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

[Scott777]

Who exactly is this ambiguous "west"?

It is ambiguous, and other people may have a different idea, but for me, in the context of the west vs Russia or China, it means the western globalist corporate-driven elite, especially in the US.

[Scott777]

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10621243/TONY-BLAIR-enemies-weak-divided-war-Wests-wake-call.html
I almost feel sorry for Putin....but not quite.

The creature from under his stone speaks **** again.

This sentence says everything: "Back then, he was a Western-oriented leader, wanting to reform Russia."

What Tone really means is: Putin won't comply with the western globalist agenda, especially the one world government.

[B0ycey]

"The west" seems to be the new buzzwords replacing Britian/Uk in terms of geo politics and foreign policy. Is this a covert recognition of the uks diminshed influence on the world stage?

Who exactly is this ambiguous "west"?

In terms of nations , only one matters regarding economics and military power. The united states of america. America is the west.

I prefer the term "The West" over America simply because the rhetoric isn't just coming from America right now. It is true that America is the Hegemony and I suspect the main player in heighten tensions. The UK and the EU seem more interested in sanctions than blaming right now I guess, but at the same time Europe aren't doing anything useful in terms of ending this war and still believe throwing out a sanction or two will change Russians course. My opinion on this is very much the same as China. I believe in sovereignty and as such I support Ukraine as a nation and Zelensky as their elected head. But at the same time I don't believe the security of one nation should be at the expense of another. So I totally support dialogue right now and how Ukraine can maintain their security concerns without NATO membership. I haven't been on this forum for long, but the other forum I used I always said way back in 2014, the only solution to this was to divide Ukraine into two. The West influence Keiv, Russia Donbass. Whether that is ever possible I don't know. But what I do know is Russia will never give up Crimea. So if the compromise is Ukraine getting Luhansk and Donatsk back in return for assurances of genocide not occurring and allowing Crimea to remain as it is under Russian control at least there maybe a path forward.

[Sheepy]

Anyway, like I said keep pushing all the wrong buttons you know it makes sense.
China hits back at NATO for Russia demand — RT World News

[srb7677]

No he's not I guess anti British,he's just listed some stuff that shows an unflattering side of his own country's actions what he illustrates though is he's free to say it on here on the street or put it in print if he wished.

No I am not anti-British, I want my nation to be the best nation on earth and regret that it is not.

But as you clearly understand but the more usual suspects do not, criticism of our past wrongs does not make us unpatriotic, merely honest. All nations have to come to terems with the misdeeds of their pasts. The Germans could teach us a thing or two about that. Germans today are perfectly capable of being patriotic without feeling any need to justify or minimise the crimes of their past.

And yes, a post designed to spell out some of our past crimes and misdeeds is going to focus on the negative, The purpose of the post after all was to demonstrate that such negative events took place in the past, in a nation where many, including on this forum, wish to pretend it never happened or somehow want to condemn us as being unpatriotic for mentioning past misdeeds.

I don't know what they expected me to say. We brutally mutilated, beat to death, flogged to death, and burned alive prisoners in Kenya in the 1950s. But on the other Engand did win the World Cup in 1966?

Or maybe - we regularly blew political oppnents to bits in India by tying them to the front of cannons before firing them, but at least we gave them railways?

In a post designed to highlight our past misdeeds in the face of numerous denialists - the one you responded to demonstrates the need - such an approach would have been out of context and nonsensical.

[Javert]

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

So much for the superior technology of the Royal Navy if a state of the art nuclear attack sub can't keep track of one old cruiser travelling alone.

[Sheepy]

the need for war in Ukraine existed only in the mind of Putin.

That is absolute hogwash, they closed him in until he became so angry, he lashed out, which is what they have done around the globe going back centuries, except I do believe this time they have bitten off a bit more than they can chew. He isn't some tinpot dictator as they would try and have us believe. Or someone they can do their thinking for them. The only thing I would say is if they keep pushing the wrong buttons it will only force the Chinese into a position that will make things much worse for everyone. 

[srb7677]

The reason for much of it would somewhat dilute it from 'It is a shameful record ' to more a case of over reaction to the events of the day or  nesessary military decisions . 

Burning a prisoner alive is an overreaction to the events of the day is it? 

[cromwell]

For someone who claims to study history thats a pretty one sided (anti British )view of it .

The reason for much of it would somewhat dilute it from 'It is a shameful record ' to more a case of over reaction to the events of the day or  nesessary military decisions .

No he's not I guess anti British,he's just listed some stuff that shows an unflattering side of his own country's actions what he illustrates though is he's free to say it on here on the street or put it in print if he wished.

The fact he can and the actions of the person being discussed in this thread seems lost on most.

[srb7677]

There never was a need for a manufactured war in Ukraine. Except maybe in the minds of a few globalist maniacs.

Fact is, the need for war in Ukraine existed only in the mind of Putin. Problem is he is the leader of Russia and so used his power to start that war.

But of course you will find reasons to blame anyone but him.

A significant minority of members here appear to be both traitors to justice and strangers to reality, seeking to distort the latter to excuse the indefensible, and deflect all blame from Putin onto anyone else they can.

Sometimes I find myself wondering if roubles are changing hands,

[Sheepy]

but merely pointing out that had the West acted differently there may not even be a war going on right now isn't exactly far fetched.

I have a long memory, remember when the Yanks threatened the UK with the same thing for voting out of the EU? Even downgraded our credit rating as a starter. There never was a need for a manufactured war in Ukraine. Except maybe in the minds of a few globalist maniacs. 

[Thomas]

When you read what Putin says, it is difficult to disagree with most of it. I do think many of the conflicts in the 21st century was due to the West trying to maintain their crumbling dominance. And to some extent the Ukraine war was due to false promises to Zelensky and a refusal to address Russia as an equal. Of course the aggressor of any conflict cannot be blameless either because such action should be a last resort, but merely pointing out that had the West acted differently there may not even be a war going on right now isn't exactly far fetched.

Again dont disagree with your post boycey.

A point to pick up on......this growing use by many ( not just you or on here) of this term "the west".

"The west" seems to be the new buzzwords replacing Britian/Uk in terms of geo politics and foreign policy. Is this a covert recognition of the uks diminshed influence on the world stage?

Who exactly is this ambiguous "west"?

In terms of nations , only one matters regarding economics and military power. The united states of america. America is the west.

Second to america , who else matters? Well , i would argue , two organisations . One NATO .Secondly , in terms of economics , the european union. Which the uk isnt obviously part of.

So when people talk of "the west" , really it is a tacit admission of the minor role the uk now plays in world affairs hiding behind the united states of america.

Obviously as a scot nat ,   i notice the terminology. First of all i was told im not a scot , im british , now im told im not british, in world affairs in part of "the west".

The ironic thing s that many in "the west" despise each other far mor ethan those outwith it. As you say , i think a lot of this is to do with the crumbling dominance , not just as we know of the british , who wether folk like it or not , play a minor role , but i think the yanks feel their military and economic dominance is now threatened by a resurgent russia and of course the big guns in china.

[B0ycey]

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

When you read what Putin says, it is difficult to disagree with most of it. I do think many of the conflicts in the 21st century was due to the West trying to maintain their crumbling dominance. And to some extent the Ukraine war was due to false promises to Zelensky and a refusal to address Russia as an equal. Of course the aggressor of any conflict cannot be blameless either because such action should be a last resort, but merely pointing out that had the West acted differently there may not even be a war going on right now isn't exactly far fetched.

[Streetwalker]

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.

For someone who claims to study history thats a pretty one sided (anti British )view of it .

The reason for much of it would somewhat dilute it from 'It is a shameful record ' to more a case of over reaction to the events of the day or  nesessary military decisions . 

[cromwell]

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10621243/TONY-BLAIR-enemies-weak-divided-war-Wests-wake-call.html
I almost feel sorry for Putin....but not quite.

The creature from under his stone speaks **** again.