pamelavau? Neisnaikino indenu? Ar valstijos nebuvo ikurtos? "RaR" <RaR@lt.lt> schrieb im Newsbeitrag news:lhisu7$q0n$1@trimpas.omnitel.net... > Na jo, tikrai esi trolis, nevertas laiko gaišinimo... > > > On 2014.04.02 21:48, Gintas wrote: >> Amerikonai irgi tapo dauguma tiktai po to, kai isnaikino indenus. Beje-Valstijos ikurtos tik bene 7m anksciau, nei Krymas Rusijos valdzion pateko. >> Ka tai reikstu? Jei Kryma totoriams, tai Amerika indenams? >> >> "RaR" <RaR@lt.lt> schrieb im Newsbeitrag news:lhhkl2$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 >