Tipiškas didelės valstybės atstovo mąstymas, neturinčio esminių vertybių 
ir nelabai suprantančio vykstančių procesų. Visko net neperskaičiau, bet 
tokie "pragmatiškų vakariečių", beje, dažniausiai vokiečių, pamąstymai 
jau daugybę kartų girdėti. Keletas momentų.

Krymo atvejo lyginimas su Kosovu, Libija ar Sirija yra visiškai ne 
vietoje. Kosove JAV įsikišo labai nenoriai, kai vyko albanų genocidas ir 
visi trimitavo kad reikia kažką daryti, bet nebuvo kam. Libijoje irgi 
įsikišo tik tada, kai žudynės vyko pilnu tempu. Sirijoje neįsikišo net 
tada, kai buvo peržengta iš anksto nubrėžta raudona linija - panaudotas 
cheminis ginklas. Ir apskritai sakyti, kad  JAV siekė nuversti sau 
neparankius režimus galima tik Afganistano ir antrojo Irako karo atveju, 
bet tuomet buvo baisus įsiutis dėl 9/11 ir Bušas turėjo kažkam smogti - 
nesvarbu kam. Visais gi arabų pavasario atvejais JAV tiesiog palaikė 
demokratines permainas, nesvarbu, kad daugumoje atveju ten buvo JAV 
palankūs diktatoriški režimai ir grasino ateiti ne tokie palankūs, 
musulmoniški, ypač taip buvo Egipto atveju.
Be to JAV nieko neaneksavo ir nesiruošia aneksuoti, nebent pabando 
sukurti demokratiją, bet aišku, nepriaugusiose iki to visuomenėse tai be 
galo nedėkingas užsiėmimas - Artimuosiuose Rytuose daug sunkiau nei 
Japonijoje ar Pietų Korėjoje. Putinas gi be jokių skrupulų, visiškai 
ciniškai užgrobė ir aneksavo kitos šalies teritoriją, visiškai be jokio 
preteksto.

Dėl NATO plėtimosi. Laimei, kad vokiečiai to nesprendžia, nes daugelio 
tokių "pragmatikų" požiūriu mes iki šiol turėtume tupėti SSSR idant 
negriautume vakarams palankaus Gorbačiovo režimo. O jeigu šiuo metu 
nebūtume NATO, mus, tikriausiai, jau būtų ištikęs Krymo likimas. Tie 
"pragmatikai" niekaip negali suprasti, kad kai kurie procesai tiesiog 
vyksta šalių viduje nepriklausomai nuo galingųjų šalių norų ir 
susitarimų - jeigu tauta nori eiti tam tikru keliu, ji juo ir eina 
atsiradus menkiausiai progai, nepaisant pasaulio galingųjų 
išskaičiavimų. Mes norėjome nepriklausomybės, ir ją paskelbėme bei 
išsikovojome nepaisant visų "pragmatikų" raginimų to nedaryti, 
galiausiai tas pats buvo ir su stojimu į NATO. Ukrainiečiai nebegalėjo 
pakęsti Janukovičiaus režimo ir jį nuvertė nepaisant kažkokių ten 
pozicijų - opozicijų susitarimų.

O Putinui reikia ne nuolaidžiauti, o jį spausti - mažos pergalės kelia 
jo populiarumą, o tegu ir maži pralaimėjimai galėtų padėti atsikvošėti 
rusų tautai ir privesti iki režimo žlugimo. Mano nuomonė aiški jau nuo 
pat Putino pasirodymo didžiojoje politikoje - tai baisus žmogus, ir kuo 
jis įgis daugiau galios, tuo daugiau problemų gali pridaryti pasauliui. 
Čia tas vokiečių politikierius galėtų prisiminti 1938 m. ir Čemberleną, 
kuris, mojuodamas sutartimi su Hitleriu, praktiškai atidavusia šiam 
Čekoslovakiją, jautėsi didvyriu, išgelbėjusiu šalį nuo karo, beje, 
didelė dalis visuomenės jam tuomet pritarė.





2014.04.02 02:30, abc rašė:
> 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