The thing about Bond is, the villains he faces have such over-the-top evil schemes going, that his opposition to them transcends politics. For instance, Alec Trevelyan's plan to use the GoldenEye to wipe out all records of ownership in London is certainly politically motivated, but the simple fact that millions of innocents will be killed in the process vastly overshadows any political undertones. Stopping Alec is not a political end -- it's just a simple and clear necessity, regardless of one's political leanings.

Trying to think of a *truly* political moment for Bond -- one where neither personal loyalty nor the necessity of stopping monstrous evil come into play -- and I can think of only two:

The first, as mentioned before, is when Bond refuses to assassinate Puskin, contrary to direct orders. Although he is playing a hunch here, the truth is Bond feels that smoking out Koskov has more value than carrying out his specific mission to kill the man responsible for the deaths of several British agents (as MI6 has been led to believe). That sort of decision has significant political consequences, and it really doesn't seem like the kind of decision that should be left to a field operative.

The other instance I can think of is when Bond destroys the ATAC at the end of FYEO. His mission, specifically, is to recover the transmitter, and given that several British agents have lost their lives through the machinations of Kristatos, one could argue that Bond's choosing the preservation of detente over a successful recovery of the MacGuffin is a betrayal of their sacrifice.

The interesting thing about both of these instances is that Bond, who is essentially a political instrument of assassination, takes a softer, more nuanced political stance than that of his government. Bond actually injects *conscience* into the parameters of his mission, which would seem wildly out of character for a man literally licensed to kill.

 out of  found this valuable. Do you find this valuable?