Putin is proving to be the “Hitler of the 21st century" says Leo Varadkar

[Sheepy]

I cannot be bothered saying I told you so good old, hear it from the man himself.
Putin on Ukraine and the West: Key takeaways from latest speech — RT Russia & Former Soviet Union

[Scott777]

The irony of Putin being the new Hitler.  Here is Unherd's take on where the real Nazis can be found.  Of course, question everything, but I'm inclined to believe this as a trustworthy source.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MUgKTfe-IqA

[Groo]

Cyberwar

[DeppityDawg]

I can agree with all of those with exception to the Argentinian Warship, the Belgrano.

1. The exclusion zone was a warning for neutral ships that they could be attacked within it, Argentinian ships were fair game anywhere. They were told this fact as well.
2. The ship may have been heading away at the time of the attack but it was not heading home, doesn't matter anyway (see above)
3. The ship itself was aiming to be part of a pincer movement to attack the British aircraft carriers, had it not been sunk Britain may have received catastrophic losses and lost the war.

Correct. This was at a time that many thousands of British servicemen were at sea in lightly armed civilian ships at the end of an 8000 mile long supply line in the middle of a south Atlantic winter (the seasons are reversed in the Southern Hemisphere)

Yet somehow, the pacifist Labour party of the time, who of course knew exactly where the Belgrano was headed and that it not turn around and come back at any point , managed to turn this into a "war crime" story.

HMS Conquerer's Captain knew if he lost contact with the Belgrano, there was no guarantee that the Navy would find it again. The decision was the only militarily sound one that could have been taken. Which is why senior commanders should advise Prime Ministers, not back bench MPs from Islington or Bolsover

[Groo]

Unfortunately there have been many disgraceful episodes in our history, and Munich 1938 was just one of them. In the 20th century alone there occurred in 1917 the incompatible promises to grant both the Jews and the Arabs a national home in Palestine, an impossible circle we tried and failed to square in the next three decades before cutting and running. In this way we sowed the seeds of the Arab-Israeli conflict which in some form or another has blighted trhe region ever since.

In 1919 occurred the Amritsar massacre in which British and British officered Indian soldiers slaughtered several hundred unarmed civilians including countless women and children, with many more injured. To their utter disgrace some right wing Tory MPs applauded his actions in parliament.

In 1935 we were complicit with the French in the intended to be secret Hore-Laval Pact, in which we proposed to reward Italian aggression in Ehiopia by agreeing to the cession of large swathes of territory, again as at Munich with the intended victims not allowed to be present at the discussions.

In 1953, we were complicit with the Americans in the overthrow of a popular elected leader in Iran and the imposition of a monarchical dictatorship under the Shah. The reaction against this led to the Islamic Revolution and the imposition of a brutal theocracy.

In 1956 we were complicit in a secretive deal with the French and Israelis to invade Egypt in a typical imperialist style adventure designed to secure control of the Suez Canal and hopefully topple a leader we disapproved of.

In 1972 occurred Bloody Sunday, when British paratroops gunned down unarnmed and fleeing civilians in the street, even shooting one in the back as he lay defenceless on the ground, all of which turbocharged the troubles and made the violence far worse. The truth of what had happened was covered up by the British state for decades.

In 1982 the order was given to sink an Argentinian warship with the loss of hundreds of lives even though it lay well outside a declared exclusion zone and was in fact heading away from it at the time, and thus posed no threat.

It is a shameful record.

Then there is the behaviour of the British and British colonists in Kenya in the 1950s in the face of the Mau Mau insurgency. These Mau Mau employed terror tactics so the British decided to respond by outdoing them in terror. This included the castration and other mutilations of prisoners, as well as deliberately beating some of them to death, and brutally flooging many, also to the point of death in some cases. There was even at least one incident overseen and ordered by a British officer of a Mau Mau captive being burned alive to terrify the others. British colonists with racist attitudes could be even worse. One of these had a penchent for ripping off the testicles of prisoners with pliers and forcing them to swallow them.

And I myself can recall in 1983 when I was only 18 working amongst colleagues who included a much older guy who'd served in India. He graphically described incidents of prisoners being tied to the front of cannons and blown apart. I remember him graphically describing how bits of them flew everywhere which he thought was funny. His age at the time would have put him as a young soldier in India in the 30s or 40s.

Very little of all this is widely known except by those of us who make a point of studying history.

I can agree with all of those with exception to the Argentinian Warship, the Belgrano.

1. The exclusion zone was a warning for neutral ships that they could be attacked within it, Argentinian ships were fair game anywhere. They were told this fact as well.
2. The ship may have been heading away at the time of the attack but it was not heading home, doesn't matter anyway (see above)
3. The ship itself was aiming to be part of a pincer movement to attack the British aircraft carriers, had it not been sunk Britain may have received catastrophic losses and lost the war.

[Sheepy]

Leo like 90% of the chattering classes speaks out of his backside driven by media hype, over the years Vlad has always been a good listener and has shown respect where it is due, put his own points across well and expected a two-way street, which as he probably learnt like the rest of us, what they might tell him isn't actually what they intend doing. He might well consider war with them is the last option because that is what they do.

[srb7677]

A disgraceful episode in our  history.

Unfortunately there have been many disgraceful episodes in our history, and Munich 1938 was just one of them. In the 20th century alone there occurred in 1917 the incompatible promises to grant both the Jews and the Arabs a national home in Palestine, an impossible circle we tried and failed to square in the next three decades before cutting and running. In this way we sowed the seeds of the Arab-Israeli conflict which in some form or another has blighted trhe region ever since.

In 1919 occurred the Amritsar massacre in which British and British officered Indian soldiers slaughtered several hundred unarmed civilians including countless women and children, with many more injured. To their utter disgrace some right wing Tory MPs applauded his actions in parliament.

In 1935 we were complicit with the French in the intended to be secret Hore-Laval Pact, in which we proposed to reward Italian aggression in Ehiopia by agreeing to the cession of large swathes of territory, again as at Munich with the intended victims not allowed to be present at the discussions.

In 1953, we were complicit with the Americans in the overthrow of a popular elected leader in Iran and the imposition of a monarchical dictatorship under the Shah. The reaction against this led to the Islamic Revolution and the imposition of a brutal theocracy.

In 1956 we were complicit in a secretive deal with the French and Israelis to invade Egypt in a typical imperialist style adventure designed to secure control of the Suez Canal and hopefully topple a leader we disapproved of.

In 1972 occurred Bloody Sunday, when British paratroops gunned down unarnmed and fleeing civilians in the street, even shooting one in the back as he lay defenceless on the ground, all of which turbocharged the troubles and made the violence far worse. The truth of what had happened was covered up by the British state for decades.

In 1982 the order was given to sink an Argentinian warship with the loss of hundreds of lives even though it lay well outside a declared exclusion zone and was in fact heading away from it at the time, and thus posed no threat.

It is a shameful record.

Then there is the behaviour of the British and British colonists in Kenya in the 1950s in the face of the Mau Mau insurgency. These Mau Mau employed terror tactics so the British decided to respond by outdoing them in terror. This included the castration and other mutilations of prisoners, as well as deliberately beating some of them to death, and brutally flooging many, also to the point of death in some cases. There was even at least one incident overseen and ordered by a British officer of a Mau Mau captive being burned alive to terrify the others. British colonists with racist attitudes could be even worse. One of these had a penchent for ripping off the testicles of prisoners with pliers and forcing them to swallow them.

And I myself can recall in 1983 when I was only 18 working amongst colleagues who included a much older guy who'd served in India. He graphically described incidents of prisoners being tied to the front of cannons and blown apart. I remember him graphically describing how bits of them flew everywhere which he thought was funny. His age at the time would have put him as a young soldier in India in the 30s or 40s.

Very little of all this is widely known except by those of us who make a point of studying history.

[cromwell]

This whole situation is very reminiscent of the Czech situation in 1938-39.

First annexation of the Russian inhabited areas, and disarming of what is left of Ukraine. Later an unopposed occupation.

What differs though is that the west this time refused to do an appeasement-oriented deal and the Ukrainians did not aquiesce, thereby causing Putin to try and get what he wants by military invasion. Which is exactly what Hitler planned to do to the Czechs in 1938 were it not for the Munich agreement and the Czechs conceding.

The Czechs were left with no choice,at Munich left outside whilst their fate wasdiscussed with no reference to them.

A disgraceful episode in our  history.

[srb7677]

This whole situation is very reminiscent of the Czech situation in 1938-39.

First annexation of the Russian inhabited areas, and disarming of what is left of Ukraine. Later an unopposed occupation.

What differs though is that the west this time refused to do an appeasement-oriented deal and the Ukrainians did not aquiesce, thereby causing Putin to try and get what he wants by military invasion. Which is exactly what Hitler planned to do to the Czechs in 1938 were it not for the Munich agreement and the Czechs conceding.

[HDQQ]

I suppose "being president for life" does offer very few exit strategies and retirement criteria.

I'm sure someone will think of one soon.

Someone needs to show him the door - and to make sure he touches the handle on the way out.

[johnofgwent]

Being president for life not all it's cracked up to be.

I suppose "being president for life" does offer very few exit strategies and retirement criteria.

I'm sure someone will think of one soon.

[cromwell]

He has a few on here

And it looks like RT website has been taken down and China abstained on the UN vote.

Some of his own populace have demonstrated against his war but they've all been arrested and carted off.

Being president for life not all it's cracked up to be.

[Borchester]

Blimey, even Lucious Leo is throwing a stroop. Doesn't poor old Vlad have any mates?

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/putin-russia-ukraine-varadkar-hitler-b2023656.html