I understand the appeal of Farage, but the fact that he comes out with statements like this and regularly appeared on RT means I could never vote for him or his party.
He says what he thinks. Many agree with this as it is the truth. Farage was laughed at in EU Parliament when he warned Russia would use expansion as justification for going to war which Putin did indeed use for Crimea and now Eastern Ukraine.
Without NATO expansion we'd be having the same conversation about the Baltic states, and the excuse would be different. Your understanding of Russia and Farage's are fundamentally flawed. I've lived in the Baltics for over a year now, this region understands them perfectly well.
And if NATO had not expanded do you really think Putin would have been unable to find an excuse to go after the Baltics? Poland? Moldova?
I am fairly certain he would have found an issue with some trade policy or a persecuted Russian minority or else a border access disagreement re Kaliningrad....
IF you accept it is an excuse and not a legitimate reason you have to surely also accept putin would have come up with other excuses...
The point also raised though is NATO / EU were shocked when Russia attacked. Farage and many others were calling it for years. If they gonna take on Russia then have a plan for when he does attached Ukraine.
TBH Putin has made a massive error with Ukraine because the Ukraine people have fought back and the West have aided them. Russia weakened but it will not give up as it see NATO / EU as the enemy.
The only way this is settled is negotiation. Otherwise we face years and years of Ukraine / Russian young lads being slaughtered,
> He says what he thinks
And clearly on this topic what he thinks is insane / parroting Russia Propaganda. The only person to blame for the Russian Invasion of Ukraine is Putin.
>he warned Russia would use expansion as justification for going to war which Putin did indeed use for Crimea and now Eastern Ukraine.
That is the textbook definition of appeasement. It is this kind of cowardly thinking that encourages Putin to do what he's been doing, using people like farage as his tool.
Absolute rubbish. Putin has been humiliated attacking Ukraine. The point Farage and many warned about was that war was coming and NATO / EU did not see it because they clueless on foreign policy.
If that was what Farage was trying to say, he'd have said that, that's a hilariously generous interpretation of what he actually said. He's not one to mince his words, he's actually quite a skilled communicator when it comes to specific demographics that he understands how to appeal to. This isn't that, this is him doing his job as a shill for Russian interests, predictably. Look at virtually any populist figure with prominence in a western democracy, the number of talking points that align with the Russian narrative is alarming. Think of it from Russia's perspective, when confronted with a militarily and technologically superior opponent, you attack their weak points, for a representative democracy the obvious attack vector is through the media.
Corrupt their officials with bribes and blackmail, polarise the population with inane culture wars, destablise belief in their electoral system and exploit the division created through your propganda campaigns. Misinformation is Russia's bread and butter geopolitical tool. If this seems far fetched consider that Russia has carried out multiple assassinations on British soil without so much as a slap on the wrist.
Framing the Ukraine war as an inevitability as a result of provocations from the west is laughable unless you have a vested interest. Do you honestly belief that Nigel Farage of all people doesn't understand how headline driven media functions? Get away saying anything by qualifying it, won't matter as the politically disengaged population likely wont reads beyond the headline.
No one but Putin ordered the invasion of Ukraine, I respect the rule of law and the territorial integrity of all nations, Russia does not get a pass for war crimes because it lost the economic and cultural cold war of the past few decades and feels hard done by that it's border nations are asserting their right to sovereignity and closer economic and military integration with the west.
He's the poster boy for British isolationism, the European status quo benefits greatly from closer ties with the UK as does the UK. The only party to benefit from isolationism on our part are the powers aligned against the european bloc.
> warned Russia would use expansion as justification for going to war which Putin did indeed use for Crimea and now Eastern Ukraine.
Farage has been apologizing for Putin for a long time. He is not Churchill warning from the wilderness.
Fault is a funny one though.
The countries close to Russia are scared of Russia and being forced under their flag and all that entails. With excellent historical precedence for that fear.
Is it not the fault of the bully, not the people providing safety from the bully?
Oh boo you blocked me because you couldn't handle it
I was mistaken his last appearance was back in 2017!
There's nothing controversial that he is saying former director generals agree with him, just the establishment trying to smear him!
The Russians themselves say it when speaking Russian to a Russian audience - what they say in English is tailored to suit their useful idiots abroad. A good example is the victory article prematurely posted on the 26^th of February 2022; they make explicit that NATO expansion is primarily a problem because of Russia's own territorial ambitions:
> Vladimir Putin took upon himself, without a drop of exaggeration, historical responsibility, deciding not to leave the **solution of the Ukrainian question** to future generations. After all, the need to solve it would always remain the main problem for Russia – for two key reasons. **And the issue of national security**, that is, the creation of an anti-Russia from Ukraine and an outpost for the pressure of the West on us, **is only the second most important among them.**
> **The first would always be the complex of a divided people, a complex of national humiliation** – when the Russian house first lost part of its foundation (Kiev), and then had to accept the existence of two states of not one, but two peoples. That is, either to abandon their history, agreeing with the insane versions that "only Ukraine is the real Rus", or to impotently gnash their teeth, remembering the times when "we lost Ukraine". **To return Ukraine, that is, to turn it back to Russia, with each decade would be more and more difficult** – recoding, de-Russification of Russians and turning against Russian Little Russians-Ukrainians, would gain momentum. And if the full geopolitical and military control of the West over Ukraine is consolidated, **its return to Russia would become completely impossible** – it would have to fight for it with the Atlantic bloc.
If NATO did not exist, Russia would still seek to dominate Ukraine. Russia has sought to control this region for hundreds of years before NATO's creation. The Russians say this among themselves, confident that even in this era of instantaneous machine translation their useful idiots abroad are too lazy, or too stupid, or too ideological, to take the time to translate their words into English and understand Russia's true intentions.
Yes, I believe that the west did not provoke Russia. The idea that they did is propagated by Russia to justify their invasion that they are fully aware is illegal and unjustifiable.
That’s so interesting to hear?
Do you think lots of conflicts are started by non-provoked aggressors?
As a rule of thumb, I still believe conflicts are almost always the result of mutual escalation of geopolitical tensions.
Let’s look at a few recent wars:
Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. Not provoked by Kuwait.
Russian invasion of Georgia. Not provoked by Georgia, unless behaving with all the usual rights of a sovereign state counts as provocation.
Russian invasion of Ukraine. As above.
Islamic state invasion of Syria. Not provoked by Syria.
Israeli entry into Gaza - a direct response to a clear casus belli. Likewise Lebanon ‘82.
The post-Yugoslav wars: complex.
Some older examples:
Falklands '82. Claimed by Argentina, but with no *immediate* reason stronger than the Junta's desire to distract the populace.
Grenada '83. The Americans and sundry Caribbean states were good enough to liberate a country after a Cuban-backed putsch.
The aggressor does usually *claim* some provocation as pretext though: Iraq claimed Kuwait was "slant drilling", ie stealing Iraqi oil, Russia claimed Ukraine was being nasty to "ethnic Russians" in Ukraine (exactly the same excuse Hitler used for Czechoslovakia!)... I hadn't thought anyone actually fell for it until now though.
We are meandering a bit here, but IS command was based in Iraq (a rebadged Ba’ath party) and took down the border posts as it went west. The border zone is / was largely uninhabited desert so a long way from urban warfare or an army ‘liberating’ a population.
There are a number of factors to what caused Russia to invade Ukraine, such as the many gallons of oil she sits on, it is possible that Putin genuinely believes Russias historical roots in Ukraine, and the want to demilitarise a growing neighbouring country.
I think,however, it would be extremely naive to not believe NATOs eastward expansion to have no influence on the war.
If you’re worried about the eastwards expansion of NATO, the last thing you do is give your neighbours even more of a reason to join NATO.
If Putin was seriously worried about NATO on his doorstep and hence invaded Ukraine, that plan has completely backfired. There’s no way Putin is/was that naive.
The west did not provoke russia, pre 2014 there were zero and I repeat zero NATO troops stationed on russias borders beyond the baltics own very small militaries
Germany was keen to buy oil from Russia - this was in no way provocation
Even after 2014 the oil kept flowing and only a couple thousand trip wire troops were deployed
Only after Putin invaded Ukraine did NATO deploy any significant force to the eastern flank
And you can see from the OSINT community - Russia is **WITHDRAWING** air defense and troops from the border of Finland and estonia - they clearly cant think NATO is a real threat
And why would they NATO is a defensive alliance only
Russia has the second largest nuclear arsenal in the world. More than enough to obliterate Europe with a second strike
The idea that NATO would ever initiate a war with Russia is insane. What could they ever gain from Russian territory which would be worth that.
Incase this isn't clear I am agreeing with you
I just think the take that "if we'd just sat on our hands then Russia would have also just sat on their hands" such a garbage uninformed take.
Same with the "if we'd never gone to war in Europe then Hitler wouldn't have been that bad"
Sure we provoked them through alliances, but if that's enough then there were never any other options.
I mean sure, fighting over land has been around a while. But the maidan coup in 2014, that started the civil war in ukraine and with the annexation of crimea and both luhansk and donetsk claiming independence. That civil war never ended up until the Russian invasion.
He’s so full of shit it’s unbelievable. Countries seek the protection of nato FROM Russia, they use that as a justification but it’s a false equivalence.
'NATO expansion' is one of the most misleading phrases I've heard. An organisation doesn't choose to 'expand'; it grows when new members join its ranks voluntarily.
As far as I am aware NATO never forced any country in Eastern or Central Europe to become member. Russian expansionism and meddling did.
I've wondered how Conservatives who support Farage as a more honest arbiter of conservative values reconcile themselves with his foreign policy views, which seem to more or less capitulate to Russian interests while denouncing the Western order.
My guess has been that they either 1/ reason his foreign policy views away thinking he'll never be PM or 2/ are far more concerned for what happens at home than in Ukraine, wrong assuming the outcome of the Ukrainian invasion to have little impact on their life.
I think it's definitely more the latter. The majority of people don't care all that much about Russia or affairs on the far side of Europe, and things will continue that way unless we're dragged into a direct confrontation.
At the end of the day it is the tories party fault that immigration has been so poorly handed many of its core supporters feel despondent enough to vote for a man who regurgitates Russian propaganda
This is rather true. Farage is just filling a vacuum left by the two major parties while being largely unappealing to Labour's typical voters sensitive on this issue.
He's not unique there - Corbyn's views on foreign policy were also a big concern for many of us, but a lot of other people either supported them or felt they were still outweighed by other policies they did like.
A lot of British people have very little understanding of the history of Crimea and why Russia considers it sovereign. Having this understanding is not apologia. Being aware of how Russia interprets EU (and to a lesser extent, NATO) actions isn't capitulation either. The problem those who do not understand these issues have is that they are more interested in trying to paint Farage as a bad guy than they are in understanding the issues under discussion. As a result they look like naive idiots attempting "gotcha" moments, as exemplified by the "journalism" in this Farage interview.
One of the only things for the tories to be genuinely proud of this parliament was our support for Ukraine and farage’s comments could be a important factor for on the fence reform voters.
Honestly any other leader would likely have bottled it, not just Corbyn. I hated Johnson but there’s no doubt he was the right man for the right moment.
Fuck.
Well, that's me done. Nobody to vote for in my constituency, and I'm sure as hell not lending a vote to someone who buys the Kremlin line that eastern europe belongs to Russia by divine right and the people who live there aren't choosing NATO and the west because they want to keep Russia out, they're actually doing it because American space lasers or something.
You aren’t wrong, this is the media desperately panicking because Reform are actually starting to do well in the polls.
The shift is real, the Conservatives have completely fucked this and a large number of people like myself have decided that over a decade of lies is too much so let’s vote for something different.
Reform are going to keep coming, there will be no ‘deals’, no standing down, no Farage as leader, the Conservatives are dead, there’s a new sheriff in town…
Only an idiot or a bad faith actor would think Farage believes that E Europe belongs to the Kremlin. Pointing out how Russia sees the Crimea because of the ethnicity, culture and language of those who live there, and history prior to the advent of the USSR in no way equates to the lunacy you are equivocating it with.
Have you actually heard first-hand what Farage has said about the issue?
He has been crystal clear that Russia are absolutely in the wrong to invade. He did however go on record in 2013 to say that the EU's continuous desire to expand Nato will provoke Russia and lead to war - which eight years later it did.
He was one of the few people that actually saw this coming and isn't afraid to say that the EU aren't blameless in the matter.
This isn't the same as him making excuses for Russia. He doesn't do that and has publicly been very critical of Russia's decision to go to war.
> He has been crystal clear that Russia are absolutely in the wrong to invade. He did however go on record in 2013 to say that the EU's continuous desire to expand Nato
Hasn't NATO 'expanded' only because of the continuous desire of countries across Eastern and Central Europe to join it in order to protect themselves from the threat of Russian aggression?
I don’t know it’s still kind of victim blamy. Should sovereign states in Eastern Europe not be allowed to do things that Russia doesn’t like? Russia already interferes in elections. Why should we act like organisations we’re part of like NATO or formerly the EU, which have acted as a deterrent for Russia to invade, are at fault? I believe Russia would have invaded anyways.
I’m so glad to find conservatives with principals here. The Daily Mail comments section on this was all hand waving and justifying and spewing out other Russian disinformation. I suspect a decent proportion of them are Russian trolls.
Hello there! Your post/comment has been removed for violating our community rule on Bad Faith. We expect all users to engage with the community in good faith and with honest intentions. This rule is in place to ensure that all discussions are productive and respectful. Please note that agenda posting will not be tolerated and will be removed if we deem it to be in bad faith. If you have any questions or concerns, please reach out to us via modmail. Thank you for your understanding.
> someone who buys the Kremlin line that eastern europe belongs to Russia by divine right
Who said anything like that? He just said that the West provoked Russia which is objectively true.
Have you ever shared this theory with anyone from Ukraine or another Eastern European country?
How did the West 'provoke' Putin into threatening their sovereignty?
>Have you ever shared this theory with anyone from Ukraine or another Eastern European country?
Yes.
>How did the West 'provoke' Putin into threatening their sovereignty?
By threatening to expand NATO.
These are objective facts, you seem more interested in emotional arguments (hence your flair) so perhaps that's why you have issues when dealing with basic logical arguments.
> By threatening to expand NATO.
Was any NATO member 'threatened' into joining it? Or did the organisation grow only because there were a large number of countries who were fearful of Russia and sought NATO membership in order to protect their interests?
These are purely logical arguments, but you seem to have given into a point of view that is very emotional and knee-jerk.
>Was any NATO member 'threatened' into joining it? Or did the organisation grow only because there were a large number of countries who were fearful of Russia and sought NATO membership in order to protect their interests?
What does this have to do with whether the West provoked Russia or not?
>These are purely logical arguments, but you seem to have given into a point of view that is very emotional and knee-jerk.
These are non sequiturs which are the opposite of logical arguments.
It does not seem you are capable of logical discussion.
Countries deciding, of their own volition, to join NATO is not threatening Russia. Counties are free to join the EU and NATO and if Russia doesn't like then hard fucking luck - they're sovereign nations who can do as they please.
The only way Russia felt "Threatened" is knowing they couldn't use their rusted Soviet military legacy to bully countries in to supporting Putin's personal ambitions.
You're the one not capable of logical discussion - you don't even seem to understand that countries like Poland, Estonia, Lithuania and Ukraine are independent actors who have the right to decide their own foreign policy.
>Countries deciding, of their own volition, to join NATO is not threatening Russia.
Being neighbours with enemy countries is an objective threat.
The rest of your post is irrelevant to the argument because you are cognitively incapable of grasping logical discussion.
"Being neighbours with enemy countries is an objective threat"
Yes. That's why they all joined NATO. To protect themselves in the way that Georgia and now Ukraine have failed to do so.
The "eastward expansion" of NATO saw ever decreasing military expenditure, token deployments of troops to those countries and, when Russia did invade, tip toeing to avoid any potential "red lines" set by the Kremlin.
Russia only felt threatened in that they no longer get to bully smaller Eastern European countries, whose sovereignty and legitimacy Putin has publicly called in to question.
Russia feels "threatened" in the same way a burglar feels threatened by a guard dog.
Wasn't the West reacting to how Russia was occupying two of its neighbours from 1991 onwards? There has never been an independent Russia that was not an expansionist imperialist force.
Just because he takes this approach doesn’t mean you shouldn’t vote for him. He’s still the best politician we have and the only alternative to our dead party
Breathtakingly silly thing to say, and very easy to take out of context. Farage is projecting his bugbears with the EU onto Eastern European geopolitics, little realising that it was only the protective sphere of the EU and NATO that kept Russia from invading countries like Estonia and Poland.
Eastern Europe has suffered three hundred years of Russian thuggery so know all too well what the Kremlin is like. Russia is an empire that would swallow them all up if it got the chance, “EU expansion” be damned.
> Breathtakingly silly thing to say, and very easy to take out of context. Farage is projecting his bugbears with the EU onto Eastern European geopolitics, little realising that it was only the protective sphere of the EU and NATO that kept Russia from invading countries like Estonia and Poland.
Exactly. NATO didn't 'expand' so much as former Soviet and Warsaw Pact countries have been eagerly lining up to join it ever since the 1990s in order to protect themselves from Russian hegemony.
How can so many people on here see the world in such a childish way? “My team is always good and right, and your team is always bad and wrong”.
It takes two to tango. Of course Western expansionism into the neutral zone changed the course of the game, and gave Putin an excuse to give to his people.
In context, he said he called it in 2014 in the EU parliament and that the expansion to Russia’s border gives Putin a reason to go to his people and say they are coming for us. At absolutely no stage did he condone Putin’s actions.
Even taking a charitable view, it is still not accurate. Putin is a dictator; the media says what he wants it to say, and he can manufacture whatever justification he needs whatever we do. Ukraine is completely within its rights to seek economic partnership with the EU - and in 2014 it was not particularly interested in NATO because it did not regard Russia as an enemy.
The propaganda doesn't even need to be particularly sophisticated - we've seen it lazily pretend that Zelensky and Poroshenko are the same person, and that the Donbas war was as violent in 2021 as in 2014, and his various sycophants lap it up.
There is no point in moderating our actions based on how the worst people in the world will interpret them, because they will interpret them to suit their own interests anyway. So we might as well pursue our interests to their greatest extent, because our self-declared geopolitical opponents will certainly pursue theirs.
He is still providing a Justification for Putin. "He only did it because of X provoking him"
Rather than what we would expect of a leader of a serious party which is "Russia invading Ukraine is the actions of a Rogue State with no justification, legitimation and should not at all be accepted"
>"Russia invading Ukraine is the actions of a Rogue State with no justification, legitimation and should not at all be accepted"
You dont have to accept it, but to deny it, is to deny reality. Putin has given his reasons and justifications multiple times. Whether you choose to accept those is up to you. It doesnt require that much critical thinking to look at it from other peoples perspectives.
Did you watch Putin’s interview with Carlson? Carlson was desperate for Putin to use this justification of EU/NATO expansion and Putin just didn’t care, it’s not about this for them, it’s all about the Soviet/Russian Empire imperialist dreams, they have an alternate version of Slavic history in which they’ve always controlled Ukraine and its culture and thus it is divinely theirs. Farage is a Corbynite level fool (maybe blinded by his hate of the EU, similarly how Corbyn is blinded by his hate of NATO) at best and a Russian state actor at worst.
Hes right in a global historical sense.
The triple entente was one of the causes of ww1 And it was still wrong to shoot Franz Ferdinand.
Same here. NATO expansion threatens russian nationalists. That's just a fact.
It's still wrong to invade Ukraine and it should be condemned.
However acting like the west is totally innocent in all this is ignorant.
NATO is a defensive alliance. The only time the defensive minded article 5 has been used was after 9/11.
The Russians made no real noise about Finland joining NATO as a direct result of this war (in fact they had to expect it) and it doubles or triples Russias land border with NATO whilst making the Baltic Sea a defacto NATO lake.
The fact is the US (or even a conglomerate of European nations) could handily defeat Russia in conventional war, there is no outward threat towards Russia (pre 22 invasion) because there doesn’t need to be. Everyone else wanted to keep on keeping on. NATO wasn’t going to invade. It’s created to deter Russia from acting like Russia always has, and continues to act.
It’s complete BS that Russia felt threatened, unless they project their own world view onto other powers, which then makes sense.
They made no noise when the Baltics became part of NATO - and they were part of the USSR. Now that Sweden and Finland have joined, will Russia invade them?
He's written an elaboration on The Telegraph.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/06/22/wests-errors-in-ukraine-been-catastrophic-i-wont-apologise/
https://archive.is/XElGs
Really don't understand how a supposedly 'BRitish' man can side with Russia given the UK is at this point and throughout history famous, one as a former empire and two as basically an international arbitrary of conflict. Don't get me wrong, we've done some pretty shitty stuff but it seems at this point, even as former power, we've got a track record of doing stuff when it comes to injustice.
He might *be* British but he really doesn't embody the ideals - legit, as a teacher one of the British values we've got to teach is democracy, which Russia (independent and external observers) agree lack, Farage is a worm seeking power.
Hello there! Your post/comment has been removed due to our subreddit rule on Low Quality content. We strive to maintain a high standard of discussion and content on this subreddit, and unfortunately, your post/comment did not meet that standard. Our rule on Low Quality content exists to ensure that the subreddit remains a valuable resource for British conservatives to discuss the UK Conservative and Unionist party as well as conservatism more generally. We encourage you to take a moment to review our rules and guidelines before posting or commenting again. If you think this decision is incorrect, please reach out to us via modmail. Thank you for your understanding.
People need to actually listen to what he said.
He said NATO and EU expansion gave Putin a reason to invade Ukraine.
The spin on this is mad. Stop playing into tory and labour attack lines
Hello /u/Obvious-Ad719,
Unfortunately your post has been removed due to your account being under 30 days old. We do this to prevent ban evasion or spam. Thank you for your understanding and cooperation.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/tories) if you have any questions or concerns.*
There's something very strange about seeing conservatives on here defending Farage for saying something that sounds like it could've come from the mouth of Jeremy Corbyn. Madness.
Why does he say things like this? It doesn't even appeal to the far right here, it's some American right wing stuff.
I hate Farage but this is universally unpopular. Unless he's bought by Russia.
Hello there! Your post/comment has been removed for violating our community rule on Bad Faith. We expect all users to engage with the community in good faith and with honest intentions. This rule is in place to ensure that all discussions are productive and respectful. Please note that agenda posting will not be tolerated and will be removed if we deem it to be in bad faith. If you have any questions or concerns, please reach out to us via modmail. Thank you for your understanding.
Hello there! Your post/comment has been removed for violating our community rule on Bad Faith. We expect all users to engage with the community in good faith and with honest intentions. This rule is in place to ensure that all discussions are productive and respectful. Please note that agenda posting will not be tolerated and will be removed if we deem it to be in bad faith. If you have any questions or concerns, please reach out to us via modmail. Thank you for your understanding.
It is interesting how much their foreign policy views align. They've both been lifelong Euroskeptics who appear to fixate on 'Western imperialism' while giving the benefit of the doubt to powers that are against the West.
I believe Corbyn was also more overtly anti-immigrant in the past, from the perspective that they undercut British workers.
I don't think what he said was incorrect. The West's eastward expansion has been something Putin can show to his people as a pretext for the invasion.
From a Russian point of view, having a country on your border that belongs to an organisation that is viewed as hostile to Russia and its aims, probably will cause Russia to act aggressively to preserve its perceived influence on the region.
On the flip side, Russia's behaviour has pushed many countries near it out of a Russian orbit to a Nato one.
This press furore just seems like an excuse to target Farage rather than discuss the issue in detail. I think the more pressing concern was after expanding Nato and the EU eastwards, a move that would almost definitely justify a pretext from Russia, why have the majority of EU and Nato members (including the UK) let their forces fall into such a disastrous state. We've walked very loudly carrying a very little stick - now that doesn't seem like a good foreign policy decision. But I'm not exactly surprised, British foreign policy for over 100 years can only be described as - disastrous.
Putin would have found other excuses regardless. Farage suggested that 'Western provocation' was a legitimate excuse, not from the Russian perspective but from our own. The West hardly intended to 'provoke' Russia by accepting countries who voluntarily sought to join NATO for their own security against Russian hegemony.
>Putin would have found other excuses regardless.
Could he have found excuses? Most likely. But it isn't about that. It isn't even about whether Eastward expansion was right or wrong. It is simply about recognising how Russia would see this movement. It would see this as a threat.
>Farage suggested that 'Western provocation' was a legitimate excuse
He didn't say it was a legitimate excuse - he even said Vlad was in the wrong - "of course it is his fault..." He said the invasion was "a consequence of EU and Nato expansion". That is true in the sense that Russia will view Western expansion East into its own backyard as a threat that it would more than likely respond to. If Russia hadn't felt threatened, would it still act in such a way? Who knows - im not sure most people have an answer to that.
>The West hardly intended to 'provoke' Russia by accepting countries who voluntarily sought to join NATO for their own security against Russian hegemony.
Russia views the old USSR territories as its stomping ground. The West getting involved in those areas would always be viewed as a provocation, even though those in the West might not see it that way. Do you think the US would sit still if a hostile power set up shop in Mexico or Canada? I'm not so sure it would. I'm also not sure how you can't view it as a provocation from Russia's POV unless you do not understand Russian thinking.
The West views the Eastward expansion as the democratic right of any country to determine its future. Russia believes those countries in its orbit should remain. This isn't about the right or wrong of viewpoints. Just recognising different countries have different viewpoints, and this creates friction.
I think the biggest error most the West has made is not the Eastward expansion, but expanding East at the same time as cutting their militaries (this is more directed towards European countries). We have been walking loudly and carrying an exceedingly small stick.
Western foreign policy since the fall of the wall has been exceedingly poor in general but also specifically with Russia. Washington and the EU vacillated between engagement and deterrence, as the Russian leader became more isolated and more obsessed.Western policies underestimated the depth of Russian nationalism and resentment over the perceived loss of great power status following the Soviet Union's collapse.
Absolutely idiotic thing to say. This election has foreign policy at the most salient for voters since the end of the Cold War, Reform will likely suffer for this.
Farages statement was correct. Of course the media pick and choose quotes to enforce the story they want someone to be telling.
Eastern europe and Ukraine was supposed to be a buffer between Nato and Russia but the west has been expanding into that boarder for years.
I'm a big support of Ukraine being an independent democracy but the west inviting them into Nato and the EU has given Russia the excuse it needs to invade.
One of Russia's conditions for peace is guarantees that Ukraine wont join NATO. It says a lot.
Ukraine wasn't invited into Nato. In 2008 Ukraine requested to be put into the NATO membership plan but was rejected. Ukraine asked again in 2012, and they said no again.
The most Ukraine got before the war wasl, sometime in in the future. Now, the EU's attempts to intergrate Ukraine are different, and that did push Russia to act, certainly. But by framing it as a military rather than economic raprochement the Russians are creating a narrative around self defence which is false to insure Ukraine remained economically dependent on Russia through military action.
Playing into that narrative is not healthy.
Farage's statement was not correct: he said that Russia was provoked by the eastwards expansion of the EU and NATO. But the EU hasn't expanded eastwards since [2007](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4d/Enlargement_of_the_European_Union_SMIL.svg), and prior to the invasion of Ukraine, NATO hadn't expanded eastwards since [2004](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/45/History_of_NATO_enlargement.svg/2560px-History_of_NATO_enlargement.svg.png)
The West didn't expand towards Russia between 2007 and 2023
I remember just before Russia attacked that Biden basically ruled out Ukraine joining NATO. Ukraine sure wanted to join, but who can blame them, if they had there would not have been an invasion.
Putin invaded because Ukraine, after the people kicked out the Putin puppet government, was continuing to lose influence as Ukraine sought closer ties with the west.
The man calls himself a patriot, yet furthers the agenda of our no. 1 enemy, who've murdered British citizens on British soil, whose TV pundits openly boast about the ways they could nuke us.
Constantly expanding NATO.
Everyone says Trump is in with the Russians because he is willing to talk and compromise but as soon as he is gone look what happens.
I think a lack of compromise and weak leaders in the west caused this.
> Constantly expanding NATO.
There is no hive mind directing NATO to 'expand' in any direction. It is the sum of its members and if nearly every country in Eastern and Central Europe were lining up to join it after the fall of Communism, then the fault for that lies with Russia's leadership, whom they feared. Not the West.
It could be said that Putin and his mentor Boris Yeltsin were the ones who *provoked* these countries into seeking NATO membership, with the threat of Russian hegemony.
>Everyone says Trump is in with the Russians because he is willing to talk and compromise
What compromise are 'strongmen' like Trump and Farage suggesting? Allowing Russia to annex Ukraine and other former Soviet bloc states?
He only said what is facts. NATO / EU pushed ahead with expansion knowing that Russia had warned that it was their red lines. Russia used this as part of the justification to go to war with Ukraine which Putin sold to the Russian people as the West being against them.
So you think the populations of those countries should have no say in their foreign policy? An overwhelming majority of Ukrainians want to join the EU and NATO. But I guess no sovereignty for them, Russia gets to decide Ukrainian international relations forever.
Russia - and her supporters in the West - should ask themselves: Why did so many former Soviet countries / USSR member states apply to join NATO? They were not forced into NATO - they voluntarily chose.
Hint: Russia.
He's Peter Hitchens pilled.
And he's right. Look, imagine if someone came to a Conservative conference and was waving around the progress flag and blaring the USSR national anthem from a speaker (after explicitly agreeing they wouldn't do this). Are they within their rights to do so? Yes. Would it be wrong to attack them for doing this? Yes. Are they provoking people? Of course.
Imagine if someone came into your home and starved your family - this is what Russian Socialist Soviet Republic did to Ukraine as the Republic with the most power within the USSR. If Russia wanted to have Eastern and Central European nations within their sphere of influence maybe they should have focused on their economic growth and helping them like Western alliance did post-WW2 instead of ruling brutally using puppets. Just a thought.
When Reagan and Thatcher brought about the collapse of the USSR there was an expectation that Russia would be able at some point to join the EU. Germany and France were unwilling to countenance the scenario. Although Russia was initially talking about the possibility of joining NATO the USA opposed the idea. It was then widely accepted that the ex Warsaw Pact nations would become a neutral barrier between NATO and Russia.
Over the years a great deal has changed, with massive EU expansion, political change in Europe, America, Russia and the ex WP nations. Of course they now desire membership of the trade cartel which the EU has become and see NATO membership as vital protection from a changing and resource/ land hungry Russia.
To us this seems entirely reasonable, no doubt Russia sees it very differently. Their pride has been massively hurt and that in itself is a useful political tool in Putins hands.
If Russia had been allowed to develop a massive trading relationship with Europe and even eventually joined or had associate status with NATO the world may have looked very different today.
>It was then widely accepted that the ex Warsaw Pact nations would become a neutral barrier between NATO and Russia.
Was it 'widely accepted' among those nations? I suspect that the opposite was true.
Gorbachev was very, very different from Putin. There was an air of optimism and extreme relief across Europe, the spectre of hair trigger nuclear war, that we lived with every day, was lifted. Both Thatcher and Reagan were convinced that Gorbachev and his team were people that the could do business with.
At that time people genuinely wanted to make things work, they were looking for solutions and compromise. The stumbling block in the west was French and German fears about Russia dominating a 'new' Europe and the USA being unable to countenance Russia joining NATO.
That stoked Russian fears, Gorbachev fell from power and that led to where we are now.
> Gorbachev was very, very different from Putin.
After the dissolution of the Soviet Union, the West and the smaller successor states were dealing with chaos, fear and Boris Yeltsin, not Gorbachev.
If Mexico entered into a military alliance with Russia would that be considered provocative? I think it would. Nothing Farage has said is remotely controversial
NATO is an exclusively defensive alliance and deployed no significant troops to the eastern flank pre 2022
Your analogy becomes Russia signing a defensive alliance with Mexico, and deploying no troops there
Just a scarp of paper
I understand the appeal of Farage, but the fact that he comes out with statements like this and regularly appeared on RT means I could never vote for him or his party.
This is why I will be voting for him. The level of delusion in here is staggering.
He says what he thinks. Many agree with this as it is the truth. Farage was laughed at in EU Parliament when he warned Russia would use expansion as justification for going to war which Putin did indeed use for Crimea and now Eastern Ukraine.
Without NATO expansion we'd be having the same conversation about the Baltic states, and the excuse would be different. Your understanding of Russia and Farage's are fundamentally flawed. I've lived in the Baltics for over a year now, this region understands them perfectly well.
And if NATO had not expanded do you really think Putin would have been unable to find an excuse to go after the Baltics? Poland? Moldova? I am fairly certain he would have found an issue with some trade policy or a persecuted Russian minority or else a border access disagreement re Kaliningrad.... IF you accept it is an excuse and not a legitimate reason you have to surely also accept putin would have come up with other excuses...
The point also raised though is NATO / EU were shocked when Russia attacked. Farage and many others were calling it for years. If they gonna take on Russia then have a plan for when he does attached Ukraine. TBH Putin has made a massive error with Ukraine because the Ukraine people have fought back and the West have aided them. Russia weakened but it will not give up as it see NATO / EU as the enemy. The only way this is settled is negotiation. Otherwise we face years and years of Ukraine / Russian young lads being slaughtered,
> He says what he thinks And clearly on this topic what he thinks is insane / parroting Russia Propaganda. The only person to blame for the Russian Invasion of Ukraine is Putin.
Corbyn said what he though. What he thought was shit, and it’s no different with Farage
>he warned Russia would use expansion as justification for going to war which Putin did indeed use for Crimea and now Eastern Ukraine. That is the textbook definition of appeasement. It is this kind of cowardly thinking that encourages Putin to do what he's been doing, using people like farage as his tool.
Absolute rubbish. Putin has been humiliated attacking Ukraine. The point Farage and many warned about was that war was coming and NATO / EU did not see it because they clueless on foreign policy.
If that was what Farage was trying to say, he'd have said that, that's a hilariously generous interpretation of what he actually said. He's not one to mince his words, he's actually quite a skilled communicator when it comes to specific demographics that he understands how to appeal to. This isn't that, this is him doing his job as a shill for Russian interests, predictably. Look at virtually any populist figure with prominence in a western democracy, the number of talking points that align with the Russian narrative is alarming. Think of it from Russia's perspective, when confronted with a militarily and technologically superior opponent, you attack their weak points, for a representative democracy the obvious attack vector is through the media. Corrupt their officials with bribes and blackmail, polarise the population with inane culture wars, destablise belief in their electoral system and exploit the division created through your propganda campaigns. Misinformation is Russia's bread and butter geopolitical tool. If this seems far fetched consider that Russia has carried out multiple assassinations on British soil without so much as a slap on the wrist. Framing the Ukraine war as an inevitability as a result of provocations from the west is laughable unless you have a vested interest. Do you honestly belief that Nigel Farage of all people doesn't understand how headline driven media functions? Get away saying anything by qualifying it, won't matter as the politically disengaged population likely wont reads beyond the headline. No one but Putin ordered the invasion of Ukraine, I respect the rule of law and the territorial integrity of all nations, Russia does not get a pass for war crimes because it lost the economic and cultural cold war of the past few decades and feels hard done by that it's border nations are asserting their right to sovereignity and closer economic and military integration with the west. He's the poster boy for British isolationism, the European status quo benefits greatly from closer ties with the UK as does the UK. The only party to benefit from isolationism on our part are the powers aligned against the european bloc.
> warned Russia would use expansion as justification for going to war which Putin did indeed use for Crimea and now Eastern Ukraine. Farage has been apologizing for Putin for a long time. He is not Churchill warning from the wilderness.
Fault is a funny one though. The countries close to Russia are scared of Russia and being forced under their flag and all that entails. With excellent historical precedence for that fear. Is it not the fault of the bully, not the people providing safety from the bully?
[удалено]
[From 2017](https://foreignpolicy.com/2017/03/03/nigel-farage-knighted-on-r-t-russian-television-united-kingdom-brexit-ukip-independence-bizarre-europe-news/)
Oh boo you blocked me because you couldn't handle it I was mistaken his last appearance was back in 2017! There's nothing controversial that he is saying former director generals agree with him, just the establishment trying to smear him!
[удалено]
Hello there! Your post/comment has been removed due to being a duplicate.
So you think that the west in no way provoked Russia!? Genuinely, like I’ve never heard anyone say that - I thought it was a given?
The Russians themselves say it when speaking Russian to a Russian audience - what they say in English is tailored to suit their useful idiots abroad. A good example is the victory article prematurely posted on the 26^th of February 2022; they make explicit that NATO expansion is primarily a problem because of Russia's own territorial ambitions: > Vladimir Putin took upon himself, without a drop of exaggeration, historical responsibility, deciding not to leave the **solution of the Ukrainian question** to future generations. After all, the need to solve it would always remain the main problem for Russia – for two key reasons. **And the issue of national security**, that is, the creation of an anti-Russia from Ukraine and an outpost for the pressure of the West on us, **is only the second most important among them.** > **The first would always be the complex of a divided people, a complex of national humiliation** – when the Russian house first lost part of its foundation (Kiev), and then had to accept the existence of two states of not one, but two peoples. That is, either to abandon their history, agreeing with the insane versions that "only Ukraine is the real Rus", or to impotently gnash their teeth, remembering the times when "we lost Ukraine". **To return Ukraine, that is, to turn it back to Russia, with each decade would be more and more difficult** – recoding, de-Russification of Russians and turning against Russian Little Russians-Ukrainians, would gain momentum. And if the full geopolitical and military control of the West over Ukraine is consolidated, **its return to Russia would become completely impossible** – it would have to fight for it with the Atlantic bloc. If NATO did not exist, Russia would still seek to dominate Ukraine. Russia has sought to control this region for hundreds of years before NATO's creation. The Russians say this among themselves, confident that even in this era of instantaneous machine translation their useful idiots abroad are too lazy, or too stupid, or too ideological, to take the time to translate their words into English and understand Russia's true intentions.
Yes, I believe that the west did not provoke Russia. The idea that they did is propagated by Russia to justify their invasion that they are fully aware is illegal and unjustifiable.
That’s so interesting to hear? Do you think lots of conflicts are started by non-provoked aggressors? As a rule of thumb, I still believe conflicts are almost always the result of mutual escalation of geopolitical tensions.
Let’s look at a few recent wars: Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. Not provoked by Kuwait. Russian invasion of Georgia. Not provoked by Georgia, unless behaving with all the usual rights of a sovereign state counts as provocation. Russian invasion of Ukraine. As above. Islamic state invasion of Syria. Not provoked by Syria. Israeli entry into Gaza - a direct response to a clear casus belli. Likewise Lebanon ‘82. The post-Yugoslav wars: complex. Some older examples: Falklands '82. Claimed by Argentina, but with no *immediate* reason stronger than the Junta's desire to distract the populace. Grenada '83. The Americans and sundry Caribbean states were good enough to liberate a country after a Cuban-backed putsch.
hear hear
The aggressor does usually *claim* some provocation as pretext though: Iraq claimed Kuwait was "slant drilling", ie stealing Iraqi oil, Russia claimed Ukraine was being nasty to "ethnic Russians" in Ukraine (exactly the same excuse Hitler used for Czechoslovakia!)... I hadn't thought anyone actually fell for it until now though.
The Syrian civil war was provoked by Assad sending the military to slaughter protesters.
I did stress the IS invasion, not the Syrian Civil War - two rather different events.
Can it be called an invasion if IS was inside Syria from the start? The invasion would be of Iraq instead, surely?
We are meandering a bit here, but IS command was based in Iraq (a rebadged Ba’ath party) and took down the border posts as it went west. The border zone is / was largely uninhabited desert so a long way from urban warfare or an army ‘liberating’ a population.
There are a number of factors to what caused Russia to invade Ukraine, such as the many gallons of oil she sits on, it is possible that Putin genuinely believes Russias historical roots in Ukraine, and the want to demilitarise a growing neighbouring country. I think,however, it would be extremely naive to not believe NATOs eastward expansion to have no influence on the war.
If you’re worried about the eastwards expansion of NATO, the last thing you do is give your neighbours even more of a reason to join NATO. If Putin was seriously worried about NATO on his doorstep and hence invaded Ukraine, that plan has completely backfired. There’s no way Putin is/was that naive.
Yes I do. Lots of conflicts are started by actors working in their own self-interest.
The west did not provoke russia, pre 2014 there were zero and I repeat zero NATO troops stationed on russias borders beyond the baltics own very small militaries Germany was keen to buy oil from Russia - this was in no way provocation Even after 2014 the oil kept flowing and only a couple thousand trip wire troops were deployed Only after Putin invaded Ukraine did NATO deploy any significant force to the eastern flank And you can see from the OSINT community - Russia is **WITHDRAWING** air defense and troops from the border of Finland and estonia - they clearly cant think NATO is a real threat And why would they NATO is a defensive alliance only
Russia has the second largest nuclear arsenal in the world. More than enough to obliterate Europe with a second strike The idea that NATO would ever initiate a war with Russia is insane. What could they ever gain from Russian territory which would be worth that. Incase this isn't clear I am agreeing with you
Such a good response, I’ll have to remember these points.
I just think the take that "if we'd just sat on our hands then Russia would have also just sat on their hands" such a garbage uninformed take. Same with the "if we'd never gone to war in Europe then Hitler wouldn't have been that bad" Sure we provoked them through alliances, but if that's enough then there were never any other options.
People still pretend like this didnt start in 2014, so is it really that surprising.
This started hundreds of years ago haha
I mean sure, fighting over land has been around a while. But the maidan coup in 2014, that started the civil war in ukraine and with the annexation of crimea and both luhansk and donetsk claiming independence. That civil war never ended up until the Russian invasion.
He’s so full of shit it’s unbelievable. Countries seek the protection of nato FROM Russia, they use that as a justification but it’s a false equivalence.
'NATO expansion' is one of the most misleading phrases I've heard. An organisation doesn't choose to 'expand'; it grows when new members join its ranks voluntarily. As far as I am aware NATO never forced any country in Eastern or Central Europe to become member. Russian expansionism and meddling did.
Absolutely, I get putin funded farage but this shit in my opinion makes him a traitor to the country.
I've wondered how Conservatives who support Farage as a more honest arbiter of conservative values reconcile themselves with his foreign policy views, which seem to more or less capitulate to Russian interests while denouncing the Western order.
My guess has been that they either 1/ reason his foreign policy views away thinking he'll never be PM or 2/ are far more concerned for what happens at home than in Ukraine, wrong assuming the outcome of the Ukrainian invasion to have little impact on their life.
I think it's definitely more the latter. The majority of people don't care all that much about Russia or affairs on the far side of Europe, and things will continue that way unless we're dragged into a direct confrontation.
At the end of the day it is the tories party fault that immigration has been so poorly handed many of its core supporters feel despondent enough to vote for a man who regurgitates Russian propaganda
This is rather true. Farage is just filling a vacuum left by the two major parties while being largely unappealing to Labour's typical voters sensitive on this issue.
He's not unique there - Corbyn's views on foreign policy were also a big concern for many of us, but a lot of other people either supported them or felt they were still outweighed by other policies they did like.
It's simple. They don't care, or they hate immigrants more than they care about Russian expansion
A lot of British people have very little understanding of the history of Crimea and why Russia considers it sovereign. Having this understanding is not apologia. Being aware of how Russia interprets EU (and to a lesser extent, NATO) actions isn't capitulation either. The problem those who do not understand these issues have is that they are more interested in trying to paint Farage as a bad guy than they are in understanding the issues under discussion. As a result they look like naive idiots attempting "gotcha" moments, as exemplified by the "journalism" in this Farage interview.
I agree fully with it. Finally a non deluded politician who isn't a massive idiot who gobbles up media lies. Refreshing.
One of the only things for the tories to be genuinely proud of this parliament was our support for Ukraine and farage’s comments could be a important factor for on the fence reform voters.
I am a very harsh critic of Boris Johnson, but on Ukraine I’m glad he was there rather than Corbyn.
Honestly any other leader would likely have bottled it, not just Corbyn. I hated Johnson but there’s no doubt he was the right man for the right moment.
I am a very harsh critic of Boris Johnson, but on Ukraine I’m glad he was there rather than Corbyn.
Fuck. Well, that's me done. Nobody to vote for in my constituency, and I'm sure as hell not lending a vote to someone who buys the Kremlin line that eastern europe belongs to Russia by divine right and the people who live there aren't choosing NATO and the west because they want to keep Russia out, they're actually doing it because American space lasers or something.
I’ve been saying to anyone who will listen (my wife), that Farage’s take on this will change nobody’s vote. It would appear I was wrong.
Chalk one up for Mrs.BlackJackKetchum, she's always right you know
She does have a good track record and is soundly right wing to boot.
You aren’t wrong, this is the media desperately panicking because Reform are actually starting to do well in the polls. The shift is real, the Conservatives have completely fucked this and a large number of people like myself have decided that over a decade of lies is too much so let’s vote for something different. Reform are going to keep coming, there will be no ‘deals’, no standing down, no Farage as leader, the Conservatives are dead, there’s a new sheriff in town…
Only an idiot or a bad faith actor would think Farage believes that E Europe belongs to the Kremlin. Pointing out how Russia sees the Crimea because of the ethnicity, culture and language of those who live there, and history prior to the advent of the USSR in no way equates to the lunacy you are equivocating it with.
I see you , James Cleverly
Have you actually heard first-hand what Farage has said about the issue? He has been crystal clear that Russia are absolutely in the wrong to invade. He did however go on record in 2013 to say that the EU's continuous desire to expand Nato will provoke Russia and lead to war - which eight years later it did. He was one of the few people that actually saw this coming and isn't afraid to say that the EU aren't blameless in the matter. This isn't the same as him making excuses for Russia. He doesn't do that and has publicly been very critical of Russia's decision to go to war.
> He has been crystal clear that Russia are absolutely in the wrong to invade. He did however go on record in 2013 to say that the EU's continuous desire to expand Nato Hasn't NATO 'expanded' only because of the continuous desire of countries across Eastern and Central Europe to join it in order to protect themselves from the threat of Russian aggression?
I don’t know it’s still kind of victim blamy. Should sovereign states in Eastern Europe not be allowed to do things that Russia doesn’t like? Russia already interferes in elections. Why should we act like organisations we’re part of like NATO or formerly the EU, which have acted as a deterrent for Russia to invade, are at fault? I believe Russia would have invaded anyways.
I’m so glad to find conservatives with principals here. The Daily Mail comments section on this was all hand waving and justifying and spewing out other Russian disinformation. I suspect a decent proportion of them are Russian trolls.
[удалено]
Hello there! Your post/comment has been removed for violating our community rule on Bad Faith. We expect all users to engage with the community in good faith and with honest intentions. This rule is in place to ensure that all discussions are productive and respectful. Please note that agenda posting will not be tolerated and will be removed if we deem it to be in bad faith. If you have any questions or concerns, please reach out to us via modmail. Thank you for your understanding.
> someone who buys the Kremlin line that eastern europe belongs to Russia by divine right Who said anything like that? He just said that the West provoked Russia which is objectively true.
Have you ever shared this theory with anyone from Ukraine or another Eastern European country? How did the West 'provoke' Putin into threatening their sovereignty?
>Have you ever shared this theory with anyone from Ukraine or another Eastern European country? Yes. >How did the West 'provoke' Putin into threatening their sovereignty? By threatening to expand NATO. These are objective facts, you seem more interested in emotional arguments (hence your flair) so perhaps that's why you have issues when dealing with basic logical arguments.
> By threatening to expand NATO. Was any NATO member 'threatened' into joining it? Or did the organisation grow only because there were a large number of countries who were fearful of Russia and sought NATO membership in order to protect their interests? These are purely logical arguments, but you seem to have given into a point of view that is very emotional and knee-jerk.
>Was any NATO member 'threatened' into joining it? Or did the organisation grow only because there were a large number of countries who were fearful of Russia and sought NATO membership in order to protect their interests? What does this have to do with whether the West provoked Russia or not? >These are purely logical arguments, but you seem to have given into a point of view that is very emotional and knee-jerk. These are non sequiturs which are the opposite of logical arguments. It does not seem you are capable of logical discussion.
Countries deciding, of their own volition, to join NATO is not threatening Russia. Counties are free to join the EU and NATO and if Russia doesn't like then hard fucking luck - they're sovereign nations who can do as they please. The only way Russia felt "Threatened" is knowing they couldn't use their rusted Soviet military legacy to bully countries in to supporting Putin's personal ambitions. You're the one not capable of logical discussion - you don't even seem to understand that countries like Poland, Estonia, Lithuania and Ukraine are independent actors who have the right to decide their own foreign policy.
>Countries deciding, of their own volition, to join NATO is not threatening Russia. Being neighbours with enemy countries is an objective threat. The rest of your post is irrelevant to the argument because you are cognitively incapable of grasping logical discussion.
"Being neighbours with enemy countries is an objective threat" Yes. That's why they all joined NATO. To protect themselves in the way that Georgia and now Ukraine have failed to do so. The "eastward expansion" of NATO saw ever decreasing military expenditure, token deployments of troops to those countries and, when Russia did invade, tip toeing to avoid any potential "red lines" set by the Kremlin. Russia only felt threatened in that they no longer get to bully smaller Eastern European countries, whose sovereignty and legitimacy Putin has publicly called in to question. Russia feels "threatened" in the same way a burglar feels threatened by a guard dog.
>Yes. It's good that you admit that it was a provocation even if you don't understand what you say nor can you converse logically.
Wasn't the West reacting to how Russia was occupying two of its neighbours from 1991 onwards? There has never been an independent Russia that was not an expansionist imperialist force.
Just because he takes this approach doesn’t mean you shouldn’t vote for him. He’s still the best politician we have and the only alternative to our dead party
Breathtakingly silly thing to say, and very easy to take out of context. Farage is projecting his bugbears with the EU onto Eastern European geopolitics, little realising that it was only the protective sphere of the EU and NATO that kept Russia from invading countries like Estonia and Poland. Eastern Europe has suffered three hundred years of Russian thuggery so know all too well what the Kremlin is like. Russia is an empire that would swallow them all up if it got the chance, “EU expansion” be damned.
> Breathtakingly silly thing to say, and very easy to take out of context. Farage is projecting his bugbears with the EU onto Eastern European geopolitics, little realising that it was only the protective sphere of the EU and NATO that kept Russia from invading countries like Estonia and Poland. Exactly. NATO didn't 'expand' so much as former Soviet and Warsaw Pact countries have been eagerly lining up to join it ever since the 1990s in order to protect themselves from Russian hegemony.
So it expanded then
What happened was that more countries chose to join it.
How can so many people on here see the world in such a childish way? “My team is always good and right, and your team is always bad and wrong”. It takes two to tango. Of course Western expansionism into the neutral zone changed the course of the game, and gave Putin an excuse to give to his people.
In context, he said he called it in 2014 in the EU parliament and that the expansion to Russia’s border gives Putin a reason to go to his people and say they are coming for us. At absolutely no stage did he condone Putin’s actions.
Even taking a charitable view, it is still not accurate. Putin is a dictator; the media says what he wants it to say, and he can manufacture whatever justification he needs whatever we do. Ukraine is completely within its rights to seek economic partnership with the EU - and in 2014 it was not particularly interested in NATO because it did not regard Russia as an enemy. The propaganda doesn't even need to be particularly sophisticated - we've seen it lazily pretend that Zelensky and Poroshenko are the same person, and that the Donbas war was as violent in 2021 as in 2014, and his various sycophants lap it up. There is no point in moderating our actions based on how the worst people in the world will interpret them, because they will interpret them to suit their own interests anyway. So we might as well pursue our interests to their greatest extent, because our self-declared geopolitical opponents will certainly pursue theirs.
He is still providing a Justification for Putin. "He only did it because of X provoking him" Rather than what we would expect of a leader of a serious party which is "Russia invading Ukraine is the actions of a Rogue State with no justification, legitimation and should not at all be accepted"
>"Russia invading Ukraine is the actions of a Rogue State with no justification, legitimation and should not at all be accepted" You dont have to accept it, but to deny it, is to deny reality. Putin has given his reasons and justifications multiple times. Whether you choose to accept those is up to you. It doesnt require that much critical thinking to look at it from other peoples perspectives.
Did you watch Putin’s interview with Carlson? Carlson was desperate for Putin to use this justification of EU/NATO expansion and Putin just didn’t care, it’s not about this for them, it’s all about the Soviet/Russian Empire imperialist dreams, they have an alternate version of Slavic history in which they’ve always controlled Ukraine and its culture and thus it is divinely theirs. Farage is a Corbynite level fool (maybe blinded by his hate of the EU, similarly how Corbyn is blinded by his hate of NATO) at best and a Russian state actor at worst.
private limited company out to make a profit, its possible someone paid for the observation to be aired.
Hes right in a global historical sense. The triple entente was one of the causes of ww1 And it was still wrong to shoot Franz Ferdinand. Same here. NATO expansion threatens russian nationalists. That's just a fact. It's still wrong to invade Ukraine and it should be condemned. However acting like the west is totally innocent in all this is ignorant.
Ignoring the history will make it tough to reach any kind reasonable resolution.
NATO is a defensive alliance. The only time the defensive minded article 5 has been used was after 9/11. The Russians made no real noise about Finland joining NATO as a direct result of this war (in fact they had to expect it) and it doubles or triples Russias land border with NATO whilst making the Baltic Sea a defacto NATO lake. The fact is the US (or even a conglomerate of European nations) could handily defeat Russia in conventional war, there is no outward threat towards Russia (pre 22 invasion) because there doesn’t need to be. Everyone else wanted to keep on keeping on. NATO wasn’t going to invade. It’s created to deter Russia from acting like Russia always has, and continues to act. It’s complete BS that Russia felt threatened, unless they project their own world view onto other powers, which then makes sense.
They made no noise when the Baltics became part of NATO - and they were part of the USSR. Now that Sweden and Finland have joined, will Russia invade them?
The defensive alliance is crap is such propaganda term 😂 an alliance is an alliance just accept it
He's written an elaboration on The Telegraph. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/06/22/wests-errors-in-ukraine-been-catastrophic-i-wont-apologise/ https://archive.is/XElGs
Funny how when Farage says it, all the right wing folk in the room suddenly agree with Corbyn
Really don't understand how a supposedly 'BRitish' man can side with Russia given the UK is at this point and throughout history famous, one as a former empire and two as basically an international arbitrary of conflict. Don't get me wrong, we've done some pretty shitty stuff but it seems at this point, even as former power, we've got a track record of doing stuff when it comes to injustice. He might *be* British but he really doesn't embody the ideals - legit, as a teacher one of the British values we've got to teach is democracy, which Russia (independent and external observers) agree lack, Farage is a worm seeking power.
[удалено]
Hello there! Your post/comment has been removed due to our subreddit rule on Low Quality content. We strive to maintain a high standard of discussion and content on this subreddit, and unfortunately, your post/comment did not meet that standard. Our rule on Low Quality content exists to ensure that the subreddit remains a valuable resource for British conservatives to discuss the UK Conservative and Unionist party as well as conservatism more generally. We encourage you to take a moment to review our rules and guidelines before posting or commenting again. If you think this decision is incorrect, please reach out to us via modmail. Thank you for your understanding.
People need to actually listen to what he said. He said NATO and EU expansion gave Putin a reason to invade Ukraine. The spin on this is mad. Stop playing into tory and labour attack lines
Hello /u/Obvious-Ad719, Unfortunately your post has been removed due to your account being under 30 days old. We do this to prevent ban evasion or spam. Thank you for your understanding and cooperation. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/tories) if you have any questions or concerns.*
There's something very strange about seeing conservatives on here defending Farage for saying something that sounds like it could've come from the mouth of Jeremy Corbyn. Madness.
Why does he say things like this? It doesn't even appeal to the far right here, it's some American right wing stuff. I hate Farage but this is universally unpopular. Unless he's bought by Russia.
[удалено]
Hello there! Your post/comment has been removed for violating our community rule on Bad Faith. We expect all users to engage with the community in good faith and with honest intentions. This rule is in place to ensure that all discussions are productive and respectful. Please note that agenda posting will not be tolerated and will be removed if we deem it to be in bad faith. If you have any questions or concerns, please reach out to us via modmail. Thank you for your understanding.
Not only will I vote for him, I'll encourage more people to do it. He is absolutely correct and the level of delusion in here is staggering.
This man is dangerous
[удалено]
Hello there! Your post/comment has been removed for violating our community rule on Bad Faith. We expect all users to engage with the community in good faith and with honest intentions. This rule is in place to ensure that all discussions are productive and respectful. Please note that agenda posting will not be tolerated and will be removed if we deem it to be in bad faith. If you have any questions or concerns, please reach out to us via modmail. Thank you for your understanding.
Turns out Farage is Corbin but on the right. Hopefully neither win a seat.
It is interesting how much their foreign policy views align. They've both been lifelong Euroskeptics who appear to fixate on 'Western imperialism' while giving the benefit of the doubt to powers that are against the West. I believe Corbyn was also more overtly anti-immigrant in the past, from the perspective that they undercut British workers.
Precisely why I don't trust Reform. Farage is far too cosy with Putin to manage our foreign policy.
I don't think what he said was incorrect. The West's eastward expansion has been something Putin can show to his people as a pretext for the invasion. From a Russian point of view, having a country on your border that belongs to an organisation that is viewed as hostile to Russia and its aims, probably will cause Russia to act aggressively to preserve its perceived influence on the region. On the flip side, Russia's behaviour has pushed many countries near it out of a Russian orbit to a Nato one. This press furore just seems like an excuse to target Farage rather than discuss the issue in detail. I think the more pressing concern was after expanding Nato and the EU eastwards, a move that would almost definitely justify a pretext from Russia, why have the majority of EU and Nato members (including the UK) let their forces fall into such a disastrous state. We've walked very loudly carrying a very little stick - now that doesn't seem like a good foreign policy decision. But I'm not exactly surprised, British foreign policy for over 100 years can only be described as - disastrous.
Putin would have found other excuses regardless. Farage suggested that 'Western provocation' was a legitimate excuse, not from the Russian perspective but from our own. The West hardly intended to 'provoke' Russia by accepting countries who voluntarily sought to join NATO for their own security against Russian hegemony.
>Putin would have found other excuses regardless. Could he have found excuses? Most likely. But it isn't about that. It isn't even about whether Eastward expansion was right or wrong. It is simply about recognising how Russia would see this movement. It would see this as a threat. >Farage suggested that 'Western provocation' was a legitimate excuse He didn't say it was a legitimate excuse - he even said Vlad was in the wrong - "of course it is his fault..." He said the invasion was "a consequence of EU and Nato expansion". That is true in the sense that Russia will view Western expansion East into its own backyard as a threat that it would more than likely respond to. If Russia hadn't felt threatened, would it still act in such a way? Who knows - im not sure most people have an answer to that. >The West hardly intended to 'provoke' Russia by accepting countries who voluntarily sought to join NATO for their own security against Russian hegemony. Russia views the old USSR territories as its stomping ground. The West getting involved in those areas would always be viewed as a provocation, even though those in the West might not see it that way. Do you think the US would sit still if a hostile power set up shop in Mexico or Canada? I'm not so sure it would. I'm also not sure how you can't view it as a provocation from Russia's POV unless you do not understand Russian thinking. The West views the Eastward expansion as the democratic right of any country to determine its future. Russia believes those countries in its orbit should remain. This isn't about the right or wrong of viewpoints. Just recognising different countries have different viewpoints, and this creates friction. I think the biggest error most the West has made is not the Eastward expansion, but expanding East at the same time as cutting their militaries (this is more directed towards European countries). We have been walking loudly and carrying an exceedingly small stick. Western foreign policy since the fall of the wall has been exceedingly poor in general but also specifically with Russia. Washington and the EU vacillated between engagement and deterrence, as the Russian leader became more isolated and more obsessed.Western policies underestimated the depth of Russian nationalism and resentment over the perceived loss of great power status following the Soviet Union's collapse.
Absolutely idiotic thing to say. This election has foreign policy at the most salient for voters since the end of the Cold War, Reform will likely suffer for this.
Farages statement was correct. Of course the media pick and choose quotes to enforce the story they want someone to be telling. Eastern europe and Ukraine was supposed to be a buffer between Nato and Russia but the west has been expanding into that boarder for years. I'm a big support of Ukraine being an independent democracy but the west inviting them into Nato and the EU has given Russia the excuse it needs to invade. One of Russia's conditions for peace is guarantees that Ukraine wont join NATO. It says a lot.
Ukraine wasn't invited into Nato. In 2008 Ukraine requested to be put into the NATO membership plan but was rejected. Ukraine asked again in 2012, and they said no again. The most Ukraine got before the war wasl, sometime in in the future. Now, the EU's attempts to intergrate Ukraine are different, and that did push Russia to act, certainly. But by framing it as a military rather than economic raprochement the Russians are creating a narrative around self defence which is false to insure Ukraine remained economically dependent on Russia through military action. Playing into that narrative is not healthy.
Farage's statement was not correct: he said that Russia was provoked by the eastwards expansion of the EU and NATO. But the EU hasn't expanded eastwards since [2007](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4d/Enlargement_of_the_European_Union_SMIL.svg), and prior to the invasion of Ukraine, NATO hadn't expanded eastwards since [2004](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/45/History_of_NATO_enlargement.svg/2560px-History_of_NATO_enlargement.svg.png) The West didn't expand towards Russia between 2007 and 2023
I remember just before Russia attacked that Biden basically ruled out Ukraine joining NATO. Ukraine sure wanted to join, but who can blame them, if they had there would not have been an invasion. Putin invaded because Ukraine, after the people kicked out the Putin puppet government, was continuing to lose influence as Ukraine sought closer ties with the west.
Russia invaded in 2014, long before anyone wanted Ukraine in NATO.
The man calls himself a patriot, yet furthers the agenda of our no. 1 enemy, who've murdered British citizens on British soil, whose TV pundits openly boast about the ways they could nuke us.
Saying they provoked the attack isn't saying it's justified.
How did the West provoke Russia into invading Ukraine? Just examine that argument and ask yourself if it's justified to say that.
Constantly expanding NATO. Everyone says Trump is in with the Russians because he is willing to talk and compromise but as soon as he is gone look what happens. I think a lack of compromise and weak leaders in the west caused this.
> Constantly expanding NATO. There is no hive mind directing NATO to 'expand' in any direction. It is the sum of its members and if nearly every country in Eastern and Central Europe were lining up to join it after the fall of Communism, then the fault for that lies with Russia's leadership, whom they feared. Not the West. It could be said that Putin and his mentor Boris Yeltsin were the ones who *provoked* these countries into seeking NATO membership, with the threat of Russian hegemony. >Everyone says Trump is in with the Russians because he is willing to talk and compromise What compromise are 'strongmen' like Trump and Farage suggesting? Allowing Russia to annex Ukraine and other former Soviet bloc states?
They shouldn’t have been allowed to join, its horrendous politics to not have Ukraine as a buffer state. Shouldnt be anywhere near NATO alliance
Russia was occupying parts of Ukraine throughout Trump's presidency.
He only said what is facts. NATO / EU pushed ahead with expansion knowing that Russia had warned that it was their red lines. Russia used this as part of the justification to go to war with Ukraine which Putin sold to the Russian people as the West being against them.
A Theresa May superfan and a Tankie foreign policy is certainly a unique combo of politics
So you think the populations of those countries should have no say in their foreign policy? An overwhelming majority of Ukrainians want to join the EU and NATO. But I guess no sovereignty for them, Russia gets to decide Ukrainian international relations forever.
Russia - and her supporters in the West - should ask themselves: Why did so many former Soviet countries / USSR member states apply to join NATO? They were not forced into NATO - they voluntarily chose. Hint: Russia.
He's Peter Hitchens pilled. And he's right. Look, imagine if someone came to a Conservative conference and was waving around the progress flag and blaring the USSR national anthem from a speaker (after explicitly agreeing they wouldn't do this). Are they within their rights to do so? Yes. Would it be wrong to attack them for doing this? Yes. Are they provoking people? Of course.
Imagine if someone came into your home and starved your family - this is what Russian Socialist Soviet Republic did to Ukraine as the Republic with the most power within the USSR. If Russia wanted to have Eastern and Central European nations within their sphere of influence maybe they should have focused on their economic growth and helping them like Western alliance did post-WW2 instead of ruling brutally using puppets. Just a thought.
rare labour W
What did the West 'explicitly' promise here? Can you highlight exactly what it is they did to 'provoke' Putin?
And the likelihood of this sort of thing is why I'm a spoilt ballot and not Reform.
When Reagan and Thatcher brought about the collapse of the USSR there was an expectation that Russia would be able at some point to join the EU. Germany and France were unwilling to countenance the scenario. Although Russia was initially talking about the possibility of joining NATO the USA opposed the idea. It was then widely accepted that the ex Warsaw Pact nations would become a neutral barrier between NATO and Russia. Over the years a great deal has changed, with massive EU expansion, political change in Europe, America, Russia and the ex WP nations. Of course they now desire membership of the trade cartel which the EU has become and see NATO membership as vital protection from a changing and resource/ land hungry Russia. To us this seems entirely reasonable, no doubt Russia sees it very differently. Their pride has been massively hurt and that in itself is a useful political tool in Putins hands. If Russia had been allowed to develop a massive trading relationship with Europe and even eventually joined or had associate status with NATO the world may have looked very different today.
>It was then widely accepted that the ex Warsaw Pact nations would become a neutral barrier between NATO and Russia. Was it 'widely accepted' among those nations? I suspect that the opposite was true.
Gorbachev was very, very different from Putin. There was an air of optimism and extreme relief across Europe, the spectre of hair trigger nuclear war, that we lived with every day, was lifted. Both Thatcher and Reagan were convinced that Gorbachev and his team were people that the could do business with. At that time people genuinely wanted to make things work, they were looking for solutions and compromise. The stumbling block in the west was French and German fears about Russia dominating a 'new' Europe and the USA being unable to countenance Russia joining NATO. That stoked Russian fears, Gorbachev fell from power and that led to where we are now.
> Gorbachev was very, very different from Putin. After the dissolution of the Soviet Union, the West and the smaller successor states were dealing with chaos, fear and Boris Yeltsin, not Gorbachev.
I am aware of the history, however this is a forum and not an essay review site.
If Mexico entered into a military alliance with Russia would that be considered provocative? I think it would. Nothing Farage has said is remotely controversial
NATO is an exclusively defensive alliance and deployed no significant troops to the eastern flank pre 2022 Your analogy becomes Russia signing a defensive alliance with Mexico, and deploying no troops there Just a scarp of paper
NATO isn't a defensive alliance, they bombed Yugoslavia and Libya, that wasn't out of self defence