To think, "Well said Prince Charles!"

[FrancesNiadova]

I agree with the news commentators who say he shouldn't be writing to cabinet ministers, trying to influence policy. However, Putin, invading countries & handing out Russian passports, is behaving like a land-grabbing dictator.
Prince Charles is not the King, yet, so he is maximising his opportunity to say, well, what we're all thinking, basically.
I remember the controversy of the State Visit of the Chinese President. Instead of joining the formal greeting party & banquet, he booked himself to attend a much more minor event in Cornwall, to show his disgust for human rights abuses. The snub was not missed by the Chinese & the media.
Is it unreasonable to be pleased that he speaks out & a bit by the bad press he's getting for it!

I think many forget the debt we owe Russia and its people in overthrowing Hitler, so for Charles to compare their leader to him lacked any understanding of history The west may not like Putin but there's lots of leaders we disagree with and they are not compared to Hitler The Russians lost more people in WW2 than ALL the other countries put together. He should keep his thoughts private, He certainly is not speaking for me.

So much smoke being blown around here - Ireland, Arizona and so on.

The terrible loss of Russian lives on WW2 (which would have been much less if the cruel dictator Stalin had only listened to Churchill's warnings and not continued supplying Hitler until he turned and attacked the USSR) make for good sound-bites but have nothing to do with the case.

Charles was comparing the territorial ambitions of Putin with those of Hitler, which took place before the start of WW2 and long before the USSR was attacked.

The fact that the USSR lost so many lives 70 years ago does not give Putin any excuse to march into the Ukraine in 2014, or into any other of the adjacent ex colonies that are wondering if they will be next to be attacked on some dubious pretext.

This thread is about what Charles said in private. That comment accords entirely with the facts, and with what many people are thinking in the UK and around the world.

I doubt very much whether Putin actually cares a wet fart what Charles said, but if by chance he did take note that can only be a good thing.

I think many forget the debt we owe Russia and its people in overthrowing Hitler, so for Charles to compare their leader to him lacked any understanding of history

... or a real understanding of anything at all, come to that; it's been said that his opinions bear the stamp of the last person he spoke to, which sounds about right to me

Nobody would deny him a purely private view, but how people can keep calling this a "private conversation" is beyond me ... I mean, with the media present???!!!!

Perhaps we should compare the Royal family to something let's think.....
people in glass houses

Sallyingforth I agree.

Russia paid a terrible price in WW2, but Stalin went on to kill many millions more of his own people.

Interesting article in the Telegraph today saying that one reason Putin is over-reacting is that Russia struggles to understand the nature of Prince Charles not being the mouth piece of government or indeed that the press are attacking Russia not because that is official UK policy but because we have a pretty free press - something which has never existed in Russia.

Stalin killed millions before the war too, including most of his top generals. Another reason why his people suffered so badly in the fighting.
But still no excuse for Putin.

Back to the here and now-

There's been a lot of pussy footing around Putin whilst he acquires land. Good on Charles for telling it as it is - basically what the fuck are you playing at Putin?? Hitler began by aquiring land! - there's the similarity.

Now Putin seems to be playing hurt sensibilities.

The Telegraph is full of hot air on this one. Does it really think a major world power is so abysmally ignorant of how other countries work? Condescension much? Russia is trying to embarrass both Prince Charles and the British government in its complaints about the comments, and knows that the government is most likely seething in private about what an idiot Charles is..

If we're going to talk history, how about we talk a bit about acquisition of land by the US? Was anything in the westward expansion of the US, accompanied by slavery and genocide of the native Americans akin to anything Hitler did many years later?

Or closer to home, let's talk about the British Empire and how it came about that so much of the globe used to be coloured red. Let's talk about why the Scottish Highlands have so many hunting lodges and so few people.

Glass houses in indeed.

More history -- until 1954 Crimea was part of Russia.

And a little pertinent comment in the wake of the EU elections and the better than expected showing of the Right -- the only parties who ever benefit when the anti-Russian drums are beaten in Europe are the neo Nazis.

Math - why do you always respond by talking about what other countries do rather than what Russia has done? Because others did wrong does not make what Russia did right, nor make Charles wrong either.

I think the right wing gains in the European elections have zero to do with Russia and much to do with internal EU politics and immigration.

Slavery:
1723: Russia outlaws slavery, but recognises serfdom
1799: The followed act frees Scottish coal mining slaves
1807: Abolition of the slave trade act abolished the trading of slaves in the British Empire
1811: Trading in slaves is made a felony throughout the British Empire.
1834: British Slavery Abolition Act
1835: Treaties between Britain & France & Britain and Denmark to abolish the slave trade
1836: Portugal abolished the slave trade
1861: Russia Emancipation Reform laws free the serfs
1865: America abolished slavery.

Slavery was an awful part of all our histories. Colonisation/Empire building was also not our finest hour. As western nations, we hold our hands up & acknowledge the abuse that our nations' ancestors committed. It is part of what we teach our children in school. The holocaust is on Germany's national curriculum, with a visit to a concentration camp site on the curriculum.

All of our countries have committed terrible atrocities in their time. We are not proud of them: highland clearances, slavery, potato famine, South African concentration camps, German concentration camps, Bloody Sunday, The Berlin Wall, Gulags, Empire Building. We acknowledge them because we know that they must not happen again. Russia now acknowledges the millions who died under Stalin & atrocities like the Katyn Massacre.

I've put the timeline above to show that it's no good 1 nation quoting history to take the moral high ground. All of our nations were guilty.

However, when 1 nation in the 21st Century starts to legislate against innocent citizens because of their sexuality or religion, or when 1 nation sends in balaclavered troops to annexe part of another country, everyone should speak out.

We can't change the past, but we should learn from it to change the future.

1799: Colliers Act.
WHY it should be auto-corrected to followed baffles me!

I do so in order to illustrate that people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. And to suggest that just because Britain and the rest of the west now considers itself enlightened it doesn't mean that the west is enlightened or even that large sections of the population of the west is on board with social policy and the sort of attitudes that constitute the zeitgeist.

Why not point out other states' colonial, slave-trading, genocidal, famine-making past if we are going to harp on and on and on about Russia's?

If we are going to draw the conclusion from Russian history that Putin = Hitler and the Russian Federation = the second incarnation of the Third Reich then let's examine the history of other states and draw similar parallels. Because they are there with bells on.

when 1 nation in the 21st Century starts to legislate against innocent citizens because of their sexuality or religion, or when 1 nation sends in balaclavered troops to annexe part of another country, everyone should speak out.

Let's not conflate legislation against 'gay propaganda' with legislation against people of a certain religion.

Crimea was part of Russia until 1954. For no reason whatsoever it was given to Ukraine by Khrushchev. His authority to do so is questionable and was even at the time. Let's also note where the term balaclava comes from. The term was first used in connection with headgear worn by British troops fighting near Balaklava, in Crimea, and what they were doing there in 1854 was fighting Russia.

Article 6.21:
'Propaganda is the act of distributing information among minors that 1) is aimed at creating nontraditional sexual attitudes, 2) makes nontraditional sexual relations attractive, 3) equates the social value of traditional and nontraditional sexual relations, or 4) creates an interest in nontraditional sexual relations.'

There are large sections of western society that would agree with the Russian Duma pov here. Anyone who asserts that the west is a haven for gay people or that all expressions of gay consciousness or political activism are welcome hasn't seen the results of the EU Parliamentary elections. The swing to the Right wasn't all about local issues or immigration and integration. Lots of voters have now 'spoken out'.

It's tempting to believe that because you and your friends and a majority in your locality all seem to have similarly progressive opinions you must be (1) right and (2) in the majority everywhere. And by the same token, there is opposition within Russia to the legislation that created the idea of gay propaganda and always was (this legislation was tabled before and defeated, in 2004 and 2006).

Similarly, the continued trend of gay-related legislation and voting in some areas of the US indicates voter disquietude about questions of marriage equality, rights of gay couples in areas like adoption, etc. There has long been a feeling in the US from what may be termed 'right' and 'left' alike for want of better terms, that the prominent position of the Supreme Court and federal courts in deciding on matters that politicians are afraid to touch because special interests would withdraw financial support (abortion rights, gay rights, gun rights) constitutes a theft of the birthright of ordinary citizens -- i.e. to vote directly on matters that are important, or to be able to influence a vote by pressure on members of Congress.

The Right's electoral gains were completely predictable. The folly of European leaders like Merkel and Hollande and Cameron in supporting the US-inspired and neo-Nazi enforced revolution in Kiev last winter is perhaps becoming apparent to them this morning. The reason the Right gains when Russia is demonised is because the Right contains neo-Nazi elements who see their destiny as finishing the fight that Hitler started. They parade shamelessly around western Ukraine and on the streets of Kiev vowing death to Russia, Russian speakers, Jewish-Bolsheviks and all the other 'enemies of the Reich' that their Banderite grandfathers in the 14. SS-Freiwilligen Division "Galizien", (subsequently known as 14. Waffen Grenadier Division der SS (galizische Nr.1) or in English the 14th Waffen Grenadier Division of the SS [1st Ukrainian]) wanted to finish off.

I give up Math. You are never going to admit that Russia is in the wrong in its actions in Ukraine.

The treatment of gays in Russia is far, far worse than it is in the UK and many other countries. Violence and discrimination against minorities is commonplace there and is supported by the state and its instruments.

Here not everyone agrees with gay rights, but the law is against them and is by and large upheld.

You still haven't told me if you have ever been to Russia so I must assume you have not. Go there, experience the atmosphere, understand the Russian mindset. You may change your mind.

The situation in Ukraine is ugly and like all "revolutions" a fertile bed for hot heads on all sides. But let's not pretend that the ousted leadership was a model of virtue.

The situation in Ukraine is ugly and like all "revolutions" a fertile bed for hot heads on all sides. But let's not pretend that the ousted leadership was a model of virtue

What I insist on wrt the ousted government was that it was a legally elected one, and that nobody had any right to encourage or pay for a revolution that toppled it no matter what its shortcomings were.

And I would like to suggest that if it was Russia that did this in Ukraine there would be no end to the howling and the protest from the enlightened west.

There are many here on MN who think the ConDems are no model of virtue, and imo they are right. Is it therefore ok for the US to decide who will succeed them, encourage UKIP and skinhead and white power groups to occupy London and stay until Cameron et al pack their bags and leave a vacuum to be filled at some later date? Would it have been ok for the US to decide Ireland or Greece needed a complete political change and encourage let's say Sinn Fein or the Greek nationalist right to foment revolution? Both places were bankrupt because of corruption...

Another voluminous smokescreen by math, and once again totally irrelevant to the OP about what Prince Charles is alleged to have said.

Why not point out other states' colonial, slave-trading, genocidal, famine-making past if we are going to harp on and on and on about Russia's?

No-one (except you) is harping on about "Russia's past". Charles was talking about Putin's present actions.

Not Russia, but Putin. Got that?
Not the past, but the present. 2014. Understood?

Try reading what people have said, instead of what you would like them to have said in order to fit in with your own prejudices.

So Hitler is a figure from exactly when?

Sorry Mathanxiety but you've lost me there ..

This is in the news this morning - 'a stand-off between government forces and pro-Russia gunmen is continuing after Ukraine's military sought to retake control of Donetsk airport.'

If Charles were to say (again) - that that is very Hitler like behaviour from Putin - thinking he can invade another country to acquire land .. yes, I can see that link.

I'm all for Charles speaking up as freely as he likes on this, and infact Charles seemed to be the only person who rattled Putin last week. Why do the powers that be only speak to Putin in a week diplomatic fashion - and in that same diplomatic non authentic fashion imposed sanctions. Non of which is having any effect.

If calling him Hitler has an effect and upsets his feelings - call him Hitler!

I am quite sure that Putin finds all the liberal hand wringing about how he that bad in a historical context, compared to others' awful behaviour, rather useful. It lets him continue just as he pleases. He doesn't really give a flying fuck and only responds to direct conflict. That is what scares me about him. He appears rather unstoppable and his own country are in his grip, rather than under his guidance.

From a Russian Politics degree (over 25 years ago!), Russia has always needed an iron fist in charge, it is part of their inherent culture. There is no 'received the message loud and clear' from a democratic process.

Putin had an excellent training in non-democratic government when he worked in the KGB keeping Russian colonies under control. He's now putting that experience to use. He knows exactly how far he can push his military power and when to stand.
Comments from critics like Charles can make useful propaganda for Putin's supporters, but will have no actual effect on his actions.

This is in the news this morning - 'a stand-off between government forces and pro-Russia gunmen is continuing after Ukraine's military sought to retake control of Donetsk airport.'

If Charles were to say (again) - that that is very Hitler like behaviour from Putin - thinking he can invade another country to acquire land .. yes, I can see that link.

Even the BBC is reporting that Ukraine is using jets and helicopters against pro Russians who currently control Donetsk airport. Boroshenko has stated he will use deadly force to remove pro Russians, whilst Putin has repeatedly said Russia will not attack Ukrainian civilians.

It is Ukraine, not Russia, that is kidnapping journalists, and not allowing those connected to Russian media outlets into the country. White House spokeswoman Jen Psaki even had to admit they were journos.

If we're not careful we will allow the hawks, neocons and expansionists amongst the corporations to lead us into a war with Russia. The only people who would benefit from that are arms companies and oil corporations, everybody else will lose catastrophically.

Marat Saychenko and Oleg Sidyakin from Lifenews, a Russian TV channel, have said that Chechens and others, possibly American, are aiding Ukrainian forces.

Putin isn't an innocent, he just doesn't trust NATO, and he's right in that regard.

The Ukraine government is trying to put down an insurgency in their territory. The government is supported by the West and the insurgency is supported by Russia.

Meanwhile the Syrian government is trying to put down an insurgency in their territory. The government is supported by Russia and the insurgency is supported by the West.

As my wise old mum would say, "six to one, half-a-dozen to the other"

But the elected President of Ukraine was overthrown by an insurgency, and Assad is facing an insurgency. Who started both those insurgencies? Who encouraged and who backed them? Was it Putin?

The President of Ukraine has just been elected in a free democratic election - in spite of insurgents' efforts to prevent it.
Even Putin has had to accept the election result.

However he's still calling on Ukraine to stop action against the insurgents, whilst continuing to support Assad who is dropping barrel bombs indiscriminately on civilian residential areas.

"It is Ukraine, not Russia, that is kidnapping journalists, and not allowing those connected to Russian media outlets into the country. White House spokeswoman Jen Psaki even had to admit they were journos."

Now that's where you lose me - genuinely.

Why are the Russians trying to take over the airport?

Are the Russians in Ukraine the friendly ones?

Sallyingforth, can't you see what Mathanxiety said?

If our Prime Minister was overthrown by a coup of EDL and BNP activists who walked around London carrying baseball bats and wearing masks and if Cornwall said we do not accept these "fascist" thugs as legitimate and decided that Cornwall would secede and if the "fascist" backed temporary governemnt who have now elected a new President used the Royal Air Force to bomb Cornwall and send troops in to Cornwall to put the people's rebellion down, and the EU sent their bureaucrats in to recognise the "fascist" backed regime in London, would you also support the "fascist" backed regime and call them legitimate?

Did you not see the old women and old men carrying religious icons in Donetsk and standing in the way of tanks? Do you agree with sending Right Sector thugs in against people who oppose what they see as an illegitimate regime?