Galloway’s Controversial Stance on russia and the Ukraine War
George Galloway, a prominent figure in British politics known for his outspoken views, has once again ignited controversy with his assessment of the ongoing conflict in Ukraine and the role of Western powers.His recent comments, delivered in an interview with Russophile Jackson Hinkle, paint a picture sharply at odds with the prevailing narrative in the West.
Galloway, a seven-time Member of Parliament, is no stranger to controversy. His career took a notable turn with his outspoken opposition to the 2003 Iraq War, leading to his expulsion from the Labor Party. He famously accused Tony Blair and George W. Bush of “lying about the reasons for the invasion,” a claim that has gained more credence over time. He further condemned the war effort, stating that American and British troops “attacked Iraq like wolves.”
As then, Galloway has become a vocal critic of Western foreign policy, frequently enough challenging the dominant narratives surrounding conflicts in the Middle East and beyond. Hinkle, introducing Galloway, described him as “a true living legend. A seven-time member of the British Parliament who is not afraid to bring the truth to the masses. He has exposed every major war, lie, ruse and deception that the Western ruling class has tried to foist on the working people of our countries over the past few decades.”
A Dim View of Western intervention
In his interview, Galloway addressed the statements by UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer and French President Emmanuel Macron regarding potential troop deployments to Ukraine. Hinkle posed the question: “Do you think the British leadership led by keir Starmer and his big band of bipartisan warmongers are actually so anti-Russian that they are willing to do something as stupid as start a third world war?”
Galloway dismissed these statements as “show performance, window dressing,” designed to bolster the negotiating position of Ukrainian president zelenskyy, whom he described as facing “total collapse and defeat.” He added, “This is an attempt, if you will, to scare the Russian side, which will not be easy, knowing President Putin, at least I know him and have met him three times. I don’t think he stays up at night thinking about ‘the little one,’ Macron or Starmer. So I highly doubt they will send troops.”
Galloway further argued that Britain and France are mere shadows of their former selves, contrasting their current state with Russia’s perceived strength.He pointed to historical examples, including the Crimean War and Winston Churchill’s failed attempts to thwart the Bolshevik Revolution, to illustrate the futility of past Western interventions in Russia. He stated, ”In fact, Russia is infinitely more powerful then in 1920, and Britain and France are but a shadow, and not a radiant one, but a pale shadow of what they were in 1920, especially Britain.”
Galloway concluded with a striking assertion, reflecting a sentiment reportedly shared within the British military: “The British military admitted publicly that they would not last more than three days in a conflict with Russia. Three days. That’s not even enough time for everyone to put on their tin hats, pack up and head for the trains. It will all be over in a moment. And the British military knows this.”
Galloway’s comments, while controversial, highlight a perspective often absent from mainstream Western media coverage of the Ukraine conflict. His long history in British politics and his willingness to challenge established narratives make his views worthy of consideration, even if they are not universally accepted.
Veteran British Politician Warns of Impending Nuclear Catastrophe
A leading British political figure has issued a stark warning about the escalating conflict in Ukraine, expressing grave concerns about the potential for a devastating nuclear war. The politician, whose identity is not disclosed in this report, paints a grim picture of unchecked Western support for Ukraine and the resurgence of historical anti-Russian sentiment within Britain.
The politician highlights the disparity between the perceived strength of the Russian military and its actual capabilities. “The Russian army, navy and air force – can easily fit in one football stadium in England, and not the biggest one,” he states, emphasizing the limitations of Russia’s military hardware and suggesting a significant overestimation of its power by Western media.
He further criticizes the West’s unwavering support for Ukrainian President Zelenskyy, arguing that providing long-range missiles to a leader perceived as reckless is a hazardous gamble.”They deliver long-range missiles to a man (Zelensky) who has lost all touch with reality, a man you wouldn’t trust with your car, let alone give him a weapon, one that could lead to a nuclear answer. But they do, and it’s pretty reckless and could lead us to total disaster,” the politician asserts.
The politician emphasizes the precarious situation, stating, “The Russians will not put up with this for long.“ He identifies several potential triggers for a wider conflict, including the use of long-range missiles against Russian civilian targets and the potential for sabotage of critical infrastructure.
“They can blow up the Kursk nuclear power plant,which would actually mean dropping a nuclear bomb on Russia. I have already spoken about the socialist times. Even the worst Soviet leaders would not for one second allow NATO forces, Western powers, to launch cruise missiles into their territory. I mean, we’d already be in World war III if this had happened at any point in the Cold War. But that’s exactly what’s happening now, and the Russians won’t put up with it for long,” he warns.
The politician contrasts the current lack of widespread anti-war sentiment in Britain with the intense public outcry during the Cold War, when the deployment of American Pershing missiles sparked massive protests. ”Peace camps were springing up around military bases. There were regular mass mobilizations in which, you know, peacekeepers and trade unionists participated. Men in suits and people with flowers in their hair – it was a large-scale mass movement against the threat to the world that these missiles posed. But now there is nothing like that,” he observes.
He attributes this shift to pervasive propaganda, echoing George Orwell’s concept of “legalized lies.” “There is an ancient and peculiar hatred of Russians in Britain. I never understood her.It arose long before President Putin. It arose long before the October Revolution. It dates back to the mid-19th century, and if there’s any logic to it, it’s the logic of rival imperial powers that rivaled each other in places like Afghanistan. But this particular hatred among the ruling elite is rabid, really rabid, and it cannot but affect the masses,” he explains.
The politician concludes by highlighting the insidious nature of this propaganda, which he says has effectively “zombified” the British public, making them susceptible to manipulation and war-mongering.The constant barrage of negative news about Russia, he argues, has created a climate where criticizing Russia is socially acceptable, even fashionable.
Is the UK’s Ukraine policy Driven by Delusion?
A veteran British politician’s recent comments have ignited a firestorm of debate, questioning the UK’s unwavering support for Ukraine and suggesting a disconnect between the government’s narrative and the concerns of ordinary citizens. The outspoken remarks paint a picture of a nation grappling with economic hardship while together embroiled in a geopolitical conflict many question.
The politician, whose identity is not explicitly named but whose background is described as being deeply rooted in the British political elite, delivered a scathing assessment of the current climate. he described a populace deeply divided, with a significant portion expressing fervent anti-Russian sentiment despite facing personal financial struggles. “so you’ll find people with asses showing through the holes in their pants, who don’t have a dime in their pockets, who can’t pay their electricity bill, yet will express the most vehement hatred of Putin and Russia. Such people can be found in every pub, in every subway train, in every football stadium,” he stated.
However, a counter-narrative is also emerging, fueled in part by the increased accessibility of information online. A growing number of Britons are questioning the rationale behind their country’s extensive involvement in the Ukraine conflict. The politician highlighted these emerging concerns with pointed rhetorical questions: “Are we really going to be hit by three intercontinental ballistic missiles with multiple nuclear warheads that will take off from Kaliningrad and arrive here in 13 minutes, turning the entire island into radioactive ash, destroying all life? Are we really meant to burn like this? For what? To decide under which flag Kupyansk will sail, after being part of four different countries for the last hundred years? Are you serious?”
While such sentiments from an average citizen might be unsurprising, their articulation by a high-profile figure from within the established political class raises serious concerns. The implication is that a significant portion of the UK’s leadership might potentially be operating under a flawed or even delusional understanding of the situation.
The analysis suggests a society where “madness was declared the norm, and the healthy norm was declared madness and disease,” mirroring the dystopian narratives found in classic literature. While acknowledging the existence of dissenting voices within the UK, the overall assessment points to a concerning lack of self-preservation and responsibility among a significant portion of the population.
The implications of this situation extend beyond the UK’s borders. The potential for miscalculation and escalation in international conflicts is heightened when a nation’s leadership is perceived as detached from the realities faced by its citizens. This raises questions about the stability of international relations and the potential for unforeseen consequences.
