sutinku. Kurlink vedi? Jei mazai-tai jau jie nebe savo zemiu seimininkai? Tada ir totoriams Kryme ta reiktu taikyt. "S54" <s54@teo.lt> schrieb im Newsbeitrag news:lhjq7b$ma7$1@trimpas.omnitel.net... > balvone tu, su indenai kariavo anglai ir prancuzai, kai susikure jav, jau tu > indenu mazai belike buvo > > "Gintas" wrote in message news:lhhm2k$f3a$1@trimpas.omnitel.net... > > Amerikonai irgi tapo dauguma tiktai po to, kai isnaikino indenus. > Beje-Valstijos ikurtos tik bene 7m anksciau, nei Krymas Rusijos valdzion > pateko. > Ka tai reikstu? Jei Kryma totoriams, tai Amerika indenams? > > "RaR" <RaR@lt.lt> schrieb im Newsbeitrag > news:lhhkl2$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 >