Tik nesakyk, kad Lietuvos istojimas i NATO nepriklause nuo JAV poziurio i si reikala. O jei priklause, tai JAV galejo vykdyti savo pazada ir nepritarti Lietuvos stojimui i NATO. Galejome istinti is to noro, bet butume neistoje, jei JAV butu nesutikusi :) Suma sumarum-JAV netesejo duoto pazado del NATO pletimosi i rytus. "RaR" <RaR@lt.lt> schrieb im Newsbeitrag news:lhh51s$5v4$1@trimpas.omnitel.net... > 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