Putin has been facilitating migration into Europe to destabilise society

European Plain - Wikipedia
Russia has a very flat border to the West. Its basically all steppe through which various invaders have ridden horses/driven tanks through over the centuries. Now eventually the vastness of Russia and the winter defeats these invaders - but at massive human cost. I think its hard to put yourself in that mindset when you have a sea or mountains surrounding you. This explains Russia's angst about wanting a buffer zone by either occupying or controlling the politics of their neighbours. The problem is, the land they have taken/want to take in Ukraine is also flat. So it won't be enough - if anything it expands their hard to defend border and increases the NATO countries they border with. To feel "secure" Russia would need to push all the way to at least the Carpinthian mountains. But I imagine the Poles would have an opinion on this for one. Its not achievable or something Europe can afford to let them achieve.

Russia also don't trust the West/Europe at all. To be fair there are historical reasons for this (see invasions) although Russia has also done its fair share of shenanigans. But its a low trust quite society (that has been through a lot), headed by a man who is both deeply paranoid and specifically resentful of the West and what he sees as its role in the catastrophic breakup of the Soviet Union. This is no secret. Destabilising the West as a strategy is also no secret and is rational if you start from Putin's mindset. That doesn't mean we go in all guns blazing and pick fights unnecessarily. But saying "there is no rational reason for them to do this" is ignoring that no countries foreign policy is "rational" in the sense you are imagining - its shaped by history and geography and personalities and trauma. Its not just "everyone wants to trade, everyone wants a Mcdonalds, everyone wants to be American really". And besides, America isn't always rational either (see Trump but also the hugely destabilising war on terror).

I understood perfectly, thanks. I don’t think there is anything more to say.

If you don't have a side or agenda then okay, I hear what you say, but there is nothing misleading or incoherent about any of my posts.

Let me know what it is you do not understand. I will explain the point(s) again.

Don't worry, I won't take your posts personally.

I don’t have a side and am not posting with an agenda or angle.

I just found your earlier post misleading and your subsequent post – (sorry) – disingenuous and incoherent. Nothing personal.

One of my earlier posts was about Extreme Liberalism and the negative effect of that on traditional left values.

Do you support the OP, which basically shows concern that immigration destablises? Yet you also defend organisations which support immigration? If so, I am somewhat confused.

@Ballosh, none of this was in your earlier post, you simply queried/undermined the previous poster’s source for the figures she provided.

The conversation was about migrants and social housing.

Actually, I pointed out that my post was based on literally a rapid google of one of the funders - I used the word "amongst others". And obviously if it was a rapid google it would be based on what I found on the websites, as you say. The problem is that you have to dig around for each funder, and then the funder of the funders - this is what causes confusion and it is this I think should be regulated to ensure clear and rapid transparency. So no "gotcha" from my side, more pointing out that clearer information would be useful.

The situation isn't exactly as you suggest, though, I don't think, unless I misunderstand you - I suspect that if you carried on looking at funding of funding of funding you would find some interesting influences in parts of academia - though this has been the case time to time since the 60s.

Probably better that we regulate to make it easier to track things, both ways, do you agree?

Thanks for that - you are saying that InfluenceWatch is run by CRC. I think for "liberal" they probably mean "extreme liberal" if you see my post on that but in any event perhaps the time has come to change the law around this and regulate, ensure that all foundations and giving were made very easy to track. I should have mentioned in my last post the VAST sums of money involved re the funding groups I mentioned. The way the funding is done is so difficult to keep track of and yet has so much influence, and according to interview this is intended, so it means that you have non governmental institutions acting as governments within governments almost. As you indicate other groups push back. It isn't ideal, is it? With democracies surely we need to be know all the relevant information in relation to governance and influences before we vote?

Further, the Migration Observatory at the University of Oxford states its funders clearly on its own website, and Unbound Philanthropy (a not-for-profit) are one of 14 current funders. Others include the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council, Research England (a public body), Oxford University’s John Fell Fund, and so on.

The Migration Observatory at the University of Oxford performs legitimate research. Really not much of a gotcha.

The source for the opinion you copied and pasted:

The poster explained that the information was not all in once place, and it required looking at more than one source to find. Your comment "people who mistake their feelings and stereotypes as facts" was therefore not on point?

I just googled "who funds migration observatory" (ie your source) and found amongst others "unbound philanthropy" which I then googled and found:

"Unbound Philanthropy is a New York City-based left-wing donor affinity group that primarily funds groups that support left-of-center liberal expansionist immigration policies.
Unbound has close ties to George Soros’s Open Society Foundations through the group’s executive director, Taryn Higashi. Higashi sits on an advisory board of Open Society Foundations and is an alumna of the left-of-center Ford Foundation where she worked on immigrant and refugee issues.
Overview
Unbound Philanthropy is an organization which primarily focuses on the immigration issue. It is based in New York City. It was formed in 2003 and did not get its first staff member until 2008.
The organization funds traditional legal aid for immigrants. It also funds activist campaigns and projects that encourage immigrant integration"

Source: InfluenceWatch website.

NB this was a 2 second google.

The posters you are mocking are pointing out to you that the poor in the UK are getting poorer and average households now are being crippled by fuel, food costs. Things are out of balance.

It sounds as though you studied in Russia quite a long time ago and it was a one year thing part of a degree?

When you say you studied their society and politics for decades was this in the UK working for one of the foundations?

Could you explain what the end game is? Do you think that Russia wants to conquer western Europe and then the US? Do you know why? Because we don't have a whole lot going for us at the moment, I am not sure why anyone would want to conquer us.

Some people say "like Hitler" but Hitler had the Lebensraum policy to do with getting extra farmland to feed Germans - Russia clearly doesn't have the same pressure and so I doubt this is why they would march west.

Caesar conquered for the hell of it... but it was mostly pretty straightforward and so quite different from today. Anyone trying to conquer the west today would not just be looking at NATO they'd also be looking at guerillas, terrorists, extreme nationalists. So I don't think that is it either.

And what do we have? We aren't rich in natural resources, we are a failed state... why on earth would they want to conquer us?

And as for destablising, again the question would be why? They want trading partners so destablising would not be useful.

I am left wing and unfortunately the loons who are dominating are Extreme Left or Extreme Liberals. The old traditional values of the left (welfare, pensions, education for all, etc) are ignored and instead what we are dealing with is loony tunes Extreme Liberalism promoting illiteracy, progressive education, the interests of tiny groups of society to the exclusion of the interests of all society.

I think we should coin a new name for it - Extreme Liberalism

And we all know that extreme anything usually ends in tears.

Puzzled

are they saying a significant number of illegal entries have come via Russia, or what? I feel like there's info missing from
these links - the ones i can access.

I can't read all the article as there is a pay wall - could you summarise what the article says?

I think that illegal immigration affects all of Europe, including Russia - if you look up Russian policies about immigration you will see that they are quite strict. Finland is obviously quite strict too.

It is worth googling Soros and immigration - Soros has apparently been a great supporter of immigration, there is quite a lot on youtube about it, promoted by Soros (ie the sources are things like fairly recent interviews with Soros or OpenSociety videos)

I don't think that there is any link here with Farage as Farage is very vocal against illegal immigration, but not against immigration as a whole, he favours the Australian points system approach, so nothing at all about using immigration as a weapon.

TL;DR for my long post:

I know perfectly well from experience that I will not suddenly become richer if the UK does not admit refugees. Because the money was never going to come my way anyway.

It's not particularly illegal migration that people have objected to though is it?
that was around 37,000 last year.
It's legal migration that is allowed and encouraged by the Government that has ran at 1.2 million a year (2024) that the main issue is caused by.
Generally people feel this is too high and is contributing to an increase in housing costs and a lack of social cohesion.
The last 5 governments have continued a policy of high levels of immigration and now it has transpired that the policy is a net loss to the treasury continuing it seems inept and unwise but here we are.

And thank you, @Adamante , but I've been "feeling the squeeze" for well over a decade.

Since it seems that gives you a little glow.

Given this is a thread about Putin and people are discussing population growth of the UK, this might be a good moment to acknowledge that about 250,000 Ukrainians suddenly arrived in the UK – as a direct result of Putin's behaviour.

(And other countries have taken far more.)

commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-9467/

Oh my fucking god.

I'm disabled and rely heavily on benefits. I am up to ^^here with wankers who try to set the disabled and "foreigners" (immigrants, wrong colour people, wrong religion people, you see it all) against each other.

I have been warning for over a decade about the consequences of Osborne's swingeing austerity cuts – which targetted the disabled – followed by tax cuts and other prizes for the very rich. It created a massive and entirely intentional increase in inequality in the UK.

The Decade the Rich Won, is how some people now refer to 2008–2018.

I also realised right back at the beginning of austerity that once they'd done demonising the disabled as scroungers bringing the country down, they'd move on to the forriners. While doubtless swivelling to rebrand the disabled as martyrs of the new hate group, and threatening violence supposedly in our name.

All to stop anyone noticing that the rich had, as one of them put it "made out like bandits".
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m0013xcf

It's a big game of "he took your biscuit." Can be played with any players, but it's always the rich and powerful who win.

Zalensky warned Trump to be careful, trump reaction was very telling - Putin has lent trump millions and now he needs to work for that money that got him out of bankruptcy. What's Putins next move on the US

You don't need to 'stop' anything. We live in a democracy not a dictatorship, ie, the public can vote for exactly who they want. What Russia is or isn't doing isn't relevant to the fact that when mainstream parties ignore people who want something doing about immigration, it leaves a gap for a party like Reform to grow. If you are unhappy about the growing popularity of Reform, then place the blame at the door of the Tories and labour whose none action is allowing them to flourish.

I read an article as an undergrad in the geographical redistribution of the social relations of capital - fancy way of saying that capital, unable to reduce other costs, will seek to reduce labour costs either through overseas resourcing (call centres in India) or employing immigrant workers (overseas doctors).

Labour theory of value might help here.

The indigenous population will suffer, both the traditional working class and the educated middle class as their jobs are filled by cheaper labour.

There is an obvious link between seemingly rational capital choices and the beliefs of those jettisoned as uneconomic.

But let's not go there and focus instead on legal asylum seekers and illegal immigrants.

We need a real discussion and we can only have this without racism and xenophobia.

I actually don't like the fact that I can't find a tradesperson who won't charge a fortune and do a bad job post brexit. Competition is good isn't it?

Ugh this is so tedious