Chowderman🍴
@chowderman.bsky.social
Donate to Ukraine:
https://u24.gov.ua/
Don’t be so sure that NATO countries aren’t conducting hybrid counterattacks, but not announcing it 😉
November 27, 2025 at 6:08 PM
Don’t be so sure that NATO countries aren’t conducting hybrid counterattacks, but not announcing it 😉
Have these people no shame? Putting forward arguments that a child of normal IQ could see through?
November 27, 2025 at 6:03 PM
Have these people no shame? Putting forward arguments that a child of normal IQ could see through?
An STD?
I hope that Bubba is OK 🐴
I hope that Bubba is OK 🐴
November 27, 2025 at 3:48 PM
An STD?
I hope that Bubba is OK 🐴
I hope that Bubba is OK 🐴
Note: I am not defending Trump, I am defending the BBC’s right to make a judgment on what it broadcasts.
November 27, 2025 at 3:04 PM
Note: I am not defending Trump, I am defending the BBC’s right to make a judgment on what it broadcasts.
A publisher is liable for any libels its contributors make, everyone is liable for any libels they repeat. The BBC and other broadcasters need to be careful.
Yes, if Trump is charged with corruption they will report just that, not that he is the most openly corrupt president in American history.
Yes, if Trump is charged with corruption they will report just that, not that he is the most openly corrupt president in American history.
November 27, 2025 at 3:01 PM
A publisher is liable for any libels its contributors make, everyone is liable for any libels they repeat. The BBC and other broadcasters need to be careful.
Yes, if Trump is charged with corruption they will report just that, not that he is the most openly corrupt president in American history.
Yes, if Trump is charged with corruption they will report just that, not that he is the most openly corrupt president in American history.
The BBC operates under the UK government Department for Culture, Media and Sport.
Sure, it is nominally independent, like the Bank of England, but its duty is to the “Public Interest”. Gratuitously upsetting Trump is arguably not in the national interest.
Sure, it is nominally independent, like the Bank of England, but its duty is to the “Public Interest”. Gratuitously upsetting Trump is arguably not in the national interest.
November 27, 2025 at 2:38 PM
The BBC operates under the UK government Department for Culture, Media and Sport.
Sure, it is nominally independent, like the Bank of England, but its duty is to the “Public Interest”. Gratuitously upsetting Trump is arguably not in the national interest.
Sure, it is nominally independent, like the Bank of England, but its duty is to the “Public Interest”. Gratuitously upsetting Trump is arguably not in the national interest.
Why else would the BBC avoid calling out Trump for corruption?
Because they like him? (no)
Or that they couldn’t defend a libel action for calling him corrupt? (in which case why are we even discussing this?)
Because they like him? (no)
Or that they couldn’t defend a libel action for calling him corrupt? (in which case why are we even discussing this?)
November 27, 2025 at 2:38 PM
Why else would the BBC avoid calling out Trump for corruption?
Because they like him? (no)
Or that they couldn’t defend a libel action for calling him corrupt? (in which case why are we even discussing this?)
Because they like him? (no)
Or that they couldn’t defend a libel action for calling him corrupt? (in which case why are we even discussing this?)
It would be reckless of the UK government to upset the US administration. You never know when you might need friends to defend you from the neighbours.
As for Europe being a giant, the Economist has an interesting article…
archive.is/HQ4L5
As for Europe being a giant, the Economist has an interesting article…
archive.is/HQ4L5
archive.is
November 27, 2025 at 1:46 PM
It would be reckless of the UK government to upset the US administration. You never know when you might need friends to defend you from the neighbours.
As for Europe being a giant, the Economist has an interesting article…
archive.is/HQ4L5
As for Europe being a giant, the Economist has an interesting article…
archive.is/HQ4L5
Europe has neither the military nor economic capability to be truly independent from the US.
This applies more so to the UK as it is outside the EU (who are no less a threat to them than the US). It can’t afford for its public broadcaster to upset the US administration.
This applies more so to the UK as it is outside the EU (who are no less a threat to them than the US). It can’t afford for its public broadcaster to upset the US administration.
November 27, 2025 at 12:59 PM
Europe has neither the military nor economic capability to be truly independent from the US.
This applies more so to the UK as it is outside the EU (who are no less a threat to them than the US). It can’t afford for its public broadcaster to upset the US administration.
This applies more so to the UK as it is outside the EU (who are no less a threat to them than the US). It can’t afford for its public broadcaster to upset the US administration.
Why do you call it a “peace deal”.
1) We know that what has been proposed would only lead to a very temporary peace.
2) Trump sought to force a surrender rather than do a deal.
1) We know that what has been proposed would only lead to a very temporary peace.
2) Trump sought to force a surrender rather than do a deal.
November 26, 2025 at 6:47 PM
Why do you call it a “peace deal”.
1) We know that what has been proposed would only lead to a very temporary peace.
2) Trump sought to force a surrender rather than do a deal.
1) We know that what has been proposed would only lead to a very temporary peace.
2) Trump sought to force a surrender rather than do a deal.
It is a dance, Trump lying and Europe knowing that he is lying.
I imagine that Europe isn’t showing willing in order to keep Trump on board, but to keep the broader US population on board.
Whoever is leaking Witkoff is demonstrating the true US admin’s approach, which isn’t negotiation.
I imagine that Europe isn’t showing willing in order to keep Trump on board, but to keep the broader US population on board.
Whoever is leaking Witkoff is demonstrating the true US admin’s approach, which isn’t negotiation.
November 26, 2025 at 3:55 PM
It is a dance, Trump lying and Europe knowing that he is lying.
I imagine that Europe isn’t showing willing in order to keep Trump on board, but to keep the broader US population on board.
Whoever is leaking Witkoff is demonstrating the true US admin’s approach, which isn’t negotiation.
I imagine that Europe isn’t showing willing in order to keep Trump on board, but to keep the broader US population on board.
Whoever is leaking Witkoff is demonstrating the true US admin’s approach, which isn’t negotiation.
One with a clean mind?
November 26, 2025 at 2:35 PM
One with a clean mind?
It was a conversation between a US official and a foreign official. Not an internal US government conversation. (One might regard it as an internal Russian government conversation).
November 26, 2025 at 1:21 PM
It was a conversation between a US official and a foreign official. Not an internal US government conversation. (One might regard it as an internal Russian government conversation).
He didn’t draft it, the Russians did.
November 26, 2025 at 11:58 AM
He didn’t draft it, the Russians did.
I guess that the Russians see Witkoff as an exposed asset.
Surely he can’t remain in position, and even if he does, further exposing his treachery can only go to widening the transatlantic split.
🤷♂️
Surely he can’t remain in position, and even if he does, further exposing his treachery can only go to widening the transatlantic split.
🤷♂️
November 26, 2025 at 11:54 AM
I guess that the Russians see Witkoff as an exposed asset.
Surely he can’t remain in position, and even if he does, further exposing his treachery can only go to widening the transatlantic split.
🤷♂️
Surely he can’t remain in position, and even if he does, further exposing his treachery can only go to widening the transatlantic split.
🤷♂️
Reposted by Chowderman🍴
Small correction: “Bloomberg has published the transcript of TWO conversations between Putin’s negotiators about the peace plan before it was handed over to the United States.” You forgot the conversation with Witkoff is also “between Putin’s negotiators”.
November 26, 2025 at 10:51 AM
Small correction: “Bloomberg has published the transcript of TWO conversations between Putin’s negotiators about the peace plan before it was handed over to the United States.” You forgot the conversation with Witkoff is also “between Putin’s negotiators”.
Am I dyslexic, or is everyone else?
November 26, 2025 at 11:38 AM
Am I dyslexic, or is everyone else?
On one hand Trump is right, Russia would stop fighting.
On the other hand, they would restart later, from a stronger position.
On the other hand, they would restart later, from a stronger position.
November 26, 2025 at 10:10 AM
On one hand Trump is right, Russia would stop fighting.
On the other hand, they would restart later, from a stronger position.
On the other hand, they would restart later, from a stronger position.
I don’t think it counts as treason. Western nations are weak regarding officials acting in the interests of other nations.
You are based on the UK at present aren’t you? I believe that there are officials with links to China.
You are based on the UK at present aren’t you? I believe that there are officials with links to China.
November 26, 2025 at 7:17 AM
I don’t think it counts as treason. Western nations are weak regarding officials acting in the interests of other nations.
You are based on the UK at present aren’t you? I believe that there are officials with links to China.
You are based on the UK at present aren’t you? I believe that there are officials with links to China.
Nigeria, Twitter accounts are based in Nigeria.
They are Nigerian Princes paid by Russia to role play being MAGA patriots.
They are Nigerian Princes paid by Russia to role play being MAGA patriots.
November 26, 2025 at 6:33 AM
Nigeria, Twitter accounts are based in Nigeria.
They are Nigerian Princes paid by Russia to role play being MAGA patriots.
They are Nigerian Princes paid by Russia to role play being MAGA patriots.
They have it, in the original Russian.
November 25, 2025 at 6:06 PM
They have it, in the original Russian.
Thinking about it further, as well as a list of individuals who could be targeted, what about the FSB/GRU surprise spot checks on any Ukrainian military facility or presence, to ensure that there are no non-disclosed military employees?
A spy’s delight!
A spy’s delight!
November 25, 2025 at 2:36 PM
Thinking about it further, as well as a list of individuals who could be targeted, what about the FSB/GRU surprise spot checks on any Ukrainian military facility or presence, to ensure that there are no non-disclosed military employees?
A spy’s delight!
A spy’s delight!
As Jade McGlynn states: “Insisting on Ukrainian sovereignty and then saying Russia should be able to impose an ‘800,000’ troops limit and not ‘600,000’ is just bizarre.”
Allowing the Russian FSB/GRU to inspect and confirm the names and addresses of Ukrainian military personnel is not risk free.
Allowing the Russian FSB/GRU to inspect and confirm the names and addresses of Ukrainian military personnel is not risk free.
November 25, 2025 at 2:25 PM
As Jade McGlynn states: “Insisting on Ukrainian sovereignty and then saying Russia should be able to impose an ‘800,000’ troops limit and not ‘600,000’ is just bizarre.”
Allowing the Russian FSB/GRU to inspect and confirm the names and addresses of Ukrainian military personnel is not risk free.
Allowing the Russian FSB/GRU to inspect and confirm the names and addresses of Ukrainian military personnel is not risk free.
I suppose 800,000 military would be sufficient for peacetime. But it is a restriction on sovereignty that delegitimises the nation.
And how would the limit be policed? Presumably Russia would be given access to the Ukrainian military roster, a recipe for mass killings after a future conquest.
And how would the limit be policed? Presumably Russia would be given access to the Ukrainian military roster, a recipe for mass killings after a future conquest.
November 25, 2025 at 2:13 PM
I suppose 800,000 military would be sufficient for peacetime. But it is a restriction on sovereignty that delegitimises the nation.
And how would the limit be policed? Presumably Russia would be given access to the Ukrainian military roster, a recipe for mass killings after a future conquest.
And how would the limit be policed? Presumably Russia would be given access to the Ukrainian military roster, a recipe for mass killings after a future conquest.