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!

Yes Animation that is rather difficult to follow.

The Russian forces can pop across the border any time they like. Smart new battledress and weapons have been supplied in quantity to the insurgents, plus ground-air missiles to shoot down two helicopters. And yet they can't get journalists in? Pull the other one!

'Why are the Russians trying to take over the airport?'

They are not Russians. They are Ukrainians who have declared independence and who have told the Ukrainian government forces to get out of the independent Republic of Donetsk and Lugansk. They do not recognise the new governemnt which came about as a result of a Neo-nazi backed coup which was recognised by the EU.

If teh Russian forces were there, then the Ukrainian army wouldn't stand a chance. Putin has not sent Russian troops in even though the separatists in Donetsk are asking Putin for help against the helicopters and air force of the Ukrainian government. The reason he has not sent troops in to help Russian speaking people is because of the US and NATO and what the potential implications of all this might be.

This has all been stirred up deliberately. Putin did not start it. The neo-Nazi revolt was funded and supported and a Polish newspaper reported that some of teh Maidan protestors were trained for it in Poland.

The question that needs asking is why was it started? And it may be the beginnings of a Third World War. Hopefully not. Putin has not sent troops in to help the separatists because of where that may lead up.

Not you as well claig with the if if if if distractions. Stick to the subject, or start a new thread.

One again, Ukraine has a newly elected democratic president. The eastern provinces had an opportunity to vote against him, but thugs smashed their ballot boxes.

You and math and Putin may not like that. Tough. Live with it.

'One again, Ukraine has a newly elected democratic president.'

Did the people of DonetsK and Lugansk vote for the billionaire?

Why was the election held at all? - As a result of a violent coup that toppled the elected President who was voted in by all of the Ukrainian people. He was brought down in a coup, whose most violent participants were neo-Nazis with swastika flags and SS symbols. That is why the Russian speaking people in Donetsk whose ancestors fought the Nazis and the Ukrainian Bandera fascists who are looked up to by the Neo-Nazi Right Sector, demonstrated in the streets with banners saying "no to fascists".

'You and math and Putin may not like that. Tough. Live with it.'
People are dying now in Ukraine. And it is likely to continue. But it may even spread, it may lead to war in Europe. It is a very dangerous time. Putin has not reacted, but he may not be able to sit back if many people continue to die. If Putin reacts, then the repercussions might be terible for all of Europe.

'if if if if distractions'

I used those to try and make you understand what is happening there.

Did the people of DonetsK and Lugansk vote for the billionaire?

The entire country had the opportunity to vote for or against him.The only places where there couldn't were where the Russian-inspired thugs (just as much 'fascists" as the protesters in Kiev) smashed up the ballot boxes to prevent voting. So afraid of the result that they couldn't allow the votes.

Once again, Ukraine has a newly elected democratic president. The eastern provinces had an opportunity to vote against him, but thugs smashed their ballot boxes.

If the previous democratically elected president could be ousted by a faction from the west of Ukraine by means of violence and the threat of violence in Kiev, why can't a faction from the east of Ukraine oust the new one?

If the previous democratically elected president could be ousted by a faction from the west of Ukraine backed by the US and the EU, why can't the new one be ousted by a faction from the east backed by Russia?

If the previous president of Ukraine was elected in a democratic election (and it seems nobody raised any serious objection to the democratic process that resulted in the election of Yanukovych) presumably the western provinces had an opportunity to vote against him.

If the western provinces of Ukraine can reserve the right to defy and violently overthrow a duly elected government of Ukraine why is that right denied to the east?

Donetsk had declared independence before he held the election.

But the bilionaire is known as "Mr Flip Flop" because he used to work with the deposed President, Yanukovych, and then flipped sides. The billionaire sells his chocolate to Russia as well as Ukraine. He will probably deal with Putin, if the West lets him, and that may be why Putin has not acted more strongly yet.

We don't know what goes on behind the scenes, but my guess is that he will act tough, but sweet-talk Putin behind the scenes. The alternative is that the West won't let him do that. And then it will be a very dangerous climate, not just for Ukraine but for Europe too.

We will have to ait and see what happens. It won't be over soon, it is likely to fester for years.

SallyingForth, did the west of Ukraine have the opportunity to vote against Yanukovych?

And did the interim government of Ukraine enter into far reaching agreements with the IMF and EU that will have a significant impact on Ukrainian freedom to steer its own course in financial and industrial and agricultural and welfare policy for decades, without any mandate from anyone in Ukraine except the mobs roaming the streets of Kiev?

Donetsk had declared independence before he held the election

Ah yes. Declared in a referendum controlled by the same Russian-supported thugs who destroyed the presidential ballot boxes. Very democratic. ;)

Ah yes, more democratic than the Right Sector backed coup.

So are the Russians' the good guys here - that is, those men (including Putin) who are based in Russia and those who are in the Ukraine?

Are these Russians basically helping out the good people of Ukraine - to protect themselves from the thugs in Ukraine who have tried to seize power?

Are the Russians not wanting to seize land for themselves at all?

But it may even spread, it may lead to war in Europe. It is a very dangerous time
...
And then it will be a very dangerous climate, not just for Ukraine but for Europe too

Those sound very like threats to me. "Stand back and let Russia take over its neighbours bit by bit, or things could get very nasty"

It is hardly surprising that so many people have likened Putin's tactics to Hitler's.

In answer to the OP, no you are definitely not being unreasonable, and neither was Charles. I'm out of here.

Animation, what Russians? The people in Donetsk and Lugansk are Ukrainians, but they have declated independence because they see the Ukrainian government as illegitimate.

'Those sound very like threats to me. "Stand back and let Russia take over its neighbours bit by bit, or things could get very nasty"'

Have you actually been following the news, Sallyingforth. Russia supports federalisation in Ukraine so that it can remain one country with more power devolved to the regions. Russia does not want war because war is calamity. It wants things to be solved by dialogue. But the people in Donetsk and Lugansk do not ant to be governed by a government they see as illegitimate.

So are the Russians' the good guys here
Yes, Animation. Supporting people who are being threatened by fascists who overthrew a democratically elected government is surely not wrong?

Are these Russians basically helping out the good people of Ukraine - to protect themselves from the thugs in Ukraine who have tried to seize power?
Yes again. The good people of eastern Ukraine have been told for months that they are now The Enemy by the western Banderites, who have form for putting their money where their mouth is and who have demonstrated their complete lack of respect for democracy or the values of democracy (by overthrowing the democratically elected government and marching shamelessly through the streets of western Ukrainian cities and Kiev with torches blazing, neo Nazi insignia on their flags and clothing, and chanting hate filled slogans).

If this happened in Britain I suspect many would be aghast. But it's somehow OK when all this hatred is directed at Russia and at people who speak Russian.

Good grief!

So has thiis been a big misunderstanding then?

And who are the 'Russian separatists' in Ukraine (that the media refer to) - have they come over from Russian to help out?

They are Ukrainian citizens who have rejected the new regime which came into power after overthrowing the elected President. Many of them are Russian speakers because many Ukrainians in the East and South of Ukraine speak Russian rather than Ukrainian. They are frightened of the neo-nazi Western Ukrainians of the Right Sector and are worried that the new government will not adequately represent their interests since it was essentially brought into power by a coup which was successful largely due to a violent group of Right Sector neo-nazis who hate Russians.

They are separatists. they media call them Russian separatists because they speak Russian and have now asked Russia for help in protecting them against the Ukrainian army. Even if Putin wanted to hep them, he can't do much because he does not know what the West will do in return. Obviously there would be greater sanctions, but Putin does not want to get involved in a large civil war situation because Ukraine might end up like Syria which also suffered an uprising against their President.

It is very dangerous because before the coup happened, Ukraine was led by corrupt leadership but was a united country. Now since the coup, it is almost in a state of civil war. Russia want a federation, but Ukraine is being backed by the US and EU and they may not want that.

It is a geopolitical game and Ukraine is being steadily removed from the Russian sphere of influence. It is being backed financially by the West now and the West has extended its influence closer to Russia's borders. Russia obviously feels threatened. It is not a game and that is why Russia took back Crimea which was granted to Ukraine only in 1954 by the communists after 200 years of Russian rule. Russia took back Crimea because it is strategically important as it houses its Black Sea Fleet and it could not allow that to slip from its control and into a NATO sphere of influence.

They are Russian-speaking, ethnically Russian Ukrainian citizens who were perhaps dismayed at the comment by Yuliya Tymoshenko, presidential candidate, to the effect that they should be nuked.

Maybe the fact that she garnered 12% of the popular vote and came second to Poroshenko has made them even more nervous than they were when she first made her remarks?

Ukraine has many ethnic minorities, of which the Russian minority is the largest. They were the targets Tymoshenko had in mind.

What is now happening is effectively civil war. This is so sad as many innocents will now be killed or injured.

It started, in my understanding, because the Ukrainian Government started to move towards the west, including membership of the EU & NATO. The process involved ousting the incumbent pro-Russian president & replacing him with a pro-western one.

Russia has it's fleet in Crimea, so would not allow this to happen.

Mr Putin then sent in the army, disguised in balaclavas, (the statement that the British named these garments almost 200 years ago is irrelevant to the discussion ).
Me Putin also gave out Russian passports to Ukrainians who were ethnic Russians.
Russia annexed Crimea & turned it's attentions to the Eastern provinces of Ukraine.

Western nations support the Ukrainian army/government that want to move west. The army is supported by the west & begins to fight back, taking back key buildings, strategic sites & land from pro-Russian units. People from both sides are killed & injured in the process.

Throw into the pot the laws around homosexuality, free speech, the right to protest, the Sochi Olympics & the annexation of Crimea at the end of the Olympics.

Prince Charles, in a, "private," conversation, likens Mr Putin to Hitler. Was Prince Charles right to speak out?

For me, the annexation of Crimea, the distribution of Russian passports was very disturbing & reminiscent of the annexation of the Sudatenland.

For me, the debate was around whether a non-autocratic Crown Prince figurehead should be speaking out in such a way. He is not the Monarch, he did not say it formally as part of an official speech. He has shown his disapproval of China's human rights record in the past, when he chose to attend another function rather than greet the Chinese President.

AIBU to think, "we'll said Prince Charles, " or is he wrong for using his position; the fact that he is not yet the Monarch but still has a global stage, in this way?

I quite admire him when he makes his personal opinions known. I think that writing to cabinet ministers in an attempt to influence policy is too much & crosses a line. However, refusing to meet oppressive governments or speaking out against dictatorial presidents, can he get away with that? Surely it's then up to our politicians to either distance themselves from him, or support him. Does he not give Britain a voice that other countries don't have?

He was on an official visit, 'the Prince of Wales' representing 'Her Majesty the Queen', not 'Charles' visiting Canada because 'his mum' couldn't make the trip, and he is a complete idiot if he thinks he can behave as if he is acting under his private persona in those circumstances. He needs to understand that when he wears his Prince of Wales hat he speaks as the Prince of Wales to everyone he meets in that capacity.

Speaking as 'Prince of Wales' means clearing his remarks about the heads of other states and about political situations anywhere with Her Majesty's Government beforehand and not even thinking about going off script. As Prince of Wales he has no right whatsoever to personal opinions. As Charles Windsor or Battenburg or whatever his surname may be, he can have and express opinions but when he is the son of a mother who has an official as well as a private birthday he should be aware that there is a clear distinction between his private and official personae and that he is obliged to maintain that distinction.

He has crossed the lines before, notably in the letters to politicians and attempts to influence policy as you mention. It's not up to politicians to distance themselves from him or support him. The principles of a constitutional monarchy are the foundations of Crown/State relations in Britain and all parties involved have to respect the rules in order to make it work. It is not up for renegotiation every time a member of the Royal Family feels like making a statement. The State has asserted itself and its rights over the Monarch even to the point of forcing the abdication of Edward VIII over his choice of a wife based on the principle that the Monarch is not a private individual but Head of State and head of the Church of England.

The Prince of Wales does not give Britain a voice that other states do not have. The 'Prince of Wales' has no voice other than that which is accorded to him by HMQ's Government. 'Charles' can have whatever opinions he wants. But he needs to be careful to keep track of whether he is 'Charles' or 'The Prince of Wales' on any given day.

As an aside I very much doubt HMQ will ever step aside to make room for Charles to be king. The Monarch needs to understand where he ends and his official persona begins and Charles does not seem to have grasped that fundamental constitutional point. If he doesn't understand it or accept it at the ripe old age of 65 he is not likely to.