|
|
Post by b6k on Mar 23, 2014 16:09:35 GMT 3
Let's take a closer look at some of Omundu's "democrats" in action. One of the parties that has won big and become part of the interim government in Ukraine are the nationalistic (neo-Nazi) Svoboda Party. Here are 3 of their MPigs in action demanding the resignation of their equivalent of a KBC TV director. live.wsj.com/video/ukraine-nationalists-deploy-gangster-tactics/E3AA85EC-9259-4024-B421-45B69128B337.html#!E3AA85EC-9259-4024-B421-45B69128B337 www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2584974/Sit-animal-Angry-far-right-politicians-attack-Ukraine-TV-chief.htmlThese are the types of people Putin is referring to when he talks of neo-Nazis being given free reign, or indeed when balozi is quoted as saying they didn't want to see ultra-nationalists take over countries within the former Soviet Union or Warsaw Pact states in the 1990s.    Yet last December Republican war hawk John McCain went and met the very same folks...  www.channel4.com/news/ukraine-mccain-far-right-svoboda-anti-semitic-protestsRussia suffered catastrophic losses of human life to the original Nazis during World War II. Estimates put military casualties at 14,000,000, civilian war deaths at 12,000,000, and additional civilian deaths due to famine at 6,000,000 or a whopping 28,000,000 dead! It is therefore an insult to the people of Russia who bore the brunt of Nazi aggression during World War II to refer to their leader as a Nazi. If he is a Nazi for making a stand on the Crimean question, what does that make a Jewish Nuland who is actively working with neo-Nazis? The Americans never seem to learn that it's all well and good to "dance with the devil" to weaken your enemy as they did with the original Al Qaeda in Afghanistan during the Russian invasion, & its brigades in Syria, & Lybia, but there will always be a day of reckoning be it a 9/11, killing of an ambassador, etc. Blowback is a biatch... Jakaswanga, the Kagan family affair with the Ukraine goes beyond Victoria and Robert as we see here: "But there should be no mistaking her ideological leaning. Not only because she's the spouse of leading neoconservative, Robert Kagan. Or, that she's the sister-in-law of another prominent Neocon, Fredrick Kagan and wife Kimberly, both think-tank type military historians. They all belong to a Washington clique of neoconservatives that continue to affect foreign policy who, like most of the other collaborators in the movement, haven't served in the military and are referred to by their detractors as "chicken-hawks".
"F*** the EU" is the new improvised version of Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney and the neocons' hostility towards "Old Europe". In his 2003 book, "Of Paradise and Power", Robert Kagan highlighted the difference and division between the US and Europe - Americans from Mars, Europeans from Venus. The Kagans reckon Europe should be marginalized because it's too soft, overly diplomatic. A charge the Europeans reject. Especially when it's the Polish, America's close friends in Europe, who have spearheaded EU diplomacy in Kiev before and after the crisis broke out in Ukraine." www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2014/03/reckless-kiev-neocons-putin-ukr-201431053846277945.html |
|
|
|
Post by omundu on Mar 23, 2014 22:06:24 GMT 3
B6k The existence of the far right in the maidan situation is not disputed. However we have to realize that the maidan situation is not solely owned by the far right as the pro-invasion people are won't to propagate. We should know that the revolution is a kaleidoscope of many Ukrainians from different backgrounds. There also exists a parliament that was there even before this situation. The Russians are justifying the Crimean invasion based on the propaganda of Neo-Nazis in Ukraine forgetting the fact that there exists a worse oppressive regime in Moscow who even have very discriminatory laws against minorities including an anti immigration law (with camps for illegal aliens) proposed by their parliament last year. I have seen that video and was also not happy about the thuggish behavior of that goon. But apart from that, what else have the far right done wrong during the uprising ? How about we wait for the coming Ukrainian elections and see if the citizens will vote them in. B6k, while you are at it, could you also post videos and pictures of the pro-Russian goons and militia beating up others in the streets with different voices. They even beat up journalists and took their cameras. In my opinion, the Pro-Russian militias have behaved in a worse way than the right wing elements. Here below, an article from a reknown Ukrainian explaining the right wing element in the maidan situation. jordanrussiacenter.org/news/dangerous-liaisons-ukraine-western-slavists/A question to you b6k. What exactly do you propose happens to the right wing elements; should the Ukrainian constitution deny them the right to participate in any democratic process ? Apart from the video posted, have they done anything unconstitutional ? Does their prescence in maidan justify Russia's illegal occupation of Crimea ? |
|
|
|
Post by b6k on Mar 24, 2014 1:19:29 GMT 3
B6k The existence of the far right in the maidan situation is not disputed. However we have to realize that the maidan situation is not solely owned by the far right as the pro-invasion people are won't to propagate. We should know that the revolution is a kaleidoscope of many Ukrainians from different backgrounds. There also exists a parliament that was there even before this situation. The Russians are justifying the Crimean invasion based on the propaganda of Neo-Nazis in Ukraine forgetting the fact that there exists a worse oppressive regime in Moscow who even have very discriminatory laws against minorities including an anti immigration law (with camps for illegal aliens) proposed by their parliament last year. I have seen that video and was also not happy about the thuggish behavior of that goon. But apart from that, what else have the far right done wrong during the uprising ? How about we wait for the coming Ukrainian elections and see if the citizens will vote them in. B6k, while you are at it, could you also post videos and pictures of the pro-Russian goons and militia beating up others in the streets with different voices. They even beat up journalists and took their cameras. In my opinion, the Pro-Russian militias have behaved in a worse way than the right wing elements. Here below, an article from a reknown Ukrainian explaining the right wing element in the maidan situation. jordanrussiacenter.org/news/dangerous-liaisons-ukraine-western-slavists/A question to you b6k. What exactly do you propose happens to the right wing elements; should the Ukrainian constitution deny them the right to participate in any democratic process ? Apart from the video posted, have they done anything unconstitutional ? Does their prescence in maidan justify Russia's illegal occupation of Crimea ? Apart from the thuggish behaviour of 3 rogue Svoboda MP's is there anything else the far right have done during the uprising you ask? Sure there is. How about the killing of both protestors and policemen by their snipers, an act that was blamed on Yanukovich leading to his ousting? The Estonian foreign minister has since confirmed that: (1) the shootings were done by opposition supporters, and that (2) in spite of noises by Ashton that investigations should be carried out (check out the tapped phone calls in the first page of this thread) the interim government is not interested in following up investigations to get to the bottom of the atrocities. Where is your moral outrage for that injustice? Omundu, you earlier claimed you could not understand why Putin would do what he has done in Crimea. I've played the devil's advocate and given you enough historical background that can justify (in Russian thinking) stern action from Moscow. Neither side can claim to be right, a position you appeared to accept in one post, before you clawed it back and gave the western yarn about Russian bogeymen. There's good and evil on all sides. I would characterize the murder of civilians protesting for your cause along with policemen who were out there doing their jobs as unconstitutional. In the eyes of your average Russian, the referendum held by the people of Crimea is all they need to legally justify the occupation. At least they have a lot more legal justification to show for their efforts than the illegally constituted interim government in Kiev that overthrew a legally elected government which was already on its way out, au sio? The long and the short of it is Russia has taken the loss of satellite Warsaw Pact states with a lot more restraint than they are given credit for. However, anytime real estate losses have involved a region that was formerly within the USSR there has been war. We have seen this in Chechnya and Georgia in the past. Let's see how it plays out in the Ukraine... |
|
|
|
Post by omundu on Mar 24, 2014 9:50:03 GMT 3
B6k The existence of the far right in the maidan situation is not disputed. However we have to realize that the maidan situation is not solely owned by the far right as the pro-invasion people are won't to propagate. We should know that the revolution is a kaleidoscope of many Ukrainians from different backgrounds. There also exists a parliament that was there even before this situation. The Russians are justifying the Crimean invasion based on the propaganda of Neo-Nazis in Ukraine forgetting the fact that there exists a worse oppressive regime in Moscow who even have very discriminatory laws against minorities including an anti immigration law (with camps for illegal aliens) proposed by their parliament last year. I have seen that video and was also not happy about the thuggish behavior of that goon. But apart from that, what else have the far right done wrong during the uprising ? How about we wait for the coming Ukrainian elections and see if the citizens will vote them in. B6k, while you are at it, could you also post videos and pictures of the pro-Russian goons and militia beating up others in the streets with different voices. They even beat up journalists and took their cameras. In my opinion, the Pro-Russian militias have behaved in a worse way than the right wing elements. Here below, an article from a reknown Ukrainian explaining the right wing element in the maidan situation. jordanrussiacenter.org/news/dangerous-liaisons-ukraine-western-slavists/A question to you b6k. What exactly do you propose happens to the right wing elements; should the Ukrainian constitution deny them the right to participate in any democratic process ? Apart from the video posted, have they done anything unconstitutional ? Does their prescence in maidan justify Russia's illegal occupation of Crimea ? Apart from the thuggish behaviour of 3 rogue Svoboda MP's is there anything else the far right have done during the uprising you ask? Sure there is. How about the killing of both protestors and policemen by their snipers, an act that was blamed on Yanukovich leading to his ousting? The Estonian foreign minister has since confirmed that: (1) the shootings were done by opposition supporters, and that (2) in spite of noises by Ashton that investigations should be carried out (check out the tapped phone calls in the first page of this thread) the interim government is not interested in following up investigations to get to the bottom of the atrocities. Where is your moral outrage for that injustice? Omundu, you earlier claimed you could not understand why Putin would do what he has done in Crimea. I've played the devil's advocate and given you enough historical background that can justify (in Russian thinking) stern action from Moscow. Neither side can claim to be right, a position you appeared to accept in one post, before you clawed it back and gave the western yarn about Russian bogeymen. There's good and evil on all sides. I would characterize the murder of civilians protesting for your cause along with policemen who were out there doing their jobs as unconstitutional. In the eyes of your average Russian, the referendum held by the people of Crimea is all they need to legally justify the occupation. At least they have a lot more legal justification to show for their efforts than the illegally constituted interim government in Kiev that overthrew a legally elected government which was already on its way out, au sio? The long and the short of it is Russia has taken the loss of satellite Warsaw Pact states with a lot more restraint than they are given credit for. However, anytime real estate losses have involved a region that was formerly within the USSR there has been war. We have seen this in Chechnya and Georgia in the past. Let's see how it plays out in the Ukraine... hehehehe. I try to sieve out propaganda from proper news. Digest that phone call and check out the Estonian Government's explanation of the call. It is actually a leaked phonecall discussing a conspiracy theory that blamed the killings on the opposition. The phonecall says "i have been told". On further reading, we discover that she had been told by a certain Olga, a Doctor in Kiev who is basing it on the fact that some people came into the hospital with bullet wounds and the bullets happen to come from the same type of gun. Now how that is an informed judgement, i dont know. To me, further investigations need to be done to establish it and not judge it based on a doctor. The Estonian Government confirmed that she was giving an interview based on what she had heard in Kiev and thats it.The Estonian Government denied that she had viewed the Opposition as being involved. I have followed the entire thing and yes,both sides are not angels. The diposed president intended to injure and kill protestors www.theguardian.com/world/2014/feb/20/ukraine-protesters-force-riot-police-independence-square-kiev-battle-controlwww.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2563609/Truce-Kiev-collapses-hours-official-day-mourning-28-people-killed-protests-erupts-violence.htmlThe police were armed with combat weapons as evidenced by the interview given by the former interior minister. I have read both sides of the story. But as i have said it before, non of the reasons given by Russia justify an annexation. Those are reasons that have been used before to devastating effect. I guess thats where we differ in our views. I have moved on to discussing the future effects of such an act by Mother Russia. Its about propaganda and the Russians have been heavy on that lately.including banning any other form of news other than Russian state TV in Crimea. In Russia they even say that there were refugee camps of ethnic Russians. hehehehe, what a laugh. This current Neo-Nazi story has been blown out of proportion (as i explained before and gave a link) and the real atrocities have been committed by the Russians in Crimea (including atrocities against ethnic tartars). |
|
|
|
Post by omundu on Mar 24, 2014 10:02:00 GMT 3
NowayHaha, This is a key-note speech. And that is an understatement. Putin’s clarity is freshening, and I wish the Russian president were equally clear-headed in matters of free and fair elections within Russia. That he would put in place matters reflecting the peoples will, as the Crimean referendum he waxes lyrical about. Alas, within Mother Russia herself, Putin is blind to the corruption of his oligarchs; he runs a crony capitalism system which, for instance, corruptly led to the Sochi Winter Olympic village overshoot its construction costs like our own SGR is gonna do. Businesses are arbitrarily confiscated and awarded to regime loyalists in Russia, and there is a consistent effort to shut down independent think tanks. On this internal rot, Putin does not seem to be as level headed, as strategically versatile, as historically versed as he is on the Crimea and the Ukraine. For instance, if the Russians of the Crimea are by a legitimate referendum entitled to exit the republic of Ukraine, would he allow a similar event for say, Dagistan or Chechyna in the caucus ranges, to decide the separatist imbroglio thereat? Putin lauds a democratic process in Crimea, but would not dare a similar one in his own ethnic tinderbox regions! Ha! Dear Vladimir! the Peoples will!? It is like the word culture which reputedly always made the NAZI propaganda chieftain Joseph Goebbels reach for his gun in reflex!However, on the Crimea as an international crisis pitting the West against Russia, Putin’s lucidity, grasp of issues, tenacity in strategic interpretation and historical parallel, is exemplary and highly rational. In fact after a double read, I am convinced there could be another game being played from Washington. A neocon game. Take a look at this statement by Putin … 1. The Americans are not stupid, they are not naive neither. They too are a calculating lot, and their historical, sustained world hegemony has not been by luck. Rather by the ruthless, cynical and Machiavellian manipulation of situations, countries, men and circumstances. Backed by famous think-tanks and great wolves like Kissingerand Berzinski. So it looks to me plain and clear, that the Americans understood they were provoking Russia in the Ukraine, and given Putin has been around for some time, in which case they have a good psychological profile of him, the 'Obama troupe' KNEW IN ADVANCE what a Putin pushed to the wall would likely do. The crisis in the Ukraine is foreign-policy pre-manufactured, pre-programmed to elicit an EXPECTED Russian reaction, and, no quarter given, precipitate a cooked INTERNATIONAL CRISIS. ---The CIA was not born ;)yesterday as they say in Afrika. But Washington too has many competing think-tanks, so it is a question of which think-tank won the toss over the Ukraine and enacted its agenda. This is definitely the neocons as I read it, the men for whom the cold-war never ended, and if it did, regretfully. POSSIBLE MOTIVES WHY RUSSIA MUST BE PROVOKED INTO BELLIGERENCE?--Secure the relevance of NATO,a powerful American instrument of dominance over Europe and the neighbourhood. --Keep the EU in its place (thwart her growing economic entanglement with Russia which increasingly has been leading to the unthinkability of war in Europe). If both the North Stream and South Stream super gas pipelines are fully operational, it is an iron lock of mutual interests between East and West Europe. Such an investment dictates conflict resolutions outside War mongering, and let war-mongering be NATO’s brief. And so we have the crazy idea that Europe will get its gas from the USA, and boycott Russian gas next door, to reduce dependence on Russia, the enemy. With the USA-NSA spying on her all the way to her bedroom, a certain European leader vidibly reddened when asked if she thought exchanging dependence on Russia for dependence on the Americans was the smartest option! ---The EU politicians are not so hot on military expenditure, and the EU population even less. The American new super-modern fighter jet, dubbed the JSF – Joint Strike Fighter, is dying at prototype level, coz the damn Europeans, hit by the Euro crisis, found other more useful ways to spend their money than bankroll the American defence industry. This outrage must be reversed, and fishing out the Russian scarecrow once more, will do. --- Ivan the hungry bear has swallowed the Crimea today, tomorrow East Ukraine, then Tallin, Vilnius and Riga of the Baltics, as they move to re-unite Kaliningrad with the motherland, and directly intimidate Warzawa (Warsaw in Poland). ---Western Europe! Wake up and take up battle stations!  I think that is the neo-con game. NB: I did a little intellectual intel, inspired by B6K’s roguish quip, that Viktoria –fwack the EU— Nuland is Robert Kagan’s playmate, or bed plaything. Professor Robert is of the Brookings institute, a historian and a pundit for IMPERIAL AMERICA.  And he is mostly famous for …. Project for the New American Century, PNACNow, since I was not born yesterday on matters that happen between men and women in bed, methinks Mr&Mrs Kagan like any normal couple, apart from steamily feasting on one another's under sides, do a lot of policy back and forths as diplomatic Otishotish would say, and in the Ukraine, Mr Kagan with his Reaganite hangover of military strength and moral clarity (which Putin has extensively demolished in his speech) has a (dick) head start on the slow-witted John Kerry.Robert Kagan–America should embrace empire, is running on the inside line and setting the pace! Kerry is off the race. Obama is known to be a cautious operator when he is not sure of a clear win, and since he learnt recently from his red line in Syria, of the limits of American power, it is most unlikely he would have okayed a poke in the eye of Vladimir Putin. Secondly, with his reckless drone assassinations controversial even within American legal requirements, Obama recognises he operates in MORAL GREY AREAS, and therefore Kagan’s MORAL CLARITY is bullsh!t. And thinking of Dubya’s lies over Iraqi WMD’s, the issue of morality does not arise anymore in foreign policy. So it could not have been Obama who Viktoria –fwack the EU—Nuland was representing with her reckless Ukraine drive. Yes, B6k, American policy in the Ukraine is a Kagan family  affair! And you can quote me on that! Putin said Hilary Clinton did not have a head, but has a reasonable figure. I wonder what he says of Viktoria Nuland? A useless diplomat but definitely a hot screw?!oops, Ouru should give me such a clear vision on Migingo, like Putin unveiled for his fellow Russians on the Crimea! Nowayhaha, you did well to give us this: it is a historic document! Jakaswanga Very enlightening. I had not seen the games being played in Eastern Europe from this angle. Good read. |
|
|
|
Post by nowayhaha on Mar 24, 2014 16:37:23 GMT 3
NowayHaha, This is a key-note speech. And that is an understatement. Putin’s clarity is freshening, Nowayhaha, you did well to give us this: it is a historic document! Jaka, Welcome find below an interesting speech Putin Made in 2007 5 years ago before the Georgian War and Ukraine Crisis but more or less related .Enjoy it . 2007- PUTINS SPEECH EXPOSING NWO Thank you very much dear madam federal chancellor .I am truly grateful to be invited to such a representative conference that has assembled politicians , military officials , entrepreneurs and experts from more than 40 Nations .This conferences structure allows me to avoid excessive politeness and the need to speak in roundabout pleasant but empty diplomatic terms . This conferences format will allow me to say what I really think about international security problems and if my comments seem unduly polemical pointed or inexact to our colleagues then I would ask not to get angry with me. After all, this is only a conference. And I hope that after the first two or three minutes of my speech Mr Teltschik will not turn on the red light over there .(laughter) Therefore .It is well known that international security comprises much more than issues relating to military and political stability. It involves the stability of the global economy, overcoming poverty, economic security and developing a dialogue between civilizations. This universal, indivisible character of security is expressed as the basic principle that “security for one is security for all” As Franklin D. Roosevelt said during the first few days when the Second World War was breaking out “ When peace has been broken anywhere, the peace of all countries everywhere is in danger .“ These words remain topical today. Incidentally, the theme of our conference: Global crisis, Global responsibility: exemplifies this. Only tow decades ago the world was ideologically and economically divided and it was the huge strategic potential of two superpowers that ensured global security. This global stand-off pushed the sharpest economic and social problems to the margins of the international community and the worlds agenda. And, just like any war the Cold War left us with live ammunition figuratively speaking. I’m referring to ideological stereotypes, double standards and other typical aspects of Cold War block thinking. The unipolar world that had been proposed after the Cold War did not take place either.The history of humanity certainly has gone through unipolar periods and seems aspirations to world supremacy and what hasn’t happened in world history? However, what is a unipolar world? However one might embellish this term at the end of the day it refers to one type of situation, namely one centre of authority, one centre of force, one centre of decision-making. It is world in which there is one master , one sovereign and at the end of the day this is pernicious not only for all those within this system ,but also for the sovereign itself because it destroys itself from within . This certainly has nothing in common with democracy , because as you know , democracy is the power of the majority in the light of the interests and opinions of the minority .Incidentally it is being told that , Russia – we are- constantly being taught about democracy. But for some reason those who teach us do not want to learn themselves. I consider that the unipolar model is not only unacceptable but also impossible in today’s world and this is not only because if there was individual leadership in today’s – and precisely in today’s – World, then the military, political and economic resources would not suffice. What is even more important is that the model itself is flawed because at its basis there is and can be no moral foundations for modern civilization. Along with this, what is happening in today’s world and we just started to discuss this is a tentative o intrude precisely this concept into international affairs, the concept of a unipolar world. : The Concept of a unipolar world: And with which results? Unilateral and frequently illegitimate actions have not resolved any problems moreover; they have caused new human tragedies and created new centers of tension. Judge yourselves: Wars as well-as local and regional conflicts have not diminished. Mr Teltschik mentioned this very gently. And no less people perish in these conflicts – even more are dying than before, significantly more, significantly more and more. Today we are witnessing an almost uncontained hyper use of force –military force- in international relations, force that is plunging the world into an abyss of permanent conflicts. As a result we do not have sufficient strength to find a comprehensive solution to any one of these conflicts. Finding a political settlement also becomes impossible. We are seeing a greater and greater disdain for the basic principles of international law. And independent legal norms are, as a matter of fact, coming increasingly closer to ones states legal system. One state and of course , first and foremost the UNITED STATES has overstepped its national borders in every way in the economic , political , cultural and educational policies it imposes in other nations. Well , who likes this ? Who is happy about this? In international relations we increasingly see the desire to resolve a given question according to so called issues of political expediency based on the current political climate and of course this is extremely dangerous which results in the fact that no one feels safe. I want to emphasize this no one feels safe!! Because no one can feel that international law is like a stone wall that will protect them. Of course such a policy stimulates an arms race. The forces dominance inevitably encourages a number of countries to acquire weapons of mass destruction. Moreover , significantly new threats thought they were also well known before , have appeared and today threats such as terrorism have taken on a global character. Im convinced that we have reached that decisive moment when we must seriously think about the architecture of global security .An we must proceed by searching for a reasonable balance between the interests of a participants in the international dialogue. Especially since the international landscape is so varied and changes so quickly –changes in light of the dynamic development Madam Federal Chancellor Merkell already mentioned this. The combined GDP measure in purchasing power parity of countries such as INDIA AND CHINA is already grated than that of the UNITED STATES and a similar calculation with the DGP of the BRIC countries -BRAZIL , RUSSIA , INDIA AND CHINA – surpasses the cumulative GDP of the EU. And according to experts this gap will only increase in the future. There is no reason to doubt that the economic potential of the new centers of global economic growth will inevitably be converted into political influence and will strengthen multipolarity . In connection with this the role of multilateral diplomacy is significantly increasing. The need for principles such as openness, transparency and predictability in politics is uncontested and use of force should be a really exceptional measure , comparable to using the death penalty in the judicial system of certain states. However , today we are witnessing the opposite tendency, namely a situation in which countries that forbid the death penalty even for murders and other , dangerous criminals are airily participating in military operations that ate difficult to consider legitimate. And as a matter of fact, these conflicts are killing people hundreds and thousands of civilians!!! But at the same time the question arises of whether we should be indifferent and aloof to various internal conflicts inside countries, to authoritarian regimes, to tyrants and to the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction? As a matter of fact , this was a;so at the centre of the question that our dear colleague Mr Lieberman asked the Federal Chancellor Merkel . If I correctly understood your question, then of course it is a serious one! Can we be indifferent observers in view of what is happening? I will try to answer your question as well: of course not. But do we have the means to counter these threats? Certainly we do. It is sufficient to look at recent history. Didn’t our country have a peaceful transition to democracy? Indeed we witnessed a peaceful transformation of the Soviet regime – a peaceful transformation! And what a regime! With what a number of weapons, including nuclear weapons! Why should we start bombing and shooting now at every available opportunity? Is it the case when without the threat of mutual destructions we do not have enough political culture? Respect for democratic values and for the law ? Im convinced that the only mechanism that can make decisions about using military force as a last resort is the Charter of the United Nations. And in connection with this, either I did not understand what our colleagues, the Italian Defense Minister just said or what he said was inexact . In any case I understood that the use of force can only be legitimate when the decision is taken by NATO, the EU , or the UN. If he really does think so, then we have different points of view. Or I didn’t hear correctly. The use of force can only be considered legitimate if the decision is sanctioned by UN and we do not need to substitute NATO or the EU for the UN. When the UN will truly unite the forces of the international community and can really react to events in various countries, when we will leave behind this disdain for international law, then the situation will be able to change. Otherwise the situation will simply result in a dead end, and the number of serious mistakes will be multiplied .Along with this , it is necessary to make sure that international law have a universal character both in the conception and application of its norms. And one must not forget that democratic political actions necessarily go along with discussion and a laborious decision making process. Dear ladies and gentlemen. The potential danger of the destabilization of international relations is connected with obvious stagnation in the disarmament issue. Russia supports the renewal of dialogue on this important question. It is important to conserve the international legal framework relating to weapons destruction and therefore ensure continuity in the process of reducing nuclear weapons. Together with the UNITED STATES we agreed to reduce our nuclear strategic missile capabilities to up to 1700-2000 nuclear warheads by 31-December-2012, Russia intends to strictly fulfill the obligations it has taken on. We hope that our partners will also act in a transparent way and we will refrain from layin aside a couple of hundred superfluous nuclear warheads for a rainy day. And if today the new American Defence Minister declares that the United States will not hide these superfluous weapons in a warehouse or as one might say under a pillow or under the blanket, then I suggest that we all rise and greet this declaration standing. It would be a very important declaration. Russia strictly adheres to and intends to further adhere to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons as well as the multilateral supervision regime for missile technologies. The principles incorporated in these documents are universal ones. In connection with this I would like to recall that in the 1980s the USSR and the United States signed an agreement o destroying a whole range of small and medium range missiles but these documents do not have a universal character. Today many of the countries have these missiles, Including the Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea, the Republic of Korea, India , Iran , Pakistan and Israel. Many countries are working on these systems and plan to incorporate them as part of their weapons and only the United States and Russia bear the responsibility to not create such weapons systems. It is obvious that these conditions we must think about enduring our own security. At the same time, it is impossible to sanction the appearance of new, destabilizing high tech weapons .Needless to say it refers to measures to prevent a new area of confrontation, especially I outer space . Star wars is no longer a fantasy 0 it is a reality. In the middle of the 1980S our American partners were already able to intercept their own satellite. In Russia’s opinion, the militarization of outer space could have unpredictable consequences for the international community, and provoke nothing less than the beginning of a nuclear era. And we have come forward more than once with initiatives designed to prevent the use of weapons in outer space. Today I would like to tell you that we have prepared a project for an agreement on the prevention of deploying weapons in outer space an in the near future it will be sent to our partners as an official proposal. Let’s work on this together. Plans to expand certain elements of the ant-missile defence system to Europe cannot help but disturb us. Who need the next step of what would be ,in this case an inevitable arms race ? I deeply doubt that Europeans themselves do , Missile weapons with a range of about five to eight thousand Kilometers that really pose a threat to Europe do not exist in any of the so called problem countries. And in the near future and prospects, this will not happen and is not even foreseeable. And any hypothetical launch of , for example ,a North Korean rocket to American territory through Western Europe obviously contradicts the laws of ballistics. As we say in Russia it would be like using the right hand to reach the left ear. And here In Germany I cannot help but mention the pitiable condition of the treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe. The adapted Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe was signed in 1999. It took into account a new geopolitical reality, namely the elimination of the Warsaw block .Seven ear have passed and only four states have ratified this document including the Russian Federation. NATO countries openly declared that they will not ratify this treaty, including the provisions on flank restrictions (on deploying a certain number of armed forces in the flank zones ), until Russia removed its military bases from Georgia and Moldova. Our army is leaving Georgia, even according to an accelerated schedule. We resolved the problems we had with our Georgian colleagues , as everybody knows. There are still 1500 servicemen in Moldova that are carrying out peace keeping operations and protecting warehouses with ammunition left over from Soviet times. We constantly discuss this issue with Mr Solana and he knows our position. We are ready to further work in this direction. But what is happening at the same time ? Simultaneously the so-called flexible frontline American bases appear in Bulgaria and Romania with upto 5000 me each. It turns out that NATO has put its frontline forces on our borders and we continue to strictly fulfil the treaty obligations and do not react or these actions at all . I thin it is obvious that NATO expansion does not have any relation with the modernization of the Alliance itself or with ensuring security I Europe. On the contrary , it represents a serious provocation that reduces the level of mutual trust. And we have the right to ask : against whom is this expansion intended ? And what happened to the assurances our western partners made after the dissolution of the Warsaw pact? Where are those declarations today? NATO /US/ EU don’t even remember them but I will allow myself to remind this audience what was said. I would like to quote the speech of NATO General Secretary Mr Woerner in Brussels on 17-May-1990 he said the following “the fact that we are ready to place a NATO army outside of the Germany territory gives the Soviet Union a firm security guarantee” where are these guarantees The stones and concrete blocks of the Berlin Wall have long been distributed as souvenirs but we should not forget that the fall of the Berlin Wall was possible thanks to a historic choice –one that was also made by our people , the people of Russia- a choice in favor of democracy , freedom, openness and a sincere partnership with all the members of the big European family. And now the are trying to impose new dividing lines and walls on us – these walls may be virtual but they are nevertheless dividing, ones that cut through our continent. And is it possible that we will once again require may years and decades as well as several generations of politicians, to dissemble and dismantle these new walls ? Dear ladies and gentlemen. We are unequivocally in favor of strengthening the regime of non-proliferation. The present international legal principles allow us to develop technologies to manufacture nuclear fuel for peaceful purposes .And many countries with all good reasons want to create their own nuclear energy as a basis for their energy independence. But we also understand that these technologies can be quickly transformed into nuclear weapons. This creates serious international tensions. The situation surrounding the Iranian nuclear programme acts as a clear example. And if the international community does not find a reasonable solution for resolving this conflict of interests, the world will continue to suffer similar destabilizing crises because there are more threshold countries than simply Iran. We both Know this. We are going to constantly fight against the threat of the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. Last year Russia put forward the initiative to establish international centres for the enrichment of uranium .We are only hoping on the possibility that such centres not only be created in Russia but also in other countries where there is a legitimate basis for using civil nuclear energy . Countries that want to develop their nuclear energy could guarantee that they will receive fuel through direct participation in these centres. And the centres would of course operate under strict IAEA supervision. The latest initiatives put forward by American President George W. Bush are in conformity with the Russian proposals . I consider that USA and RUSSIA are objectively and equally interested in strengthening the regime of the non-proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and their deployment .It is precisely our countries with leading nuclear and missile capabilities that must act as leaders in developing new stricter non –proliferation measures .Russia is ready for such work. We are engaged in consultations worth our American friends. In general we should talk about establishing a whole system of political incentives and economic stimuli whereby it would not be in states interests to establish their own capabilities in the nuclear fuel cycle but they would still have the opportunity to develop unclear energy and strengthen their energy capabilities In connection with this I shall talk about international energy cooperation n more detail. Madam Federal Chancellor also spoke about this briefly She mentioned, touched on this theme. In the energy sector Russia intends to create uniform market principles and transparent conditions for all . It is obvious that energy prices must be determined by the market instead of being the subject of political speculation, economic pressure or blackmail. We are open to cooperation Foreign companies participate in all our major energy projects, According to different estimates , up to 26& of the oil extraction in Russia –and please think about this figure – up to 26 % of the oil extraction in Russia is done by foreign capital. Try to find me a similar example where Russian business participates extensively in Key economic sectors in western countries .Such examples do not exist .There are no such examples I would also recall the parity of foreign investment in Russia and those Russia makes abroad. The parity is about fifteen to one. And here you have an obvious example of the openness and stabily of the Russian economy . Economic security is the sector in which all must adhere to uniform principles. We are ready to compete fairly. For that reason more and more opportunities are appearing in the Russian economy .Experts and our western partners are objectively evaluating these changes. As such , Russia’s OECD sovereign credit rating improved and Russia passed from the fourth to the third group. And today in Munich I would like to use this occasion to thank our German colleagues for their help in the above decision. Further as you know the process of Russia joining the WTO has reached its final stages .I would point out that during long difficult talks we heard words about freedom of speech , free trade and equal possibilities more than once but, for some reason , exclusively in reference to Russian market .And there is still one more important theme that directly affects global security. Today many talk about the struggle against poverty. What is actually happening in this sphere ? On the one hand , financial resources are allocated for programmes to help the Worlds poorest countries and a times substantial financial resources . But to be honest and many here also know this-linked with the development of that same donor country’s companies and on the other hand developed countries simultaneously keep their agricultural subsidies and limit some countries access to high-tech products . And lets say things as they are one hand distributes charitable help and the other hand not only preserves economic backwardness but also reaps the profits thereof .The increasing social tension in depressed regions inevitably results In the growth of Radicalism, extremism , feeds terrorism and local conflicts. And if all this happens in , shall we say, where there is increasingly the sense that the world at large is unfair then there is the risk of global destabilization . It is obvious that the worlds leading countries should see this threat and that they should therefore build a more democratic fairer system of global economic relations, a system that would give everyone the chance and possibility to develop Dear ladies and Gentlemen speaking at the conference on Security policy, it is imposible not to mention the activities of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE). As is well known this organization was created to examine all I shall emphasize this all aspects of security : military political economic , humanitarian and especially , the relations between these spheres what do we happening today we see that this balance is clearly destroyed .People are trying to transform the OSCE into a vulgar instrument designed to promote the foreign policy interests of one or a group of countries .And this task is also being accomplished by the OSCES bureaucratic apparatus which is absolutely not connected with the state founders in any way . Decision making procedures and the involvement of so called non governmental organizations are tailored for this task. These organizations are formally independent but they are purposefully financed and therefore under control. According to the founding documents in the humanitarian sphere the OSCE is designed to assist country members in observing international human rights norms at their request. This is an important task. We support this. But this does not mean interfering in the internal affairs of other countries, and especially not imposing a regime that determines how these states should live and develop. It is obvious that such interferences do promote the development of democratic states at all. On the contrary it makes them dependent and as a consequence, politically and economically unstable. We expect that the OSCE be guided by its primary tasks and build relations with sovereign states based on respect trust and transparency. Dear ladies and gentlemen In conclusion I would like to note the following. We very often – and personally, I very often –hear appeals by our partners, including our European partners, to the effect that Russia should play an increasingly active role in World affairs . In connection wit this I would allow myself to make one small remark. It is hardly necessary to incite us to do so . Russia is a country with a history that spans more that a thousand years and has practically always used the privilege to carry out an independent foreign policy. We are not going to change this tradition today. At the same time, are well aware of how the world has changed and we have a realistic sense of our own opportunities and potential. And of course we would like to interact with also independent and responsible partners with whom we could work together in constructing a fair and democratic world order that would ensure security and prosperity not only for a select few but for all. Thank you for your attention. |
|
|
|
Post by omundu on Mar 24, 2014 17:22:39 GMT 3
The Daily Beast attempts its own view (echoing my own view, especially after hearing Putins speech to his parliament) of Putins "Imperial dream".I had said earlier that This man Putin is living in a eighteenth century mindset. Excerpts from the article below: ...As journalist and political scientist Alexander Morozov writes in his widely-read essay “Conservative Revolution: Making Sense of Crimea,” Putin’s logic is no longer tied to those rational considerations of cooperation and economic interdependence on which the West puts so much faith. His is now a “revolutionary” mindset in which he and his followers are ready to sacrifice Western capital, risk having their assets frozen, and rely on “political myth”—a focus on heroism, sacrifice and martyrdom—to generate public support. There is no rational response to this. Those infected by the myth cannot imagine any other possibility for the future but success: “Crimea is ours!”...
To try understand him in the modern world order of business is futile. And the following excerpt is the reason why Crimea may not be the end.I think Putin dares the west by pulling an outrageous move to see how far he can go, lets the situation calm down until the next opportunity is offered to him. Chunk by chunk, piece by piece as evidenced in previous moves against his neighbors. But how far will he go ? Western inaction last time convinced him that he can pull a Georgia on Crimea and get away with it. I personally believe the west should press on with more Sanctions and prevent him from such attempts in future. ...Morozov suggests the Kremlin could roll its troops up to the border of the Baltic states and demand the withdrawal of NATO units there. “Nothing keeps it from taking such steps now, because its moves are defined by revolutionary logic not political rationality,” writes Morozov. “If you can force your jackboot in the door, you can try to go all the way.”
So, Russians appear to be possessed by their desire to pull together all the lands held by the Russian Empire a hundred years ago. Even to the most simple-minded of Putin’s supporters, this has come to seem a spiritual mission, though few could explain it convincingly before an audience. Popular Russian media suggest two ways to conceive of this cause, one based on “Spiritual Ties” among Russians, the other as resistance to the “Venal Perverted West.” Constant propaganda impresses on the minds of average Russians that they are exceptional because of where they were born and the language they speak, but apart from that does little to elucidate the riddle of this exceptionalism. Instead they fall back on the “Mysterious Russian Soul,” which means “something perfect that nobody can explain,” and those who would dare to try intepreting it are playing the game of the “Venal Perverted West.”
But such primitive and fanciful ideas are just the skin on top of hot milk. An ideologue named Sergey Kurginyan has tried to articulate a much more extensive and coherent vision of Russian superiority to justify what he calls “USSR 2.0.”
“The only possible form in which our country can exist is as an empire that is a union of equal peoples,” writes Kurginyan. The Russian people should form the state at the center, “a nucleus around which other peoples are gathered.” In his opinion Russia cannot be a part of Europe, because Russia is Europe, too, but a different alternative Europe descended from the Eastern Roman Empire of Byzantium, while modern Western Europe comes from the Western Roman Empire...I working on a write up about the effects of such moves by Putin on Europe, including a new Arms race, NATO's wake from current slumber (may expand more),how it affects the Iranian Nuke negotiation, Syria etc. I remember Jakaswanga opining that it is not the cold war (the cold war was over). Yes, but relations between the west and Russia have never been this frosty since the cold war... But before then, here is the link on the article about Putin's dream of "EMPIRE"www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/03/23/putin-s-dream-of-empire-doesn-t-stop-at-crimea-or-even-ukraine.html |
|
|
|
Post by b6k on Mar 24, 2014 18:48:16 GMT 3
Omundu, it seems the possibility that both sides may be involved in churning out propaganda eludes you. Also, the phone call in question was between a man and a woman. The man is the Estonian representative who informs the EU representative of Ms Olga's findings. YET you refer to the Estonian rep as "she" time and again. Please don't tell me you suffer from the inability to tell a he from a she. Kindly confirm as you've gone from confusing centuries earlier to confusing genders of the players. Once it's clearer what or whom you're talking about, it may be easier to address your query.
|
|
|
|
Post by jakaswanga on Mar 24, 2014 19:43:13 GMT 3
This is a raving lunatic straight out of the neo-con test-tube. If Putin is not tied to those rational considerations, how does one explain the massive investment of Russia in the S outh Stream gas pipeline? Eur 45 bn. And looking at the number of countries and companies in the project, how irrational would they have to be, to join Putin in his ‘no longer rational considerations’? I think Morozov is a moron. Let me find out what the other Alexander thinks, Solzhenitsyn, and report back later for comparison.  en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Stream Omundu, I sincerely believe Morozov is the one who is irrational. The idea of Russia re-occupying the baltic states! Preposterous! Reading Putin’s speech as relayed by NowayHaha, I find Putin extremely balanced, logical and very low on Russian empire jingoism. ---On the contrary, listening to a former NATO secretary General yesterday, it is NATO which seems frozen in the cold war mentality. Banging war drums. There is an Nuclear Security Summit up north in the Hague today, we will hear what consensus is generated to further isolate Russia. Quote: Morozov: ''the Kremlin could roll its troops up to the border of the Baltic states and demand the withdrawal of NATO units there.'' This is pure madness. This Morozov is an extremist fantast! On the fringes of coherence! |
|
|
|
Post by b6k on Mar 25, 2014 20:17:46 GMT 3
I find Putin extremely balanced, logical and very low on Russian empire jingoism. ---On the contrary, listening to a former NATO secretary General yesterday, it is NATO which seems frozen in the cold war mentality. Banging war drums. There is an Nuclear Security Summit up north in the Hague today, we will hear what consensus is generated to further isolate Russia. Quote: Morozov: ''the Kremlin could roll its troops up to the border of the Baltic states and demand the withdrawal of NATO units there.'' This is pure madness. This Morozov is an extremist fantast! On the fringes of coherence! Indeed Jakaswanga one is left wondering why it is that veteran US diplomats like Omundu's balozi or G-men who actually negotiated the peace with the USSR can see through what the Neo-cons are doing to Russia while Barry Obama (pictured below), according to Former Assistant Secretary of the US Treasury, Dr Paul Craig Roberts, is trying to get payback for Russia halting the US push for war with Syria.  Russia Under Attack. “Neocon Ideologues are Pushing the World toward Destruction”
By Dr. Paul Craig Roberts Global Research, February 15, 2014 paulcraigroberts.org In a number of my articles I have explained that the Soviet Union served as a constraint on US power. The Soviet collapse unleashed the neoconservative drive for US world hegemony. Russia under Putin, China, and Iran are the only constraints on the neoconservative agenda. Russia’s nuclear missiles and military technology make Russia the strongest military obstacle to US hegemony. To neutralize Russia, Washington broke the Reagan-Gorbachev agreements and expanded NATO into former constituent parts of the Soviet Empire and now intends to bring former constituent parts of Russia herself–Georgia and Ukraine–into NATO. Washington withdrew from the treaty that banned anti-ballistic missiles and has established anti-ballistic missile bases on Russia’s frontier. Washington changed its nuclear war doctrine to permit nuclear first strike.
All of this is aimed at degrading Russia’s deterrent, thereby reducing the ability of Russia to resist Washington’s will. The Russian government (and also the government of Ukraine) foolishly permitted large numbers of US funded NGOs to operate as Washington’s agents under cover of “human rights organizations,” “building democracy,” etc. The “* riot” event was an operation designed to put Putin and Russia in a bad light. (The women were useful dupes.) The Western media attacks on the Sochi Olympics are part of the ridiculing and demonizing of Putin and Russia. Washington is determined that Putin and Russia will not be permitted any appearance of success in any area, whether diplomacy, sports, or human rights.The American media is a Ministry of Propaganda for the government and the corporations and helps Washington paint Russia in bad colors. Stephen F. Cohen accurately describes US media coverage of Russia as a “tsunami of shamefully and unprofessional and politically inflammatory articles.” As a holdover from the Cold War, the US media retains the image of a free press that can be trusted. In truth, there is no free press in America (except for Internet sites). See for example: During the later years of the Clinton regime, the US government permitted 5 large conglomerates to concentrate the varied, dispersed and somewhat independent media.The value of these large mega-companies depends on their federal broadcast licenses.Therefore, the media dares not go against the government on any important issue. In addition, the media conglomerates are no longer run by journalists but by corporate advertising executives and former government officials, with an eye not on facts but on advertising revenues and access to government “sources.” Washington is using the media to prepare the American people for confrontation with Russia and to influence Russians and other peoples in the world against Putin. Washington would love to see a weaker or more pliable Russian leader than Putin. Many Russians are gullible. Having experienced communist rule and the chaos from collapse, they naively believe that America is the best place, the example for the world, the “white hat” that can be trusted and believed. This idiotic belief, which we see manifested in western Ukraine as the US destabilizes the country in preparation for taking it over, is an important weapon that the US uses to destabilize Russia. Some Russians make apologies for Washington by explaining the anti-Russian rhetoric as simply a carryover from old stereotypes from the Cold War. “Old stereotypes” is a red herring, a misleading distraction. Washington is gunning for Russia. Russia is under attack, and if Russians do not realize this, they are history. Many Russians are asleep at the switch, but the Izborsk Club is trying to wake them up. In an article (February 12) in the Russian weekly Zavtra, strategic and military experts warned that the Western use of protests to overturn the decision of the Ukraine government not to join the European Union had produced a situation in which a coup by fascist elements was a possibly. Such a coup would result in a fratricidal war in Ukraine and would constitute a serious “strategic threat to the Russian Federation.” The experts concluded that should such a coup succeed, the consequences for Russia would be: — Loss of Sevastopol as the base of the Russian Federation’s Black Sea Fleet; — Purges of Russians in eastern and southern Ukraine, producing a flood of refugees; — Loss of manufacturing capacities in Kiev, Dnepropetrovsk, Kharkov where contract work is done for the Russian military; — Suppression of the Russian speaking population by forcible Ukrainianization; — The establishment of US and NATO military bases in Ukraine, including in Crimea and the establishment of training centers for terrorists who would be set upon the Caucasus, the Volga Basin, and perhaps Siberia. — Spread of the orchestrated Kiev protests into non-Russian ethnicities in cities of the Russian Federation. The Russian strategists conclude that they “consider the situation taking shape in Ukraine to be catastrophic for the future of Russia.” What is to be done? Here the strategic experts, who have correctly analyzed the situation, fall down. They call for a national media campaign to expose the nature of the takeover that is underway and for the government of the Russian Federation to invoke the Budapest Memorandum of 1994 in order to convene a conference of representatives of the governments of Russia, Ukraine, the USA, and Great Britain to deal with the threats to the Ukraine. In the event that the Budapest Memorandum governing the sovereignty of Ukraine is set aside by one or more of the parties, the experts propose that the Russian government, using the precedent of the Kennedy-Khrushchev negotiations that settled the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis, negotiate directly with Washington a settlement of the developing crisis in Ukraine. This is a pipe dream. The experts are indulging in self-deception. Washington is the perpetrator of the crisis in Ukraine and intends to take over Ukraine for the precise reasons that the experts list. It is a perfect plan for destabilizing Russia and for negating Putin’s successful diplomacy in preventing US military attack on Syria and Iran.
Essentially, if Washington succeeds in Ukraine, Russia would be eliminated as a constraint on US world hegemony, Only China would remain.
I suspected that Ukraine would come to a boiling point when Putin and Russia were preoccupied with the Sochi Olympics, leaving Russia unprepared. There is little doubt that Russia is faced with a major strategic threat. What are Russia’s real options? Certainly the options do not include any good will from Washington. Possibly, Russia could operate from the American script. If Russia has drones, Russia could use drones like Washington does and use them to assassinate the leaders of the Washington-sponsored protests. Or Russia could send in Special Forces teams to eliminate the agents who are operating against Russia. If the EU continues to support the destabilization of Ukraine, Russia could cut off oil and gas supplies to Washington’s European puppet states. Alternatively, the Russian Army could occupy western Ukraine while arrangements are made to partition Ukraine, which until recently was part of Russia for 200 years. It is certain that the majority of residents in eastern Ukraine prefer Russia to the EU. It is even possible that the brainwashed elements in the western half might stop foaming at the mouth long enough to comprehend that being in US/EU hands means being looted as per Latvia and Greece.
I am outlining the least dangerous outcomes of the crisis that Washington and its stupid European puppet states have created, not making recommendations to Russia. The worst outcome is a dangerous war. If the Russians sit on their hands, the situation will become unbearable for them. As Ukraine moves toward NATO membership and suppression of the Russian population, the Russian government will have to attack Ukraine and overthrown the foreign regime or surrender to the Americans. The likely outcome of the audacious strategic threat with which Washington is confronting Russia would be nuclear war. The neoconservative Victoria Nuland sits in her State Department office happily choosing the members of the next Ukrainian government. Is this US official oblivious to the risk that Washington’s meddling in the internal affairs of Ukraine and Russia could be triggering nuclear war? Are President Obama and Congress aware that there is an Assistant Secretary of State who is provoking armageddon?
Insouciant Americans are paying no attention and have no idea that a handful of neoconservative ideologues are pushing the world toward destruction. About the author: Paul Craig Roberts, former Assistant Secretary of the US Treasury and Associate Editor of the Wall Street Journal, has held numerous university appointments. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research www.globalresearch.ca/russia-under-attack-neocon-ideologues-are-pushing-the-world-toward-destruction/5368893Those weened on the CNN's of this world & Rambo movies where the "good guy" conquers an entire "evil" army single-handedly would do best to know what Reporters Without Borders think of the western press in terms of press freedom: www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/02/12/us-press-freedom-index-2014_n_4773101.htmlYes the Russians are far from being democrats, but Uncle Sam isn't as benevolent as he'll have you believe... |
|
|
|
Post by omundu on Mar 25, 2014 21:12:36 GMT 3
This is a raving lunatic straight out of the neo-con test-tube. If Putin is not tied to those rational considerations, how does one explain the massive investment of Russia in the S outh Stream gas pipeline? Eur 45 bn. And looking at the number of countries and companies in the project, how irrational would they have to be, to join Putin in his ‘no longer rational considerations’? I think Morozov is a moron. Let me find out what the other Alexander thinks, Solzhenitsyn, and report back later for comparison. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Stream Omundu, I sincerely believe Morozov is the one who is irrational. The idea of Russia re-occupying the baltic states! Preposterous! Reading Putin’s speech as relayed by NowayHaha, I find Putin extremely balanced, logical and very low on Russian empire jingoism. ---On the contrary, listening to a former NATO secretary General yesterday, it is NATO which seems frozen in the cold war mentality. Banging war drums. There is an Nuclear Security Summit up north in the Hague today, we will hear what consensus is generated to further isolate Russia. Quote: Morozov: ''the Kremlin could roll its troops up to the border of the Baltic states and demand the withdrawal of NATO units there.'' This is pure madness. This Morozov is an extremist fantast! On the fringes of coherence! Indeed Jakaswanga. You have judged Putin to be sober minded by his speech. How about we now judge him by his actions in regard to the international law he seems to so expound by his speech. ? Different case I tellz ya. |
|
|
|
Post by omundu on Mar 25, 2014 21:17:31 GMT 3
Omundu, it seems the possibility that both sides may be involved in churning out propaganda eludes you. Also, the phone call in question was between a man and a woman. The man is the Estonian representative who informs the EU representative of Ms Olga's findings. YET you refer to the Estonian rep as "she" time and again. Please don't tell me you suffer from the inability to tell a he from a she. Kindly confirm as you've gone from confusing centuries earlier to confusing genders of the players. Once it's clearer what or whom you're talking about, it may be easier to address your query. I am glad you realize the possibility of propaganda. And it seems that it may have also eluded you in your post about the Fascists. Thanks for correcting my use of English language. Care to "correct" my facts now ? |
|
|
|
Post by omundu on Mar 25, 2014 23:58:13 GMT 3
Well, I was advised above to avoid conspiracies so here goes.
The Ukrainian situation has divided commentators into the Pro-annexation vs anti annexation. Obviously some don't care.
Amongst the Pro-Invasion we have those who think that irregardless of its illegality under international law, Putin has a valid enough reason to annex Ukraine. Then there are those in the Chomsky's school of thought who believe that the west, especially america has no right to criticise because they have and are committing evil acts themselves. Evil incarnate. It deprives them the right to criticize.
Then we have those (whom I belong to) who believe that no country can claim purity in this world. Everyone should critic everyone, including those we support but not exclusively. Even americans should criticize themselves (heck, even Obama does that to Bush's policies). I believe we can't justify Imperialism so long as its not the west taking part.
Back to my gist... What was it again ? Ohhh PROPAGANDA. Let's debunk some tales told with emphasis on Putins side (I say that because he has just illegally annexed a country and that should be the topic of discussion)
- THE "NEO-NAZI'S IN UKRAINE VS RUSSIAN LIBERATORS"
The so called NEO NAZI's were formerly called the Social National Party. They have been rebranding themselves over the years and now, under the Svoboda umbrella, have toned down their rhetoric and shed many of their extreme members. Besides, which parliamentary system in Europe doesn't have a far right Nationalist Party in the mix ?
Putin was trying to justify his move by claiming they are taking over but the fact is (anyone is welcome to research on it) the Right Sector are far from being the official voice of the Euromaidan movement. They actually comprise about 1 percent of the movement. The movement actually consists of dozens of different organizations like the Donetsk,Dnepropetrovsk, Crimea, Lviv, parties like; UDAR and Svoboda, Ukrainian Orthodox church etc and not a single one shows supremacy over the other.
However Yanukovitch permitted dozens to be slaughtered but now sits pretty under putins armpits.
- PROTECTING ETHNIC RUSSIANS (who are being prosecuted) RUSSIAN REFUGEES etc.
Very laughable to see that was the information peddled by Russian (State owned by the way B6K. As opposed to the liberalised news agencies in the west).
Fact is, there were no Ethnic Russians being prosecuted. There were no refugee camps as claimed. Refugee camps go through legal channels set up by the UN, who are in Ukraine mainland (observers also and press) and didn't see any of that. International observers were denied entry into Crimea. They were infact threatened and some people abducted. And if threatened, why not evacuate them ?
The only wrong was when the Ukrainian parliament, in a rather shortsighted move, banned the Russian language. The move was later vetoed by the president, Oleksandr. There is no independent news that proves ethnic russians were singled out because of their ethnicity.
Putin, then went ahead to justify that as grounds for invasion and annexation going against the gist of the 'wonderful' speech he made ages ago that convinced JAKASWANGA he is a noble, level headed chap :-)
Its is infact not acceptable under International law to violate the territorial integrity of another state to save ones own citizens. Article 2, paragraph 4 of the UN charter. (There is reason that was set up and it is a historical one. Remember Hitler ?) Unless it is self defense or a decision by the UNSC: Article 51.
- THOSE ARE NOT RUSSIAN TROOPS IN CRIMEA:
He went ahead and said that those uniforms could have been bought at any supermarket. Lolest. Like someone decided to buy 20 000 uniforms at the supermarket and the shop threw in tanks and trucks and army issued weapons with the order. Lol.
- ANNEXATION AS A COUNTER MOVE TO USA/WEST/NATO EXPANSION TOWARDS RUSSIA:
A part of this story Putin (the respector of sovereignty and borders as evidenced by his speech)cleverly leaves out below:
The history of NATO in EASTERN EUROPE is not as black and white as some are won't to believe. Nato stepped into the vacuum left by the end of the cold war and subsequent break up of the Soviet Union. Smaller states were being born, there was a fear of Russia's insurgence, the smaller nations also feared each other's unresolved historical disputes.
They came up with a programme called Partnership for Peace (PFP). Twelve Eastern European nations (incuding Russia) were members and most of them (by own accord) transitioned into NATO and eventually the EU (excluding Albania). That's how much of the warsaw pact came into the western alliance.
The 90's gave the above move a purpose as evidenced by humanitarian incidences like Yugoslavia where NATO had to step in via UNSC. Russia even signed to it because they could really do nothing themselves.
People don't realize it (maybe its because of lack of research or hunger for conspiracy theory)but NATO also protects member countries from tearing at each other. Italy still wants Nice back, Greece and Turkey hated each other before 2000, we also have the small matter of the Aegean islands and Cyprus. Without NATO, nations between Estonia and Hungary would have probably sought nukes to protects themselves from Germany in the west and Russia in the east.
Those eastern countries were not pressurized to Join NATO or the west. We can't blame NATO/west for agreeing to their demands. It would be folly to think that the eastern countries outside NATO's umbrella don't view Russia as a threat. The former warsaw pact nations are now sitting pretty under NATO's umbrella away from the threats of Mother Russia.
Ask yourselves this: If Nato hadn't agreed to allow in those eastern states, would Ukraine's situation be any different now ? Would Yanukovich not be corrupt ? Would the Bretton woods have refused when Ukraine came knocking for aid ? Would have Yanukovitch have still taken Russian aid and refused the western aid ? Would he not have been overthrown ? Would have Russia not moved into Crimea, Georgia or chenchynya ?
Isn't it then just a convenient excuse ? Besides, isn't it upon the citizens to determine their future.
It really has become exhausting hearing stories that somehow, the west/america, by covert means, spent money on civil organizations who paid hundreds of thousands of people to run into the street putting their lives at risk for the sake of Imperialism. It is a low bow and serious affront to protesters world wide.
I say, if you want to argue the above would have turned out different,that Putin would have been a different fella, the onus is on you to prove your point.
I personally treat such 'oooh, the americans, boogey man, CIA ' stories as conspiracy for lack of proof. There are obviously examples around the world where america's hand are unsmistakable like Grenada etc.
- REMOVING YANUKOVITCH WAS UNDEMOCRATIC.
No one disputes that Putin and Yanukovitch's Ukraine can be classified as 'electoral autocracies'. Putin's Russia is a kind of semi-authoritarian government possessing formal trappings of democracy while constanty subverting them. He who cares to lecture the world on democracy. Lol.
The Ukrainian citizens protested (freedom of speech - democracy) against Yanukovitch's keptocracy and his decision to go against the citizen's will of Western Europe. They even ensured that Parliament removes him (yes, a democratically elected parliament with impeachment powers)
Then someone comes here to tell us revolutions are undemocratic.
I disagree. We revolutions are a core part of democracy. A regular cleansing/reset button. We would not have had modern day democracy without revolutions. A way to perfect democracy if you will. England, France, China (Mao), even Russia had one (Boshevik), Iran in 1979. Infact, most western countries had to undergo revolutions for them to develop into full fledged democracies. We even have recent examples of Portugal in 1974, Greece after the military Junta of 67-74, spain after fransisco francos death in 1975 etc.
The unifying thread of most revoutions is opposition to authoritarianism and aspiration to democratic rule. Revolutions are spontaneous mass movements spurred by democratic impulses. (Though some take time for proper democracy to blossom)
Democracy does not simply mean 'free and fair' elections. Other vital elements including human rights, free press etc preclude it.
So whatever Putin, and others have been telling us lately about 'undemocratically removing a yanukovitch' doesn't wash.
There can be no higher authorizing force than the citizens themselves.
Unedited.
|
|
|
|
Post by omundu on Mar 26, 2014 0:49:54 GMT 3
Jakaswanga.
I am sure you remember before Russia's invasion when their Foreign minister convinced John Kerry (chamberlain wise) that they have no intention to invade Crimea. When Putin amassed troops by the border and claimed that it was a routine training exercise. We all remember how Kerry ended up with egg on his face when the Russians eventually invaded Crimea.
The same script is currently being played by the border with eastern Ukraine. Would you surely put anything past such a devious character ?
I actually find Obamas reaction to developments quite sober. I mean, against pressure from Neo-cons and repubs like Mc Cain and the chap who lost the election, he still appears to be the adult in the room proposing measures like sanctions which will only be increased if Putin ascends to his salivating nature for territory. Obamas and the west will only increase sanctions when/if Putin decides on eastern Ukraine. It is a long term game.
There are a lot of other avenues the west could take including rescinding the missile treaty, sending NATO troops to the borders of Eastern Ukraine or increasing NATO prescence in eastern NATO member states, supplying Ukraine with weapons etc etc. But they are currently taking the mature approach against a bully.
NATO was beating war drums today you say. But no policy has been reached towards that opposed to Putin who acted militarily.
|
|
|
|
Post by b6k on Mar 26, 2014 19:05:35 GMT 3
Omundu, it seems the possibility that both sides may be involved in churning out propaganda eludes you. Also, the phone call in question was between a man and a woman. The man is the Estonian representative who informs the EU representative of Ms Olga's findings. YET you refer to the Estonian rep as "she" time and again. Please don't tell me you suffer from the inability to tell a he from a she. Kindly confirm as you've gone from confusing centuries earlier to confusing genders of the players. Once it's clearer what or whom you're talking about, it may be easier to address your query. I am glad you realize the possibility of propaganda. And it seems that it may have also eluded you in your post about the Fascists. Thanks for correcting my use of English language. Care to "correct" my facts now ? , having read all your contributions on this thread I'm left with one conclusion. At heart, you are a die-hard "oppositionist" of the KE mould. The problem with such a state of mind is you will have the natural tendency to view ALL struggles through the distorted lens of the opposition struggles in your motherland. Ergo, any and all opposition to any and all governments is good. As a die-hard oppositionist, you may grudgingly agree to have your English corrected, but you will go to the grave kicking and screaming that No Rai mass action is a universal good, consequences of the fallout to the general good be damned. For one thing, it's instructive that you view the entire discourse that has taken place on this thread simply as a battle between the "pro annexation vs anti annexation" factions. That there may be a third faction, ie those that can understand or comprehend the reasoning behind the annexation due to historical facts flies right over your head. It doesn't mean one condones the hostile takeover of Ukraine if one can understand it. This when compared to the US intervention into Ukraine ($5 billion to support the opposition, Victoria "F*** the EU" Nuland virtually drawing up the Ukraine opposition cabinet over a telephone call to the US ambassador in the country, etc) a country whose interventions & machinations are no older than the 1917 revolution, if at all, puts paid to who can have a say in Slavic regional relations. But heck, there's oil and gas in "them thar hills"! Allow me to expound. No amount of facts that have been posted for your education by several contributors to your thread has removed the black vs white scales that are so fixed in your eyes. If you believe that the historic ties between Russia and Ukraine count for naught, then little can be done to help you. The original Rus who migrated from Scandinavia took up their Russian identity in Kiev. The main Slavic populations in the area from Russia to Ukraine claim heritage from this particular Scandinavian tribe. These people are therefore cousins...warring cousins for sure over the ages, but kin nevertheless. Who are the American neo-cons, many with historical baggage and axes of their own ancestors to grind with Russia (remember the pogroms?), to dictate what happens there? As far as I recall I have posted two links to RT (Russia Today) which admittedly would be tainted with state propaganda but are corroborated with independent posts of the leaked/tapped phone conversation between Ashton and the Estonian foreign minister & Putin's speech to his legislature after the reunification, or annexation to some, with Russia. I don't know where you get your "fact" that the Ukrainian NAZIS only make up one percent of the Ukrainian opposition. Last I checked they had several senior seats in the interim government. Kindly post your link proving they are a wafer thin section of the opposition HERE. Here's an "independent" assessment of the NAZIS winnings via mass action from Channel 4.  "Democrats" Tellingly, the deputy prime minister, Oleksandr Sych, is in effect a NAZI, as is Oleh Makhnitsky, is prosecuter general. They have 3 seats im government. In a 20 (wo)man cabinet that's already 15% of government, not the 1% you talk about.  Little wonder that other far right groups in Europe are now making trips to Ukraine to learn from the best how they too can some day be a part of government in their home countries... The irony about your position in this whole thread which you started is that you contradict the link that you yourself posted, the wise counsel of the last US Ambassador to the USSR, James F. Matlock Jr. Here he is again directly calling for Russia to be allowed to take over the Crimea. "Once American and Western leaders have vented their anger at President Vladimir Putin for bringing the Crimea back into Russia, they should find a way to tone down the poisonous public rhetoric and concentrate on private negotiations to put the rest of Ukraine together again. The fact is, like it or not, Ukraine is almost certainly better off without Crimea than with it. Nothing weakens a nation more than holding territory whose residents prefer to belong to another country." Note his example of how Finland managed to prosper once it gave up significant chunks of territory (& some of its people) to Russia. It even avoided the wrath of the Russians when it joined the EU because it avoided joining NATO. So as he argues, there is a precedent to what Ukraine can do. Give up Crimea, join the west economically but DO NOT under any circumstances join the west militarily under NATO. Incidentally, he even points out that Crimea's water, gas and other utilities emanate from Ukraine so it will be interesting to watch how the Russians pull off service delivery to their new subjects. time.com/29107/former-u-s-ambassador-to-ussr-let-russia-take-crimea/Anyway, as you stated much earlier, why don't we give the Ukrainians what the Ukrainians want? Let me leave the last words to what the interim Prime Minister of Ukraine, Arseniy Yatsenyuk, told the BBC when describing the hodge-podge alliance that you call the Ukrainian government. "We are on the brink of the (sic) disaster, and this is the government of political suiciders (sic). So, welcome to hell!" Full video below: |
|
|
|
Post by jakaswanga on Mar 26, 2014 21:19:44 GMT 3
|
|
|
|
Post by nowayhaha on Mar 27, 2014 13:56:15 GMT 3
I am glad you realize the possibility of propaganda. And it seems that it may have also eluded you in your post about the Fascists. Thanks for correcting my use of English language. Care to "correct" my facts now ? , having read all your contributions on this thread I'm left with one conclusion. At heart, you are a die-hard "oppositionist" of the KE mould. The problem with such a state of mind is you will have the natural tendency to view ALL struggles through the distorted lens of the opposition struggles in your motherland. Ergo, any and all opposition to any and all governments is good. As a die-hard oppositionist, you may grudgingly agree to have your English corrected, but you will go to the grave kicking and screaming that No Rai mass action is a universal good, consequences of the fallout to the general good be damned. Even the Britons see Ukrainian crisis for what it is . In a television debate between the Deputy Prime Minister and UKIP leader which according to snap poll Deputy Prime Minister lost by 57 %to 36 % the Ukip leader noted that EU instigated the coup as part of geopolitics and had this to say www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/mar/26/clegg-farage-snap-poll-suggests-ukip-win-debate-europeSo one is left wondering if the Europeans can see the crisis for what it is , then whats wrong with Kenyans ? |
|
|
|
Post by b6k on Mar 27, 2014 20:43:00 GMT 3
Omundu, having read all your contributions on this thread I'm left with one conclusion. At heart, you are a die-hard "oppositionist" of the KE mould. The problem with such a state of mind is you will have the natural tendency to view ALL struggles through the distorted lens of the opposition struggles in your motherland. Ergo, any and all opposition to any and all governments is good. As a die-hard oppositionist, you may grudgingly agree to have your English corrected, but you will go to the grave kicking and screaming that No Rai mass action is a universal good, consequences of the fallout to the general good be damned. Even the Britons see Ukrainian crisis for what it is . In a television debate between the Deputy Prime Minister and UKIP leader which according to snap poll Deputy Prime Minister lost by 57 %to 36 % the Ukip leader noted that EU instigated the coup as part of geopolitics and had this to say www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/mar/26/clegg-farage-snap-poll-suggests-ukip-win-debate-europeSo one is left wondering if the Europeans can see the crisis for what it is , then whats wrong with Kenyans ? , thanks for the link to the debate in the UK. The Ukrainian question happened to be the very last one in the debate which sadly was boycotted by Miliband and David Cameron. For a party that has no seats in parliament, Ukip's Nigel Farage did extremely well against the deputy prime minister. Nick Clegg may be kicking himself for being the brains behind the whole Euro debate in the first place. Note how Clegg mentioned new powers on the rise, "Brazil, China, India" yet he conveniently avoided mentioning Russia in the same sentence...Russia which after all makes up the R in BRICS! (Obviously South Africa which makes the S was totally overlooked as well by Clegg). Since the video clip on the link you shared didn't show how the Ukraine question was handled let me post that here: Since the annexation of Crimea by Russia the approval ratings of both Putin and Obama have taken very divergent paths. At 71.6% approval, Putin is enjoying a 3 year high of positive ratings having enjoyed a 10% bump upwards for his handling of the crisis. Mind you Obama is at a very low 41% mirroring an unpopular second term George "Dubyah" Bush. For someone who started on such a high note two administrations ago and even won a Nobel Prize, it's been a rather disappointing second term for Barry. Here's how the "free press", USA Today, has been analyzing Putin's approval ratings: www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2014/03/18/crimea-ukraine-putin-russia/6564263/ In the same article we learn how Putin's aide, Vladislav Surkov (pictured above with Putin), mocked the sanctions against him personally: "I see the decision of the Washington administration as a recognition of my accomplishments for Russia. It's an honor for me," Surkov told the Moskovsky Komsomolets daily newspaper. "I don't have foreign accounts. In the United States I'm interested (in rapper) Tupac Shakur, (poet) Allen Ginsberg and (painter) Jackson Pollock. I don't need a visa to access their work, so I'm not losing anything."  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 28, 2014 4:48:11 GMT 3
|
|
|
|
Post by b6k on Mar 31, 2014 19:40:33 GMT 3
|
|
|
|
Post by b6k on Apr 3, 2014 21:29:52 GMT 3
Folks, things are really getting serious now. Ukraine's PM says they "will retaliate if Russia attacks"!
Say what?
|
|
|
|
Post by b6k on Apr 6, 2014 11:31:29 GMT 3
Victoria "F*** the EU'" Nuland's replacement at the State Department, Jen Psaki, lies through her teeth on US plans to broker a new government for Ukraine. Credit to members of the press corps who refuse to accept the official line at face value & make her sweat for her salary:
|
|
|
|
Post by jakaswanga on Apr 7, 2014 20:04:57 GMT 3
Omundu, b6k Here is an idea of Putin's end game in the Ukraine. By way of the mouth of Sergei Lavrov, the foreign affairs minister of the Russian federation. voiceofrussia.com/2014_03_29/Only-way-for-Ukraine-to-reach-settlement-is-to-sign-federal-agreement-Lavrov-1757/ The problem is this was the plan agreed and signed by all apart from the USA, before Maidan coup. Yap, The EU, Russia, and the Ukrainian politicians had agreed in a framework to the constitutional reform, aka devolution, the same plan Lavrov was explaining to Kerry. Kerry is grudgingly beginning to realise is his best deal. As Obama has been dithering, held hostage by the war-mongering neo-cons, the situation in East Ukraine has been radicalising, so much so that even the earlier federal autonomy may be a past station. In other words, a referendum may be in the offing which may make the coming elections in Ukraine, be happening in another country! East Ukraine already with its resolution like the Krim {Crimea}. The EU has outruled going to war to reclaim the Crimea for the Ukraine once more. The question is, will the EU as NATO go to war if there is a referendum in East Ukraine, and the result goes the Krim way?The answer should be no, but politicians are human beings of a particularly duplicitous nature, and history is not full of smart decisions by politicians! --And who says Putin is in control of events on the ground? he too could just be a reactor to facts on the ground! Obama does not look like he is on top of the game here, no more than he ever was in the middle east, whether in Egypt, Israel-Palestinian issue, or Syria. He has revved NATO up, intensified military manoevers in the Baltic states, even as he orders Putin to pull off his troops from the eastern border with Ukraine. A Russian defence analyst/official put it thus: This guy is flying his deadly fighter bombers 3 minutes from our vitals [capital], while we are 10,000km from his! and he is giving us orders on what to do at our borders!? That he does not recognise we too have legitimate security concerns, and we could even be more nervous of his fighter-bombers than him of our ICBM’s, makes this conflict susceptible to an escalating dynamic. If we all do not keep cool heads, this thing will blow serious. Obviously the Americans have lost theirs, it is important we keep ours, and our European partners not loose theirs too! NB: The European population overwhelmingly are against war, whether the Russians invade Ukraine in toto! ---But who do their leaders listen to, Washington or them? HOT FROM THE WIRE! Ukrainian City of Donetsk Declare Independencewww.ibtimes.co.uk/crimea-fallout-pro-russian-protesters-eastern-ukrainian-city-donetsk-declare-independence-1443699
|
|
|
|
Post by jakaswanga on Apr 7, 2014 20:14:29 GMT 3
Victoria "F*** the EU'" Nuland's replacement at the State Department, Jen Psaki, lies through her teeth on US plans to broker a new government for Ukraine. Credit to members of the press corps who refuse to accept the official line at face value & make her sweat for her salary: This is an awesome footage. She can not lie her way out of it. I viewed it several times as study material. I know she has a top end staff in propaganda and they briefed her proper. yet she falls apart first take on a poking question! She is no dumb blonde, so her horrific performance must have another explanation. Like, when the truth is obvious, shrug and do not try to lie your way out of it. Or, if you dare, go the Goebbels way: tell such an outrageous lie, that people are shocked. For instance, the USA government thinks the Ukrainian people are too thick to choose their own leaders, so we absolve of the task and do it for them. We do it everyday is other failed countries, and they love us for it. Chill! Next! This was really a bad day at the office for her! I hope she has a nice partner. I am sure she needed much nursing this day. NB: President ''Yats'' says Ukraine would retaliate if Russia attacks! Indeed chain of laughter. Did you check the videos of what happened as the Russians seized Ukraine's leading battleship at Sevastopol or Simferopol some other such town? --Some officers asked, what are the pension rates by you guys over there at the Russian federation!? and we hand over our guns, do we maintain rank, pay and all? The Russian commanding officer of the assault gaped! stunned! --he had not taken that into consideration in his battle plans! |
|
|
|
Post by omundu on Apr 8, 2014 0:01:59 GMT 3
Omundu, b6k Here is an idea of Putin's end game in the Ukraine. By way of the mouth of Sergei Lavrov, the foreign affairs minister of the Russian federation. voiceofrussia.com/2014_03_29/Only-way-for-Ukraine-to-reach-settlement-is-to-sign-federal-agreement-Lavrov-1757/ The problem is this was the plan agreed and signed by all apart from the USA, before Maidan coup. Yap, The EU, Russia, and the Ukrainian politicians had agreed in a framework to the constitutional reform, aka devolution, the same plan Lavrov was explaining to Kerry. Kerry is grudgingly beginning to realise is his best deal. As Obama has been dithering, held hostage by the war-mongering neo-cons, the situation in East Ukraine has been radicalising, so much so that even the earlier federal autonomy may be a past station. In other words, a referendum may be in the offing which may make the coming elections in Ukraine, be happening in another country! East Ukraine already with its resolution like the Krim {Crimea}. The EU has outruled going to war to reclaim the Crimea for the Ukraine once more. The question is, will the EU as NATO go to war if there is a referendum in East Ukraine, and the result goes the Krim way?The answer should be no, but politicians are human beings of a particularly duplicitous nature, and history is not full of smart decisions by politicians! --And who says Putin is in control of events on the ground? he too could just be a reactor to facts on the ground! Obama does not look like he is on top of the game here, no more than he ever was in the middle east, whether in Egypt, Israel-Palestinian issue, or Syria. He has revved NATO up, intensified military manoevers in the Baltic states, even as he orders Putin to pull off his troops from the eastern border with Ukraine. A Russian defence analyst/official put it thus: This guy is flying his deadly fighter bombers 3 minutes from our vitals [capital], while we are 10,000km from his! and he is giving us orders on what to do at our borders!? That he does not recognise we too have legitimate security concerns, and we could even be more nervous of his fighter-bombers than him of our ICBM’s, makes this conflict susceptible to an escalating dynamic. If we all do not keep cool heads, this thing will blow serious. Obviously the Americans have lost theirs, it is important we keep ours, and our European partners not loose theirs too! NB: The European population overwhelmingly are against war, whether the Russians invade Ukraine in toto! ---But who do their leaders listen to, Washington or them? HOT FROM THE WIRE! Ukrainian City of Donetsk Declare Independencewww.ibtimes.co.uk/crimea-fallout-pro-russian-protesters-eastern-ukrainian-city-donetsk-declare-independence-1443699 Jakaswanga et al. I doubt there is anything more that Obama can do better than he is now. He can only pander to the 'neo-cons' and do a Putin by sending in troops. I think for now the sanctions and threats of further sanctions if eastern ukraine is annexed is all the cards he can play. I also think that the increase in military maneuvers in the eastern Nato countries like Poland serves to assuage their fears and sort of reassures them that NATO will be by their side in case... Putin is going for federalism in the Ukraine but that would have to undergo an internal Ukrainian referendum and not state by state. Will that pass ? Or will Putin still send in his troops to ensure it does. It is not easy on both sides. We also have to ask ourselves whether Putins end game was limited to just Ukraine as a sphere of influence or was/is it also a warning to those others that dare go the Ukraine route towards EU/NATO/US. More like styming the west's expansion eastwards. If the latter, is it working. We have seen the rhetoric coming from the west lately including NATO/EU tightening the screws in countries (eastern) they have a foot in (mutual military games etc), proposing to fasttrack the process it takes to join these bodies and the impending arms race evidenced by Obama's speech in Brussels where he urged the eastern NATO states to increase their military spending. What does this do to Russia's neighbor Iran and the Nuclear negotiations ? Remember they were aiming for the same deal that the US, Russia and some western states signed with Ukrain guaranteeing respect of borders in exchange for their Nukes. I am afraid the ball is neither in Putins or western hands for now. The ramifications are larger than just the Ukraine. |
|
affair! And you can quote me on that! Putin said Hilary Clinton did not have a head, but has a reasonable figure. I wonder what he says of Viktoria Nuland? A useless diplomat but definitely a hot screw?!
because its moves are defined by revolutionary logic not political rationality,” writes Morozov. “If you can force your jackboot in the door, you can try to go all the way.”
Sergei Lavrov, Russian minister for foreign affairs, speaking in Moscow.