Tema: Ukraina - Vakaru pozicija
Autorius: abc
Data: 2014-04-02 02:30:05
Nuobodu skaityti lietuvišką ir rusišką propagandą.
O ką iš tiesų mano Vakarai?

American Perspective

http://www.institutionalinvestor.com/blogarticle/3315726/Blog/Will-Russia-Go-to-War-Over-Ukraine-Dont-Bet-on-It.html?LS=Twitter

German Perspective

"The leader of the opposition, Gregor Gysi, will speak now:

Mr. President, ladies and gentlemen. Putin wants to solve the whole 
crisis in Ukraine militarily. He has not understood that the problems of 
humanity can neither be solved by soldiers, nor by weapons. On the 
contrary. Also Russia’s problems cannot be solved this way. His thinking 
and his actions are wrong and we condemn them explicitly. Yet, it is the 
same thinking that was and is present in the west for Yugoslavia, 
Afghanistan, Iraq and Lybia. System confrontations were replaced by the 
opposing interests of the USA and Russia. The Cold War is over, but such 
opposing interests can lead to very similar traits. The USA want to gain 
more influence and defend existing influence and Russia wants to gain 
more influence and defend existing influence. When talking about Russia, 
I shall only mention Georgia, Syria, Ukraine.

Even when one condemns Putin’s actions, one must also look at how the 
whole confrontation and intensification came to be. And I shall tell it 
to you very clearly: Everything that the NATO and the EU could have done 
wrong, was done wrong.

I begin with Gorbachev in the year 1990. He suggested to form a common 
European house: Dissolving of the NATO and the Warsaw Pact and finding a 
common security with Russia. This is what the NATO denied. They said: 
Dissolving the Warsaw Pact: Yes. The NATO stays… And from the defending 
alliance was made an interventional alliance. The second error: With the 
creation of German unity, the US foreign minister and the German foreign 
minister of the time, Genscher, and other foreign ministers told 
Gorbachev: No eastwards extension of the NATO will take place. This 
promise was broken. There was a radical extension of the NATO towards 
Russia. And the former US foreign minister Robert Gates described the 
rapid inclusion of the East European states into the NATO as a grave 
mistake and the attempt of the West to include Ukraine into the NATO as 
grave provocation - that’s not what I said, this was said by the former 
US foreign minister! Then, third, the decision was made to station 
rockets in Poland and the Czech Republic. The Russian government said: 
This concerns our security interests, we do not want this. The West 
couldn’t care less and it was done anyway. And finally, the NATO gravely 
and repeatedly violated international law in the Yugoslavian war. This 
is meanwhile even confirmed by former German chancellor Schröder. Serbia 
had not attacked another state and there was no decree of the UN 
Security Council. And yet, bombs were dropped, and for the first time 
since 1945 with German involvement. The citizens of Kosovo were allowed 
to decide for the separation from Serbia in a plebiscite.

Back then, I heavily criticised these violations of international law 
and I have told you for the case of Kosovo that a Pandora’s Box is being 
opened. Because if this is allowed in Kosovo, then you must also allow 
it in other regions. You insulted me. You did not take it seriously. And 
you did this because you thought you were such victors of the Cold War 
that all old measures were not applicable to you anymore. I tell you: 
The Basks ask why they can’t have a plebiscite that asks whether they 
want to belong to Spain or not. The Catalans ask why they can’t have a 
plebiscite that asks whether they want to belong to Spain or not. And so 
do the citizens of Crimea. And through violation of international law, 
through habitual law, you can create new international law, you know 
that. Yet, my opinion stands that the detachment of Crimea would be 
violating international law - as was the detachment of Kosovo.

I knew that Putin would refer to Kosovo and that is just what he did. 
And now you, Ms. chancellor, tell me that this situation is totally 
different. [Someone (Ms. Roth?) shouting “It is!”]. Yes, that may be… 
But you disregard that international law violation is international law 
violation. My dear Ms. Roth, why don’t you ask a judge if a theft of 
noble motive is not a theft in comparison to a theft of non-noble 
motive. He will tell you that it stays a theft. That is the problem! 
That is the problem! And Mr. Struck has explained a while ago that the 
Federal Republic of Germany must defend its security at the Hindu Kush. 
Now Mr. Putin explains Russia must defend its security at Crimea. 
Germany, by the way, had no fleet at Hindu Kush and was considerably 
further away. Still I say, both sentences were and are wrong.

Yet, the following holds: When many international law violators blames 
international law violator Russia to violate international law, this is 
not particularly effective and trustworthy. That is the fact we are 
facing. Obama spoke, like you, Ms. chancellor, of the sovereignty and 
territorial integrity of the nations. But, these two principles were 
violated in Serbia, Iraq and Lybia. The West thought it could violate 
international law because the Cold War was over. Chinese and Russian 
interest were heavily underestimated. You did not take Russia with 
Yeltsin, who was often even drunk, serious anymore. But the situation 
changed. Very lately, you now again reference the principles of 
international law that were established in the Cold War. I am very much 
in favour of them being valid again, but then for all! This is the only way.

Then there was the tug of war between the EU and Russia with Ukraine in 
the middle. Both thought and acted the same. Barroso, head of the 
European Commission, said EITHER customs union with Russia OR contracts 
with us. He did not say BOTH. Either-or! And Putin said EITHER contracts 
with us OR the EU. Both thought and acted alternatively in the same way. 
It was a gigantic mistake from both sides. No EU foreign minister tried 
to speak to the Russian government while even recognising the rightful 
security interests of Russia. Russia is afraid that behind the EU, the 
NATO will enter Ukraine. It feels more and more surrounded. But everyone 
pulled at Ukraine. The EU and NATO foreign ministers completely ignored 
the history of Ukraine. They never understood the importance of Crimea 
to Russia. And Ukrainian society is deeply divided. Also this was not 
recognised. This deep division already showed in WWII. And it shows 
today. East Ukraine tends to Russia, West Ukraine tends to western 
Europe. At this moment, there is no single Ukrainian political figure 
that could represent both parts of society. That is a sad truth.

And then there is the Council of Europe and the Organisation for 
Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) which you gravely neglected, 
Ms. chancellor, Mr. foreign minister. The funding for these 
organisations was cut more and more in the past because you thought they 
were not important. Yet they are the only organisations in which both 
Russia and Ukraine also take part. Thus we must strengthen these 
organisations and not discuss over Russia’s exclusion. That is 
completely missing the point.

Then we saw a massive intensification on Maidan. Then we saw snipers and 
many deaths. There are various rumours. In such situations, people lie a 
lot. And that is why, in such situations, we propose an international 
investigation committee. We and the Ukrainians have a right to know what 
happened there, who is responsible… And I am happy that you support 
this, Ms. chancellor. On Maidan, there were many democratic forces. But 
also fascists. The west was directly and indirectly involved. And then 
foreign minister Steinmeier, the French and Polish foreign minister 
signed a contract with Janukovych and the opposition. And now you say, 
Mr. foreign minister, Janukovych dissolved the contract through his 
fleeing. That is wrong. The people on Maidan rejected this contract with 
great majority. And you, Mr. foreign minister, also did not advertise 
for this contract on the site. And only after the rejection, Janukovych 
left Kiev. Then, parliament had a meeting, and they voted him out of 
office with 72.88%. Yet, the constitution dictates 75%. Now Mr. Röttgen 
and others say, well, during a revolution you can’t take the 
constitution to the letter, what are a few percentiles more or less?… 
But Putin references this and says there was no constitutional majority 
to vote him out of office, and refers to documents received from 
Janukovych. By the way, during the poll, armed soldiers were present. 
Not very democratic. During the plebiscite in Crimea on Sunday, there 
will also be armed soldiers. Also not very democratic. Interesting is 
also that you, Ms. chancellor, say, that such a plebiscite is forbidden 
by the Ukrainian constitution. So when is the constitution to be upheld, 
and when not? When electing the president out of office it is not and 
for the plebiscite in Crimea it is? You should decide whether you accept 
the constitution as a whole or only in specific cases when you feel like 
it. The latter is the way I have seen and don’t like.

Then a new government was formed. Directly accepted by president Obama, 
also by the EU, also from Germany. Ms. Merkel! This government’s vice 
premier minister, the defence minister, the agricultural minister, the 
environmental minister, the Attorney General… are fascists! The head of 
the national security committee was co-founder of the fascist Swoboda 
party. Fascists have important positions and dominate, for example, the 
security sector. And never have fascists voluntarily given up power once 
they had conquered a part of it. At least Germany should have drawn the 
line here, especially because of our history. When Haider’s FPÖ joined 
the government in Austra, there were even contact barriers! And with the 
fascists in Ukraine we do nothing?! Swoboda has close contacts to the 
NPD and other nazi parties in Europe. The chairman of this party, Olek 
Tjahnybok, has stated the following. I am going to quote him now. You 
need to grasp this, what he has said literally: “Grab your weapons. 
Fight the Russian pigs, the Germans and the Jew swines and others 
pests”. End of quote. I repeat. This man has said “Grab your weapons. 
Fight the Russian pigs, the Germans and the Jew swines and others 
pests”. Attacks on jews and left-wingers are now common and to all this 
you say nothing? You talk with these Swoboda people? I think this is a 
scandal. I have to tell you this clearly.

Now you want, as you said, to impose sanctions, if all else fails. But 
they will not impress Putin. They will only make the situation worse. 
Kissinger, the former US foreign minister, is right. He says sanctions 
do not express a strategy but the lack of a strategy. That also holds 
for the escalating military flights over Poland and the Baltic states: 
What’s the point? Accounts of Janukovych and his supporters are blocked 
because they contain stolen state funds. My question: You did not know 
this? Second question: Why only their accounts? What is with the 
billions of oligarch money to support others, why aren’t you interfering 
there? Why is this going so one-sided?

There is only the way of diplomacy! First: The West must recognise the 
legitimate security interests of Russia on Crimea, which is by the way 
also how US foreign minister Kerry sees it. We must find a status for 
Crimea with which Ukraine, Russia and we can live. We have to guarantee 
Russia that Ukraine will not become a NATO member. Second: The 
perspective of Ukraine lies in a bridge function between the EU and 
Russia. Third: A process of understanding between east and west must be 
initiated in Ukraine, maybe through a federal or confederal status, 
maybe even through two presidents. What I accuse the EU and the NATO of: 
Until today, no relationship to Russia has been searched or found. This 
has to change dramatically. Security in Europe is not possible against 
or without Russia but only with Russia. And if the crisis is overcome 
one day, one advantage could be that international law is finally 
recognised by all sides again. Thank you. "

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pXLy0NGW9sM