EU e-Privacy Directive

This website uses cookies to manage authentication, navigation, and other functions. By using our website, you agree that we can place these types of cookies on your device.

You have declined cookies. This decision can be reversed.


As we on this site have suggested previously, Russia would be within its rights of self defence to target the UK in order to prevent us sending arms to Ukraine that could be used to hit targets within Russia.

Now "Russia is making threats to strike because NATO it is supplying rockets to Ukraine that can hit Russia"

"Why is the MSM underreporting this huge turn of events?" 

We were warned in April.

More from USA Watchdog (including some off-topic suggestions on Pfizer's manoeuvrings to wriggle out of its legal liabilities).

Yes Russia did invade the Ukraine (long and complex history) and it turns out that it was justified to close down a number of bio-weapons labs operating in that territory (as documented to the United Nations).

The UK has no interest in prolonging this war, so why would we send new more powerful weapons to Ukraine rather than telling Zelenskyy that it's time to sue for peace? Even Henry Kissinger says that. That would put the ball into Putin's court to respond. If he didn't then we would know that he really is the dictator he is made out to be.

Instead we broadcast to all and sundry that we will send more weapons to kill more Russians - and who can say whether the Ukraine would use them to target the Russian military or to target civilians?

Putin could flatten the Ukraine if he wanted to - the fact that he hasn't should tell us something.

(64 minutes)