Forum menu
I'll echo nickc's comments.
Russia was nudging towards being a failed state during the 90's. It appeared to be of little threat to the West at that point and that is what contributed to us thinking the cold war was over.
Likewise with Medvedev. Seemed like a nice bloke...
Hold on.. if you’re not happy with the source you provided
Yes the general source I provided which you then extrapolated from. You see the problem?
let’s look ask the Way Back Machine for some help…
Which is what I suggested was needed. I am glad to see you are finally getting to a reasonable level of evidence for your claims. Hopefully you will manage to apply it in future.
Now unlike you I can say yes he did post it as you claimed. Although be honest. You didnt check that before you made your claim did you? You simply extrapolated from your beliefs.
Since you seem to be getting the hang of supporting your claims with evidence do you care to continue with your other claims?
No. I simply pointed out something in the source you provided. You've now given me the responsibility of fact checking the material used by that FactCheck page that you offered up! Which I have done for you (I shouldn't have had to). Now, please, drop it, and stop making it personal for no good reason.
I really don’t think there was sadly.
The outcome for the former USSR countries is definitely mixed but I do think there was a some chance.
Even if it had been a less than completely democratic regime but sadly though it has ended up as a peculiar mix of dictatorship and mafia state.
No. I simply pointed out something in the source you provided.
No you didnt. Since if you read that article you will note it doesnt made the claim you state it did but hey ho I have a good idea now how to treat any claims you make.
I repeated the title of the article (which was on the FactCheck page you shared). I also said it had appeared on his website with that title (which was stated in the material used on the page you shared). I didn't make it up. I've even gone to the trouble of finding the archived page from his website for you, that shows that your source was correct. Now stop it.
Someone’s pulled up Putins useful idiots…
https://twitter.com/pippacrerar/status/1496917743580454914?s=21
Dictator-placating leftie hissy fit incoming, I’m sure
Dictator-placating leftie hissy fit incoming, I’m sure
Like this?
Russia's assault on Ukraine is a catastrophe that could lead to nuclear war. The peace movement is more important than ever
Burning wreckage from apparent Russian shelling near Kiev, Ukraine today
VLADIMIR PUTIN’S invasion of Ukraine is a catastrophe with horrific consequences for millions in that country and beyond.
Recognition of Nato’s aggressive record and the dangerous consequences of dismissing Russian fears about its expansion in no way justifies this terrifying act of war.
Nor should it blind us to the self-serving narrative Putin puts forward.
The Morning Star is well aware of the presence of neonazi units like the Azov Battalion in the Ukrainian National Guard, of the torch-lit processions in Kiev honouring the Waffen SS, of the Ukrainian government’s recognition of national days to honour anti-semitic mass murderers like Simon Petliura and Stepan Bandera.
Our paper has been documenting this since 2014. But Putin’s claim to be “de-Nazifying” Ukraine is a flimsy excuse for a blatantly expansionist invasion.
This is clear from the Russian president’s attacks on Ukraine as an “invention” of the Bolsheviks, a reference to Lenin’s revolutionary government’s recognition of national rights for the different peoples of the Soviet Union.
Putin uses the fact that the Soviet Union drew up borders for the various republics which would become independent states in 1991, and the fact that the fairness of such territorial divisions can always be disputed, to promote a nationalist revanchism of the crudest kind.
The victims in all this are the Ukrainian people. This is not in the propagandistic sense deployed by British politicians whose actions have done nothing to defuse tensions between Russia and Ukraine and everything to inflame them.
Ukraine is not the “front line of democracy.” Britain, like the US and EU, connived at the violent overthrow of its elected government in the Maidan coup of 2014.
Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelensky was later elected on pledges to negotiate a peace with Russia over the Donbass and, domestically, on a platform largely opposed to the wave of neoliberal economic reforms unleashed by Maidan. He attacked the privatising healthcare reforms of US-imported health minister Ulana Suprun and the “illegal privatisations” of Ukrainian land.
In power, he has been unable to act on these positions. Further land privatisation, opposed by three-quarters of Ukrainians, has been forced through at the insistence of the EU, so giant European agribusiness can buy up farmland and convert it en masse to monocultures, especially sunflower production for oil.
Ukrainians have got poorer year by year. The country has the highest poverty rates in Europe. The land that was once the breadbasket of Europe now mainly exports super-exploited labour to its neighbours.
It is unsurprising that Zelensky has been unable to negotiate peace in the Donbass. His front line there has been manned by heavily armed fascists with no interest in peace.
Ukraine’s president — whose tearful address in his native Russian to the Russian people today included the proud recollection of his grandfather’s service in the Red Army — may not have liked these neonazis, but has not been able to stem the rewriting of history demanded by Ukraine’s “Westernisers.”
Ukraine is the victim of a tug of war between Moscow and the West.
It is no apologia for Moscow to point out that by stifling the Minsk peace process, by their annual military exercises from the Baltic to the Black Sea, by rejecting out of hand any idea that Nato might agree to negotiate troop and missile reductions in Europe, Western powers have engaged in a brinkmanship that has now exploded.
The way out, however late the hour, is to address that context, commit to Ukraine not joining Nato, and to a dial-down of militaristic showboating by the world’s most powerful and dangerous military alliance, of which Britain is a part.
A war between nuclear-armed Russia and the West does not bear thinking about.
The peace movement must press for an immediate withdrawal of Russian troops and challenge the might is right doctrine Putin has picked up from US attacks on Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya.
"The peace movement must press for an immediate withdrawal of Russian troops and challenge the might is right doctrine Putin has picked up from US attacks on Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya."
I'm not sure what that even means?
It's pretty self explanatory
It says that Putin 'picked up' the might is right doctrine from the US.
Whilst asking that Putin withdraws from Ukraine it also offers an apology for him invading in the first place.
Stop the War is useful when it comes to holding democracies to account but it is proving to be a liability when it comes to doing the same with dictatorships.
I've wandered into the wrong thread; thought it was about Kier Starmer.
It’s pretty self explanatory
Maybe to those who are fluent in leftese, comrade. For the rest of us…
That's a Morning Star editorial not the Stop the War letter isn't it?
I think binners would prefer to call it a "dictator-placating leftie hissy fit".
I think it’s self-explanatory in pointing out why nobody other than Jeremy Corbyn and apparently you lot read the Morning Star
You’d be hard pushed to distil all the testicles in the world into that bag of old bollocks. I’ve never read such utter horse-shit in my life
You people really do inhabit an alternative universe.
If you’re seriously taking your worldview from utterly nonsensical gibberish like that, and you’ve got the bare-faced front to take the piss out of me for reading the Guardian
Have a word with yourself, comrade
Maybe to those who are fluent in leftese, comrade. For the rest of us…
Posted 2 hours ago
I think it’s self-explanatory in pointing out why nobody other than Jeremy Corbyn and apparently you lot read the Morning Star
You’d be hard pushed to distil all the testicles in the world into that bag of old bollocks.
You people really do inhabit an alternative universe
Posted 2 minutes ago
You thought about it for 2 hours before deciding that your first response wasn't good enough?
I thought Keir was quite good at the despatch box, Dame Angela less so,
He needs to get decent advice on how to create a scorched earth for Russian assets in the UK and hammer clear and loud again and again at them.
It's a soft spot for the conservatives and he needs to exploit
<The peace movement must press for an immediate withdrawal of Russian troops and challenge the might is right doctrine Putin has picked up from US attacks on Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya.
Not sure I see the point in posting garbled and incoherent nonsense like this on the KS thread? US attacks on Yugoslavia = NATO intervention in Kosovo? That's a reason for what Putin's doing? Uh?
That Morning Star editorial reads like some-one who's found out that the sainted uncle that they love turns out to be a child molester.
Not sure I see the point in posting garbled and incoherent nonsense like this on the KS thread?
I thought that was obvious. Binners was talking about a "dictator-placating leftie hissy fit" so I provided him with one.
Are only people like you, binners, and nick, allowed to talk about non-Starmer related issues on the Starmer thread?
Do you want to get back to talking about Corbyn?
like some-one who’s found out that the sainted uncle that they love turns out to be a child molester.
Yeah Putin and the oligarchy that back him have proved to be such commies, which is why they pour money into the Tory coffers and they are blaming the Bolsheviks for the need to invade Ukraine, and obviously why the Morning Star has always supported them.
^^^parsing the above to the best of my limited ability I conclude that Putin is not a commie, and is probably not a natural lib dem either albeit they share a certain opportunism. Probably aligns more to the Baathists and he's definitely got WMD. All it needs is a few more atrocities and his StWC support is guaranteed in perpetuity.
No, Putin is definitely a Lib-dem.
Does that mean we can blame Putin for university fees? Or does this just mean that Putin will get a job at FB when he retires from politics??
I thought he already had a job with FB?
Isn't he in charge of election news?
Lolz at binners. I wandered on to this thread cos I've had enough of the COD strategists on the Ukraine thread and the tory bashers on the Boris one; hoping perhaps for an epiphany from "the second coming" heralded by the new labour outfit.
Nah...just an illustration of how pathetic our chances are of finding a viable alternative worthy of a vote.
I see latest opinion poll has Labour on a reduced 3% lead over the Russian oligarch's favourite party:
Labour 38% (-1)
Conservative 35% (+2)
Liberal Democrat 12% (+1)
Green 5% (-2)
Scottish National Party 5% (–)
Reform UK 4% (–)
Plaid Cymru 0% (-1)
Other 1% (–)
https://redfieldandwiltonstrategies.com/latest-gb-voting-intention-28-february-2022/
Starmer really does seem to have a problem exploiting the difficulties that the Russian bankrolled party keeps finding themselves in.
I still think Labour and the Conservatives will be polling neck and neck by the end of next week.
Starmer really does seem to have a problem exploiting the difficulties that the Russian bankrolled party keeps finding themselves in.
Possible that with KS's desire to get away from the unions and towards big private donors politicising donations might be seen as a bad move longer term. A mutual truce where both parties are getting dirty cash probably suits them both.
A mutual truce
This isn’t a thing. Starmer pushed hard on Russian big money donations to those in government in the commons. He’s not avoided the point at all. Far from it. But support for the government will keep rising in the polls now that “Covid is behind us” (it isn’t) and the news is dominated by Ukraine and the government’s claims to be leading the response towards Russia (it isn’t).
Starmer pushed hard on Russian big money donations to those in government in the commons. He’s not avoided the point at all.
Yeah, he's just not very good.
It should be a reoccurring theme as he travels across the country speaking to audiences and gives TV/radio interviews - the Tories dodgy friends and their dirty money. Not just in the House of Commons.
Outside the Commons he seems more preoccupied with attacking members of his own party than the Tories, with his purges and expulsions.
He can speak to as many “audiences” as he wants, the polls will still swing back to the Conservatives over the next two weeks.
And he’s right to distance himself, and Labour, from those seeking to blame others for the actions of Putin. Or “attacking members”, if you want to put it that way.
What on earth are you talking about Kelvin?
The purges and expulsions I am talking about have no connection with Putin. Obviously the Kremlin backed oligarchy do have a connection with the Tories.
But you think he should focus on attacking members of the Labour Party?
But support for the government will keep rising in the polls now that “Covid is behind us” (it isn’t) and the news is dominated by Ukraine and the government’s claims to be leading the response towards Russia (it isn’t).
So you agree that Starmer has failed in pointing out that (it isn't)?
Edit : Btw I find it fascinating that you feel that role of the Leader of the Labour Party is mostly restricted to preforming in the Commons. You presumably attach a great deal of importance to an "audience" consisting of mostly Tories and members of his own party?
Yeah, he’s just not very good.
It should be a reoccurring theme as he travels across the country speaking to audiences and gives TV/radio interviews – the Tories dodgy friends and their dirty money. Not just in the House of Commons.
Exactly, he's not going crazy about and bringing it to a wider audience because he doesn't want to risk upsetting potential establishment donors. Solid chunks of that big money wherever it's from will be tainted in some way.
he’s not going crazy about and bringing it to a wider audience because he doesn’t want to risk upsetting potential establishment donors
He is challenging the government on political funding, especially where it is connected to Russian money, it just has little chance of cutting through with the public right now, mostly for the two reasons I outlined. Earnie's suggestion that it is a "failure" of Starmer's to not be able to set the political agenda right now is worth discussing (I don't think anyone else would do any better, but that's just opinion). The idea that he's deliberately keeping it quiet because he doesn't want to upset "establishment donors" is just fantasy.
you feel that role of the Leader of the Labour Party is mostly restricted to preforming in the Commons
I do not. I have never said that. Please don't start doing the making things up and projecting them as if said by other posters thing.
You presumably attach a great deal of importance to an “audience” consisting of mostly Tories and members of his own party?
Presume away. Those are your words and thoughts not mine though. I happen to think they completely ignore how our parliamentary democracy works, the transparency and visibility of what happens there, and the coverage of what is said there can receive on TV, radio, press and all other media, especially PMQs.
Where I do agree with you is that politicians must be able to work well to get their message heard outside parliament as well, and Starmer has never been good enough at that for me. He's boring and over cautious. Right now though, one of the ways he is getting an important message across to voters... that "Labour does not agree with its previous leader as regards Russia and NATO"... is to do a bit of "attacking members "... by insisting MPs withdraw their support from the Stop The War statement or face losing the whip.
The purges and expulsions I am talking about have no connection with Putin.
Of course not, comrade. I'm sure theres no connection whatsoever.
Let's dispense with the needlessly overly-dramatic language of 'purges and expulsions' shall we, as its patently ridiculous?
But would you like to bet against a venn diagram involving the following 2 groups:
1. The people that Starmer wants rid of, and
2. The labour members who have regularly, up until a couple of days ago, used the words 'NATO aggression' in any reference to Russia, Ukraine or Eastern Europe...
basically being a single circle?
It should be a reoccurring theme as he travels across the country speaking to audiences and gives TV/radio interviews – the Tories dodgy friends and their dirty money. Not just in the House of Commons.
Is it possible that Lindsey Hoyle is preventing him from banging the drum?
Seems such an easy and obvious win for Starmer to just keep pointing out how Putin and his mates chucked enormous sums of money into the Tory party, as well as the meetings that Cabinet members have taken with Russian donors in the last year or two.
He can't go in too hard because then people will start asking awkward questions about Peter Mandelson hanging out on Oleg Deripaska's yacht etc. I wouldn't be at all surprised to discover some of SKS' financial backers have links to oligarch money either tbh.
Let’s dispense with the needlessly overly-dramatic language of ‘purges and expulsions’ shall we, as its patently ridiculous?
Did you type that with a straight face? For years, you've been doing exactly the same thing.
For instance, here is one of the main backers of SKS' leadership campaign and major donor to the Labour party
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Taylor_(investor)
Seems to me like he made huge profits from Russian privatisation, just like, you know...
Makes more sense why he tried to keep the donations secret now.
Did you type that with a straight face? For years, you’ve been doing exactly the same thing.
I've never used either word. Mainly because under the previous leadership, people either left the party, or in the case of most Labour MP's, distanced themselves from those running the party entirely of their own accord.
Therefore using words like 'purges' or 'expulsions' is just daft.
I’ve never used either word. Mainly because under the previous leadership, people either left the party, or in the case of most Labour MP’s, distanced themselves from those running the party entirely of their own accord.
Therefore using words like ‘purges’ or ‘expulsions’ is just daft.
On this very thread you said the following:
binners
Full Member
I’ll just re-post what I posted on the Corbyn thread:I’m just hoping the rumours are true (IIRC it was in the Guardian) that the first thing Kier Starmer is going to do is have a night of the long knives to clear out every last one of the utterly useless Corbynites, both on the front bench and behind the scenes, and actually appoint some people who are capable of finding their own arses using both hands.
I’m also hoping that involves firing Richard Burgon into the sun.
There needs to be a Kinnock/Militant style purge to even think dragging the labour party back from its Corbynite political irrelevence, where its presently languishing in its own delusional ‘we won the argument’ bullshit
Posted 1 year ago
Please don't criticise others for behaviour you are guilty of.
For instance, here is one of the main backers of SKS’ leadership campaign and major donor to the Labour party
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Taylor_(investor)
Seems to me like he made huge profits from Russian privatisation, just like, you know…
Makes more sense why he tried to keep the donations secret now.
Well I am shocked and stunned 🙃
Aaah... bless. Are you trawling through my old posts again?
Thats just me expressing an opinion of what I'd like to see. Not any comment on whats actually going on or has ever gone on in the labour party
Has Richard Burgon actually been fired into the sun yet?
No. More's the pity.
But I note that, entirely predictably, he did sign the 'Stop the War' love letter to Putin, before promptly withdrawing his signature when actually (rightfully) threatened with having the whip withdrawn if he didn't
So where does that sit with your accusation or 'expulsions' and purges', comrade?
If thats whats going on (it isn't) then Keir and co are doing a pretty crap job of it. Because Burgon and comrades are all still there. Sadly. Though understandably, after their recent Ukrainian victim-blaming and pro-Putin useful idiocy they've all gone rather quiet. Funny, that.
I still reckon firing Richard Burgon into the sun would be a massive vote-winner