Amerikonai irgi tapo dauguma tiktai po to, kai isnaikino indenus. Beje-Valstijos ikurtos tik bene 7m anksciau, nei Krymas Rusijos valdzion pateko. Ka tai reikstu? Jei Kryma totoriams, tai Amerika indenams? "RaR" <RaR@lt.lt> schrieb im Newsbeitrag news:lhhkl2$e9o$1@trimpas.omnitel.net... > Na jo, daugiau kaip šimtą metų priklausė Rusijai - tai juk "iskonno > russkije zemli". Po to (nesvarbu kas ir kaip priskyrė) - tik beveik > šešiasdešimt metų Ukrainai. Tai gal yra ir kitų pretendentų - totoriai, > kurie prieš rusų užgrobimą ir po to keliaetapį etninį valymą ten turėjo > valstybę apie pusę tūkstančio metų. Beje, rusai dauguma Kryme tapo tik > po paskutinio įvykdyto totorių genocido, dešimtmetį prieš priskiriant > Ukrainai. O gal dar prisiminsim graikus ar genujiečius? Juk ir visus > pagrindinius miestus anie pastatė, rusai tik kai kuriuos pervadino? > > Šiaip jau galima būtų ginčytis kam Krymas turėtų ir norėtų priklausyti, > bet būdas, kuriuo jis buvo aneksuotas, jokių ginčų negali kelti. Tai > vienareikšmiškai nepriimtina šiais laikais - bet koks referendumas esant > įvestai kitos šalies kariuomenei yra neteisėtas, ypač kai jis > surengiamas per savaitę nuo užgrobimo. Kai sovietai įvedė savo > kariuomenę, Lietuva irgi "pasiprašė" priimama į SSSR. O dar turint omeny > Rusijos, JAV ir D.Britanijos įsipareigojimus užtikrinti Ukrainos > teritorinį vientisumą jai atsisakant branduolinio ginklo - šita aneksija > tiesiog griauna bet kokius pasaulio tvarkos ir stabilumo likučius. Kaip > dabar įkalbėti bet kurią šalį atsisakyti branduolinio ginklo ar jo > nekurti - juk visi įsitikino kad visos tos garantijos nieko nereiškia. > Putino mentalitetas vis tik nedatempia iki reikiamo minimumo vadovauti > didelei šaliai. Jis taip ir liko gatvės chuliganas. > > > > 2014.04.02 20:37, Gintas rašė: >> sutinku kazkokie pazadai nieko nereiskia. >> Kazkada kazkoks Chrusciovas leido Kryma priskirt Ukraina. Kryma , kuris buvo Rusijos jau daugiau nei simta metu! Ar klause kas krymieciu? Kita vertus: koks skirtumas darnioje seimoje, kurio sutuoktinio VMI deklaracijoje iforminamas vyro turetas deimantas? Bedos prasideda, kai isiskiriant pamirstama, kas buvo to deimanto savininkas ir kodel jis buvo irasytas zmonos deklaracijoje. >> Primenu-kai Krymas perejo Ukrainos zinion, tenais gyvenantiems zmonems tai nieko daug nepakeite. Tie patys pasai, galimybe naudot rusu kalba, nebuvo sienu. Viskas pasikeite, kai sutuoktiniai issiskyre :) >> >> >> "RaR" <RaR@lt.lt> schrieb im Newsbeitrag news:lhhfh8$b4r$1@trimpas.omnitel.net... >>> Tai aišku kad priklausė. O ką tie kažkokie pažadai reiškia - kad koks >>> nors Klintonas kažką leptelėjo kokiam nors Jelcinui? Juk net tokios >>> sutarties dėl to nestojimo nebuvo, o ir, manau, negalėjo būti, nes jokia >>> trečia šalis negali uždrausti kitoms sudaryti kažkokias joms naudingas >>> sutartis. O Rytų Europos šalių įstojimas į NATO atitiko tiek JAV, tiek >>> tų šalių interesus, tiek ir vakarietiškos demokratijos plitimo pasaulyje >>> idealus. Neabejoju, kad tai atitiko ir visų NATO senbuvių interesus, nes >>> visada saugiau laikyti neprognozuojamą žvėrį toliau nuo savęs. Ir, >>> manau, buvo padaryta klaida atidėjus Gruzijos bei Ukrainos stojimo į >>> NATO procesą (beje, pagrinde tos pačios Vokietijos pastangomis) - rusai >>> iš karto pradėjo ten lįsti, nes sumažėjo tikimybė kad gaus per galvą. >>> Šiaip jau Vokietijos reiškimasis tarptautinėje arenoje paprastai tik >>> sukeldavo saugumo problemų, o ne jas išspręsdavo, tad galėtų jie dar >>> kurį laiką aktyviai nesireikšti, kad ir su savo sugalvota "realpolitik", >>> t.y. iš esmės makiaveliška politika be jokių pamatinių vertybių ir principų. >>> >>> >>> >>> 2014.04.02 17:17, Gintas rašė: >>>> 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