing accusations about like a baby throwing its toys out of the pram. It’s nothing more than a proxy for complaining about democracy itself without officially admitting that that’s what it really is.
NB – I am not a Trump supporter, just someone who nonetheless recognises that Trump does annoy all the right people. As a president, despite a small number of notable successes, he was a failure.
And the US is not at the same thing all day every day?
I’m afraid you continue to be delusional and are eating far too much pie in the sky. Try a little commonsense and logic instead.. you’ll see things very differently!
There is nothing new here – cccp-russia has interfered for decades. What is new here is that dems used russia’s business as usual as an extraordinary attack on US democracy in order to prevent Trump from becoming president. Dems didn’t stop there and continued to sabotage and slander the legitimately elected president for all 4 years, weakening the state, pushed the country to a bloody anarchist isurection, adopted the strategy “power at all costs” and rigged elections with the help of big tech, leftists maisnstream media and offended European governments, because Trump demanded to spend money ontheir own millitary and be careful with russia. But this time, Fiona Hill decided that everything was in order.
It has very little to do with that, which is why Sens. McConnell and Graham, not to mention people who, like me, never bought into Trump Derangement Syndrome are supportive of Ukraine. So maybe it’s not “nothing,” but it isn’t all that much, either.
Lindsay Graham has never known a war he doesn’t like, and McConnell can see the money flowing in from the military-industrial complex. The US is laughing all the way to the bank on this war.
Indeed, the people in the State Dept are but dupes of the Merchants of Death.
They’ve even hypnotized the vast majority of entrepreneurs who don’t make money off of arms.
Why worry about complicated historical explanations when the phrase “Merchants of Death” explains everything?
No doubt you would have also surrendered to Hitler to avoid war. More fool you to surrender to mass murderers and become one of their victims without even fighting back.
Today, Putin is the REAL “merchant of death”. The mass graves of thousands of innocent people in Ukraine were on his orders.
People who rely on simplistic slogans, and are too lazy to learn anything, also know nothing. They repeat the same mistakes that caused the death of millions not so long ago.
No doubt you would have also surrendered to Hitler to avoid war. More fool you to surrender to mass murderers and become one of their victims without even fighting back.
Today, Putin is the REAL “merchant of death”. The mass graves of thousands of innocent people in Ukraine were on his orders.
People who rely on simplistic slogans, and are too lazy to learn anything, also know nothing. They repeat the same mistakes that caused the death of millions not so long ago.
For individuals with shares yes. It is costly to the nation and far more costly to the world if they simply do nothing about China and Russian hegemony in their claimed modern day ‘spheres’ which grow larger every moment & only curbed by resistance. Listen to Fiona Hill’s message about ultimate diplomacy required.
Correct and accurate.. as can be guaged from the downticks.. on UnHere the more downticks the closer to the uncomfortable and inconvenient truth.
I pride myself on my downclicks!
I pride myself on my downclicks!
Indeed, the people in the State Dept are but dupes of the Merchants of Death.
They’ve even hypnotized the vast majority of entrepreneurs who don’t make money off of arms.
Why worry about complicated historical explanations when the phrase “Merchants of Death” explains everything?
For individuals with shares yes. It is costly to the nation and far more costly to the world if they simply do nothing about China and Russian hegemony in their claimed modern day ‘spheres’ which grow larger every moment & only curbed by resistance. Listen to Fiona Hill’s message about ultimate diplomacy required.
Correct and accurate.. as can be guaged from the downticks.. on UnHere the more downticks the closer to the uncomfortable and inconvenient truth.
McConnell and Graham want Republicans to win, so why would they object when it happens? They support Ukraine, because it is in U.S. interest to let Ukraine fight Putin there, so we don’t have to fight Putin here. We’re getting a bargain deal from Ukraine. We only have to send them a few extra weapons (a tiny fraction of the U.S. military budget), and they do all the fighting and dying. If Putin wins in Ukraine, he won’t stop there any more than Hitler stopped with Austria.
The U.S. doesn’t need to fight Putin at all, and many of those who suggest it does, are invested in the growing power farther to the East and wish to distract. For a segment of the political-industrial clique, Ukraine represents their money laundry and bioweapons shenanigans, and their support of it is self-interested. Ironically, the “war” in Ukraine has improved Russia’s economic picture considerably! Personally, I doubt very much that Putin has a grand scheme of conquest. He is in his home stretch and would very much like a solid accomplishment to his legacy before he hangs up the Tsar’s crown, which, I am told, he uses as a tea cozy on most days.
If only. Putin’s military is second rate on a good day. The Nazi military was something else entirely.
The U.S. doesn’t need to fight Putin at all, and many of those who suggest it does, are invested in the growing power farther to the East and wish to distract. For a segment of the political-industrial clique, Ukraine represents their money laundry and bioweapons shenanigans, and their support of it is self-interested. Ironically, the “war” in Ukraine has improved Russia’s economic picture considerably! Personally, I doubt very much that Putin has a grand scheme of conquest. He is in his home stretch and would very much like a solid accomplishment to his legacy before he hangs up the Tsar’s crown, which, I am told, he uses as a tea cozy on most days.
If only. Putin’s military is second rate on a good day. The Nazi military was something else entirely.
Lindsay Graham has never known a war he doesn’t like, and McConnell can see the money flowing in from the military-industrial complex. The US is laughing all the way to the bank on this war.
McConnell and Graham want Republicans to win, so why would they object when it happens? They support Ukraine, because it is in U.S. interest to let Ukraine fight Putin there, so we don’t have to fight Putin here. We’re getting a bargain deal from Ukraine. We only have to send them a few extra weapons (a tiny fraction of the U.S. military budget), and they do all the fighting and dying. If Putin wins in Ukraine, he won’t stop there any more than Hitler stopped with Austria.
‘Proved false’? Where? When? AFAIAC it is proved that Russia *did* run an influence operation, because they preferred Trump to Hilary. Otherwise, who leaked those Democrat emails? Did it swing the election? Most likely not. Did it make Trump’s victory invalid? Definitely not (alas). Did Trump collude or collaborate ahead of time? Well, there was no sufficient evidence that he did, and quite likely he was innocent of that – at least within the rather wide bounds of what people from both sides are usually able to get away with in US elections. But the claims of a Russian influence operation have not been proved false, any more than it has been proved who killed OJ Simpsons wife.
Even the New York Times admits the whole thing has no substance.
What do they admit, exactly? Some accusations against Trump are thoroughly discredited, such as the cavorting with prostitutes in Moscow. Other claims I’d consider proved. Again, who did leak those Democrat emails? Sorry to be repetitive, but if you could give me a link I could check just what the NYT is and is not admitting.
Rasmus, Julian Assange said Wikileaks did not get the emails from Russia (CNN interview 4th Jan 2017) – text from Washington Post here. A single definitive source who would know.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2017/01/05/julian-assanges-claim-that-there-was-no-russian-involvement-in-wikileaks-emails/
Now it would be great if the world could double-check with Mr Assange over the whole affair, but he’s been incommunicado in Belmarsh prison for nearly four years – unconvicted, yet living through an inhumane and tortuously slow extradition procedure – a journalist imprisoned for doing journalism. What could you read into that?
Well, Bill Clinton said he did not have s–x–l relations with Monica Lewinsky. Assange, like Bill Clinton then, has every reason to hide or distort the truth. Do you take him at his unsupported word? If he, or someone else ,can say who *did* leak those mails, and provide some convincing evidence, then we can talk about it.
Your bias and complete inability to think logically really shines through. Frankly, it seems to that you are a CIA or MI5/MI6 bot. Now go prove me wrong! That’s the sum total of your logic. Further, I would venture to say, that since you live in the UK, your knowledge and direct experience of american politics is close to zero. In other words you have no idea what you’re talking about but you’re very good at repeating the “approved narrative” whether this be Russian interference in the 2016 election or Covid policy.
Following on your logic about “not living in USA etc”, why do you comment on Ukraine when you claim to live in USA?
Following on your logic about “not living in USA etc”, why do you comment on Ukraine when you claim to live in USA?
Why does Assange have a reason to hide or distort the truth? He’s not a politician, or a spy or secret agent, or anonymous commentator. Wikileaks published document troves that they took great pains to validate and check that they were true. Assange built his reputation on his veracity.
This is in contrast to the mass of fake and false reporting on Russian collusion promulgated by people connected to the Clinton campaign.
So, turn it around, why would you choose to believe them over the persecuted journalist with a stellar track record?
If he did get that material from Russia, either directly or indirectly, admitting it would put him in a very bad light, and might make him more likely of ending up in an American prison. If he got it in some other way he could reveal his sources to prove it, but then he is not going to do that. Bayesian reasoning: his denying that the material came from Russia is worthless, because he would say that whether it was true or not.
False Bayesian reasoning. Denying Russia provided it, does not say anything about where it did come from – it just removes Russia from the list of possibilities. Assange was already locked in the Ecuadorian embassy, being pursued by the Americans (including a subsequent CIA assassination plot), saying it was Russia wouldn’t have made a blind bit of difference.
At the time (2017) information from Russia was not an issue in any way legally, Steele supposedly (later proven untrue) got information from Russia, or the FBI’s connections to Deripaska. If you’re trademark is truth, why say something false?
I think you’ve heavily bought into the narrative, without enough background. Remember when you confused Hillary’s emails with the DNC or Podesta dump? Or took a joke as a demand? The actors pushing this stuff for political gain are not reliable sources.
Let us get a bit more Bayesian, here. Assume he got those data from somewhere else. He would say he did not get them from Russia, because it would be true. Now assume that he *did* get those data, directly or indirectly from the FSB. Would he say so? I strongly doubt it. It would ruin his image as an independent and honest voice, reduce him to a tool of Russian interests in the public eye, and weaken the people, legally and politically, who are trying to keep him from being extracted to the US. If those data came form the FSB he would have nothing to gain and much to lose by admitting it. You seem to think Assange is very reliable and the data could not possibly have come from Russia. That may or may not be the case (though I obviously disagree), but whether you believe that or not, his denial has no value as evidence.
Now you’re deep in conspiracy theory generation territory to keep your narrative alive (nothing but a might-have). We know lots of the Russia-did-it stories were fake and deliberately spread for political gain. We also know Assange has a history of veracity. So we have a witness statement from a credible witness with a history of truth telling versus a ‘might have’ from dubious sources. I could be wrong, but when I weigh both pieces of data, I know which way my priors shift.
..funny you get do many downticks from such a blindingly obvious observation isn’t it? Astonishing! None so blind as those who will not see, eh?
..funny you get do many downticks from such a blindingly obvious observation isn’t it? Astonishing! None so blind as those who will not see, eh?
Yep.. and pigs might have wings! If the US propaganda machine tells me pigs have wings I’m gonna believe ’em! Dah dah dah..
Now you’re deep in conspiracy theory generation territory to keep your narrative alive (nothing but a might-have). We know lots of the Russia-did-it stories were fake and deliberately spread for political gain. We also know Assange has a history of veracity. So we have a witness statement from a credible witness with a history of truth telling versus a ‘might have’ from dubious sources. I could be wrong, but when I weigh both pieces of data, I know which way my priors shift.
Yep.. and pigs might have wings! If the US propaganda machine tells me pigs have wings I’m gonna believe ’em! Dah dah dah..
Let us get a bit more Bayesian, here. Assume he got those data from somewhere else. He would say he did not get them from Russia, because it would be true. Now assume that he *did* get those data, directly or indirectly from the FSB. Would he say so? I strongly doubt it. It would ruin his image as an independent and honest voice, reduce him to a tool of Russian interests in the public eye, and weaken the people, legally and politically, who are trying to keep him from being extracted to the US. If those data came form the FSB he would have nothing to gain and much to lose by admitting it. You seem to think Assange is very reliable and the data could not possibly have come from Russia. That may or may not be the case (though I obviously disagree), but whether you believe that or not, his denial has no value as evidence.
Oh, “admitting it” “would put him in a very bad light” (somehow), as opposed to where he is now, bathing in glory and not at all under threat from the US security establishment.
False Bayesian reasoning. Denying Russia provided it, does not say anything about where it did come from – it just removes Russia from the list of possibilities. Assange was already locked in the Ecuadorian embassy, being pursued by the Americans (including a subsequent CIA assassination plot), saying it was Russia wouldn’t have made a blind bit of difference.
At the time (2017) information from Russia was not an issue in any way legally, Steele supposedly (later proven untrue) got information from Russia, or the FBI’s connections to Deripaska. If you’re trademark is truth, why say something false?
I think you’ve heavily bought into the narrative, without enough background. Remember when you confused Hillary’s emails with the DNC or Podesta dump? Or took a joke as a demand? The actors pushing this stuff for political gain are not reliable sources.
Oh, “admitting it” “would put him in a very bad light” (somehow), as opposed to where he is now, bathing in glory and not at all under threat from the US security establishment.
Yep, spot on! Odd isn’t it.. these mouthpieces lie over and over and over again but the suckers continue to believe in their lies, distortions and propaganda.. how stupid can these guys be?
Simple reason: M O N E Y
Stellar track record?
Yes, of avoiding justice by skipping bail and hiding in Ecuadorian embassy
Justice. Now there’s an idea. Unfortunately you use the word to mean ‘legal process’ which is too often something completely different.
Justice. Now there’s an idea. Unfortunately you use the word to mean ‘legal process’ which is too often something completely different.
If he did get that material from Russia, either directly or indirectly, admitting it would put him in a very bad light, and might make him more likely of ending up in an American prison. If he got it in some other way he could reveal his sources to prove it, but then he is not going to do that. Bayesian reasoning: his denying that the material came from Russia is worthless, because he would say that whether it was true or not.
Yep, spot on! Odd isn’t it.. these mouthpieces lie over and over and over again but the suckers continue to believe in their lies, distortions and propaganda.. how stupid can these guys be?
Simple reason: M O N E Y
Stellar track record?
Yes, of avoiding justice by skipping bail and hiding in Ecuadorian embassy
Hi did NOT! 🙂 That does not count! just kidding.
😉
😉
Why do you even still care that Bill lied about sex with Monica? If Hillary wanted to divorce him for it, that was their business and no one else’s. If lying about cheating on your wife was a crime, half the men in America would be in prison.
I do not care and I never did. I always thought that the entire impeachment process was a pretext and a farce – and was even quite happy when Clinton met this shameless political operation with a barefaced “depends on what you mean by ‘is'”. I just thought it was a good example of why you cannot believe people just because they deny things.
I do not care and I never did. I always thought that the entire impeachment process was a pretext and a farce – and was even quite happy when Clinton met this shameless political operation with a barefaced “depends on what you mean by ‘is'”. I just thought it was a good example of why you cannot believe people just because they deny things.
Your bias and complete inability to think logically really shines through. Frankly, it seems to that you are a CIA or MI5/MI6 bot. Now go prove me wrong! That’s the sum total of your logic. Further, I would venture to say, that since you live in the UK, your knowledge and direct experience of american politics is close to zero. In other words you have no idea what you’re talking about but you’re very good at repeating the “approved narrative” whether this be Russian interference in the 2016 election or Covid policy.
Why does Assange have a reason to hide or distort the truth? He’s not a politician, or a spy or secret agent, or anonymous commentator. Wikileaks published document troves that they took great pains to validate and check that they were true. Assange built his reputation on his veracity.
This is in contrast to the mass of fake and false reporting on Russian collusion promulgated by people connected to the Clinton campaign.
So, turn it around, why would you choose to believe them over the persecuted journalist with a stellar track record?
Hi did NOT! 🙂 That does not count! just kidding.
Why do you even still care that Bill lied about sex with Monica? If Hillary wanted to divorce him for it, that was their business and no one else’s. If lying about cheating on your wife was a crime, half the men in America would be in prison.
Spot on.. hence the downticks.
Assange is NOT a journalist. No doubt you think Putin’s propaganda is also “journalism”. Of course Assange was also one of Putin’s operatives.
Assange won the Martha Gellhorn prize for journalism in 2011 (among others including an Australian Walkley Award for Most Outstanding Contribution to Journalism). Presumably the prize givers knew what a journalist was, as did the Guardian when they reported it.
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2011/jun/02/julian-assange-martha-gelhorn-prize
Putin’s propaganda is due exactly the same in-depth skepticism as the Clinton-campaign-driven, and now-debunked, Russian conspiracy theory, where they made up false stories to smear their opponents. You wouldn’t want to be believing one of those, in the same way you wouldn’t want to be believing Putin.
Guardian is no longer serious newspaper.
Just propaganda outlet for woke, BLM and gender idiocy supporting leftists.
Guardian is no longer serious newspaper.
Just propaganda outlet for woke, BLM and gender idiocy supporting leftists.
Assange won the Martha Gellhorn prize for journalism in 2011 (among others including an Australian Walkley Award for Most Outstanding Contribution to Journalism). Presumably the prize givers knew what a journalist was, as did the Guardian when they reported it.
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2011/jun/02/julian-assange-martha-gelhorn-prize
Putin’s propaganda is due exactly the same in-depth skepticism as the Clinton-campaign-driven, and now-debunked, Russian conspiracy theory, where they made up false stories to smear their opponents. You wouldn’t want to be believing one of those, in the same way you wouldn’t want to be believing Putin.
Well, Bill Clinton said he did not have s–x–l relations with Monica Lewinsky. Assange, like Bill Clinton then, has every reason to hide or distort the truth. Do you take him at his unsupported word? If he, or someone else ,can say who *did* leak those mails, and provide some convincing evidence, then we can talk about it.
Spot on.. hence the downticks.
Assange is NOT a journalist. No doubt you think Putin’s propaganda is also “journalism”. Of course Assange was also one of Putin’s operatives.
I note you specify the discredited one, but the ones that you consider proved are not identified – facts!.
The existence of a Russian influence operation to help Trump, including hacking and publishing Democrat emails, is a proven fact, AFAIAC.
The existence of a Russian influence operation to help Trump, including hacking and publishing Democrat emails, is a proven fact, AFAIAC.
Rasmus, Julian Assange said Wikileaks did not get the emails from Russia (CNN interview 4th Jan 2017) – text from Washington Post here. A single definitive source who would know.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2017/01/05/julian-assanges-claim-that-there-was-no-russian-involvement-in-wikileaks-emails/
Now it would be great if the world could double-check with Mr Assange over the whole affair, but he’s been incommunicado in Belmarsh prison for nearly four years – unconvicted, yet living through an inhumane and tortuously slow extradition procedure – a journalist imprisoned for doing journalism. What could you read into that?
I note you specify the discredited one, but the ones that you consider proved are not identified – facts!.
What do they admit, exactly? Some accusations against Trump are thoroughly discredited, such as the cavorting with prostitutes in Moscow. Other claims I’d consider proved. Again, who did leak those Democrat emails? Sorry to be repetitive, but if you could give me a link I could check just what the NYT is and is not admitting.
I assume you’re English. and you make a lot of unproven assertions. It has absolutely not been proven that Russia ran an influence operation, and if they did nobody was aware of it because nobody read anything or viewed anything in the outlets they used. As for leaking the DNC emails, far more likely is that a disgruntled employee of the DNC did this. Further, there is no evidence whatsoever that the Russians preferred Trump. In fact, for Russia Hilary would have been far more accommodating, as she had been in the past.
Finally your logical is totally flawed. Anybody and any party can make a claim. It’s not up to others to prove that this clam is false, rather it’s up to the people making the claim to prove that it’s indeed correct.
For example, I could claim that you’re an MI5 agent but that doesn’t make it so, and it’s not up to you to prove that claim false. Rather it’s up to those making the claim to prove it to be true.
So, next time I ask you for a link you will not tell me to Google it all myself?
I will tell you to Google it because you are more than computer literate enough to do so. You don’t need to be spoon fed.
So much for proving your claims correct, then.
It is a troll-like strategy: attempt to bog down the thread by posting myriad questions and so on. I stopped replying to him a few days ago. It’s a waste of time.
So much for proving your claims correct, then.
It is a troll-like strategy: attempt to bog down the thread by posting myriad questions and so on. I stopped replying to him a few days ago. It’s a waste of time.
Don’t you know when to give up. You are coming across as not too bright.
I will tell you to Google it because you are more than computer literate enough to do so. You don’t need to be spoon fed.
Don’t you know when to give up. You are coming across as not too bright.
Youa make a 100% valid point! Hence the downticks.. on UnHerd logic, commonsense and reason are not popular.. silly conjecture and baseless, slavish credulity are valued!
So, next time I ask you for a link you will not tell me to Google it all myself?
Youa make a 100% valid point! Hence the downticks.. on UnHerd logic, commonsense and reason are not popular.. silly conjecture and baseless, slavish credulity are valued!
Seriously, ask yourself why Russia would prefer Trump over Clinton. The Clintons have always had a gigantic For Sale sign as their personal motto (ask Haiti about it). Clinton would have been easy to work with, as was Obama (“tell Vlad, in my second term, I’ll have more flexibility”). Trump’s only “crime” was inadvertently kicking over the DC corruption rock by being elected and thinking that Washington actually wanted to solve problems. Once he was in office, he discovered the exact opposite to be the case, and, as the odious Chuck Schumer said – on camera – the FBI had “six ways to Sunday” to f*ck him up. And they did. What’s the lesson here? It wasn’t really about Trump. It was anyone who gets in the way of the Washington crime syndicate, [D] or [R]. Just look at what they’re doing to DeSantis. Sheesh, they were prepared to make big floppy Mitt Romney look like Simon Legree (“He’s gonna put y’all back in chains”). I marvel at the inability of people to see this stuff. It’s not as hidden, it’s not artful, it’s right there, in your face, daring you to do something about it.
They would prefer Trump because he admired autocrats like Putin, because he was divisive and produced chaos and polarisation, and because he was not going to do much to keep Russia within limits.
Seriously? He strenuously warned the entire European Union to beware of dependency on Russian energy – the only thing they’ve got to sell. As for being divisive, that’s politics: people have principles. It was, however, the Washington establishment that turned him into Emanuel Goldstein.
..who turned him into an orange lunatic? such a pity, he probably had a valid case a lot of the time.. out of the mouths of babes and sucklings I guess?
Orange lunatic is how the media described him. If he were Team [D], he’d have been a fashion trend-setter and great beauty, like Michele Obama.
Nah, I saw him myself; I heard him too.. the p***y grabbing, the slap him in the mouth remark, build the wall and make Mexico pay for it.. nah, definitely a lunatic. He did get one or two things right.. but even a busted clock tells the right time twice a day!
Nah, I saw him myself; I heard him too.. the p***y grabbing, the slap him in the mouth remark, build the wall and make Mexico pay for it.. nah, definitely a lunatic. He did get one or two things right.. but even a busted clock tells the right time twice a day!
Orange lunatic is how the media described him. If he were Team [D], he’d have been a fashion trend-setter and great beauty, like Michele Obama.
..who turned him into an orange lunatic? such a pity, he probably had a valid case a lot of the time.. out of the mouths of babes and sucklings I guess?
I guess we have to listen to you (for free speech reasons) but your comments are far from reality.
Seriously? He strenuously warned the entire European Union to beware of dependency on Russian energy – the only thing they’ve got to sell. As for being divisive, that’s politics: people have principles. It was, however, the Washington establishment that turned him into Emanuel Goldstein.
I guess we have to listen to you (for free speech reasons) but your comments are far from reality.
Correct.. hence the downticks: the more valid, the more truthful, the more obvious, the clearer, the more logical, the more reasoned the more downticks.. maybe the downticks come from the CIA? who knows?
Quite right.
They would prefer Trump because he admired autocrats like Putin, because he was divisive and produced chaos and polarisation, and because he was not going to do much to keep Russia within limits.
Correct.. hence the downticks: the more valid, the more truthful, the more obvious, the clearer, the more logical, the more reasoned the more downticks.. maybe the downticks come from the CIA? who knows?
Quite right.
Please provide evidence for your hot-headed allegations.
The Democrat emails were hacked and published via wikileaks. By whom, if not the Russians – who were anyway identified as the likely culprits by the people who invetigated the breach? There have been various reports of Russian botnets pouring out tweets etc. Admittedly I do not have specific links – just seen it all over the press – but if you still care enough to ask I shall do some googling.
The Democrat emails were hacked and published via wikileaks. By whom, if not the Russians – who were anyway identified as the likely culprits by the people who invetigated the breach? There have been various reports of Russian botnets pouring out tweets etc. Admittedly I do not have specific links – just seen it all over the press – but if you still care enough to ask I shall do some googling.
Even the New York Times admits the whole thing has no substance.
I assume you’re English. and you make a lot of unproven assertions. It has absolutely not been proven that Russia ran an influence operation, and if they did nobody was aware of it because nobody read anything or viewed anything in the outlets they used. As for leaking the DNC emails, far more likely is that a disgruntled employee of the DNC did this. Further, there is no evidence whatsoever that the Russians preferred Trump. In fact, for Russia Hilary would have been far more accommodating, as she had been in the past.
Finally your logical is totally flawed. Anybody and any party can make a claim. It’s not up to others to prove that this clam is false, rather it’s up to the people making the claim to prove that it’s indeed correct.
For example, I could claim that you’re an MI5 agent but that doesn’t make it so, and it’s not up to you to prove that claim false. Rather it’s up to those making the claim to prove it to be true.
Seriously, ask yourself why Russia would prefer Trump over Clinton. The Clintons have always had a gigantic For Sale sign as their personal motto (ask Haiti about it). Clinton would have been easy to work with, as was Obama (“tell Vlad, in my second term, I’ll have more flexibility”). Trump’s only “crime” was inadvertently kicking over the DC corruption rock by being elected and thinking that Washington actually wanted to solve problems. Once he was in office, he discovered the exact opposite to be the case, and, as the odious Chuck Schumer said – on camera – the FBI had “six ways to Sunday” to f*ck him up. And they did. What’s the lesson here? It wasn’t really about Trump. It was anyone who gets in the way of the Washington crime syndicate, [D] or [R]. Just look at what they’re doing to DeSantis. Sheesh, they were prepared to make big floppy Mitt Romney look like Simon Legree (“He’s gonna put y’all back in chains”). I marvel at the inability of people to see this stuff. It’s not as hidden, it’s not artful, it’s right there, in your face, daring you to do something about it.
Please provide evidence for your hot-headed allegations.
Some of us here are British and are more interested in her views on the conflict in The Ukraine than on internal American political disputes. I understand that these matters cannot be completely separated, but Trump v Biden is a sideshow for me. I’m sure that all participants have erred, but we Brits long ago learnt that it is the last battle that counts.
On Ukraine she makes sense. I agree with her that Russia cannot be defeated in any conventional sense: Putin has to be manoeuvred into accepting that the game isn’t worth the candle. The problem for him, as for all autocrats, is that such a move is highly dangerous for ones health.
That’s hardly true if your battles are fought over a 100 year period? ie the earlier battles can count for quite a bit! Europe has been fighting Russia for a long time under the leadership of Napoleon Bonapart, Adolf Hitler and now Joe Biden.. I’m pretty sure many of the battles were really important!
Also, if the last battle Europe fights against Russia is the only one that counts we may have to wait for hundreds of years more.. maybe forever even? ..or maybe it’ll end for sure quite soon in the nuclear holocaust the US seems intent on bringing about.. if that happens then I truly will agree with you.. It will indeed be the last battle that counts, 10, 9, 8, 7….
You keep repeating your lies about Russia as if people did not know Russia real history of centuries of genocidal imperialism.
It was Soviet Union which started ww2 with Hitler by invading Poland and then supported Hitler war machine with grain and raw material while invading Finland and Baltic States.
Ukrainians are fighting for their lives because they well remember genocide committed on them in 1930s.
You keep repeating your lies about Russia as if people did not know Russia real history of centuries of genocidal imperialism.
It was Soviet Union which started ww2 with Hitler by invading Poland and then supported Hitler war machine with grain and raw material while invading Finland and Baltic States.
Ukrainians are fighting for their lives because they well remember genocide committed on them in 1930s.
Then there are distinctly more knowledgeable and unbiased people than FH.
..roughly 7 billion of them at the last count.
..roughly 7 billion of them at the last count.
Not to mention his ego.
That’s hardly true if your battles are fought over a 100 year period? ie the earlier battles can count for quite a bit! Europe has been fighting Russia for a long time under the leadership of Napoleon Bonapart, Adolf Hitler and now Joe Biden.. I’m pretty sure many of the battles were really important!
Also, if the last battle Europe fights against Russia is the only one that counts we may have to wait for hundreds of years more.. maybe forever even? ..or maybe it’ll end for sure quite soon in the nuclear holocaust the US seems intent on bringing about.. if that happens then I truly will agree with you.. It will indeed be the last battle that counts, 10, 9, 8, 7….
Then there are distinctly more knowledgeable and unbiased people than FH.
Not to mention his ego.
Prigozhin set up a company especially to interfere with the U.S election in support of Trump.Prigozhin has admitted that and bragged about it.You need to be better informed and more intelligent.
..and he succeeded in achieving that exactly how? Did he brainwash 40 million idiot Americans? ..or did he get the FSB to spend $5bn in the US to topple Clinton? Oh no, I’m getting confused with the CIA in Ukraine aren’t I.. silly me!
Bravo! Enjoyed this one!
Bravo! Enjoyed this one!
..and he succeeded in achieving that exactly how? Did he brainwash 40 million idiot Americans? ..or did he get the FSB to spend $5bn in the US to topple Clinton? Oh no, I’m getting confused with the CIA in Ukraine aren’t I.. silly me!
She is really good and you don’t like it. Putin did not install Donald Trump. They tried to assist with misinformation via bots and trolls on big tech platforms. Such epithets you use as resistance liberals (who are they?) and United States opposing Russia at all costs are hyperbole. At all costs means Nuclear. Listen to Fiona. She is measured and does not use hyperbole.
They did try but were not really needed
..correct; no hyperbole; she doesn’t need it. She does just fine with her distortions and one-sided, simplistic and silly remarks..
They did try but were not really needed
..correct; no hyperbole; she doesn’t need it. She does just fine with her distortions and one-sided, simplistic and silly remarks..
Absolute crap. People opposed Putin’s invasion of Ukraine because Putin invaded Ukraine not as some proxy for his other meddling.
The story of the Ukraine kerfuffle doesn’t start with Putin’s invasion. Look up the Minsk accords, the fall of democracy to a totalitarian regime, the Ukraine’s refusal to deal with wishes for referenda and plebiscites, the governmental sponsorship of shady financial deals and hosting of bioweapons labs in contravention of the Geneva Conventions…Granted, it was adventurism on Putin’s part, but he has not done badly for himself and Russia, and unfortunately in some measure, Ukraine is getting what it was asking for. Now we can add Putin Derangement Syndrome (PDS) to the host of contemporary ills and delusions.
The story of the Ukraine kerfuffle doesn’t start with Putin’s invasion. Look up the Minsk accords, the fall of democracy to a totalitarian regime, the Ukraine’s refusal to deal with wishes for referenda and plebiscites, the governmental sponsorship of shady financial deals and hosting of bioweapons labs in contravention of the Geneva Conventions…Granted, it was adventurism on Putin’s part, but he has not done badly for himself and Russia, and unfortunately in some measure, Ukraine is getting what it was asking for. Now we can add Putin Derangement Syndrome (PDS) to the host of contemporary ills and delusions.
Comedic drivel. The driving force is the same one that oposed the similar imperialism of Nazi Germany
Why is it a lie? Most of things I’ve read suggest that the Russians did try and interfere with the US election. I don’t believe there was any collusion with Trump, or that they intervened to help any particular side but instead inflame the culture wars and sow discord, but it’s still interference
It has very little to do with that, which is why Sens. McConnell and Graham, not to mention people who, like me, never bought into Trump Derangement Syndrome are supportive of Ukraine. So maybe it’s not “nothing,” but it isn’t all that much, either.
‘Proved false’? Where? When? AFAIAC it is proved that Russia *did* run an influence operation, because they preferred Trump to Hilary. Otherwise, who leaked those Democrat emails? Did it swing the election? Most likely not. Did it make Trump’s victory invalid? Definitely not (alas). Did Trump collude or collaborate ahead of time? Well, there was no sufficient evidence that he did, and quite likely he was innocent of that – at least within the rather wide bounds of what people from both sides are usually able to get away with in US elections. But the claims of a Russian influence operation have not been proved false, any more than it has been proved who killed OJ Simpsons wife.
Some of us here are British and are more interested in her views on the conflict in The Ukraine than on internal American political disputes. I understand that these matters cannot be completely separated, but Trump v Biden is a sideshow for me. I’m sure that all participants have erred, but we Brits long ago learnt that it is the last battle that counts.
On Ukraine she makes sense. I agree with her that Russia cannot be defeated in any conventional sense: Putin has to be manoeuvred into accepting that the game isn’t worth the candle. The problem for him, as for all autocrats, is that such a move is highly dangerous for ones health.
Prigozhin set up a company especially to interfere with the U.S election in support of Trump.Prigozhin has admitted that and bragged about it.You need to be better informed and more intelligent.
She is really good and you don’t like it. Putin did not install Donald Trump. They tried to assist with misinformation via bots and trolls on big tech platforms. Such epithets you use as resistance liberals (who are they?) and United States opposing Russia at all costs are hyperbole. At all costs means Nuclear. Listen to Fiona. She is measured and does not use hyperbole.
Absolute crap. People opposed Putin’s invasion of Ukraine because Putin invaded Ukraine not as some proxy for his other meddling.
Comedic drivel. The driving force is the same one that oposed the similar imperialism of Nazi Germany
It wasn’t the only silly thing she said though was it? Her take on Nordstream2 made me laugh out loud!
Johann makes more sense than you do. She actually has very little experience of dealing with Russia (all problems lead back to Russia.) – not a very sound world-view policy.
Or perhaps one could look more deeply into the US State Department’s dismal sorority…It benefits them to be warhawks. In terms of careerist feminism this is not unexpected, but it seems to me a sordid mystery that it undermines their own country’s position, to mistake a rival for an enemy. They are digging their hole deeper when they go on to forget that the enemy of your enemy is not necessarily your friend.
Oh she just told a massive tangential lie to the subject matter we are supposed to rely on her expertise on. What’s the big deal? Really? I don’t know if you have been paying attention, but much of the support behind United States opposing Russia at all costs is because many resistance liberals still believe Putin hacked the 2016 election to install Donald Trump as president. You know the same people who liked to call people who disagreed with them “Putin puppets” before Ukraine was even invaded? This claim has been proven false several times over now and is still tearing the country apart. Don’t act like it is nothing.
It wasn’t the only silly thing she said though was it? Her take on Nordstream2 made me laugh out loud!
Johann makes more sense than you do. She actually has very little experience of dealing with Russia (all problems lead back to Russia.) – not a very sound world-view policy.
Or perhaps one could look more deeply into the US State Department’s dismal sorority…It benefits them to be warhawks. In terms of careerist feminism this is not unexpected, but it seems to me a sordid mystery that it undermines their own country’s position, to mistake a rival for an enemy. They are digging their hole deeper when they go on to forget that the enemy of your enemy is not necessarily your friend.
Nah. Russia tried plenty to interfere, from its helping hack Democratic party accounts (separately and in connection to Wikileaks) to its army of trolls and bots and widespread disinformation to Paul Manafort’s connections to Konstantin Kilimnik and Oleg Deripaska and more.
If Trump didn’t actively collude with the Russians, it certainly wasn’t for lack of trying.
Big tech if anything has assisted the neo-fascist GOP. See Facebook and Cambridge analytica, the well-known right-wing biases in Youtube and Twitter algorithms, and much more. That is the case up to today. Big tech, after all, is owned by billionaires that don’t want to pay taxes, and guess which party that aligns them with?
Big tech has been a force for the spread of right-wing evil.
Clearly you are living in some altered reality. I can tell you, as somebody who reads a lot of politics and follows these things, and more importantly lives in the centre of US politics (i.e. Washington DC) that whatever you may have read in the press either from the US or the UK, if there was any Russian interference it sure wasn’t apparent or felt. That’s in sharp contrast to direct and explicit interference in UK politics from Obama who, if you recall, threatened to put the UK at the back of the queue in any trade talks, if the UK dared to vote in favor of Brexit. Now that’s interference and bullying, and the US does that all the time, all over the world. They also did the same sort of thing in Israeli elections. So rather ironic when the pot calls the kettle black, don’t you think.
Obama’s revolting bullying put Race Relations back a thousand years over here. Bravo!
No it didn’t.
Agreed an unnecessary exaggeration, all the same ‘he’ didn’t help matters with his equally crass remark did he?
Agreed an unnecessary exaggeration, all the same ‘he’ didn’t help matters with his equally crass remark did he?
No it didn’t.
Hacking the DNC didn’t help influence the election that much because — surprise, surprise — the Democrats’ emails were whistle clean! That hardly means the Russians didn’t try hard to rig things.
As it turned out, those hacked emails were nevertheless important, because they were released, at Roger Stone’s request, just hours after Trump’s Access Hollywood rape-loving comments went public.
Obama’s revolting bullying put Race Relations back a thousand years over here. Bravo!
Hacking the DNC didn’t help influence the election that much because — surprise, surprise — the Democrats’ emails were whistle clean! That hardly means the Russians didn’t try hard to rig things.
As it turned out, those hacked emails were nevertheless important, because they were released, at Roger Stone’s request, just hours after Trump’s Access Hollywood rape-loving comments went public.
Money talks. The budget of that potential interference was somewhere below $30 mil. Within a BILLION-budgeted campaign they must be pretty damn effective!
As if the real budget for a campaign like that is public information. Look at Jared Kushner suddenly getting $2 billion for his hedge fund from the Saudis. Nothing to see here folks. Just business as usual. Definitely no quid pro quo.
As if the real budget for a campaign like that is public information. Look at Jared Kushner suddenly getting $2 billion for his hedge fund from the Saudis. Nothing to see here folks. Just business as usual. Definitely no quid pro quo.
Yikes. I’ll pass on whatever you’re smoking. If Big Tech sided with the GOP, no one would be declaring their pronouns, mutilating the sexual organs of children, and threatening Harry Potter fans for buying a video game. Dude, go out and touch grass.
If Big Tech didn’t side with the GOP, you wouldn’t have neo-nazis running through the capital trying to murder congresspeople, urged on by the most unqualified, lying, vile “president” in US history. And you wouldn’t have such scum getting 74 million votes after numerous instances of treasonous conduct.
If Big Tech didn’t side with the GOP, you wouldn’t have neo-nazis running through the capital trying to murder congresspeople, urged on by the most unqualified, lying, vile “president” in US history. And you wouldn’t have such scum getting 74 million votes after numerous instances of treasonous conduct.
Big tech has assisted the “neo-fascist GOP”? You do know that Facebook, YouTube, Google etc. is dominated by left leaning liberal staff and owners. Anything will be banned and cancelled if it has the slightest anti-MSM content. Facebook and up till recently Twitter were owned by Democrat sympathising owners. As we see with ex-Employees of Twitter, they not only shadow- banned, but openly cancelled any publication, which could endanger Democratic election victory, like the story about Hunter Biden’s Laptop.
Seems an uncontroversial statement of truth. I’m surprised you’re post is in negative territory.
You do know that Face, Youtube, Google, etc are owned by rich people who above all don’t want to pay taxes, right? They want whatever gets the most views, and that means the algorithms serve up the most racist, sexist garbage imaginable.
The algorithms are FAR FAR more powerful than some random decision about some utter nonsense hunter biden story.
The algorithms lead people down the road to hatred, conspiracy thinking, and right-wing extremism. It’s well-documented.
And plenty of people in Silicon Valley are not liberals but libertarians, meaning, again the worship of $$$ above all, selfishness and greed above all. That all aligns with the neo-fascists.
Seems an uncontroversial statement of truth. I’m surprised you’re post is in negative territory.
You do know that Face, Youtube, Google, etc are owned by rich people who above all don’t want to pay taxes, right? They want whatever gets the most views, and that means the algorithms serve up the most racist, sexist garbage imaginable.
The algorithms are FAR FAR more powerful than some random decision about some utter nonsense hunter biden story.
The algorithms lead people down the road to hatred, conspiracy thinking, and right-wing extremism. It’s well-documented.
And plenty of people in Silicon Valley are not liberals but libertarians, meaning, again the worship of $$$ above all, selfishness and greed above all. That all aligns with the neo-fascists.
Right wing biases on Twitter or Facebook etc?
So you don’t know about Big Tech ignoring Hunter Biden laptop story and Twitter banning Trump and changing it algorithms to effectively censor any views not following covid policies idiocy of Biden and Fauci?
Clearly you are living in some altered reality. I can tell you, as somebody who reads a lot of politics and follows these things, and more importantly lives in the centre of US politics (i.e. Washington DC) that whatever you may have read in the press either from the US or the UK, if there was any Russian interference it sure wasn’t apparent or felt. That’s in sharp contrast to direct and explicit interference in UK politics from Obama who, if you recall, threatened to put the UK at the back of the queue in any trade talks, if the UK dared to vote in favor of Brexit. Now that’s interference and bullying, and the US does that all the time, all over the world. They also did the same sort of thing in Israeli elections. So rather ironic when the pot calls the kettle black, don’t you think.
Money talks. The budget of that potential interference was somewhere below $30 mil. Within a BILLION-budgeted campaign they must be pretty damn effective!
Yikes. I’ll pass on whatever you’re smoking. If Big Tech sided with the GOP, no one would be declaring their pronouns, mutilating the sexual organs of children, and threatening Harry Potter fans for buying a video game. Dude, go out and touch grass.
Big tech has assisted the “neo-fascist GOP”? You do know that Facebook, YouTube, Google etc. is dominated by left leaning liberal staff and owners. Anything will be banned and cancelled if it has the slightest anti-MSM content. Facebook and up till recently Twitter were owned by Democrat sympathising owners. As we see with ex-Employees of Twitter, they not only shadow- banned, but openly cancelled any publication, which could endanger Democratic election victory, like the story about Hunter Biden’s Laptop.
Right wing biases on Twitter or Facebook etc?
So you don’t know about Big Tech ignoring Hunter Biden laptop story and Twitter banning Trump and changing it algorithms to effectively censor any views not following covid policies idiocy of Biden and Fauci?
Thank you for that assessment Mr Strauss. In other words Hill is yet another one of these self centred Bimbos, rather like the Pelosi creature?
Some, not I, may even call them Gorgons.
Hey Charlie! How come your name has to be in CAPITALS when the rest of us make do with lower case? It’s hardly fair, is it? Are you an attention seeker?
Natural selection.
They put mine in capitals also but I didn’t ask for it.
Natural selection.
They put mine in capitals also but I didn’t ask for it.
Hey Charlie! How come your name has to be in CAPITALS when the rest of us make do with lower case? It’s hardly fair, is it? Are you an attention seeker?
Yes, I too got to exactly this point in the discussion and begun to think there is something unserious about her – though much of her analysis is very cogent and interesting.
Have to agree: this one statement completely undoes Hill’s credibility as a political/policy analyst…
“ I went in there to deal with a national security crisis after the Russians launched an influence operation to basically subvert the US 2016 presidential election.”
Absolutely nothing there. Never was.
As well, intelligence now indicates that the US may indeed have sabotaged Nordstream pipeline.
It has been proven they spent about a million dollars on twitter bots, most of whom interacted with Antifa and Qanon followers. However that pales in comparison to our ongoing meddling in Ukranian elections over the past 20 year.
It has been proven they spent about a million dollars on twitter bots, most of whom interacted with Antifa and Qanon followers. However that pales in comparison to our ongoing meddling in Ukranian elections over the past 20 year.
F.Hill never seemed to answer Freddy’s question, HOW to start diplomatic negotiations. She always tends to give the same reply: the United Nations and “other countries”… What other countries? Did she mean the B(R)ICs, who currently don’t seem to have any interest at all in the European conflict. German Chancellor Scholz was actually given the cold shoulder by the Brazilian President Lula about the Ukrainian war and China is even considering to supply weapons to Russia.
As you so rightly said, there seem to be so many political “experts” in various U.S. administrations, trying to influence policy based not in reality but how they think the world should be. For some reason Anthony Fauci sprang to mind, who for years was THE “expert” in infectious diseases and director of NIAID, serving every administration for over 40 years and presidents solely seemed to rely on him instead of a huge pool of other competent scientists.
“F.Hill never seemed to answer Freddy’s question, HOW to start diplomatic negotiations.”
EXACTLY!
She just comes across as totally out of her depth.
All my comments are in negative territory today…
I agree. She identified the problem, stated where we need to end up, but had no realistic recommendations on how to get there. Fiona played her cards but had nothing.
All my comments are in negative territory today…
I agree. She identified the problem, stated where we need to end up, but had no realistic recommendations on how to get there. Fiona played her cards but had nothing.
Yes, she is both saying that Russia can’t be defeated but doesn’t explain how Russia can be persuaded to negotiate while not being defeated.
Then she admits that allowing Russia to not be defeated means that Russia will try later either in Ukraine or elsewhere.
If this is top Russia expert in Washington God help us…
“F.Hill never seemed to answer Freddy’s question, HOW to start diplomatic negotiations.”
EXACTLY!
She just comes across as totally out of her depth.
Yes, she is both saying that Russia can’t be defeated but doesn’t explain how Russia can be persuaded to negotiate while not being defeated.
Then she admits that allowing Russia to not be defeated means that Russia will try later either in Ukraine or elsewhere.
If this is top Russia expert in Washington God help us…
It is a simple comment Johann. Too simple. Fiona is neither delusional nor living in cloud cuckoo land. You on the other hand could be. She neither said Russian interference (which you acknowledge) was either successful nor more powerful than the effect of manipulation of platforms such as Google, FB and twitter (a tool Trump used to help himself). Russia used bots and trolls of course subverting those same big tech platforms to their own ends.
As a Trumper, of course you would say that, wouldn’t you?
However, between January 2015 and August 2017, Facebook linked 80,000 publications to the Russian company Internet Research Agency through more than 470 different accounts. At the same time, a total of 50,258 Twitter accounts were linked to Russian bots – fake accounts programmed to share false information – during the 2016 election period. The bots are responsible for more than 3.8 million tweets, about 19% of the total tweets related to the 2016 US presidential election. Approximately 80% of these bots behaved in a way that supported Donald Trump, mostly using the hashtags #donaldtrump, #trump2016, #neverhillary and #trumppence16.
You can call that “basically a zero” if you wish, but it odes make you seem rather “delusional and living in cloud cuckoo land”.
Most of the early allegations and reports regarding Russian twitter bots are subsequently been proven false or hugely blown out of proportion. All of these links are 2018 and earlier, when deep-state aligned actors pumping out very questionable “evidence” regarding Russia’s multi-billion dollar twitter bot campaign. These reports are trash, Russia spent at most a few million on totally in-effective twitter bots.
Most of the early allegations and reports regarding Russian twitter bots are subsequently been proven false or hugely blown out of proportion. All of these links are 2018 and earlier, when deep-state aligned actors pumping out very questionable “evidence” regarding Russia’s multi-billion dollar twitter bot campaign. These reports are trash, Russia spent at most a few million on totally in-effective twitter bots.
Somehow I think the support for Ukraine goes well beyond “Russian interference in 2016.”
It’s an easy and fun Postmodernist way to invalidate any opposition to Putin and his invasion.
But postmodernism died on 24 Feb 2022.
We’re back in the Real World.
“despite being a so-called expert, she doesn’t really know what she’s talking about.”
If she’s a policy wonk, it explains why the West is in the mess it’s in.
As you say, she seems muddled on a lot of things, seems to not have a clue as to approaching Russia strategically and so is reduced to making the kind of statements that night be made by a child. For example :
“South Africa is carrying out naval exercises with China and Russia — that’s just not on”.
Why not ? Is AUKUS allows to do drills off the coast of Japan ? If so, why ?
She comes across as a bit of a midwit.
Spot on. must do better Freddie!
You are the one separated from reality, misrepresenting your opinions as fact.
Silly. Just because she says things about Russian interference in 2016 that you don’t like, you write off all her experience dealing with Putin and Ukraine. Not very clever.
Nah. Russia tried plenty to interfere, from its helping hack Democratic party accounts (separately and in connection to Wikileaks) to its army of trolls and bots and widespread disinformation to Paul Manafort’s connections to Konstantin Kilimnik and Oleg Deripaska and more.
If Trump didn’t actively collude with the Russians, it certainly wasn’t for lack of trying.
Big tech if anything has assisted the neo-fascist GOP. See Facebook and Cambridge analytica, the well-known right-wing biases in Youtube and Twitter algorithms, and much more. That is the case up to today. Big tech, after all, is owned by billionaires that don’t want to pay taxes, and guess which party that aligns them with?
Big tech has been a force for the spread of right-wing evil.
Thank you for that assessment Mr Strauss. In other words Hill is yet another one of these self centred Bimbos, rather like the Pelosi creature?
Some, not I, may even call them Gorgons.
Yes, I too got to exactly this point in the discussion and begun to think there is something unserious about her – though much of her analysis is very cogent and interesting.
Have to agree: this one statement completely undoes Hill’s credibility as a political/policy analyst…
“ I went in there to deal with a national security crisis after the Russians launched an influence operation to basically subvert the US 2016 presidential election.”
Absolutely nothing there. Never was.
As well, intelligence now indicates that the US may indeed have sabotaged Nordstream pipeline.
F.Hill never seemed to answer Freddy’s question, HOW to start diplomatic negotiations. She always tends to give the same reply: the United Nations and “other countries”… What other countries? Did she mean the B(R)ICs, who currently don’t seem to have any interest at all in the European conflict. German Chancellor Scholz was actually given the cold shoulder by the Brazilian President Lula about the Ukrainian war and China is even considering to supply weapons to Russia.
As you so rightly said, there seem to be so many political “experts” in various U.S. administrations, trying to influence policy based not in reality but how they think the world should be. For some reason Anthony Fauci sprang to mind, who for years was THE “expert” in infectious diseases and director of NIAID, serving every administration for over 40 years and presidents solely seemed to rely on him instead of a huge pool of other competent scientists.
It is a simple comment Johann. Too simple. Fiona is neither delusional nor living in cloud cuckoo land. You on the other hand could be. She neither said Russian interference (which you acknowledge) was either successful nor more powerful than the effect of manipulation of platforms such as Google, FB and twitter (a tool Trump used to help himself). Russia used bots and trolls of course subverting those same big tech platforms to their own ends.
As a Trumper, of course you would say that, wouldn’t you?
However, between January 2015 and August 2017, Facebook linked 80,000 publications to the Russian company Internet Research Agency through more than 470 different accounts. At the same time, a total of 50,258 Twitter accounts were linked to Russian bots – fake accounts programmed to share false information – during the 2016 election period. The bots are responsible for more than 3.8 million tweets, about 19% of the total tweets related to the 2016 US presidential election. Approximately 80% of these bots behaved in a way that supported Donald Trump, mostly using the hashtags #donaldtrump, #trump2016, #neverhillary and #trumppence16.
You can call that “basically a zero” if you wish, but it odes make you seem rather “delusional and living in cloud cuckoo land”.
Somehow I think the support for Ukraine goes well beyond “Russian interference in 2016.”
It’s an easy and fun Postmodernist way to invalidate any opposition to Putin and his invasion.
But postmodernism died on 24 Feb 2022.
We’re back in the Real World.
“despite being a so-called expert, she doesn’t really know what she’s talking about.”
If she’s a policy wonk, it explains why the West is in the mess it’s in.
As you say, she seems muddled on a lot of things, seems to not have a clue as to approaching Russia strategically and so is reduced to making the kind of statements that night be made by a child. For example :
“South Africa is carrying out naval exercises with China and Russia — that’s just not on”.
Why not ? Is AUKUS allows to do drills off the coast of Japan ? If so, why ?
She comes across as a bit of a midwit.
Spot on. must do better Freddie!
You are the one separated from reality, misrepresenting your opinions as fact.
My simple comment regarding anything that Fiona Hill says is to simply realize that when she states “That’s why I went into government in 2016. I didn’t go in there to serve Donald Trump. I went in there to deal with a national security crisis after the Russians launched an influence operation to basically subvert the US 2016 presidential election.”, it is evident that she is both delusional and living in cloud cuckoo land. Russian interference in the 2016 election was insignificant. Basically a zero. Now compare that to interference from big tech (google, facebook, twitter, etc…) in the 2020 election. In other words, despite being a so-called expert, she doesn’t really know what she’s talking about. And that’s so unfortunate when one has people influencing and making policy decisions not based on reality but how they think the world should be.
I see some very naive readings of Russia here.
All the colonial powers were nations before they were empires. Giving their colonies up was traumatic, but didn’t threaten their identities.
Muscovy, however, was an empire since the middle ages. It’s the heir of Rome.
To Putin and many others, giving up colonies like Ukraine or Kazakhstan really does mean the end of Russia.
No “agreement” however generous, would ever make people like him give up on Ukraine or the Russian imperial project.
It’s simply treasonous.
Might work in Hampstead, but not in the Kremlin.
For Russia, Ukraine and Kazakhstan are utterly different cases.
For many Russians, Triune Rus is a powerful symbol of Slavic unity – like England, Wales and Scotland for Unionist in the UK (let’s leave Northern Ireland to one side).
Great Russia (Russia), White Russia (Belarus) and Little Russia (Ukraine) really are seen as frateral and indivisible by many. Kazakhstan is Kazakh, and though it was Soviet, it was NEVER Russian.
A good part of Kazakstan, particularly in the north, IS ethnic Russian. The latter form large minorities in most Former Soviet republics. Indeed my best Russian meal ever was in Tashkent.
And every post-Soviet republic now fears and despises Putin’s Russia.
Kazakhstan even opened “Yurts of Invincibility” in Kyiv.
ALL of them know that Putin’s goal is to recreate the Russian/Soviet empire. ALL of them are in the same boat as Ukraine. It is Putin’s destiny.
Sorry if none of this was in that WW2 doc you saw.
Dude, I’m married to a Russian, so perhaps less of the snarky erroneous assumptions, yeah ?
If you don’t understand the difference between an ethnic Kazakh and a Russian Slav living in Kazakhstan with a Kazakh passport, I can’t help you.
No Russian views Kazakhs or Kazakhstan as Russian. Though many Russians live in Kazakhstan, as many Russians live in London and New York.
Russians can think what they want. As we see, it rarely has anything to do with reality.
There is zero legal difference between a Ukrainian Russian and a Kazakh Russian.
Anyone thinking that there is simply a Russian Neo-colonialist.
No different from Pied Noirs in Algeria.
Russians can think what they want. As we see, it rarely has anything to do with reality.
There is zero legal difference between a Ukrainian Russian and a Kazakh Russian.
Anyone thinking that there is simply a Russian Neo-colonialist.
No different from Pied Noirs in Algeria.
Are “yurts of invincibility” the contemporary version of Vietnam’s “strategic hamlets”? Asking for a friend.
Dude, I’m married to a Russian, so perhaps less of the snarky erroneous assumptions, yeah ?
If you don’t understand the difference between an ethnic Kazakh and a Russian Slav living in Kazakhstan with a Kazakh passport, I can’t help you.
No Russian views Kazakhs or Kazakhstan as Russian. Though many Russians live in Kazakhstan, as many Russians live in London and New York.
Are “yurts of invincibility” the contemporary version of Vietnam’s “strategic hamlets”? Asking for a friend.
OK, most posters here against Russian invasion of Ukraine understand the Russian delusions about their former colonies.
But it does not mean we need to accept them and then ignore Russian genocidal aggression which is a result of this delusions.
Russia just does not want to accept their diminished circumstances of post colonial period.
UK, France, Spain etc did and let go….
A good part of Kazakstan, particularly in the north, IS ethnic Russian. The latter form large minorities in most Former Soviet republics. Indeed my best Russian meal ever was in Tashkent.
And every post-Soviet republic now fears and despises Putin’s Russia.
Kazakhstan even opened “Yurts of Invincibility” in Kyiv.
ALL of them know that Putin’s goal is to recreate the Russian/Soviet empire. ALL of them are in the same boat as Ukraine. It is Putin’s destiny.
Sorry if none of this was in that WW2 doc you saw.
OK, most posters here against Russian invasion of Ukraine understand the Russian delusions about their former colonies.
But it does not mean we need to accept them and then ignore Russian genocidal aggression which is a result of this delusions.
Russia just does not want to accept their diminished circumstances of post colonial period.
UK, France, Spain etc did and let go….
Rubbish! .. not worth responding to, sorry.
Remember, the Irish are just Britons, like every one else in the British Isles..
The present Irish govt came to power illegitimately.
Remember, the Irish are just Britons, like every one else in the British Isles..
The present Irish govt came to power illegitimately.
For Russia, Ukraine and Kazakhstan are utterly different cases.
For many Russians, Triune Rus is a powerful symbol of Slavic unity – like England, Wales and Scotland for Unionist in the UK (let’s leave Northern Ireland to one side).
Great Russia (Russia), White Russia (Belarus) and Little Russia (Ukraine) really are seen as frateral and indivisible by many. Kazakhstan is Kazakh, and though it was Soviet, it was NEVER Russian.
Rubbish! .. not worth responding to, sorry.
I see some very naive readings of Russia here.
All the colonial powers were nations before they were empires. Giving their colonies up was traumatic, but didn’t threaten their identities.
Muscovy, however, was an empire since the middle ages. It’s the heir of Rome.
To Putin and many others, giving up colonies like Ukraine or Kazakhstan really does mean the end of Russia.
No “agreement” however generous, would ever make people like him give up on Ukraine or the Russian imperial project.
It’s simply treasonous.
Might work in Hampstead, but not in the Kremlin.
Extremely interesting read, I must say.
“Do you think, had he (Trump) still been President, Russia would have invaded?FH: No, probably. Putin would have anticipated that he could get Ukraine handed over without the necessity of invading.”
I know the logic of this is dealt with further down, but I’m still not clear on what she’s really saying here? Would Trump really have simply stood back and allowed Putin to “take” Ukraine? How would that have worked? And how could it possibly have happened in any way that would not have loooked like an abdication of the role of the global policeman by the USA, and consequently made Trump personally look weak (if we accept the view that only his personal standing mattered to him, which I don’t)?
Isn’t it more likely that the bungled Afghanistan withdrawal – which was only a political promise by Biden, not Trump – would not have happened at all, and that consequently Putin would have faced a USA unembarrassed by that fiasco?
Extremely interesting read, I must say.
“Do you think, had he (Trump) still been President, Russia would have invaded?FH: No, probably. Putin would have anticipated that he could get Ukraine handed over without the necessity of invading.”
I know the logic of this is dealt with further down, but I’m still not clear on what she’s really saying here? Would Trump really have simply stood back and allowed Putin to “take” Ukraine? How would that have worked? And how could it possibly have happened in any way that would not have loooked like an abdication of the role of the global policeman by the USA, and consequently made Trump personally look weak (if we accept the view that only his personal standing mattered to him, which I don’t)?
Isn’t it more likely that the bungled Afghanistan withdrawal – which was only a political promise by Biden, not Trump – would not have happened at all, and that consequently Putin would have faced a USA unembarrassed by that fiasco?
Freddie has chosen a rather misrepresenting headline. Other quotes from the interview would have worked so much better. Consider this: “NATO has become a red herring”. Or: “We’re justifying what Russia is doing to Ukraine because of our irritation with the United States”.
Had the same thought myself. Bad headline writing.
Its been pointed out many times that the authors, or in this case interviewer, don’t ‘choose’ the headlines, or subheads, which occasionally have been changed due to criticism in Comments.
Whoever is responsible does so from a clickbait point of view, which is annoying but not fatal.
If she had had the stones to baldly state that “NATO has become a red herring”, I would have respected her a little more.
Had the same thought myself. Bad headline writing.
Its been pointed out many times that the authors, or in this case interviewer, don’t ‘choose’ the headlines, or subheads, which occasionally have been changed due to criticism in Comments.
Whoever is responsible does so from a clickbait point of view, which is annoying but not fatal.
If she had had the stones to baldly state that “NATO has become a red herring”, I would have respected her a little more.
Freddie has chosen a rather misrepresenting headline. Other quotes from the interview would have worked so much better. Consider this: “NATO has become a red herring”. Or: “We’re justifying what Russia is doing to Ukraine because of our irritation with the United States”.
Brilliant and convincing analysis. So good, in fact, that I am willing to believe the positive things she says about Trump.
BTW, the article links to an excellent and detailed analysis of the negoriations around Ukraine, from 2014 onwards.
Brilliant and convincing analysis. So good, in fact, that I am willing to believe the positive things she says about Trump.
BTW, the article links to an excellent and detailed analysis of the negoriations around Ukraine, from 2014 onwards.
‘I went in there to deal with a national security crisis after the Russians launched an influence operation to basically subvert the US 2016 presidential election.’
Gosh, an election denier getting tons of space on Unherd.
‘I went in there to deal with a national security crisis after the Russians launched an influence operation to basically subvert the US 2016 presidential election.’
Gosh, an election denier getting tons of space on Unherd.
Very good interview with someone who Perhaps knows Russia and Putin better than anyone else.
Especially good about understanding that any concessions to Putin would simply mean more and larger conflicts.
Really? ..you really believe those two statements? I took you for better.
This interview shows understanding – quite the opposite in my book.
Any appeasement would just be the next iteration of the failed peace effort of 2014.
Just as that effort failed, any peace not based on a complete suppression of Russia just means a larger war in future.
Putin will never give up, because anything less than total victory means his nation inevitably declines and falls.
And don’t try to claim you know about Russia than people who have studied Russia their whole adult lives.
This interview shows understanding – quite the opposite in my book.
Any appeasement would just be the next iteration of the failed peace effort of 2014.
Just as that effort failed, any peace not based on a complete suppression of Russia just means a larger war in future.
Putin will never give up, because anything less than total victory means his nation inevitably declines and falls.
And don’t try to claim you know about Russia than people who have studied Russia their whole adult lives.
I rarely disagree with you but it is not my reading of her interview.
She keeps talking about negotiated solution while saying Russia can not be defeated.
Not explaining at all how we stop future Russian aggressions (and other aggressors) without Russia being defeated and seen to be defeated by the world.
If you were countries like South Korea, Japan, Australia, Sweden, Finland, Poland etc what conclusion would you draw if USA and Europe gave up on Ukraine?
Surely that they need their own nukes ASAP.
Really? ..you really believe those two statements? I took you for better.
I rarely disagree with you but it is not my reading of her interview.
She keeps talking about negotiated solution while saying Russia can not be defeated.
Not explaining at all how we stop future Russian aggressions (and other aggressors) without Russia being defeated and seen to be defeated by the world.
If you were countries like South Korea, Japan, Australia, Sweden, Finland, Poland etc what conclusion would you draw if USA and Europe gave up on Ukraine?
Surely that they need their own nukes ASAP.
Very good interview with someone who Perhaps knows Russia and Putin better than anyone else.
Especially good about understanding that any concessions to Putin would simply mean more and larger conflicts.
That woman, much like Sandbrooks article earlier today, is here to reinforce the MSM narrative (to say the least). I understand that it might be something of a coup for unherd to get her on record, but the interview disappoints immensely after the beginning.
The first part actually sounded like she might offer some nuanced insight into the workings of the US foreign service and theories on US-Russia relations, but then she massively veers off into typical neocon “we must preserve the end of history/unipolarity, or else the world shall end!” twattle (AKA Putin is mad and let’s not talk about America).
I guess I shouldn’t be surprised, this is a woman who worked her way up the greasy poll under bush, obama and then trump – whom she couldn’t stomach and so jumped ship to give the establishment something to beat him over the head with.
I’ll take her expertise over yours any day.
Well if you do that, you’re likely to end up in WWIII. But I’m sure you’re perfectly happy to be incinerated on the altar of Ukraine.
A man who owns a billion Euro mansion and rulers over 140 million people clearly has nothing to live for.
A man who owns a billion Euro mansion and rulers over 140 million people clearly has nothing to live for.
Well if you do that, you’re likely to end up in WWIII. But I’m sure you’re perfectly happy to be incinerated on the altar of Ukraine.
Your comment captures my sense of this interview. I was aware of Fiona Hill but certainly don’t have a detailed knowledge of her career and beliefs in the area of geopolitics and international relations. Throughout the interview I kept asking myself, “So, who is Fiona Hill? What is her agenda? What does she hope to accomplish by giving this interview?”
I couldn’t answer any of those questions, but my instinctive reaction to her is in line with your assessment: she’s a highly accomplished careerist within “the blob” and she does nothing without an agenda behind it.
On a more positive note, I liked her suggestion that we have to rethink many/most or our global organizations, such as the UN. Covid really shook the world up and laid bare the weaknesses. Most of our institutions are no longer fit for purpose. My sense, though, is that she wants to recreate these institutions in a form that reinforces American-led unipolarity and I don’t believe that’s healthy, not least because the liberal values America once cherished and hoped to export to the rest of the world are no longer valued or practiced by those in power in America.
Anyway, great interview, Unherd. Much food for thought.
But what is realistic alternative to USA dominated world?
One dominated by China-Russia axis?
Thanks, but no….
Give me USA one please.
But what is realistic alternative to USA dominated world?
One dominated by China-Russia axis?
Thanks, but no….
Give me USA one please.
Sandbrook may soon be awarded a Knighthood for ‘Services to Journalism’, or perhaps even be elevated to the House of Lords, rather like those other luminaries, Julian Fellows and Andrew Roberts.
I’ll take her expertise over yours any day.
Your comment captures my sense of this interview. I was aware of Fiona Hill but certainly don’t have a detailed knowledge of her career and beliefs in the area of geopolitics and international relations. Throughout the interview I kept asking myself, “So, who is Fiona Hill? What is her agenda? What does she hope to accomplish by giving this interview?”
I couldn’t answer any of those questions, but my instinctive reaction to her is in line with your assessment: she’s a highly accomplished careerist within “the blob” and she does nothing without an agenda behind it.
On a more positive note, I liked her suggestion that we have to rethink many/most or our global organizations, such as the UN. Covid really shook the world up and laid bare the weaknesses. Most of our institutions are no longer fit for purpose. My sense, though, is that she wants to recreate these institutions in a form that reinforces American-led unipolarity and I don’t believe that’s healthy, not least because the liberal values America once cherished and hoped to export to the rest of the world are no longer valued or practiced by those in power in America.
Anyway, great interview, Unherd. Much food for thought.
Sandbrook may soon be awarded a Knighthood for ‘Services to Journalism’, or perhaps even be elevated to the House of Lords, rather like those other luminaries, Julian Fellows and Andrew Roberts.
That woman, much like Sandbrooks article earlier today, is here to reinforce the MSM narrative (to say the least). I understand that it might be something of a coup for unherd to get her on record, but the interview disappoints immensely after the beginning.
The first part actually sounded like she might offer some nuanced insight into the workings of the US foreign service and theories on US-Russia relations, but then she massively veers off into typical neocon “we must preserve the end of history/unipolarity, or else the world shall end!” twattle (AKA Putin is mad and let’s not talk about America).
I guess I shouldn’t be surprised, this is a woman who worked her way up the greasy poll under bush, obama and then trump – whom she couldn’t stomach and so jumped ship to give the establishment something to beat him over the head with.
I love Freddy! But he shies away from asking questions where the asking of that question might paint him in a brutish light. Putin is not going to negotiate. Hill said it. He agreed. The sanctions aren’t working. Both agree. He asks how do you deal with it. She says international talks…about what? Putin is NOT going to negotiate. That’s why there’s a war. It doesn’t matter what she wants, or thinks everyone wants. It’s going to be decided on the battlefield. But Freddy won’t say that. He won’t say, “If Putin won’t negotiate shouldn’t the U.S. and Europe enter the war to end it.”
Perhaps she’d say, “there’s a fear of nuclear war”, and he says “right, but if just give land to the one who threatens nuclear weapons then eventually there will be a nuclear war because we’ll run out of nations that don’t have them.” Or, “Hitler didn’t use gas, why would Putin use nukes” etc. I’m not arguing that the U.S. should go to war with Russia, only that it’s worth asking the question if we’re going to get there anyway save some lives by starting now? Again, just a question.
This is Freddy’s weak point. He has his generation’s fear of sounding like a neocon or, put simply, an asshole. If he avoids certain lines of questions certain lines of solutions will also be avoided.
Brilliant analysis.
People who believe that giving in to Putin will result in more stable and peaceful world are delusional.
For a start there would be dozen countries which would acquire nuclear weapons ASAP.
There is no other logical response to success of Russian invasion of Ukraine, if USA is seen as abandoning Ukraine.
I hope that people in Washington see it as an end of American Century and would do anything to avoid this outcome.
Brilliant analysis.
People who believe that giving in to Putin will result in more stable and peaceful world are delusional.
For a start there would be dozen countries which would acquire nuclear weapons ASAP.
There is no other logical response to success of Russian invasion of Ukraine, if USA is seen as abandoning Ukraine.
I hope that people in Washington see it as an end of American Century and would do anything to avoid this outcome.
I love Freddy! But he shies away from asking questions where the asking of that question might paint him in a brutish light. Putin is not going to negotiate. Hill said it. He agreed. The sanctions aren’t working. Both agree. He asks how do you deal with it. She says international talks…about what? Putin is NOT going to negotiate. That’s why there’s a war. It doesn’t matter what she wants, or thinks everyone wants. It’s going to be decided on the battlefield. But Freddy won’t say that. He won’t say, “If Putin won’t negotiate shouldn’t the U.S. and Europe enter the war to end it.”
Perhaps she’d say, “there’s a fear of nuclear war”, and he says “right, but if just give land to the one who threatens nuclear weapons then eventually there will be a nuclear war because we’ll run out of nations that don’t have them.” Or, “Hitler didn’t use gas, why would Putin use nukes” etc. I’m not arguing that the U.S. should go to war with Russia, only that it’s worth asking the question if we’re going to get there anyway save some lives by starting now? Again, just a question.
This is Freddy’s weak point. He has his generation’s fear of sounding like a neocon or, put simply, an asshole. If he avoids certain lines of questions certain lines of solutions will also be avoided.
Fascinating interview.
In the Sandbrook article yesterday, I said we were transitioning to a multi-polar world, but Fiona Hill would clearly disagree. However, I was struck by her obvious irritation with South Africa for not playing ball. It reminded me of this CNN interview with Hardeep Singh Puri, India’s energy minister, who isn’t playing ball either.
Fascinating interview.
In the Sandbrook article yesterday, I said we were transitioning to a multi-polar world, but Fiona Hill would clearly disagree. However, I was struck by her obvious irritation with South Africa for not playing ball. It reminded me of this CNN interview with Hardeep Singh Puri, India’s energy minister, who isn’t playing ball either.
I listened intently and at first thought what an intelligent take on the situation, but sadly and slowly but surely she exposed herself as as a fully bought and paid for mouthpiece for Western propaganda, distortions and downright lies.. Indeed Freddie himself seemed taken aback at the answers she gave.. All I could think of were the immortal words of John McEnroe: “You cannot be serious!” I suppose given her salary slip it wasn’t too bright to expect any different.
Rarely have I heard such a shallow, onesided, ill thought out and at times just silly and childishly simplistic assessment of a complex situation.. all that knowledge and yet such stupid analyses! Her take on Nordstream2 was laughable.
Freddie, can you interview Sy Hersch instead please.. or someone who isn’t a mere mouthpiece of what we know to be a parcel of lies, distortions, onesidedness and quite frankly silliness.
I listened intently and at first thought what an intelligent take on the situation, but sadly and slowly but surely she exposed herself as as a fully bought and paid for mouthpiece for Western propaganda, distortions and downright lies.. Indeed Freddie himself seemed taken aback at the answers she gave.. All I could think of were the immortal words of John McEnroe: “You cannot be serious!” I suppose given her salary slip it wasn’t too bright to expect any different.
Rarely have I heard such a shallow, onesided, ill thought out and at times just silly and childishly simplistic assessment of a complex situation.. all that knowledge and yet such stupid analyses! Her take on Nordstream2 was laughable.
Freddie, can you interview Sy Hersch instead please.. or someone who isn’t a mere mouthpiece of what we know to be a parcel of lies, distortions, onesidedness and quite frankly silliness.
I cannot believe that Unherd would publish an article by Fiona Hill. She is part of the US Foreign Affairs Swamp. Did you listen to her testimony at Pres. Trump’s fake impeachment hearing? Most of it was nonsense.
The most ludicrous statement in the article on whether Russia would have invaded Ukraine under Pres. Trump and I quote
“No, probably. Putin would have anticipated that he could get Ukraine handed over without the necessity of invading”.
What more needs to be said about FH.
I would recommend listening to her on the Lex Friedman podcast. May change some of your opinions of her. I find her to be rather brilliant in many aspects, lacking in others for sure; but that doesn’t eliminate the positives for me. Each to their own.
Nobody my friend is ‘all bad’, except of course Russia, in her eyes.
Nobody my friend is ‘all bad’, except of course Russia, in her eyes.
Indeed. What good is scholarship if one wears ideological blinkers? The assertion that Trump would have “handed over” the Ukraine is even more extreme than the many who say that Biden’s voluntary renunciation of America’s energy independence was an invitation to Putin to move on a long-cherished goal.
I would recommend listening to her on the Lex Friedman podcast. May change some of your opinions of her. I find her to be rather brilliant in many aspects, lacking in others for sure; but that doesn’t eliminate the positives for me. Each to their own.
Indeed. What good is scholarship if one wears ideological blinkers? The assertion that Trump would have “handed over” the Ukraine is even more extreme than the many who say that Biden’s voluntary renunciation of America’s energy independence was an invitation to Putin to move on a long-cherished goal.
I cannot believe that Unherd would publish an article by Fiona Hill. She is part of the US Foreign Affairs Swamp. Did you listen to her testimony at Pres. Trump’s fake impeachment hearing? Most of it was nonsense.
The most ludicrous statement in the article on whether Russia would have invaded Ukraine under Pres. Trump and I quote
“No, probably. Putin would have anticipated that he could get Ukraine handed over without the necessity of invading”.
What more needs to be said about FH.
The UN Charter was “violated” before the conflict in Ukraine.
The Charter’s Founding Fathers had witnessed the invasion of Abyssinia by the Italians and European sovereign states by Hitler and thus the main aim of the Charter was to ensure that such invasions never happened again. When it did happen,first with the break-up of Serbia-dominated Yugoslavia and then the invasion of Iraq, Article 2 of the Charter was altered by the UN (under pressure from the US?) to allow the invasion of sovereign states in order to impose democracy.
Once the conflict in Ukraine is at an end, this should be readdressed
.
.
“To impose democracy” is a priceless phrase!
“To impose democracy” is a priceless phrase!
The UN Charter was “violated” before the conflict in Ukraine.
The Charter’s Founding Fathers had witnessed the invasion of Abyssinia by the Italians and European sovereign states by Hitler and thus the main aim of the Charter was to ensure that such invasions never happened again. When it did happen,first with the break-up of Serbia-dominated Yugoslavia and then the invasion of Iraq, Article 2 of the Charter was altered by the UN (under pressure from the US?) to allow the invasion of sovereign states in order to impose democracy.
Once the conflict in Ukraine is at an end, this should be readdressed
.
.
She doesn’t even mention the Minsk agreements.
I presume that Unherd got the interview because the Deep State know they’re losing public support as the truth about the war becomes evident.
Yep.. circle the wagons!
And what truth is that?
Yep.. circle the wagons!
And what truth is that?
She doesn’t even mention the Minsk agreements.
I presume that Unherd got the interview because the Deep State know they’re losing public support as the truth about the war becomes evident.
Whichever way Hill turns this it always comes back to this: that Putin believed, and has openly stated, that he saw the collapse of the Soviet Union as the most calamitous event of post WW2 history and was determined to reverse it. If it is true that Putin demanded that the US withdraw from Europe and give Russia a free hand, failing which he would invade Ukraine, then by more than strong implication the Baltics will be next up.
If Putin wants to replug to Asia, having been unplugged from Europe, let him. This will inevitably result in Russia being no more than a provider of raw materials to China.
According to Hill, Putin will simply keep throwing more men and equipment into his war of conquest in Ukraine. The Baltics, and the other Eastern European countries Putin thinks are no more than Russia’s “near abroad” will at least be relatively safe while Russia is so embroiled in Ukraine.
Some things don’t lend themselves to a solution. A stalemate can be relatively peaceful. The Korean peninsula comes to mind.
If Putin wants to bet rhe ranch on Ukraine, the West should protect Ukraine to the max with ever more air defence systems, maintain and strengthen the sanctions on Russia, and give Ukraine the wherewithal to kill as many Russians as Putin wants to sacrifice. If Putin won’t negotiate, unless he’s rewarded with Ukrainian territory, thereby encouraging China to follow suit, we should ensure Russia is bled white.
What a nasty, bloodthirsty and hate filled contribution you make! ..like you’re playing some mindless warg game on your Xbox! You should be ashamed!
The Ukrainians no more want to make peace in 2023 than Britain wanted to end the war in 1944.
If you can’t justify that alternative, then you haven’t a leg to stand on.
Both dictators wanted to recreate their empires.
Zero difference.
The Ukrainians no more want to make peace in 2023 than Britain wanted to end the war in 1944.
If you can’t justify that alternative, then you haven’t a leg to stand on.
Both dictators wanted to recreate their empires.
Zero difference.
your Putin statement is used over and over again as ‘evidence’ Putin wants to rebuild the Russian empire. But the second half of his sentence is always conveniently omitted. Putin said it was a disaster for the Russians who then found themselves estranged living in countries outside of Russia. A completely different meaning. Which is why mainstream media – and you – deliberately misrepresent what he said.
Listen to Gary Kasporov – he’s one of many Russians who’s been warning people from the get-go of Putin’s intentions to rebuild Russia, territorially, and of his modus operandi – neo-chekist kleptocratic thuggery.
If they don’t like living in other countries they can move to Russia.
This is the same argument Hitler used to invade Czechoslovakia and then Poland (together with Soviet Union).
Making Putin analogous to Hitler can be taken too far. In any case, the Ukraine is part of Russia, historically, not just part of the Russian sphere of influence. A sphere of influence, particularly when more or less geographically contiguous, has a gravity all its own, regardless of regime in power.
Making Putin analogous to Hitler can be taken too far. In any case, the Ukraine is part of Russia, historically, not just part of the Russian sphere of influence. A sphere of influence, particularly when more or less geographically contiguous, has a gravity all its own, regardless of regime in power.
Listen to Gary Kasporov – he’s one of many Russians who’s been warning people from the get-go of Putin’s intentions to rebuild Russia, territorially, and of his modus operandi – neo-chekist kleptocratic thuggery.
If they don’t like living in other countries they can move to Russia.
This is the same argument Hitler used to invade Czechoslovakia and then Poland (together with Soviet Union).
And what did FH bring to the game;
What a nasty, bloodthirsty and hate filled contribution you make! ..like you’re playing some mindless warg game on your Xbox! You should be ashamed!
your Putin statement is used over and over again as ‘evidence’ Putin wants to rebuild the Russian empire. But the second half of his sentence is always conveniently omitted. Putin said it was a disaster for the Russians who then found themselves estranged living in countries outside of Russia. A completely different meaning. Which is why mainstream media – and you – deliberately misrepresent what he said.
And what did FH bring to the game;
Whichever way Hill turns this it always comes back to this: that Putin believed, and has openly stated, that he saw the collapse of the Soviet Union as the most calamitous event of post WW2 history and was determined to reverse it. If it is true that Putin demanded that the US withdraw from Europe and give Russia a free hand, failing which he would invade Ukraine, then by more than strong implication the Baltics will be next up.
If Putin wants to replug to Asia, having been unplugged from Europe, let him. This will inevitably result in Russia being no more than a provider of raw materials to China.
According to Hill, Putin will simply keep throwing more men and equipment into his war of conquest in Ukraine. The Baltics, and the other Eastern European countries Putin thinks are no more than Russia’s “near abroad” will at least be relatively safe while Russia is so embroiled in Ukraine.
Some things don’t lend themselves to a solution. A stalemate can be relatively peaceful. The Korean peninsula comes to mind.
If Putin wants to bet rhe ranch on Ukraine, the West should protect Ukraine to the max with ever more air defence systems, maintain and strengthen the sanctions on Russia, and give Ukraine the wherewithal to kill as many Russians as Putin wants to sacrifice. If Putin won’t negotiate, unless he’s rewarded with Ukrainian territory, thereby encouraging China to follow suit, we should ensure Russia is bled white.
This person sounds like they wandered straight out of 2005. The Blob groupthink is a terrifying thing.
This person sounds like they wandered straight out of 2005. The Blob groupthink is a terrifying thing.
Just another expert going for her own political goal. C’mon, we all remember how the Istanbul peace talks ended:
Day 2 “We have got our positions closer, there is a good base for a treaty”
Day 3 Boris Johnson’s unexpected visit to Kiyev
Day 4 Ukrainian team walks away from the talks.
Just another expert going for her own political goal. C’mon, we all remember how the Istanbul peace talks ended:
Day 2 “We have got our positions closer, there is a good base for a treaty”
Day 3 Boris Johnson’s unexpected visit to Kiyev
Day 4 Ukrainian team walks away from the talks.
Well done Freddy for asking the difficult questions politely on behalf of sceptics. I found her reasoning pretty weak.
One minute she says she was convinced the Russians had blown up the pipeline on the basis that Russian did infrastructure sabotage in WW2. Is that it !? EVERYONE did sabotage in WW2.
Then she states she now thinks it was most likely the Ukes because they partially blew up a bridge with a truck bomb. So clearly they must be capable of the technicalities of sending divers/submarines/whatever to the sea bed off another country, comprehensively mining a pipeline and remotely detonating it all without detection. Plus I think the “leaky sieve” U.S.A has leaked if you are paying attention – see S Hersch…
Then she says Putin could predict he would be “handed” Ukraine without war if Trump was President. But when it was Biden who was negotiating, that Ukraine was not a chattel for the U.S.A to give away to Russia. Which is it??
Her reason for the Turkey peace talks collapsing at a late stage is not the West telling Zelensky he would not be supported if he made a deal, but atrocities in Bucha. Russia denied these and asked for a UN investigation for verification. Which the USA vetoed.
Buy hey – if she can keep whispering into nutty American ears that we/Ukraine cannot win this, maybe it is time to negotiate I am grateful for that!!
I’m with you on all of that.. sadly, it’s only me. Most of the contributors are gung-ho armchair warriors, aching for Russian blood and disinterested in Ukrainian blood! Sad isn’t it?
I’m with you on all of that.. sadly, it’s only me. Most of the contributors are gung-ho armchair warriors, aching for Russian blood and disinterested in Ukrainian blood! Sad isn’t it?
Well done Freddy for asking the difficult questions politely on behalf of sceptics. I found her reasoning pretty weak.
One minute she says she was convinced the Russians had blown up the pipeline on the basis that Russian did infrastructure sabotage in WW2. Is that it !? EVERYONE did sabotage in WW2.
Then she states she now thinks it was most likely the Ukes because they partially blew up a bridge with a truck bomb. So clearly they must be capable of the technicalities of sending divers/submarines/whatever to the sea bed off another country, comprehensively mining a pipeline and remotely detonating it all without detection. Plus I think the “leaky sieve” U.S.A has leaked if you are paying attention – see S Hersch…
Then she says Putin could predict he would be “handed” Ukraine without war if Trump was President. But when it was Biden who was negotiating, that Ukraine was not a chattel for the U.S.A to give away to Russia. Which is it??
Her reason for the Turkey peace talks collapsing at a late stage is not the West telling Zelensky he would not be supported if he made a deal, but atrocities in Bucha. Russia denied these and asked for a UN investigation for verification. Which the USA vetoed.
Buy hey – if she can keep whispering into nutty American ears that we/Ukraine cannot win this, maybe it is time to negotiate I am grateful for that!!
Well that escalated quickly!
Well that escalated quickly!
This woman is a fool. Trump was playing good cop/bad cop with Putin, Kim Jong-un, and the rest and she couldn’t see it.
And she sees Biden’s incompetence in Afghanistan as a strength when it comes to not making competent statements about Ukraine.
She’s no fool, but an operative for the military industrial complex. I put as much faith in her words as I would in those of Paul Wolfowitz or Richard Perle 18 years ago. It’s a PR campaign for endless NATO expansion and funding.
She’s no fool, but an operative for the military industrial complex. I put as much faith in her words as I would in those of Paul Wolfowitz or Richard Perle 18 years ago. It’s a PR campaign for endless NATO expansion and funding.
This woman is a fool. Trump was playing good cop/bad cop with Putin, Kim Jong-un, and the rest and she couldn’t see it.
And she sees Biden’s incompetence in Afghanistan as a strength when it comes to not making competent statements about Ukraine.
Giving up land for peace didn’t work well for Israel, so why would it work for Ukraine?
False analogy, oversimplification?
False analogy, oversimplification?
Giving up land for peace didn’t work well for Israel, so why would it work for Ukraine?
Imagine that China sets up a communist puppet government in Canada and starts pouring in massive amounts of high tech weapons.
Imagine a Che type creating a militia in the southwestern Canadian areas that starts killing peoperty owners and local elected officials. In Ukraine it was actual Nazis.
Imagine that the locals in the southwest Canadian areas ask the US for help and indicate a desire to join the US.
Then add in outlawing English as a legally allowed language for contracts and you have a somewhat comparable situation to the Ukraine that the US Deep State has brought about.
It is an incredible mess and Russia will never accept defeat. Putin is not the problem, Russia will follow the same course if he dies tomorrow. He will not be replaced by a peacemaker but by a war leader. It will go nuclear as tactical nukes are deployed by Russia. All rail, sea, road and air access will be destroyed. Ukraine will be a wasteland for a generation.
I think Trump could have brought peace with Russia and created a common front against China if the Deep State had not needed Russia as an enemy to justify their existence.
Elon Musk had the only workable solution, plebiscites across Ukraine on Russian or Ukrainian affiliation. When you look at voting patterns over the last fifteen years a very clear division exists between Russian and EU leaning areas.
FH is the face of the US Deep State. Clueless and evil. Russia Russia Russia. Driven by the military industrial complex and the desire for endless high paying government jobs heroically ruling the world.
Biden deliberately goaded Russia by holding a press conference telling Ukraine they could join NATO in December 2021. Biden expected Russia to grab a piece and stop, which would guarantee huge new weapon system purchases as Ukraine joined NATO and the NATO countries upgraded.
Follow the money explains almost everything. The US Deep State in their opaque Blue Bubble explains the rest.
Imagine that China sets up a communist puppet government in Canada and starts pouring in massive amounts of high tech weapons.
Imagine a Che type creating a militia in the southwestern Canadian areas that starts killing peoperty owners and local elected officials. In Ukraine it was actual Nazis.
Imagine that the locals in the southwest Canadian areas ask the US for help and indicate a desire to join the US.
Then add in outlawing English as a legally allowed language for contracts and you have a somewhat comparable situation to the Ukraine that the US Deep State has brought about.
It is an incredible mess and Russia will never accept defeat. Putin is not the problem, Russia will follow the same course if he dies tomorrow. He will not be replaced by a peacemaker but by a war leader. It will go nuclear as tactical nukes are deployed by Russia. All rail, sea, road and air access will be destroyed. Ukraine will be a wasteland for a generation.
I think Trump could have brought peace with Russia and created a common front against China if the Deep State had not needed Russia as an enemy to justify their existence.
Elon Musk had the only workable solution, plebiscites across Ukraine on Russian or Ukrainian affiliation. When you look at voting patterns over the last fifteen years a very clear division exists between Russian and EU leaning areas.
FH is the face of the US Deep State. Clueless and evil. Russia Russia Russia. Driven by the military industrial complex and the desire for endless high paying government jobs heroically ruling the world.
Biden deliberately goaded Russia by holding a press conference telling Ukraine they could join NATO in December 2021. Biden expected Russia to grab a piece and stop, which would guarantee huge new weapon system purchases as Ukraine joined NATO and the NATO countries upgraded.
Follow the money explains almost everything. The US Deep State in their opaque Blue Bubble explains the rest.
The fact that this deep state swamp creature is agreeing to go on Unherd is very interesting. Imagine if it was 2004 and Unherd was around then, Richard Perle would be the one giving this interview.
For all her lies, this is hopefully a sign that the deep state is aware the endless meddling in foreign elections, distant military adventures, and the subsequent debt are losing their appeal with taxpayers.
The fact that this deep state swamp creature is agreeing to go on Unherd is very interesting. Imagine if it was 2004 and Unherd was around then, Richard Perle would be the one giving this interview.
For all her lies, this is hopefully a sign that the deep state is aware the endless meddling in foreign elections, distant military adventures, and the subsequent debt are losing their appeal with taxpayers.
I was looking forward to this and yet I was disappointed in what she offered. Good probing questions as usual. You were spot on Freddy to ask where the negotiations starting point would be and the answer just shows they have nothing that Russia would negotiate from.
Why now. Why not when Trump was in. No real material change apart from Biden and the West’s distraction.
Excellent eye roll, mirrored what I was thinking.
I was looking forward to this and yet I was disappointed in what she offered. Good probing questions as usual. You were spot on Freddy to ask where the negotiations starting point would be and the answer just shows they have nothing that Russia would negotiate from.
Why now. Why not when Trump was in. No real material change apart from Biden and the West’s distraction.
Excellent eye roll, mirrored what I was thinking.
But he won’t stop unless he thinks that Russia’s interests are going to be imperilled.
shouldn’t that say ‘not’ going to be?
But he won’t stop unless he thinks that Russia’s interests are going to be imperilled.
shouldn’t that say ‘not’ going to be?
Kaja Kallas, Estonia’s Prime Minister, put it best. Putin does not recognize Win-Win, only Win or Lose. It will either be a protracted war that will get much nastier for a long time or an Afghanistan-type withdrawal. Our present Western leaders are inept, lack moral courage, and couldn’t lead two people out of an elevator. I vote for the long protracted war. Russia should never be underestimated, the suffering they can endure and the risk of tactical nuclear warfare if cornered.
Kaja Kallas, Estonia’s Prime Minister, put it best. Putin does not recognize Win-Win, only Win or Lose. It will either be a protracted war that will get much nastier for a long time or an Afghanistan-type withdrawal. Our present Western leaders are inept, lack moral courage, and couldn’t lead two people out of an elevator. I vote for the long protracted war. Russia should never be underestimated, the suffering they can endure and the risk of tactical nuclear warfare if cornered.
It’s now very doubtful that this war will end before Putin’s fall.
The only acceptable outcome for him is a clear win. Taking portions of a few provinces is a clear loss, compared to the obliteration of his standing army and the undermining of his economy.
He must thus keep putting more “mobiks” on the gaming table, and eventually lose any prospect of even a military stalemate.
The failure of his most advanced Sarmat missile just shows the whole rotten structure is collapsing.
Putin is no longer important.
It’s what comes after that should concern us all.
If the same generals and FSB vets remain in charge, the country will just become Northwest Korea.
But if a real civilian leader obtains real power, we might actually have someone to deal with.
The nicest response I cana make to you is… WALOB..
Thanks for your usual evidence based response!
Sometimes reality and logic trump (pace) dodgy attributions…
Sometimes reality and logic trump (pace) dodgy attributions…
Thanks for your usual evidence based response!
The nicest response I cana make to you is… WALOB..
It’s now very doubtful that this war will end before Putin’s fall.
The only acceptable outcome for him is a clear win. Taking portions of a few provinces is a clear loss, compared to the obliteration of his standing army and the undermining of his economy.
He must thus keep putting more “mobiks” on the gaming table, and eventually lose any prospect of even a military stalemate.
The failure of his most advanced Sarmat missile just shows the whole rotten structure is collapsing.
Putin is no longer important.
It’s what comes after that should concern us all.
If the same generals and FSB vets remain in charge, the country will just become Northwest Korea.
But if a real civilian leader obtains real power, we might actually have someone to deal with.
Hill is a real insider and has a valid perspective. It’s rare to see such high quality intelligence applied to contemporary affairs. Good read, a lot to learn.
Just read her responses!
..you’re havin’ a laugh, right?
Just read her responses!
..you’re havin’ a laugh, right?
Hill is a real insider and has a valid perspective. It’s rare to see such high quality intelligence applied to contemporary affairs. Good read, a lot to learn.
спасибо, товарищ
спасибо, товарищ
The problem with people like Fiona Hill – they enable the neo-con visions, which are shocking and psychopathic to the rest of the world. No one feels safe or secure about these policies and the people behind them.
On another note, it was not enough that the Soviet Union fairly smoothly unwound. That a skirmish is happening in the context of the history of Russia and Ukraine really should not come as a surprise to anyone. The fact that this war was nurtured by the neo-cons for decades, with their ultimate goal to destroy and Balkanise Russia is something that other new world powers have watched in horror.
If the US wants to survive and be respected, they need to wind their necks in and take care of their own people, and their own hemisphere. What do they offer? To anyone? Such a pity – the nation that had all the potential has blown it all in a storm of corruption and wanton violence.
They offer a lot of nations across the world an alternative to submitting to the nearest strongman and would-be empire. Thank God.
Rasmus they are always the nearest strongman and would-be empire. They blackmail, extort, rob, interfere, vandalise and kill civilians and militants without discrimination – international carpet baggers desperate to keep their speculative economy afloat whilst simultaneously destroying their own country from the inside out. At one time they held a moral ground; the past 25 years has shown a very different persona.
“To be an enemy of the US is dangerous, but to be a friend is fatal” Kissinger
..for sure! Just ask the German’s with their blown up pipeline and ruined economy!
Check that quote out. I did. Kissinger said, when it was proposed deposing Nguen Van Thieu (some years after having deposed and had killed Ngo Dinh Diem) “We had better not do that, or they will say that to be an enemy of the US is dangerous, but to be a friend is fatal.” Exactly the opposite of what you are quoting him for.
..for sure! Just ask the German’s with their blown up pipeline and ruined economy!
Check that quote out. I did. Kissinger said, when it was proposed deposing Nguen Van Thieu (some years after having deposed and had killed Ngo Dinh Diem) “We had better not do that, or they will say that to be an enemy of the US is dangerous, but to be a friend is fatal.” Exactly the opposite of what you are quoting him for.
Easy to say that if you’re living in a white, Christian country with little or no oil. Now if you were brown, Muslim and oil rich you might take the opposite view! Did you see the tumultuous welcome the Russian people game Putin today? Popular guy!
As rapturous as Nuremburg!
Tears are in my eyes as I write this!
In order to get the “tumultuous welcome” Putin needed to offer money and food to fill the stadium.
For once we might agree.
If you are not in Europe.
But this war is in Europe and Russia is an aggressor here.
Welcome given to Putin is not really relevant here.
Hitler was given even better one….
As rapturous as Nuremburg!
Tears are in my eyes as I write this!
In order to get the “tumultuous welcome” Putin needed to offer money and food to fill the stadium.
For once we might agree.
If you are not in Europe.
But this war is in Europe and Russia is an aggressor here.
Welcome given to Putin is not really relevant here.
Hitler was given even better one….
We’d rather not. Senile Biden shows up for the Ukrainians but can’t tend to people suffering on the US southern border or in Ohio. That’s some craven shxt.
Follow the votes and the money. It probably doesn’t matter much to British readers, but it does go to the character of the current Deep US State. Everyone knows Biden is a husk, a dummy, a zombie. Now more folks are noticing that the “government for the people” seems to be honored more in the breach than the observance.
Follow the votes and the money. It probably doesn’t matter much to British readers, but it does go to the character of the current Deep US State. Everyone knows Biden is a husk, a dummy, a zombie. Now more folks are noticing that the “government for the people” seems to be honored more in the breach than the observance.
Rasmus they are always the nearest strongman and would-be empire. They blackmail, extort, rob, interfere, vandalise and kill civilians and militants without discrimination – international carpet baggers desperate to keep their speculative economy afloat whilst simultaneously destroying their own country from the inside out. At one time they held a moral ground; the past 25 years has shown a very different persona.
“To be an enemy of the US is dangerous, but to be a friend is fatal” Kissinger
Easy to say that if you’re living in a white, Christian country with little or no oil. Now if you were brown, Muslim and oil rich you might take the opposite view! Did you see the tumultuous welcome the Russian people game Putin today? Popular guy!
We’d rather not. Senile Biden shows up for the Ukrainians but can’t tend to people suffering on the US southern border or in Ohio. That’s some craven shxt.
The people running the US don’t give a sh*t about us. In fact, we’re an impediment to their nefarious plans because we’re so stubbornly prosperous and independent, despite their machinations. Oh, and a lot of us are armed.
Couldn’t agree more.. Poor old Eisenhaur must be spinning in his grave having warned the US of the wickedness of the Military Industrial Complex all those years ago..
‘Eisenhower’
‘Eisenhower’
They offer a lot of nations across the world an alternative to submitting to the nearest strongman and would-be empire. Thank God.
The people running the US don’t give a sh*t about us. In fact, we’re an impediment to their nefarious plans because we’re so stubbornly prosperous and independent, despite their machinations. Oh, and a lot of us are armed.
Couldn’t agree more.. Poor old Eisenhaur must be spinning in his grave having warned the US of the wickedness of the Military Industrial Complex all those years ago..
The problem with people like Fiona Hill – they enable the neo-con visions, which are shocking and psychopathic to the rest of the world. No one feels safe or secure about these policies and the people behind them.
On another note, it was not enough that the Soviet Union fairly smoothly unwound. That a skirmish is happening in the context of the history of Russia and Ukraine really should not come as a surprise to anyone. The fact that this war was nurtured by the neo-cons for decades, with their ultimate goal to destroy and Balkanise Russia is something that other new world powers have watched in horror.
If the US wants to survive and be respected, they need to wind their necks in and take care of their own people, and their own hemisphere. What do they offer? To anyone? Such a pity – the nation that had all the potential has blown it all in a storm of corruption and wanton violence.
This is becoming insane.
So this lady says actually russia was p*ssed off about nato expansion. That the us did not handle it well. She then says ukrainian victory is not possible. But the us will keep fuelling the fire until russia ‘no longer wants to expand’, even though actually, we probably did piss them off in the first place. On the flip side we need to negotiate because:
‘We basically have to think differently about this. It’s not going to be settled on the battlefield. This isn’t going to be like the First or Second World War, with some satisfying armistice peace treaty’
Um, why not have an armistice treaty? How on earth are we going to solve this? America wants to fight but knows it must negotiate but wont do a treaty, they are talking of sending aircraft into a war we aren’t sure we can win. My head cannot cope with the contradictions from this lady in this interview.
Oh wow they are going to pin the nord stream and the kersh bridge on ukraine?
‘The United States can be a leaky sieve in terms of information. Some of my colleagues who have been looking at this think Ukraine could have done it’
Both of those explosions caused a retaliation from Russia and escalated this. It has been widely discussed ukraine would not have the capability to blow the nordstream. America is being very irresponsible towards its ‘allies’. I’m done mincing words, this is getting seriously dangerous. This is getting out of hand.
DIPLOMACY NOW. NO NATO WAR. NO DECOUPLING. FREE TRADE.
Ukraine does have the most plausible motive – assuming it gets away with nobody ever finding proof of its involvement. It is more plausible than either the USA or Russia doing it.
Regardless who did it, it is wholly irresponsible for someone with her standing from the US at this point to start saying it was ukraine when they have apparently up to this point been on the record, officially, adament they got no evidence about who did it. The us are officially supposed to be ukraines ally. Basically telling russia they think ukraine did it is going to what? Only cause more trouble for ukraine that is already destroyed. Irresponsible.
As far as I had read, ukraines naval capacity is diabolical at best.
There’s a bit pf pearl-clutching going on here, I think. She’s not out of order in speculating who’s responsible, especially given that the rest of the world is freely doing the same. And she has been very careful to emphasise that she doesn’t know because there’s no hard evidence.
Fair enough, I didn’t realise she was actually british either, I just saw she worked for trump etc at the top, my mistake.
Fair enough, I didn’t realise she was actually british either, I just saw she worked for trump etc at the top, my mistake.
There’s a bit pf pearl-clutching going on here, I think. She’s not out of order in speculating who’s responsible, especially given that the rest of the world is freely doing the same. And she has been very careful to emphasise that she doesn’t know because there’s no hard evidence.
Regardless who did it, it is wholly irresponsible for someone with her standing from the US at this point to start saying it was ukraine when they have apparently up to this point been on the record, officially, adament they got no evidence about who did it. The us are officially supposed to be ukraines ally. Basically telling russia they think ukraine did it is going to what? Only cause more trouble for ukraine that is already destroyed. Irresponsible.
As far as I had read, ukraines naval capacity is diabolical at best.
Re-read the article. The Russian goal is not safety from threats. It is imperial control over neighbouring countries. Do you want to give them that in return for stopping the fighting (for now)? Yes or no?
I only told you late yesterday what I want to do. In many words and posts, I am going to copy and paste save myself the trouble for today:
The west puts its grown up diplomatic head on and reaches out to the east, china are still open to talking to us. Isn’t that part of the reason for the un? So people can do diplomacy? We decide that actually kicking the crap out of each has historically only resulted in lots of dead people and destruction. We recognise that nuclear escalation is stupid. We remember that sensible free trade between nations is beneficial.
We lift all sanctions on every nation. They do not work, people just find ways around them and they hurt ordinary people. It may also help bring inflation under control.
We stop trying to decouple from the east. If countries want to reshore this needs to be done over a protracted period with both costs for resources and energy under control, on a country by country basis as they choose, not all at once in a mad rush to cut off the east, in the current climate, it is very difficult for Europe to reshore, we have shortages of some things already.
The dollar is in a bit of trouble perhaps, perhaps talking with China and Russia that could also go over to some kind of gold standard? If we continue to trade with them they have no need to be isolationist too? We are going to have to accept that they will want more say on the whole power balance, perhaps it would be a good idea to at least try and talk with them and try and see this as a completely new start for world relations, with a more even balance of power? I understand both china and Russia have plenty of bad stuff in their history, but so do we, maybe it is time to move on from the old cold war mentality and at least give it one go. Perhaps we could at least get rid of the nukes, everywhere. At least try one more time, to solve ukraine and Taiwan without turning this into ww3 multi polar dystopia. Perhaps we could try just once to stop this all falling down. If we fail, well then we will have to fight anyway.
On ukraine:
Right. Crimea stays as russias, acknowledged here that that might happen now anyway.
https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/blinken-warns-ukraine-against-seizing-crimea-about-face
Quote:
“Russia would withdraw to its position on February 23, when it controlled part of the Donbas region and all of Crimea, and in exchange, Ukraine would promise not to seek NATO membership and instead receive security guarantees from a number of countries.”
That. Sounds reasonable. Something like that. Considering the global consequences this war is having and that it could end in nuclear conflict sounds a reasonable compromise.
Source.
https://responsiblestatecraft.org/2022/09/02/diplomacy-watch-why-did-the-west-stop-a-peace-deal-in-ukraine/
I read it the first time. And you are dodging the question. My prediction is that if we stop supporting Ukraine, stop sanctions, keep buying Russian oil and gas, and keep trade flowing with China, Russia will impose a puppet government on Ukraine, and shortly start putting mililtary pressure on the next target nation to get more vassal states. After all they will know that it is not going to cost them anything, Tell me why you think I am wrong. Or tell me that you think this is a price worth paying. But, ffs, answer the question.
Why would russia be able to do that if ukraine has its security guaranteed by other nations as I have posted? If everyone agreed to the above, ukraine joins the EU there is no reason zelenskyys government has to go.
If Russia agrees to the above, there is no problem. My prediction is that Russia will *not* agree to the above. That *is* the problem. Can you give a good reason why you think they would agree, or are you just whistling in the wind?
As for security guarantees, Ukrainian territorial integrity was guaranteed by Russia and the US back when they gave up their nukes. As you see, it did not help. A security guarantee is worthless unless the guarantors are able and willing to deter e.g. Russia from breaking it. The only nations who can do that is NATO, and Russia specifically wants NATO to not be in a position to enforce a guarantee.
You are not living in a hypothetical world, and you are beginning to sound like the economist marooned on a desert island. His solution began with “Assuming that we have a boat…”.
Well it was an assuming we have a boat question you asked me yesterday really, I’m just one woman stuck at home caring for people ridden with chicken pox.
Now. If you do not want to live in a world where food shortages, energy shortages and collapsing economies are common place we need to start getting radical.
So Mr fogh. What is your solution?
You answer me some questions now, since you like to troll my comments.
How are we going to continue to arm ukraine when NATO has admitted we cannot keep up with their ammo use?
How far would you escalate this conflict before you consider it time to negotiate?
What would you do about Pakistan? Can you guarantee me the next nuclear threat isn’t going to come from there, because we bought all their gas, the situation there is only getting worse.
You can predict what you like but if you write them off before you have even tried an agreement this is only going to escalate.
Again, you are not answering my question. That is disappointing – if you are proposing some radical solution I think you have a *moral* obligation to face up to the potential consequences. If you cannot do that it probably means that there is something wrong with your solution. Until I hear further I shall assume that you *do* think we ought to allow Russia to control Ukraine and be free to extend its reach afterwards, but that you are not willing to take responsibility for the consequences. I shall try to answer your questions – the short version is that I think Fiona Hill has got it pretty much right.
How are we going to continue arming Ukraine? I’d have to leave it to the professionals to see what is possible. There are loud voices on either side saying both that Russia is going to lose in short order and that Ukraine is. I am not exactly optimistic, but I do not understand enough about the situation to judge what is possible.
How far would I escalate the conflict? I would not send in NATO troops, that is for sure, unless Russia attacked NATO territory. I might give longer-range missiles, depending on the situation. If Ukraine was clearly losing, I would recommend to accept defeat – and heavily fortify the Baltic states afterwards. And I would negotiate on a solution that left Ukraine (possibly with territorial concessions) free to e.g. join the EU without having to ask Russia for permission. Always assuming that Russia could find a way of making a credible offer. As Fiona Hill says, the aim is to get where Russia is willing to do so.
What would I do about Pakistan? The best I could, I guess, but I am not sure there is that much one could do about Pakistan, they have too many messes there. Whatever the situation, I could not *guarantee* anything about where the next nuclear risk would come from – you do the best you can and then you pray.
The problem with ‘just trying’ is that if you try and fail you do not get a second chance. If a rich Nigerian prince offers you a fortune if only you will send your life savings to help get him out of jail you do not ‘just try’ to see if he can be trusted, you try to predict the likely outcome. You may think that the situation is so desperate that we should gamble on even the smallest chance – nuclear war is a pretty desperate risk. But if you do that you must admit openly that the price of avoiding nuclear war that way is likely to be that the Russian empire re-establishes its control over Ukraine and much of the old Warsaw Pact countries. And the people who live there.
I think your whole first paragraph is incredibly unfair, you put words in my mouth, accuse me of ducking questions I am fairly sure I have really now, done my best to answer. I did not condone anything you have written in the first paragraph.
In your third paragraph you basically say what I have suggested, that this is not worth a nato war, which is exactly what I am calling to stop. You say if ukraine is loosing you would tell them to admit defeat – if they are defeated they are not in a position to negotiate, surely it is better to do it before that?
‘ if you are proposing some radical solution I think you have a *moral* obligation to face up to the potential consequences.’
What consequences Mr fogh. What is that about.
We have to stop here. We do not understand each other, we are both repeating ourselves, and I am spending way too much time on this. The best neutral summary I can give is that your plan would give great results, but it will only work if the Russians decide to play nice. I see no reason to think the Russians want to play nice and every reason to think they won’t – and I think you are not considering that possibility, or the likely consequences. in the way you should. As it is, the Ukrainians seem to think that any deal they could get now is so unattractive that they prefer to take the chance to fight and gain a better one.
Anyway, I respect your sincerity – and your stubbornness. Do Svidania.
. Do Svidania
Can someone explain what that means?
I think it’s a good idea stop here too. I don’t want to suffer the consequences of proposing solutions now do I.
Russian for ‘Goodbye’
Jesus. How many bots. Thanks.
Jesus. How many bots. Thanks.
Russian for ‘Goodbye’
. Do Svidania
Can someone explain what that means?
I think it’s a good idea stop here too. I don’t want to suffer the consequences of proposing solutions now do I.
We have to stop here. We do not understand each other, we are both repeating ourselves, and I am spending way too much time on this. The best neutral summary I can give is that your plan would give great results, but it will only work if the Russians decide to play nice. I see no reason to think the Russians want to play nice and every reason to think they won’t – and I think you are not considering that possibility, or the likely consequences. in the way you should. As it is, the Ukrainians seem to think that any deal they could get now is so unattractive that they prefer to take the chance to fight and gain a better one.
Anyway, I respect your sincerity – and your stubbornness. Do Svidania.
May I 9ffer a comment on each paragraph of your contribution:
p1 Yes, clearly Russia should be allowed to control Ukraine just as the US controls the EU nations and UK.
p2. The US and rump Nato cannot arm Ukraine adequately to continue fighting. Fgs they cannot replenish their own arms stocks!
p.3 Ukraine is clearly losing. Most of its army is dead or wounded.. its weapons are running out.. its situation is hopeless. Russia can go on fighting ad infinitum. Of course Russia will control the Donbas and Crimea as part of a deal.
p.4 Ot is the War hawks in the US that are pushing for nuclear war.. they’ve already said they now claim the right to strike first!
p.5 Russia has zero plans to invade the former Warsaw Pact nations.. nor any plan to invade ANY Nato country. Ukraine is far better off as part of Russia than under the sick, corrupt, nei Nazi regime in Kyev!
Wishes masquerading as fact.
Wishes masquerading as fact.
I think your whole first paragraph is incredibly unfair, you put words in my mouth, accuse me of ducking questions I am fairly sure I have really now, done my best to answer. I did not condone anything you have written in the first paragraph.
In your third paragraph you basically say what I have suggested, that this is not worth a nato war, which is exactly what I am calling to stop. You say if ukraine is loosing you would tell them to admit defeat – if they are defeated they are not in a position to negotiate, surely it is better to do it before that?
‘ if you are proposing some radical solution I think you have a *moral* obligation to face up to the potential consequences.’
What consequences Mr fogh. What is that about.
May I 9ffer a comment on each paragraph of your contribution:
p1 Yes, clearly Russia should be allowed to control Ukraine just as the US controls the EU nations and UK.
p2. The US and rump Nato cannot arm Ukraine adequately to continue fighting. Fgs they cannot replenish their own arms stocks!
p.3 Ukraine is clearly losing. Most of its army is dead or wounded.. its weapons are running out.. its situation is hopeless. Russia can go on fighting ad infinitum. Of course Russia will control the Donbas and Crimea as part of a deal.
p.4 Ot is the War hawks in the US that are pushing for nuclear war.. they’ve already said they now claim the right to strike first!
p.5 Russia has zero plans to invade the former Warsaw Pact nations.. nor any plan to invade ANY Nato country. Ukraine is far better off as part of Russia than under the sick, corrupt, nei Nazi regime in Kyev!
WIthdrawn
Perhaps you could not hit the whole board next time?
Perhaps you could not hit the whole board next time?
Again, you are not answering my question. That is disappointing – if you are proposing some radical solution I think you have a *moral* obligation to face up to the potential consequences. If you cannot do that it probably means that there is something wrong with your solution. Until I hear further I shall assume that you *do* think we ought to allow Russia to control Ukraine and be free to extend its reach afterwards, but that you are not willing to take responsibility for the consequences. I shall try to answer your questions – the short version is that I think Fiona Hill has got it pretty much right.
How are we going to continue arming Ukraine? I’d have to leave it to the professionals to see what is possible. There are loud voices on either side saying both that Russia is going to lose in short order and that Ukraine is. I am not exactly optimistic, but I do not understand enough about the situation to judge what is possible.
How far would I escalate the conflict? I would not send in NATO troops, that is for sure, unless Russia attacked NATO territory. I might give longer-range missiles, depending on the situation. If Ukraine was clearly losing, I would recommend to accept defeat – and heavily fortify the Baltic states afterwards. And I would negotiate on a solution that left Ukraine (possibly with territorial concessions) free to e.g. join the EU without having to ask Russia for permission. Always assuming that Russia could find a way of making a credible offer. As Fiona Hill says, the aim is to get where Russia is willing to do so.
What would I do about Pakistan? The best I could, I guess, but I am not sure there is that much one could do about Pakistan, they have too many messes there. Whatever the situation, I could not *guarantee* anything about where the next nuclear risk would come from – you do the best you can and then you pray.
The problem with ‘just trying’ is that if you try and fail you do not get a second chance. If a rich Nigerian prince offers you a fortune if only you will send your life savings to help get him out of jail you do not ‘just try’ to see if he can be trusted, you try to predict the likely outcome. You may think that the situation is so desperate that we should gamble on even the smallest chance – nuclear war is a pretty desperate risk. But if you do that you must admit openly that the price of avoiding nuclear war that way is likely to be that the Russian empire re-establishes its control over Ukraine and much of the old Warsaw Pact countries. And the people who live there.
WIthdrawn
“gave up their nukes.”
Wow. Those were not Ukrainian nukes. They were USSR’s. Russia took over all USSR legal matters (including paying huge debts) so technically those nukes were I guess USSR->Russian, but not Ukrainian in any case.
Well it was an assuming we have a boat question you asked me yesterday really, I’m just one woman stuck at home caring for people ridden with chicken pox.
Now. If you do not want to live in a world where food shortages, energy shortages and collapsing economies are common place we need to start getting radical.
So Mr fogh. What is your solution?
You answer me some questions now, since you like to troll my comments.
How are we going to continue to arm ukraine when NATO has admitted we cannot keep up with their ammo use?
How far would you escalate this conflict before you consider it time to negotiate?
What would you do about Pakistan? Can you guarantee me the next nuclear threat isn’t going to come from there, because we bought all their gas, the situation there is only getting worse.
You can predict what you like but if you write them off before you have even tried an agreement this is only going to escalate.
“gave up their nukes.”
Wow. Those were not Ukrainian nukes. They were USSR’s. Russia took over all USSR legal matters (including paying huge debts) so technically those nukes were I guess USSR->Russian, but not Ukrainian in any case.
But Russia already agreed to guarantee security and territorial integrity of Ukraine.
How did that work out for Ukraine.
“…no reason why Zelenskyy’s government has to go” is a most interesting phrase. I find I cannot think of a single reason to recommend keeping it, starting with the character of Mr. Zelenskyy and continuing with a blatantly anti-democratic state. This conflict has been a financial windfall to both Putin and Zelenskyy. Neither is invested in peace, although I suspect Putin would save face by taking his whack and going. For the failed comedian, this is his only boat. He is totally invested in conflict. “The fox knows many things, but the hedgehog knows one great thing” as Archilocus observed so long ago.
Well it’s not really up to us to decide the Ukrainians government and he is the man in charge at the moment. Whether he is suitable is a different question. I didn’t really consider what the Ukrainian government would look like, I assumed it would be more or less unchanged until they elect a new one?
Perhaps you are right, I think we will be lucky to avoid escalation at this point, we will see, I have seen that zelensky has at least agreed to talk with the Chinese over their latest peace proposal which I think includes a return to the Minsk agreements or something similar, so I suppose time will tell.
Well it’s not really up to us to decide the Ukrainians government and he is the man in charge at the moment. Whether he is suitable is a different question. I didn’t really consider what the Ukrainian government would look like, I assumed it would be more or less unchanged until they elect a new one?
Perhaps you are right, I think we will be lucky to avoid escalation at this point, we will see, I have seen that zelensky has at least agreed to talk with the Chinese over their latest peace proposal which I think includes a return to the Minsk agreements or something similar, so I suppose time will tell.
If Russia agrees to the above, there is no problem. My prediction is that Russia will *not* agree to the above. That *is* the problem. Can you give a good reason why you think they would agree, or are you just whistling in the wind?
As for security guarantees, Ukrainian territorial integrity was guaranteed by Russia and the US back when they gave up their nukes. As you see, it did not help. A security guarantee is worthless unless the guarantors are able and willing to deter e.g. Russia from breaking it. The only nations who can do that is NATO, and Russia specifically wants NATO to not be in a position to enforce a guarantee.
You are not living in a hypothetical world, and you are beginning to sound like the economist marooned on a desert island. His solution began with “Assuming that we have a boat…”.
But Russia already agreed to guarantee security and territorial integrity of Ukraine.
How did that work out for Ukraine.
“…no reason why Zelenskyy’s government has to go” is a most interesting phrase. I find I cannot think of a single reason to recommend keeping it, starting with the character of Mr. Zelenskyy and continuing with a blatantly anti-democratic state. This conflict has been a financial windfall to both Putin and Zelenskyy. Neither is invested in peace, although I suspect Putin would save face by taking his whack and going. For the failed comedian, this is his only boat. He is totally invested in conflict. “The fox knows many things, but the hedgehog knows one great thing” as Archilocus observed so long ago.
First, Russia is not the old Soviet Union intent on world revolution and domination. Second, the current government in Ukraine, since 2014, is a US puppet. So what exactly is your point here.
The fundamental truth is that the West is not saintly and the East is not evil. There is good and bad on both sides. For sure the Russian and Chinese political systems are not democratic, and for sure their citizen’s rights are not enshrined in a constitution (although the UK doesn’t actually have one but it does have a huge body of common law dating from the signing of the Magna Carta). But, in time I suspect that both countries will become more democratic – might take several hundred years but think how long it took the UK to become democratic in the modern sense of the word.
Straw men, red herrings and whataboutery.
The West isn’t claimed to be perfect by its defenders and Russia is not claimed to be evil by its detractors, but that in no sense absolves Russia’s apologists of defending the charge that in the specific instance of the Ukraine invasion, Russia is in the wrong and the West and Ukraine are in the right. I won’t rehearse the arguments in favour of this position, I’ll just link to Dominic Sandbrook’s excellent article: https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwinr9eHuan9AhXlQEEAHYoXBU4QFnoECA0QAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Funherd.com%2F2023%2F02%2Fthe-ukraine-war-is-not-complicated%2F&usg=AOvVaw0Cwlfrj6JftfKOQoD0B9DR
As for the long term history of how the West became civilised, firstly this in no sense provides a basis for moral relativism in the context of any modern phenomenon, and secondly there is no excuse for uncivilised parts of the planet to take their time becoming civilised now that humanity knows it’s possible and how to do it.
You have some very thoughtful observations. However, IMO your last paragraph could have been lifted from nineteenth century missionary complex writings. Civilisation is aspirational. When people see something they like, or something that “works” better than what they have, they emulate it. Civilisation in general, and democratic political processes in particular, cannot be imposed. It is only authentic when it is a grass-roots phenomenon. We can refuse to buy exports produced by slave labor, but we cannot tell China what to think. Exporting civilisation is a noble impulse, but as it involves living it, not just talking it, it’s inevitably a slow process. Anyway, who’s to say that the fabled Missing Link between the ape and civilised man is not — us?
Thank you for your reply. I don’t entirely agree with the parallel with the 19th century missionary stuff, which was based on spreading Christianity, not democracy etc.
But either way, the dangers of trying to impose new moral and political codes – which are real and serious, I agree – should not blind us to the fact that failing to achieve this does come with large human costs for those unfortunate enough to have to live in regimes where people do not possess sufficient protection from their governments or rulers. My point is that it’s not all morally relativistic as many people would have us believe: there are objective tests of whether a particualr place can be considerdd civilised or not, and there is a limit to how long civilised peoples should tolerate the human suffering caused by the lack of civilisation.
That doesn’t make it an easy choice mind you: the 2003 invasion of Iraq and the huge suffering caused by the dishonest agenda behind it stands out as lesson in how not to go about improving the world. But this means it has to be done better, not that the challenge must be abdicated.
Thank you for your reply. I don’t entirely agree with the parallel with the 19th century missionary stuff, which was based on spreading Christianity, not democracy etc.
But either way, the dangers of trying to impose new moral and political codes – which are real and serious, I agree – should not blind us to the fact that failing to achieve this does come with large human costs for those unfortunate enough to have to live in regimes where people do not possess sufficient protection from their governments or rulers. My point is that it’s not all morally relativistic as many people would have us believe: there are objective tests of whether a particualr place can be considerdd civilised or not, and there is a limit to how long civilised peoples should tolerate the human suffering caused by the lack of civilisation.
That doesn’t make it an easy choice mind you: the 2003 invasion of Iraq and the huge suffering caused by the dishonest agenda behind it stands out as lesson in how not to go about improving the world. But this means it has to be done better, not that the challenge must be abdicated.
You have some very thoughtful observations. However, IMO your last paragraph could have been lifted from nineteenth century missionary complex writings. Civilisation is aspirational. When people see something they like, or something that “works” better than what they have, they emulate it. Civilisation in general, and democratic political processes in particular, cannot be imposed. It is only authentic when it is a grass-roots phenomenon. We can refuse to buy exports produced by slave labor, but we cannot tell China what to think. Exporting civilisation is a noble impulse, but as it involves living it, not just talking it, it’s inevitably a slow process. Anyway, who’s to say that the fabled Missing Link between the ape and civilised man is not — us?
Straw men, red herrings and whataboutery.
The West isn’t claimed to be perfect by its defenders and Russia is not claimed to be evil by its detractors, but that in no sense absolves Russia’s apologists of defending the charge that in the specific instance of the Ukraine invasion, Russia is in the wrong and the West and Ukraine are in the right. I won’t rehearse the arguments in favour of this position, I’ll just link to Dominic Sandbrook’s excellent article: https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwinr9eHuan9AhXlQEEAHYoXBU4QFnoECA0QAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Funherd.com%2F2023%2F02%2Fthe-ukraine-war-is-not-complicated%2F&usg=AOvVaw0Cwlfrj6JftfKOQoD0B9DR
As for the long term history of how the West became civilised, firstly this in no sense provides a basis for moral relativism in the context of any modern phenomenon, and secondly there is no excuse for uncivilised parts of the planet to take their time becoming civilised now that humanity knows it’s possible and how to do it.
Why would russia be able to do that if ukraine has its security guaranteed by other nations as I have posted? If everyone agreed to the above, ukraine joins the EU there is no reason zelenskyys government has to go.
First, Russia is not the old Soviet Union intent on world revolution and domination. Second, the current government in Ukraine, since 2014, is a US puppet. So what exactly is your point here.
The fundamental truth is that the West is not saintly and the East is not evil. There is good and bad on both sides. For sure the Russian and Chinese political systems are not democratic, and for sure their citizen’s rights are not enshrined in a constitution (although the UK doesn’t actually have one but it does have a huge body of common law dating from the signing of the Magna Carta). But, in time I suspect that both countries will become more democratic – might take several hundred years but think how long it took the UK to become democratic in the modern sense of the word.
That would have been my solution up to 23 Feb 2023.:
But Russia still hasn’t fully grasped or paid for her aggression.
So any such peace deal could be overturned by Putin or his successor.
Unless Russia sinks back to it’s woes in the 90s, revanchist elements will just try to recreate the Russian./Soviet empire.
They know no other model.
Hello Mr logan.
I am now very aware you think russia will fold easily. You had better hope you are correct.
A lunatic offensive by poorly armed and half trained “mobiks” means Russia will be far weaker when Ukraine attacks in the Spring.
Sorry to disappoint people who saw one or two docs about Russia in WW2, but there is no reserve of Siberian ski troops coming from the Urals.
Putin now can’t win the war, and will soon lose it very dramatically.
You guys have got some bot power. Well done, I’m flattered you would bother with me.
Well Mr logan we will see won’t we. I hope that you get say I told you so.
You guys have got some bot power. Well done, I’m flattered you would bother with me.
Well Mr logan we will see won’t we. I hope that you get say I told you so.
A lunatic offensive by poorly armed and half trained “mobiks” means Russia will be far weaker when Ukraine attacks in the Spring.
Sorry to disappoint people who saw one or two docs about Russia in WW2, but there is no reserve of Siberian ski troops coming from the Urals.
Putin now can’t win the war, and will soon lose it very dramatically.
Hello Mr logan.
I am now very aware you think russia will fold easily. You had better hope you are correct.
But remember that Ukraine had security guarantees already from Russia, uk and USA.
Why would anyone believe Russia word?
What other countries apart from USA and Nato would be willing to provide security guarantees to Ukraine and be seen to being able to act in case Russia renage on any agreement?
Reality ie that only membership of Nato or Ukraine having own nukes could work from Ukraine perspective.
So your peace plan is like Munich 1938 but without willing participants …
I read it the first time. And you are dodging the question. My prediction is that if we stop supporting Ukraine, stop sanctions, keep buying Russian oil and gas, and keep trade flowing with China, Russia will impose a puppet government on Ukraine, and shortly start putting mililtary pressure on the next target nation to get more vassal states. After all they will know that it is not going to cost them anything, Tell me why you think I am wrong. Or tell me that you think this is a price worth paying. But, ffs, answer the question.
That would have been my solution up to 23 Feb 2023.:
But Russia still hasn’t fully grasped or paid for her aggression.
So any such peace deal could be overturned by Putin or his successor.
Unless Russia sinks back to it’s woes in the 90s, revanchist elements will just try to recreate the Russian./Soviet empire.
They know no other model.
But remember that Ukraine had security guarantees already from Russia, uk and USA.
Why would anyone believe Russia word?
What other countries apart from USA and Nato would be willing to provide security guarantees to Ukraine and be seen to being able to act in case Russia renage on any agreement?
Reality ie that only membership of Nato or Ukraine having own nukes could work from Ukraine perspective.
So your peace plan is like Munich 1938 but without willing participants …
I agree with this. What’s interesting is that Fiona Hill in this comment section is (on balance) being treated as too dove-ish on Ukraine despite the fact that she, too, understands that it would be dangerous to attempt compromise with Putin on any basis in which his 2022 invasion gives Russia any serious territorial or strategic gains. So she’s actually a hawk compared with a great deal of the consensus emerging on the pacifist side of the debate.
I only told you late yesterday what I want to do. In many words and posts, I am going to copy and paste save myself the trouble for today:
The west puts its grown up diplomatic head on and reaches out to the east, china are still open to talking to us. Isn’t that part of the reason for the un? So people can do diplomacy? We decide that actually kicking the crap out of each has historically only resulted in lots of dead people and destruction. We recognise that nuclear escalation is stupid. We remember that sensible free trade between nations is beneficial.
We lift all sanctions on every nation. They do not work, people just find ways around them and they hurt ordinary people. It may also help bring inflation under control.
We stop trying to decouple from the east. If countries want to reshore this needs to be done over a protracted period with both costs for resources and energy under control, on a country by country basis as they choose, not all at once in a mad rush to cut off the east, in the current climate, it is very difficult for Europe to reshore, we have shortages of some things already.
The dollar is in a bit of trouble perhaps, perhaps talking with China and Russia that could also go over to some kind of gold standard? If we continue to trade with them they have no need to be isolationist too? We are going to have to accept that they will want more say on the whole power balance, perhaps it would be a good idea to at least try and talk with them and try and see this as a completely new start for world relations, with a more even balance of power? I understand both china and Russia have plenty of bad stuff in their history, but so do we, maybe it is time to move on from the old cold war mentality and at least give it one go. Perhaps we could at least get rid of the nukes, everywhere. At least try one more time, to solve ukraine and Taiwan without turning this into ww3 multi polar dystopia. Perhaps we could try just once to stop this all falling down. If we fail, well then we will have to fight anyway.
On ukraine:
Right. Crimea stays as russias, acknowledged here that that might happen now anyway.
https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/blinken-warns-ukraine-against-seizing-crimea-about-face
Quote:
“Russia would withdraw to its position on February 23, when it controlled part of the Donbas region and all of Crimea, and in exchange, Ukraine would promise not to seek NATO membership and instead receive security guarantees from a number of countries.”
That. Sounds reasonable. Something like that. Considering the global consequences this war is having and that it could end in nuclear conflict sounds a reasonable compromise.
Source.
https://responsiblestatecraft.org/2022/09/02/diplomacy-watch-why-did-the-west-stop-a-peace-deal-in-ukraine/
I agree with this. What’s interesting is that Fiona Hill in this comment section is (on balance) being treated as too dove-ish on Ukraine despite the fact that she, too, understands that it would be dangerous to attempt compromise with Putin on any basis in which his 2022 invasion gives Russia any serious territorial or strategic gains. So she’s actually a hawk compared with a great deal of the consensus emerging on the pacifist side of the debate.
Completely agree. and the notion that Ukraine could have blown up the Nordstream pipelines, a really difficult operation, is just simply insane. One really wonders whether Fiona Hill is living in her own Neocon lala land or in the real world. God help us when we have people like that who sound superficially very smart (especially with that nice British accent which makes americans weak at the knees) but are in fact the exact opposite, run our foreign policy. No wonder every single foreign US adventure from Vietnam onwards has ended up in complete and total disaster and left things worse than before the US interfered.
“It is impossible for an Englishwoman to open her mouth without making some other Englishwoman hate or despise her.”*
(* Apologies to the late GBS.)
Standard practice 🙂
GBS was a Nazi loving Irishman.. I’m surprised you value anything he had to say.
Standard practice 🙂
GBS was a Nazi loving Irishman.. I’m surprised you value anything he had to say.
Exactly my view having read this utterly sophomoric interview with a supposed highly credentialed policy wonk.
That she’s been in high positions in the US foreign policy establishment for some considerable time explains a few things.
Nobody can explain the fact that Putin can still bring in gas via Crush a and Yamal.
Blowing up the No rest reams won’t affect his gas income if the West folds.
Druzhba and Nordstream obviously.
Curse you, auto correct!
Druzhba and Nordstream obviously.
Curse you, auto correct!
Agree with you. US foreign policy has been…’ow you say, in your country? — exceptionally cack-handed in the last half century.
“It is impossible for an Englishwoman to open her mouth without making some other Englishwoman hate or despise her.”*
(* Apologies to the late GBS.)
Exactly my view having read this utterly sophomoric interview with a supposed highly credentialed policy wonk.
That she’s been in high positions in the US foreign policy establishment for some considerable time explains a few things.
Nobody can explain the fact that Putin can still bring in gas via Crush a and Yamal.
Blowing up the No rest reams won’t affect his gas income if the West folds.
Agree with you. US foreign policy has been…’ow you say, in your country? — exceptionally cack-handed in the last half century.
Bravo, B Emery – your frustration at the cretins who are working hard to get us all killed is palpable.
And sadly, justified.
Sad that she was one of ours originally Ms Emery?
Gosh I’ve caused quite a stir again.
Was she actually? I don’t really know anything about her I just thought the interview made little sense.
I wonder if she retains that endearing north eastern habit of addressing everyone as ‘Pet’?
I don’t know, though that is pretty annoying, we are equally irritating around here though, it’s ‘love’ instead.
I only read the transcript tbh.
I don’t know, though that is pretty annoying, we are equally irritating around here though, it’s ‘love’ instead.
I only read the transcript tbh.
I wonder if she retains that endearing north eastern habit of addressing everyone as ‘Pet’?
Gosh I’ve caused quite a stir again.
Was she actually? I don’t really know anything about her I just thought the interview made little sense.
The inevitable third round of this, after an armistice, will kill far more people, than decisively beating Russia now.
Putin’s present offensive is failing, and he has no more Russians to shove into the hopper.
Ukraine does have the most plausible motive – assuming it gets away with nobody ever finding proof of its involvement. It is more plausible than either the USA or Russia doing it.
Re-read the article. The Russian goal is not safety from threats. It is imperial control over neighbouring countries. Do you want to give them that in return for stopping the fighting (for now)? Yes or no?
Completely agree. and the notion that Ukraine could have blown up the Nordstream pipelines, a really difficult operation, is just simply insane. One really wonders whether Fiona Hill is living in her own Neocon lala land or in the real world. God help us when we have people like that who sound superficially very smart (especially with that nice British accent which makes americans weak at the knees) but are in fact the exact opposite, run our foreign policy. No wonder every single foreign US adventure from Vietnam onwards has ended up in complete and total disaster and left things worse than before the US interfered.
Bravo, B Emery – your frustration at the cretins who are working hard to get us all killed is palpable.
And sadly, justified.
Sad that she was one of ours originally Ms Emery?
The inevitable third round of this, after an armistice, will kill far more people, than decisively beating Russia now.
Putin’s present offensive is failing, and he has no more Russians to shove into the hopper.
This is becoming insane.
So this lady says actually russia was p*ssed off about nato expansion. That the us did not handle it well. She then says ukrainian victory is not possible. But the us will keep fuelling the fire until russia ‘no longer wants to expand’, even though actually, we probably did piss them off in the first place. On the flip side we need to negotiate because:
‘We basically have to think differently about this. It’s not going to be settled on the battlefield. This isn’t going to be like the First or Second World War, with some satisfying armistice peace treaty’
Um, why not have an armistice treaty? How on earth are we going to solve this? America wants to fight but knows it must negotiate but wont do a treaty, they are talking of sending aircraft into a war we aren’t sure we can win. My head cannot cope with the contradictions from this lady in this interview.
Oh wow they are going to pin the nord stream and the kersh bridge on ukraine?
‘The United States can be a leaky sieve in terms of information. Some of my colleagues who have been looking at this think Ukraine could have done it’
Both of those explosions caused a retaliation from Russia and escalated this. It has been widely discussed ukraine would not have the capability to blow the nordstream. America is being very irresponsible towards its ‘allies’. I’m done mincing words, this is getting seriously dangerous. This is getting out of hand.
DIPLOMACY NOW. NO NATO WAR. NO DECOUPLING. FREE TRADE.
It’s hard to take Fiona Hill seriously after her involvement in Trump’s faux impeachment. She lied. It’s that simple. That’s all.
It’s hard to take Fiona Hill seriously after her involvement in Trump’s faux impeachment. She lied. It’s that simple. That’s all.
If there were “negotiations” in February and March of last year, it was after the beginning of hostilities. If Ms. Hill knows who was there why didn’t she mention any names or what Western countries sent representatives or what level of the foreign service they were from. This was the most important revelation in the interview and it would have been nice had she been pressed for more information.
It sounds more like someone sent out feelers after the war started to see where Russia stood instead of a negotiation.
The time to stop this war was before it started, and I see no evidence that America and Europe tried very hard to negotiate any kind settlement and that is not Russian disinformation.
As I understand it, the negotiations in Turkey were between Russia and Ukraine – who are after all the people who are fighting. Further, shortly before the invasion, Russia published a proposed treaty with the US, on the basis that the US should withdraw militarily from the ex-Warsaw-Pact countiries and let Russia have a free hand in managing Eastern Europe (and Ukraine) as its sphere of influence. The West did indeed refuse to negotiate on that basis. But short of giving in to Russian demands, what kind of settlement could they have aimed for?
Who knows? They didn’t even try did they? Weakening Russia was far too tempting for the RedsundertheBed Americans and the puppets in Europe just did as they were commanded by Big Brother!
Who knows? They didn’t even try did they? Weakening Russia was far too tempting for the RedsundertheBed Americans and the puppets in Europe just did as they were commanded by Big Brother!
The downticks are clear evidence of the good sense you make. Sadly that’s how it works on UnHerd.
Being anti-war has never been popular.
Being anti-war has never been popular.
As I understand it, the negotiations in Turkey were between Russia and Ukraine – who are after all the people who are fighting. Further, shortly before the invasion, Russia published a proposed treaty with the US, on the basis that the US should withdraw militarily from the ex-Warsaw-Pact countiries and let Russia have a free hand in managing Eastern Europe (and Ukraine) as its sphere of influence. The West did indeed refuse to negotiate on that basis. But short of giving in to Russian demands, what kind of settlement could they have aimed for?
The downticks are clear evidence of the good sense you make. Sadly that’s how it works on UnHerd.
If there were “negotiations” in February and March of last year, it was after the beginning of hostilities. If Ms. Hill knows who was there why didn’t she mention any names or what Western countries sent representatives or what level of the foreign service they were from. This was the most important revelation in the interview and it would have been nice had she been pressed for more information.
It sounds more like someone sent out feelers after the war started to see where Russia stood instead of a negotiation.
The time to stop this war was before it started, and I see no evidence that America and Europe tried very hard to negotiate any kind settlement and that is not Russian disinformation.
“all of the incredible violence and atrocities that we have seen there. [Crimea].
This gem makes me question everything else she says frankly. Which is a shame because she seems to be inching towards some level of realism in much of the rest of the interview.
The crimes committed by Russian soldiers over the course of the war are well documented
As indeed are the Ukrainian war crimes, as indeed are the ear crimes committed by the US over the last 50 years.. ‘doesn’t mean there’ll be any prosecutions though does it?
“indeed are the ear crimes”?
Guinness or Sherry?
I think it may be the Special Brew – made for Churchill, few people can handle it.
It probably needs “practice” as WSC might say.
It probably needs “practice” as WSC might say.
I think it may be the Special Brew – made for Churchill, few people can handle it.
“indeed are the ear crimes”?
Guinness or Sherry?
Please direct me to Russian atrocities in Crimea.
TYIA.
As indeed are the Ukrainian war crimes, as indeed are the ear crimes committed by the US over the last 50 years.. ‘doesn’t mean there’ll be any prosecutions though does it?
Please direct me to Russian atrocities in Crimea.
TYIA.
The crimes committed by Russian soldiers over the course of the war are well documented
“all of the incredible violence and atrocities that we have seen there. [Crimea].
This gem makes me question everything else she says frankly. Which is a shame because she seems to be inching towards some level of realism in much of the rest of the interview.
The very fact that this woman colluded with the criminals who impeached Donald Trump for crimes Biden committed – and the world knows it, even if Freddie Sayers does not – demonstrates that UnHerd is just another rag in the wanna-be world of whatever media is now.
Couldn’t agree more. Seems like the Brits on this thread aren’t up to speed.
Agreed!
In fact it is all a bit complicated because originally she (Ms Hill) was one of us. A miners daughter from County Durham no less, the absolute zenith of working class aristocracy. She then had a little trouble at Oxford from the ‘smart set’ because of her accent and appearance and thus fled to an equally Anglo-Saxon elitist University, of St Andrews *.
From there on ‘you’ had her, and eventually she floated to the surface of the ‘pit of eternal stench’. Finally, in true Shakespearean form she plunged the crinkly dagger in to the back of the unsuspecting Mr Trump.
Now she’s back with us.
(* Despite the unimaginable misfortune of actually being located in Fife, North Britain, sometimes also known as Scotland.)
Brits not up to speed?? ..from an American? Ha ha, ha ha. that’s really funny. ‘got any more?
Not been on the Lusitanian sherry again have you Liam old chap?
I certainly have Charlie.. it’s good stuff.. but of course you know it’s called port don’t you? From the Douro valley via Porto.. The sherry is from Spain, Jerez to be accurate.. but I know what you mean. ‘ever been abroad (overseas I think you call it)?
Thanks for the rally, boys. A little levity. But the “abroad” vs “overseas” dig makes one wonder, no matter your tipple, if you don’t sometimes eat spiders for breakfast?
Thanks for the rally, boys. A little levity. But the “abroad” vs “overseas” dig makes one wonder, no matter your tipple, if you don’t sometimes eat spiders for breakfast?
I certainly have Charlie.. it’s good stuff.. but of course you know it’s called port don’t you? From the Douro valley via Porto.. The sherry is from Spain, Jerez to be accurate.. but I know what you mean. ‘ever been abroad (overseas I think you call it)?
We are talking about the interview, Liam. Certainly their comments would appear that way. I just wonder how many people knew about FH and her troubled foreign affairs past.
The USA has plugged $116 Billion into this gambit – the Brits only $8 Billion Time to belly-up-to-the-bar I’d say….
Not been on the Lusitanian sherry again have you Liam old chap?
We are talking about the interview, Liam. Certainly their comments would appear that way. I just wonder how many people knew about FH and her troubled foreign affairs past.
The USA has plugged $116 Billion into this gambit – the Brits only $8 Billion Time to belly-up-to-the-bar I’d say….
Agreed!
In fact it is all a bit complicated because originally she (Ms Hill) was one of us. A miners daughter from County Durham no less, the absolute zenith of working class aristocracy. She then had a little trouble at Oxford from the ‘smart set’ because of her accent and appearance and thus fled to an equally Anglo-Saxon elitist University, of St Andrews *.
From there on ‘you’ had her, and eventually she floated to the surface of the ‘pit of eternal stench’. Finally, in true Shakespearean form she plunged the crinkly dagger in to the back of the unsuspecting Mr Trump.
Now she’s back with us.
(* Despite the unimaginable misfortune of actually being located in Fife, North Britain, sometimes also known as Scotland.)
Brits not up to speed?? ..from an American? Ha ha, ha ha. that’s really funny. ‘got any more?
Couldn’t agree more. Seems like the Brits on this thread aren’t up to speed.
The very fact that this woman colluded with the criminals who impeached Donald Trump for crimes Biden committed – and the world knows it, even if Freddie Sayers does not – demonstrates that UnHerd is just another rag in the wanna-be world of whatever media is now.
”“a Deep State stiff with a nice accent”.
Hahaaaa – even more than just Deep State, she is a Global Agenda stiff. When the Democrats steal the next election, with Michaell Obama as President and Hillary as the VP, this woman will be their head of the Department of: Censoring, Owning Nothing, Pods and ‘Eat Your Bugs’.
That anyone could listen to this silly creature lying her way through the interview and not skip fast forward would surprise me. Lady Haw-Haw with a weird accent……
My head could not cope with it.
Looks like Elliot is in the lead with -17, closely followed by Alison on -16, whilst Cathy, you and I
are trailing badly with -10, -10, & -9:respectively!
Must try harder.
They have been very busy again.
Yes indeed, they’ve even awoken the ‘drunken sailor’ Liam!
I think I upset their applecart earlier. I’m very pleased to see Mr Mahony causing a stir.
Stick in the O’ will you.. my lot never took the soup! ..in case you’re unfamiliar with Irish history you lot provided soup to the starving Irish provided they drop the O’ or Mc in their surnames..
Sorry Mr O’Mahony. I did not know that. I didn’t mean to offend you, I’m just ignorant and British.
Don’t worry Ms Emery, his real name is James Caruthers or some such, and he is a classic Plastic Paddy.
Thank you! You never know who you are talking to really on places like this…
Thank you! You never know who you are talking to really on places like this…
Don’t worry Ms Emery, his real name is James Caruthers or some such, and he is a classic Plastic Paddy.
We are familiar with Irish history.
Going by your views about Russia and Ukraine, would not you agree that Ireland is not real country but little England and should be controlled by uk?
Sorry Mr O’Mahony. I did not know that. I didn’t mean to offend you, I’m just ignorant and British.
We are familiar with Irish history.
Going by your views about Russia and Ukraine, would not you agree that Ireland is not real country but little England and should be controlled by uk?
Stick in the O’ will you.. my lot never took the soup! ..in case you’re unfamiliar with Irish history you lot provided soup to the starving Irish provided they drop the O’ or Mc in their surnames..
..it’s AWAKENED or WOKEN Charlie.. try and get the grammar right will you even when you get everything else wrongly! lol
Past participle.
Past participle.
I think I upset their applecart earlier. I’m very pleased to see Mr Mahony causing a stir.
..it’s AWAKENED or WOKEN Charlie.. try and get the grammar right will you even when you get everything else wrongly! lol
Yes indeed, they’ve even awoken the ‘drunken sailor’ Liam!
They have been very busy again.
Looks like Elliot is in the lead with -17, closely followed by Alison on -16, whilst Cathy, you and I
are trailing badly with -10, -10, & -9:respectively!
Must try harder.
My head could not cope with it.
”“a Deep State stiff with a nice accent”.
Hahaaaa – even more than just Deep State, she is a Global Agenda stiff. When the Democrats steal the next election, with Michaell Obama as President and Hillary as the VP, this woman will be their head of the Department of: Censoring, Owning Nothing, Pods and ‘Eat Your Bugs’.
That anyone could listen to this silly creature lying her way through the interview and not skip fast forward would surprise me. Lady Haw-Haw with a weird accent……