Nigel Farage Was Right About Britain Needing to Escape the Clutches of a European Evil Empire. Why Not Support Ukraine’s Efforts to do the Same?
Nigel Farage stated in a recent BBC Panorama interview that the West – specifically the EU and NATO – provoked Russia into invading Ukraine. As with all monocausal explanations of history, it lacks substance and depth, and in this case it glosses over the post-independence history of Ukraine and its people – their wishes, motivations and actions – in a manner Farage himself would find repugnant if the topic were Britain and the British people.
I’ll come back to that point. However, it’s worth noting that Farage claims to have a unique insight into these matters. He stated in the Panorama interview that he, alone of all British politicians, predicted a Russian invasion of Ukraine 10 years ago. However, I think the speech he’s referring to was one he gave to the European Parliament on Sep 16th 2014, some months after Russia invaded Crimea and the Donbas. And in fact, he later said that Russia wouldn’t commit to a full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022. Nevertheless, he claims “my judgement has been way ahead of everyone else’s in understanding this”.
Farage’s assessment of Russian intentions isn’t ahead of the curve, because it appears to derive in large measure not from a careful analysis and understanding of history, but rather from his deep-seated hatred of all things EU. I share his view that the EU is an abomination, and I’m grateful for his part in the decades-long struggle to enable Britain to break free from that evil empire. However, when Farage decries the EU for encouraging the Maidan protests in Kyiv in 2014, what he fails to understand or accept is that Ukrainians were (and are) agents of their own destiny and have been engaged in a multi-generational struggle for independence from an evil empire headquartered not in Brussels but in Moscow, and that the EU was no more responsible for the Maidan than for the defeat of communism.
The choice for Ukrainians in 2013–14 was stark: accept a never-ending customs union with Russia – meaning political and economic domination by Russia for the foreseeable future – or stand up and protest against it. This customs union with Russia was to be foisted on them by the Russian-sponsored President Yanukovych, contrary to his own prior statements, and against the wishes of the Ukrainian people and their elected representatives in parliament. Sound familiar? In many ways, Yanukovych could be seen as the Ukrainian equivalent of Theresa May, although at least Theresa May didn’t, in her final days, start shooting her opponents, attempt to start a civil war and finally flee to Brussels on an EU ship.
The idea that the Maidan was really just the result of Ukrainians being played by outside forces (particularly the EU) is as ridiculous as the claims that Brexit wasn’t really the will of the British people, that ill-informed Britons were misled, and that there was something sinister going on behind the scenes. In fact, it was a profoundly patriotic movement, even if it does seem odd to many of us that Ukrainians actually wanted (and still want) to join the EU. But the Ukrainian perspective is vitally important, so let’s hear what the Maidan protester, academic and chronicler of the Maidan Revolution Mychailo Wynnyckyj says about this:
…Ukraine’s Revolution of Dignity represented a profound rejection of the previously taken-for-granted assumption underpinning (ironically) the EU project, according to which “modernization” should of necessity be be accompanied by a decline in the importance of “nation” as a locus of solidarity.
…
Sadly, the most popular (and wrong) descriptions of the “Ukraine Crisis” – a label that relegates Ukrainians to the status of objects of great power politics – are Russo-centric. According to these accounts, the Maidan protesters were nothing more than puppets in a geopolitical game, and Putin’s invasion of Ukraine was a (legitimate) reaction to a supposedly aggressive West. Such analyses are not only offensive to Ukrainians (i.e., deny their agency), they are largely inaccurate in their interpretations of facts […] the protagonists of the violence (and their more moderate supporters) were not acting on anyone’s orders: theirs was an (idealistic) leaderless agency aimed at achieving revolutionary change within their own country.
It’s pretty ironic that Farage, of all people, doesn’t seem to get this. In fact, Farage’s rhetoric – describing Maidan in 2014 as a “coup d’état” – fits very much the mould of a Jolyon Maugham or a Rory Stewart, blaming the Brexit vote on outside agitators.
On Farage’s point about NATO “expansionism”, I’m not going to repeat myself by going over why that argument is false (I’ve spilt a lot of ink on that already), but I will just point out that Farage is wrong to claim in the Panorama interview that this was the justification for war that Putin gave to his own people. In fact, Putin and his circle give many different justifications depending on the audience, but to his own people (and partly for the benefit of potentially co-operative Ukrainians) he wrote a lengthy and ahistorical document claiming that the Russian and Ukrainian people are united in some sort of Slavic brotherhood, while saying Ukraine isn’t really a country and also claiming that it’s run by genocidal Nazis who need to be eradicated. Of course, everyone in Russia and those countries neighbouring Russia understood that what he meant was that Ukrainians are khokhols to be despised and trodden underfoot by the Russian master-race, and their country carved up and turned into a cash till for the Russian elite.
Farage is able to grasp the concepts of freedom, self-determination and sovereignty when it comes to countries menaced by a European superstate – at least on this side of the English Channel. And I like Farage, and was planning to vote Reform, but when he started talking about this issue, my pen just failed to make contact with the postal ballot form.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
A disappointing hatchet job from a writer who should know better.
No mention of the alleged unaudited billions flowing into the Ukraine for arms and aid.
No mention of Zelensky’s refusal to allow the citizens a voice over the conflict.
No mention of the EU & UK buying oil and gas from Russia, using middle men, despite the official sanctions. All to cover up the Nut Zero nonsense and leaving Russia as wealthy as before.
Also that US LNG wont sell itself whilst other gas suppliers are available.
Farcical isn’t it.
On Farage’s point about NATO “expansionism”, I’m not going to repeat myself by going over why that argument is false (I’ve spilt a lot of ink on that already)
Clown show. So engaging in coups, putting in ‘advisers’, missiles and 40 biolabs on the Russian border in what used to be essentially a satrapy of Moscow, does not in anyway constitute aggression. Contravening the Minsk and other agreements does not – this clown’s world view’ – mean that you have broken a contract and are acting in bad faith.
I think the Russians should follow the American template and do the same in say Mexico or Cuba.
More falsehoods from Ian Rons. The Maidan coup was in direct response to a US/EU coup against the democratically elected government of Ukraine. The election in Ukraine in 2010 was a 49% to 45% victory for the pro Russian Victor Yanukovych and the election was declared to be above board and totally legal. He had huge support in the east and south of the country. Even ex US Presidential candidate Ron Paul acknowledged in 2015 that Maidan was a US coup. http://www.ronpaulinstitute.org/archives/featured-articles/2015/february/22/interventionism-kills-post-coup-ukraine-one-year-later/ Crimea wasn’t “invaded” by Russia. Russia’s “annexation” of Crimea (by military personnel already stationed there for their Black Sea fleet, no Russian troops needed to be sent as they have been there by agreement for decades) was more of a “reunification” and was with a 96% approval rating by the 1.5 million people of Crimea in a referendum. They needed to vote in 2014 as they saw the rise of the ultranationalists and neo-Nazis after the US led Maidan coup and the persecution of ethnic Russians in the east and south of Ukraine. “The men occupying Crimea’s parliament came to be recognised by locals and by international media as Russian soldiers without insignia. For the pro-Russian groups that… Read more »
My first sentence should have read …….
The Maidan riots were a US/EU led coup against the democratically elected government of Ukraine.
L Rons Hubbard et al believe that the endless eastward expansion of NATO and engendering coups in the Uketopia is ‘proof’ that the Uketopians want to be ingested into the US empire. No such proofs exist.
What the criminal US empire wants is a forever war (money laundering, potential to lock down their society, all-war footing etc etc); and the resources in Ukeland.
Ukeland is already a 51rst US State, it would not exist without US military and budget investments. A fact that L Rons seems to ignore.
Did the Uketopians vote to join the US or its German puppet the EUrinal? Can L Rons point out that referendum?
Excellent synopsis.
Bravo.
Just a shame that the uptickers on here cannot seem to engage their brains when it comes to the Genocide occuring in the western med.
Still, that’s the power of 80 years worth of propaganda…
Eastern Med.
It is a conundrum.
Many can see that Russia were totally justified in their actions even though there is a blanket ban in the UK of Russian media outlets.
Most of the geopolitical analysts I have been following for decades support Russia AND Palestine.
I can only assume that many people have succumbed to the 80 years of Zionist propaganda that you mention.
Diligent work. If you can do this, so can Farage.
Let me get this right. It’s GOOD for Farage to have got us out of the evil EU empire, but also GOOD for Ukraine to be shoehorned into the very same empire, as the unelected EU European Council agreed just three days ago, by negotiating with a Ukrainian government under a President whose tenure has expired and who has cancelled elections.
Let me think about this…
There is also the factor that the very same expired President decreed that no ethnic Russians, a third of the Ukrainian population, can hold public office or vote. A minor point of course which, strangely, the MSM seem to have missed.
“Honest, the Ukrainians are far better off in a corrupt EU with NATO pointing missiles from their main border”.
Re: “ethnic Russians”, that’s completely false.
Really Ian? This is only part of it:
“KIEV (Reuters) – Ukraine’s parliament approved a law on Thursday that grants special status to the Ukrainian language and makes it mandatory for public sector workers, a move Russia described as divisive and said discriminated against Russian-speakers.
The law, which obliges all citizens to know the Ukrainian language and makes it a mandatory requirement for civil servants, soldiers, doctors, and teachers, was championed by outgoing President Petro Poroshenko.”
https://www.reuters.com/article/world/ukraine-passes-language-law-irritating-president-elect-and-russia-idUSKCN1S110Y/
Yes, Ukrainian is the official language of Ukraine. After decades of Moscow trying to eradicate it. But that’s not what you said — you claimed “ethnic Russians” aren’t allowed to vote or hold public office, which is false.
I clearly say in the piece that I find it odd that Ukrainians want to join the EU, but they believe it’s in their interests and they have the right to try to join if they want to. This is basic self-determination. Agree or disagree, but for most Ukrainians, the EU is seen as a non-corrupt shining light that’ll help drag their country out of the corruption that became endemic during the Soviet era (and the oligarchic corruption that happened later). To some degree, that argument is valid in my opinion – it has forced them to deal with some corruption, and joining the customs union would undoubtedly provide economic advantages for them. There’s a reason why countries like Romania wanted to join so badly, after all.
As for Ukraine being “shoehorned”, no this is a settled matter within Ukraine and quite the opposite is true. If you watch Servant of the People, you’ll see the desperation of the main character (played by Zelenskyy) to join the EU is lampooned quite viciously, although back in 2014 the country wasn’t as incredibly pro-EU as they are now.
Ian, I’m none too sure you understood Jon’s point. Now, as I have pointed out in this thread the basic thrust of Farages comment was that Russia used two facts as an excuse.
Are you aware of what he actually said? I’d hope so.
Therefore, is it, or is not, the case that NATO wanted Ukraine to join and accept missiles on their land? Yes or No will do fine.
Did the EU, in conjunction with the EU, offer membership to Ukraine? Yes or No will do fine.
Given that the answers are both Yes, how was Farage wrong in saying that those two factual things were the excuse Russia used? That is the essence of this. You seek to turn it into something it really is not. It is quite clear that Russia did use those facts.
[…] is it, or is not, the case that NATO wanted Ukraine to join and accept missiles on their land? Yes or No will do fine. No. Ukraine has never been in a position to join NATO. Also, NATO isn’t a monolithic entity but a collection of states, all of whom have to agree on new members. However, I think what you’re trying to get at is whether the leading nations in NATO (I mean particularly the US and UK) were trying to push Ukraine in that direction, but I don’t accept that framing – there was hope that Ukraine would be less screwed up and take the path of peaceful co-operation in Europe, but that wouldn’t necessarily mean NATO membership (or why doesn’t NATO try to get Austria to join?). Also, why do you think Putin wanted to join NATO? You talk about NATO membership like it’s some kind of bad thing for a country – and no, it’s not about trying to get “missiles” (I assume you mean nuclear weapons) onto other countries’ territory, like that’s some condition of membership (it certainly isn’t, and anyway you need to understand the US nuclear triad). Did the EU, in conjunction… Read more »
It seems you have an endless supply of hairs to split.
Which Ukrainians are you talking about? Those who have fled the country, those who have been marginalised or worse by their own goverment for the unforgivable sin of speaking Russian. Those who were promised autonomy by their goverment who then totally reneged on the agreement. Those who have decided not to bother with simple things like elections. Those who have banned opposition political parties. Certainly not those hundreds of thousands of dead Ukrainian soldiers.
Ukraine has been factionalised almost since its foundation.
Russia has intervened on behalf of the Marginalised Ukrainians. It was broadly welcomed into Crimea, and its “invasion” was timed to divert a major Ukrainian assault on Donbass.
Those Ukrainians who see the EU as a paragon of virtue are viewing it from the point of view of what has consistently been accused of being the moast corrupt nation in Europe. Given the corruption in EU it of course would welcome like minds.
Marginalised Russian speakers like Zelenskyy, you mean? Loads of people speak Russian in Ukraine, your points are just not accurate at all. Crimea had autonomy, and its own parliament. But I suppose you’re probably thinking of Minsk, which I covered in a previous article. Political parties controlled by foreign countries are banned in every country, including here. You seem to paint Russia as some kind of saviour, which is absurd.
Not any more they don’t. You need to keep up to date.
What do you mean you covered Minsk. You gave an interpretation of Minsk.
“Political parties controlled by foreign countries are banned in every country” – have you never heard of colour revolutions? Are you trying to say that the West had no hand in funding and trying to empower these? They are by definition Western initiatives.
As for Zelensky, his wife said a couple of days ago “without Ukrainian, you can’t do anything. It’s unpleasant to speak Russian now. This is the language of those who came to kill us. It is important not to speak their language.” If that is not marginalisation of Russian speakers I don’t know what is.
Can you please provide a link to that statement by Olena Zelenskyy? Plenty of people in Ukraine speak Russian, it’s normal to hear it in Kyiv, so I assume what she’s saying is that most people choose to speak Ukrainian instead now.
As for “colour revolutions”, that’s a bigger topic but a lot of that comes out of the US anti-Vietman movement with people like Gene Sharp, although of course the US and the West were absolutely not against them.
Here is a link to the statement by Olena. As reported by The Telegraph.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tf7WyZ80xL4
In the video, Olena Zelenskyy doesn’t say anything of the sort. A shameless lie.
https://t.me/Slavyangrad/101978
the unelected EU European Council
Members of the European CouncilThe members of the European Council are the heads of state or government of the 27 EU member states, the European Council President and the President of the European Commission.
https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/european-council
And these heads of state or government have certainly been elected.
It’s funny that on the one hand western interference in Ukraine didn’t really have much influence on how Ukrainians felt about NATO or the EU (according to Rons) and yet on the other hand, Russia (supposedly) is constantly trying to interfere in our elections with “misinformation” and social media activity and this is an enormous threat to our democracy.
I’ll wager that western activity in Ukraine to influence public opinion and drive the politics and decisions in that country was many many orders of magnitude greater than anything Russians may or may not do to influence the minds of British, American and EU voters.
Yet for some inexplicable reason, when we do it, we’re promoting democracy. When Russia does it it threatens democracy.
What people like Rons don’t get is that the number of people waking up to this stupidity is growing. And they’re really fed up. Fed up of being treated like idiots.
That’s probably why Farage is getting so much traction and why his Russia comments will probably help him rather than hurt him.
Russian influence in Ukraine consisted of a lot more than a few bot-farms spouting ridiculous propaganda to no effect (like in the 2016 US Presidential election), in fact Putin controlled a lot of Ukrainian media and the disappearances and murders of journalists was not uncommon while politicians like Yuschenko got poisoned. I’d suggest you read The War Came to Us by Christopher Miller for a taste of this.
On the other hand, the EU didn’t really have to do much for people to want to join it, when compared with what being in the Russkiy mir is like.
Ian you are fighting a valiant rear guard rather like Richard III, I think better to quit whilst you are ahead. I can imagine you arguing that we should expel the communists from Korea in the 50s or that involvement in Vietnam in 60s was a cracking good idea. Are there any US foreign adventures of which you disapprove?
You seem to think you know about my opinions, but it ain’t so.
Oh dear me, I expected far better. There are two facts that matter above all else:
1. NATO wanted, and still want, Ukraine to accept missiles on their soil
1a. In April 2024 the Secretary General of NATO delivered a speech in Ukraine and stated that “when the time is right Ukraine will immediately be admitted”
2. The EU, in conjunction with NATO wanted, and still want. Ukraine to join
Quite frankly you really do not need to understand more than those two things. Everything else is nuance, smoke and mirrors.
With regard to the “article”, sadly I have to say it is probably the worst article on DS I have ever read. The author deliberately sidesteps the important facts and tries to do an MSM on Farage.
Any thinking person can read what Farage said, look up the facts of the CIA, NATO and EU involvement and come to more or less the conclusion I outlined above. Sure there are other factors but the basics are that the West deliberately, and knowingly, provoked Russia.
The author can twist and turn in the wind from his bottom as much as he likes but facts are facts.
“Worst article ever!” OK, tell me, what was the CIA’s involvement again?
You have deliberately avoided even printing what Farage said and attempted to use smoke and mirrors and arguments that are not pertinent to the facts of what Farage said.
You, by ommission, in your reply admit that Farage was absolutely correct. If you do not know how America was involved in the overthrow of the previous President then you really have not done any research.
Why do you find it impossible to admit Farage was right and you have disappeared down an MSM Rabbit Warren dreaming of things he did not say nor imply?
It really is simple Ian: NATO planned to put missiles in the Ukraine. The EU want Ukraine to join.
Seriously, seriously simple. Putin used those facts as his excuse. It makes no difference what nuance you dream up, it makes no difference what Putin also said. He had plausable provocation.
Is it true or is it not? You know the answer, man up and admit you are wrong.
Mention Victoria Nuland. I dare you. I double dare you!
That really is so childish, Ian.
Why? Everyone was mentioning Victoria Nuland all the time, until they realised the problem there… but that’s the basis for the CIA coup claim, isn’t it?
It is not what you said but the immature way you said it.
Please explain, I’m not up to speed. What is this new information you have about Nuland?
It was in the New York Times at the time. She was there to negotiate between the protesters and Yanukovych about who he should appoint to his government (PM, Interior Minister, etc.) to resolve the dispute, and it was all done publicly. The leaked call was a bit awkward but hardly evidence of a CIA plot. In the end there was no agreement.
Victoria Nuland is an imbecile whose record does not warrant her elevated position, there I mentioned her.
Incidentally, I stand by what I said. Your article is so badly written you didn’t even print what he said. That is not Journalism, that is MSM.
How on earth can you comment and pillory something you are not even willing to print?
Mr Farage’s position on Ukraine is just plain silly. He claims to have been telling the truth. That makes no sense. In fact he was offering an opinion. What evidence has he offered in order to back up his opinion? Britain and the U.S.A. gave Ukraine security assurances in 1994 in return for the surrender of Ukraine’s 5,000+ nuclear warheads. That was a hostage to fortune right there. The U.S. turned down a workable peace deal over Kosovo at Rambouillet in 1999, subsequently bombing Serbia. That set a precedent and embarrassed Russia. Putin’s invasion of 2014 triggered the security assurances of 1994, which then led to the 2022 invasion. If Farage had said that the two invasions of Ukraine had their roots in the inept and bloody resolution of the Kosovo crisis in 1999 and the Budapest Memorandum of 1994, he would have made some sense. Instead of nonsense. There can be no excuse, no justification for two invasions of a neighbouring country, the killing of hundreds of thousands of Russians, Ukrainians, the displacement of millions, in pursuit of a frankly lunatic delusion of imperial grandeur. Putin is, apparently, not mad, so he must be suffering from some form of… Read more »
Did you actually listen to, not read, what Farage said? Clearly not. You read headlines and made assumptions.
As to your amateur and childish claims about mental health. Go away. Come back when you have grown up. Pathetic doesn’t come close. There are grown ups in here.
Certainly the bombing of Serbia was a big shock for Russians. But I think the collapse of the Russian economy in 1998 could be said to have been more important. And then you could go back to 1993 constitutional crisis, and the West’s response to that. In every respect, they failed to transition to a free-market democracy and the West does have some collective responsibility for what happened.
However, I have a different take on the Budapest Memorandum: in reality, Ukraine was broke and couldn’t afford the upkeep of very high-maintenance nuclear warheads – even if they had the technical know-how, which is actually somewhat doubtful. The problems of dealing with all the 1,240 strategic warheads would have been immense, and it’s really no wonder they gave them up. Of course that doesn’t change the fact that Russia broke that agreement, I just think the calculus at the time was quite different (and yes, in hindsight quite naive).
I don’t believe Britain and the U.S. had any alternative other than to sign the Budapest Memorandum. The idea of 5,000+ nuclear warheads still stored in a country invaded twice and well capable, as we have seen, of engineering delivery systems doesn’t bear thinking about.
The mistake, in my view, that Britain, the U.S. made was unilaterally disarming in Europe at the same time that every other Western European country disarmed.
No Western European nation capable of deploying a fully established armoured division, no conventional deterrent any longer existed and any nuclear deterrent quite clearly did not cover Ukraine.
That Poland has recently signed orders for 1250+ Main Battle Tanks is telling.
We basically agree with each other, but just on the point about nukes, it’s not actually clear to me that the Ukrainians could have used a lot of them – whatever ESD and PAL systems the Russians used might have been a mystery to them (i.e., they might not have had the launch codes for one thing), but I’m no expert and a lot of that stuff is of course shrouded in secrecy. I was thinking of writing an article on the topic of Russian nukes and the old Soviet stock that was in Ukraine, but key facts are quite hard to come by. I’d recommend The Nuclear Express if you’re interested in all this stuff, and if you haven’t already read it.
Of course, the question of whether Ukraine could have deployed the warheads was kinda irrelevant when the danger of all that fissile material falling into the wrong hands was so very real. Although of course it did fall into the wrong hands…
It must be such a relief for Munro to have a friend. You may have noticed he or she does not have a lot of support around here.
yes i am really enjoying reading all of this. real debate and so well written everyone!
A man of discernment, clearly.
‘“We use discourse analysis to analyse his interviews, his discourse and the rhetoric that he uses as we are not in a clinical situation with him. What he does is demonstrate a high level of control and what is generally known as sociopathy or psychopathy. This psychopathic nature that he manifests is not a clinical term but an umbrella term that has been utilised to almost integrate a number of personality traits.” Dr A. Cassidy, Psychological Practitioner with a background in political psychology ‘What is psychopathy? I’m using the Clecklian definition of psychopathy. Hervey Cleckley says in his “The Mask of Sanity” (1941) that a psychopath looks normal and does everything to look normal. But if you look at the center, the core traits, they’re all low in emotional empathy. They’re very manipulative, they’re very predatorial, they’re very aggressive. They all tend to be fearless at least for a while, they are ruthless, they have no remorse or guilt. They’re callous and they have a grandiose sense of self…..A sociopath understands that what they’re doing is immoral, or wrong, or evil but does it anyway, whereas a psychopath thinks what he is doing is really okay. They believe this. It is a part… Read more »
Quite frankly I cannot see how you can claim someone is a physchopath from a speech which is translated from a language you are not fluent in. An analysis in a book can make more or less any politician or business leader a nutcase.
For example this certainly applies to Starmer, Blair, Cameron, Bush to name just a few:
“they’re all low in emotional empathy. They’re very manipulative, they’re very predatorial, they’re very aggressive. They all tend to be fearless at least for a while, they are ruthless, they have no remorse or guilt. They’re callous and they have a grandiose sense of self”
There is also, of course, that few, if any speeches, are written by one person. Are they all cases for the loony bin?
We are constantly being told what Putin’s intentions are by Western commentators, and by yourself too.
I thought that one of the traits of pschopaths is their unpredictability.
You presumablyare referring to the NATO bombing of Serbia, giving the lie to NATO being purely a defensive organisation and allowing Russia to understand that NATO protestations about not having offensive intent are not reliable, however NATO might try to justify its actions.
The USA also gave assurances to Yeltsin – no NATO in Ukraine.
That clearly has not been honoured.
Over a year ago, a peace deal – brokered by the Turkish – initialled by Russia and Ukraine was ready to end the conflict.
This was deliberately sabotaged by the USA delivered to Zelenskyy by Boris Johnson when PM.
Isn’t that provocation and doesn’t it confirm that the US and its NATO stooges wanted the war and did whatever they could to ensure there was one?
If you sincerely believe that, I would be most grateful for a reference regarding the evidence that you are relying on.
All of which is an interesting discussion of history but what we need now is credible way forward. If NATO is not about to mobilise a massive army and march into Ukraine, then we need to be realistic about what happens next? To borrow a phrase used by a regular contributor to Ukraine discussions on this site, what is really going on? Why is the international community not coming together to press Ukraine and Russia to come to a peace discussion with no pre-conditions. Is it because there are huge vested interests in prolonging this war with its appalling loss of lives on both sides? From what Putin has said recently he could go along with a deal that left a neutral Ukraine which would include Kiev and Odessa. What would be so wrong with talking to Russia about such a deal? OK it might mean the alleged aggressor gets to keep much of what has been gained but what is the alternative? As it is at the moment, for many Ukrainians and Russians, talking about the future is academic as the continuation of this war will seem them dead and in their graves. To those that say you cannot… Read more »
“Is it because there are huge vested interests in prolonging this war with its appalling loss of lives on both sides?”
Monro’s statements that the aim is to keep the Russians occupied and blunt their ability to invade other places seem quite plausible. I’m not saying they do want to invade other places, but if you believe they do, or pretend to believe that, then letting the Ukrainians slug it out with them forever sort of makes sense, especially if it’s just costing you £££s and not the lives of your own citizens.
It is certainly the case that the massive degradation of the Russian military is exceedingly good news.
Are you serious? Russia is attacking on multiple fronts and now outnumbers Ukraine, they are developing new weapons and introducing them constantly. FAB 3000 anyone. Even the most staunch Western observers concede that Russian military production is many times greater than the combined West’s. There also appears to be increasing actions against Ukraine infrastructure by resistance groups
It’s ok Ian is probably wetting the bed that a million ppl have died needlessly. I’m guessing he’s an atheist so equates humans dying to ants dying or something
That would be an inaccurate guess. I’m a Christian and very much not indifferent to the loss of life, and I pray for Russia and Russians, including Russian soldiers sent to take human life in Ukraine. Nothing about this situation brings me any kind of joy.
The Ukrainians and Russians are also Christians. All those icons and magnificently adorned churches. The sea of candles and black-shrouded women.
Both pray to the same God. Both worship the Prince of Peace. Does the Almighty feel an apocalypse coming on?
I’d disagree with that assessment, but it’d take me a while to go into the details so let’s just agree to disagree for the present. I might come back to it later.
I look forward to it, but please don’t include any Western assessments because I won’t believe them.
Western assessments, especially military ones, have been shown to be totally out of touch with reality. I can’t remember how many times the Russians have “exhausted” their supplies of missiles, drones, ammunition and men.
Well they have run out of some stuff, although manpower isn’t one of them.
Go on, give us a clue.
They are learning a thing or two. Battle hardened is of high value.
Killing russians is great, in other news we are blessed Ian Rons was not around in Germany in the 1940s otherwise he’d have argued killing Russians is exceedingly good news also.
You do know the Nazis were allied with the Soviets in 1940, don’t you?
Really? Such erudition, I am in awe.
Not good news is the fact that, unlike in the Cold War when Nixon’s policy kept Russia and China apart, both have now put aside their suspicions of each other and their differences, and become eternal friends.
As the Russian military haven’t yet captured a single major Ukrainian city, their forces don’t look too massive in strength.
And the degradation has reached the West. Stockpiles of shells and anti-aircraft missiles have been depleted. Even from combat units. Production cannot keep up. As Ben Wallace tetchily observed, the West gives Ukraine more weapons and the Ukrainians treat NATO ‘like Amazon’.
A hard border is beginning to form along the massive minefields that both sides are laying. Ukraine is now the most heavily mined territory in the world. Under current rates of clearance it will take over 700 years to remove. Poor Diana will be turning in her island grave.
What a disgusting and cowardly comment.
Still, you’ve no need to worry have you with hundreds of thousands of mainly young men dying (especially the Russians) on your behalf.
You’re in the same bracket as Lyndsey Graham – rejoicing in the fact that Russians are dying with no human cost to the USA.
And there was me thinking drafting all these young people was just to give them a Trade to learn and appease the old voters who like the idea. Irony for those with none;-)
Unfortunately, there is no possible deal that would lead to a lasting peace and that would not merely be a convenient stop on the way to Putin and his cohorts later going on to attack again. That’s just how they operate. And what would happen to the people left in Russian-controlled areas? You’re talking about people’s families – mothers, sisters, etc.
In that case why is everyone pussy-footing around and not making an all-out assault on Russia. It is clear, even to many in senior position in the USA, that there is no way that Ukraine can win militarily with diminishing if not vanishing manpower, military hand-me-downs from the West and a track record of failed sanctions.
“You’re talking about people’s families – mothers, sisters etc. [sic]” (surely it should be et al.), but anyway all sides in a war suffer civilian casualties, which is why everything must be done to stop all wars. Why are we not doing everything we can to bring this conflict to an end? Why? Because there is clearly a hidden agenda.
Regardless of anything else, the USA are bullies. Russia is European and should be our friend and that should be the UK’s end goal. The Russians are nice people.
An opinion poll shows that two thirds of Ukrainian refugees living in Western countries don’t want to return to their country. Who can blame them.
If lasting peace is not possible, these people will never return. If lasting peace is not possible, it must be lasting war. This is a self-fulfilling prophesy.
As for the dream of Russia collapsing, how does this make anyone safe? Once Putin goes to his account, whoever takes over will, as Mr Hitchens has put it, make the Russian autocrat look like a walking olive branch.
Well Boris was not the answer, despite proclaiming himself as Churchill 2.0.
The idea that Russia is anywhere near some kind of victory is, frankly, dotty. The Russian Army still do not have the training, communications, command and control capability to conduct operations larger than battalion size. They can take a village but not always hold it. Their best chance, while Congress stalled over the aid package, has now gone. By end 2025, they will struggle to replace battlefield equipment, already a challenge. Morale within Russian forces is low. Commanders of various Donetsk People’s Republic (DNR) units are severely mistreating their wounded subordinates. 1st DNR Slavic Brigade (1st DNR Army Corps) is holding its own wounded personnel in prison-like conditions in Donetsk City, instead of providing them with the treatment that they require. https://x.com/wartranslated/status/1805197698879902099?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Etweet Rand Research Paper 09 Feb 2024 Planning for the Aftermath. Assessing Options for U.S. Strategy Toward Russia After the Ukraine War’ The United States may be able to influence the conflict outcome to promote its long-term postwar interests The United States cannot determine the outcome of the war on its own; its decisions will never have the same impact as those of the two combatants. But Washington does have policy options to try to affect the trajectory of… Read more »
Major economic support from US & EU taxpayers.
That is why cutting the defence budget is, has always been, a false economy.
There is this weird binary attitude towards Ukraine/Russia within the Neocons and their MSM lickspittles; either you are 100% behind ‘Russia man bad/mad, plucky Uke good – send us all your cash’ or you are a ‘Kremlin stooge’.
No room for nuance in this debate it seems, and woe betide anyone who thinks otherwise!
I didn’t call Farage a “Kremlin stooge”, in fact I was bending over backwards to be civil. There are things about his past I could have raised if I’d wanted to, but I chose not to.
Utterly predicable from a Putinophobe.
Stoltenberg (Chief of NATO) made it clear in Sept 2023 that he agreed with Nigel (quoting from an article by Jeff Sachs) In testimony to the European Union Parliament, Stoltenberg made clear that it was America’s relentless push to enlarge NATO to Ukraine that was the real cause of the war and why it continues today. Here are Stoltenberg’s revealing words: “The background was that President Putin declared in the autumn of 2021, and actually sent a draft treaty that they wanted NATO to sign, to promise no more NATO enlargement. That was what he sent us. And was a pre-condition to not invade Ukraine. Of course, we didn’t sign that.The opposite happened. He wanted us to sign that promise, never to enlarge NATO. He wanted us to remove our military infrastructure in all Allies that have joined NATO since 1997, meaning half of NATO, all the Central and Eastern Europe, we should remove NATO from that part of our Alliance, introducing some kind of B, or second-class membership. We rejected that.So, he went to war to prevent NATO, more NATO, close to his borders. He has got the exact opposite.” Boris, John Pilger et al all have come out… Read more »
Prof Jeffrey Sachs schools the cretinous Piers Moron on USA foreign policy realities with chapter and verse over a 30 minute two way discussion. Recent Youtube. Fascinating viewpoint from an American academic.
Link here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mULVrUGh6wo
Noah Carl begs to differ – Nigel has made credible comments and observations:
https://unherd.com/newsroom/nigel-farages-ukraine-comments-arent-disgraceful/
There are plenty of reasons for Putin’s invasion of Ukraine given by those a great deal closer to the action than Mr Farage….and none of them mention NATO What reasons does the Russian State Newspaper give for invading Ukraine? Denazification ‘Denazification as the goal of a special military operation within the framework of this operation itself is understood as a military victory over the Kiev regime, the liberation of territories from armed supporters of the Nazis, the elimination of implacable Nazis, the capturing of war criminals, and the creation of systemic conditions for the subsequent denazification in peacetime.’ RIA NOVOSTI 04 04 2022 What reasons are documented inside the Kremlin? Establishment of a Union State ‘….the strategy document…….belongs to the Presidential Directorate for Cross-Border Cooperation, a subdivision of Putin’s Presidential Administration,……The rather innocuously named directorate’s actual task is to exert control over neighboring countries that Russia sees as in its sphere of influence: Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Belarus, Ukraine and Moldova.’ ‘The directorate is headed by Alexey Filatov, who reports directly to Dmitri Kozak, the deputy chief of the Presidential Administration. Filatov’s team was tasked to come up with new strategies that would detail Russia’s strategic goals in all six countries,…..Russia’s domestic, foreign… Read more »
Yet more copy & paste B.S from global bot.
Ian, I believe your motives are sincere, but here’s the thing: I don’t give a toss about Ukraine. There are many, many evils going on and our involvement in Ukraine has made that one much worse. I don’t want my money spent on that ghastly war. I don’t want the risk of World War 3. I don’t want Russia and China as a belligerent alliance against the UK/USA.
Those items are legitimate concerns for a UK government, not Russo-Ukrainian historical grievances.
Best comment on here.
@thelightcavalry The risk of World War 3 goes up a lot if aggression by a nuclear power goes unchecked. The longer-term problem is that China might decide to start annexing countries not under any nuclear umbrella because the West is weak. At that point, all bets would be off.
There are three nuclear powers who are doing that – USA, Britain and France.
Russia has only ever promised to respond in kind if attacked first.
Utter “street furniture” AGAIN.
“Ukraine and its people…” Ukraine has no ‘people’ except in the sense, Africa and its people… which people? Ukraine is multi-cultural, has a 20% Russian ethnic group. Multiple cultures = multiple societies = tribalism = conflict = warfare. That is the history of the World, the root cause of all wars – one culture deciding it should dominate or afraid it will be consumed by another. That’s where we are heading. The article misses out – in 2014 Russia had agreed Ukraine could have closer EU ties, bug no NATO as had been promised pre-Putin. The ousting of Yanukovych was orchestrated by the USA Obama regime. Then there is the attacks on ethnic Russians and the fact they did not vote to elect the USA’ s choice if replacement. When the USSR collapsed, NATO had no function, so why does it still exist? It is a bureaucracy. The primary focus of any bureaucracy is to ensure it survives by increasing its scope and scale. To say there is no NATO expansion is naïve or not telling truth. The head of NATO admitted expansion into Ukraine was to take place and admitted this proved Putin. The things Russia agreed to which… Read more »
Mostly an irrelevant article. Whatever the history, the West is now stupidly up to its neck in an unwinnable war against a highly armed nuclear state. That really takes some doing.
Who will work for an off ramp? No-one but Farage and Trump, as far as I can tell.
I’m late to the party on this, sadly.
DS must be getting desperate for clickbait having to wheel out Mr. Rons to justify US/Zionist banking hegemony.
Never mind, he’ll soon be sitting comfortably when WW3 kicks off.
Which will all be Putin’s fault of course.
Just take a read of the GHF comment and you might learn something.
After August 1914, how the crisis came about and who was responsible for starting the war was never discussed. Before the USA entered the war, President Woodrow Wilson made several attempts to negotiate a peace. These were sabotaged by the British government. The German government showed a willingness to enter into these talks until their armies made unexpected gains. Does this look rather familiar from the early phase of this Ukraine war? How to end this Ukraine war needs to be discussed. There is no effort to even de-escalate. Both sides repeatedly do the opposite in small increments. What is the destination of this? Is it really possible to conduct a perma-war of small increments and not reach a point of a fatal catastrophe? The situation is unique in history. Missiles are fired into Russia. Nuclear submarines are in Cuba. Yet there is no sense of alarm among the public. When Biden suggests, as he did in 2022, that this war would likely end in a negotiated settlement, there was no fuss. When Farage suggests that is one way wars end, it is treated as treason. Ukraine has trillions of dollars worth of mineral reserves. Iron, coal, lithium, gas. It… Read more »
It is very frustrating that every article on Ukraine by this author willfully ignores the clearly documented evidence that NATO expansion (contrary to assurances previously given to Russia not to do so) and sustained US meddling in Ukraine formed part of an existential threat to Russia, that it simply could not ignore. Jeffrey Sachs recently schooled a for once silent Piers Morgan on the relevant facts, & this article also articulates them:
https://x.com/ivanopanetti/status/1805118754273087712?s=19
https://www.cato.org/commentary/us-nato-helped-trigger-ukraine-war-its-not-siding-putin-admit-it
The DS has a complete blind spot about the totally unbalanced views of this author on this particular subject. I have read other articles of his on different subjects, where he presents a much more balanced and accurate picture.
Totalitarian states, leaders, struggle to coexist with free market democracies.
Mr Farage’s logic, taken to its conclusion, is that free market democracy is a provocation to Putin. In that, he is correct.
The key distinction here is that it is not a deliberate provocation, but it is a necessary one if the lot of the citizen still living under a totalitarian regime is ever to have some kind of hope.
Neither you nor Mr Farage appear to be able to see that….which makes you both part of the problem.
Nowhere did either Farage or I make that conclusion. The main point both he and I am making is that the facts prove that Nato expansion after specifically giving Russia an assurance that they would not do so, and US meddling in the affairs of another nation (which they have done ruinously in so many countries including Ukraine) provided an existential threat to Russia that they could not ignore. Listen to the Jeffrey Sachs interview & read the Cato article, and provide evidence to refute their articulation of the facts.
Further evidence here in 2018 from the current CIA Director William Burns:
https://x.com/MLiamMcCollum/status/1805604657563418842?s=19
A slightly different view on the evidence for Putins intentions;
https://open.substack.com/pub/sandrews/p/in-our-democratic-world-some-narratives?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android&r=16e1vo
“However, it’s worth noting that Farage claims to have a unique insight into these matters. ”
Rubbish, he did no such thing.
Yes he did.
Great article. I too was going to vote Reform, because of their sensible conservative policies, but this gave me pause too. And it is not an insignificant point.
The truth and facts are a problem??
The facts are never a problem but the truth can be more elusive. I subscribe to Daily Sceptic and Free Speech Union because I like an open debate, like this thread.
There is ample evidence of the Washington involvement in Ukraine politics since very early after the fall of the Wall and including Maidan (Nuland et al). There is ample evidence of Russian’s position regarding no NATO nearby (the US promised Gorbatchov, no, not Putin, that NATO wouldn’t budge an inch to the east; even the Baltics are in NATO now). Russians want their own geographical, military and economic security, fair. That means a neutral Ukraine (why some argue so strongly against?), definition of their borders north and south (they never know what’s coming in the future) and a clean up of nazi/nationalist ideologies in Kiev (the same that prevented Zelensky from reaching peace in the civil war (which was the platform he was elected on) which they see and rightly so (Minsk agreements) as a clear threat.
Victoria Nuland, eh? That secret CIA mission that was written up in the New York Times? If you let other people do your research and your thinking for you, you might end up looking silly one day.
Instead of assuming you should ask questions that would or wouldn’t confirm your assumptions. I don’t know of the NYT piece or the CIA secret mission. It was more the telephone call with the US ambassador in 2014 as an example of the US efforts to broker a deal in Ukraine (source BBC), in other words, US direct involvement in Ukraine politics.
You’re talking about Victoria Nuland, but you don’t know it because you’re too lazy to do any research.
I’m sorry, Ian, but your article displays a level of ignorance about Ukraine. As such, it says more about you than the subject about which you were writing. You say: “The choice for Ukrainians in 2013–14 was stark: accept a never-ending customs union with Russia… or stand up and protest against it. This customs union with Russia was to be foisted on them by the Russian-sponsored President Yanukovych.” That is utter rubbish. Yanukovych was ELECTED by the Ukrainian people. His party was the Party of the Regions. This party received most but not all of its support from Russian speaking areas like Donbass and Crimea. The issue about trade ties with Russia or the EU was this: Ukraine was heavily dependant on trade with Russia. The EU wanted Ukraine to adopt EU standards before it could join. (“Sound familiar?”) This would have meant very heavy damage to Ukraine’s trade with Russia and therefore destruction of Ukraine’s economy. You claim that Yanukovych “start[ed] shooting [his] opponents, attempt[ed] to start a civil war and finally [fled]”. That is gaslighting on a grand scale. Did Yanukovych shoot the police officers who were killed during the protests as well as the protestors? This article… Read more »
You’re offering Remainer-type arguments and clearly don’t know the facts. Yes, Yanukovych did try to split the country shortly after he fled Kyiv. He did that in another city beginning with a “K”, I’ll let you find out which one.
It is clear from reading a lot of the comments below that DailySceptic needs to do some work to control the Russian bots that have clearly mobbed this particular article.