Het gedonder in de voortuin van Rusland

Politiek en oorlog zijn onlosmakelijk met elkaar verbonden en alles over politiek en oorlog kun je hier terugvinden.
Gebruikersavatar
Geel kristal ster
Senior QFF-er
Senior QFF-er
Berichten: 142
Lid geworden op: ma 25 okt 2010, 02:04

zo 09 mar 2014, 09:56

Ondanks dat vrees ik er voor dat Rusland koppig blijft vasthouden aan afzondering terwijl Oekraïne een poort is naar Europa zelf...

In ieder geval het zou zo ver komen dat als Rusland toch doorzet met zich afzonderen in het nadeel van de democratische principes helemaal geen toerisme meer zal zijn en terecht de Europese gasleveranties gaat afsnijden of stopzetten...alleen het feit dat Rusland wel democratisch wil zijn kan het geen geweld toepassen ongeacht welke zaken ze doen ten opzichte van de Europese zetbazen...

Het feit dat men poetin als dictator wil afschilderen is dat met medvedev ofzo anders een peuleschil in verband met de poging tot disclosure welke gevaar dat dat ook inhoudt !

GKS
De volgende gebruiker(s) zeggen bedankt: baphomet
Omhoog
Gebruikersavatar
baphomet
Administrator
Administrator
Berichten: 23147
Lid geworden op: za 21 aug 2010, 16:08

zo 09 mar 2014, 23:33

Ik kan me haast niet voorstellen dat het er nu wel ineens van gaat komen. Ik verwacht geen oorlog, nog steeds niet. Als dat daar mis gaat hebben we gewoon WO III..

Sources in Latvia are apparently reporting Ukraine has been warned to lay down arms or be invaded one hour from now!!!
Tja het komt maar van Twitter dus zegt niet zo heel veel maar toch... Ik duik eventjes in de materie weer, er volgen zo nog wel wat posts als ik interessante zaken aantref...
Gebruikersavatar
baphomet
Administrator
Administrator
Berichten: 23147
Lid geworden op: za 21 aug 2010, 16:08

zo 09 mar 2014, 23:35



Tja...
Gebruikersavatar
baphomet
Administrator
Administrator
Berichten: 23147
Lid geworden op: za 21 aug 2010, 16:08

zo 09 mar 2014, 23:35

Gebruikersavatar
baphomet
Administrator
Administrator
Berichten: 23147
Lid geworden op: za 21 aug 2010, 16:08

zo 09 mar 2014, 23:36

Gebruikersavatar
baphomet
Administrator
Administrator
Berichten: 23147
Lid geworden op: za 21 aug 2010, 16:08

zo 09 mar 2014, 23:38

Kalashnikitty ‏@CustosDivini · 4h
#OSINT: Flagship of the Russian #BlackSea Fleet missile cruiser "Moskva" headed out toward mainland #Ukraine / #Russia #navy
Gebruikersavatar
baphomet
Administrator
Administrator
Berichten: 23147
Lid geworden op: za 21 aug 2010, 16:08

zo 09 mar 2014, 23:39

05:37 PM ET
On GPS Sunday: Live analysis on the latest developments in Ukraine
Watch "Fareed Zakaria GPS," Sundays at 10 a.m. and 1 p.m. ET on CNN
On GPS this Sunday: A special live edition of the show analyzing the latest developments in Ukraine. Fareed speaks with former National Security Advisor Tom Donilon before convening a panel of analysts including New York University’s Stephen Cohen, Canadian politician and journalist Chrystia Freeland and Princeton University’s Stephen Kotkin.
Also on the show, Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu finally came out for Secretary of State John Kerry's Middle East peace efforts this week. But he faces intense opposition even from within his own cabinet – Fareed speaks with Israel’s economics minister, Naftali Bennett, who explains why he believes Netanyahu is wrong.
And, is failure actually good for you? That's what a new book suggests, and Fareed will be speaking with the author.
You can now follow GPS on Flipboard at: Flip.it/FareedZakaria
Bron en interessante video: ->> http://globalpublicsquare.blogs.cnn.com ... n-ukraine/
Gebruikersavatar
baphomet
Administrator
Administrator
Berichten: 23147
Lid geworden op: za 21 aug 2010, 16:08

zo 09 mar 2014, 23:42

America's Failed (Bi-Partisan) Russia Policy

The United States and Russia are at a potentially fateful crossroads in their relations. Twenty years after the end of the Soviet Union, the relationship features more elements of cold-war conflict than of stable cooperation. Still more, recent developments, including presidential campaigns and other political changes under way in both countries, may soon make relations even worse.

And yet, in the United States, there is virtually no critical discussion, certainly no debate, about American policy toward Russia. This failure of our own democratic process -- particularly of our political and media establishments -- is in sharp contrast to fierce debates over Russia policy that took place in Congress, the national media, academia, think tanks and even at grassroots levels in the 1970s and 1980s.

As a result, serious criticism of Washington's policies toward Moscow that should be stated publicly -- by Americans, not Russians -- is not being expressed in our mainstream politics or media. I will state that kind of criticism here today -- very briefly and bluntly. I do so as a scholar who has studied Russia's history and politics for fifty years -- and as an American patriot. Most of what I have to say is not a matter of personal opinion but of historical and political fact. It can be summarized in five major points.

First: Today, as before, the road to America's national security runs through Moscow. No other U.S. bilateral relationship is more vital. The reasons should be known to every policymaker, though they seem not to be:

- Russia's enormous stockpiles of nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction make it the only country capable of destroying the United States as well as the only other government, along with our own, essential for preventing the proliferation of such weapons.

- There is also Russia's disproportionate share of the world's essential resources, not only oil and natural gas but metals, fertile land, timber, fresh water and more, which give Moscow critical importance in the global economy.

- In addition, Russia remains the world's largest territorial country. In particular, the geopolitical significance of its location on the Eurasian frontier of today's mounting conflicts between Western and Eastern civilizations, as well as its own millions of Islamic people, can hardly be overstated.

- Not to be forgotten are Russia's talented and nationalistic people, even in bad times, and their state's traditions in international affairs. This too means that Russia will play a major role in the world.

- And, largely as a result of these circumstances, there is Moscow's special capacity to abet or to thwart U.S. interests in many regions of the world, from Afghanistan, Iran, North Korea and China to Europe, the entire Middle East and Latin America.

In short, these inescapable realities mean that partnership with Russia is an American national security imperative.

Second: There is no real American-Russian partnership today. Nor has there been one since the Soviet Union ended in 1991, despite periodic (largely decorative) declarations to that effect in Washington. Indeed, there is less essential cooperation between Washington and Moscow today than there was during the late years of the Cold War under Presidents Ronald Reagan, the first George Bush and Mikhail Gorbachev. Still worse, important elements of cooperation that do exist -- on Afghanistan, Iran and nuclear weapons -- are fragile and may soon end.

In short, the United States is farther from a partnership with Russia today than it was more than twenty years ago.

Third: Who, it must be asked, is to blame for this historic failure to establish a partnership between America and post-Soviet Russia? In the United States, Moscow alone is almost universally blamed. The facts are different. There have been three compelling opportunities to establish such a partnership. All three were lost, or are being lost, in Washington, not in Moscow.

- The first opportunity was following the end of the Soviet Union, in the 1990s. Instead, the Clinton administration adopted an aggressive triumphalist approach to Moscow. That administration tried to dictate Russia's post-Communist development and to turn it into a U.S. client state. It moved the U.S.-led military alliance, NATO, into Russia's former security zone. It bombed Moscow's remaining European ally, Serbia. And along the way, the Clinton administration broke strategic promises made to Moscow.

- The second opportunity for partnership was after 9/11, when the Bush administration repaid Russian President Vladimir Putin's extraordinary assistance in the U.S. war against the Taliban in Afghanistan by further expanding NATO to Russia's borders and by unilaterally withdrawing from the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, which Moscow regarded as the linchpin of its nuclear security.

- Now, since 2008, the Obama administration is squandering the third opportunity, its own "re-set," by refusing to respond to Moscow's concessions on Afghanistan and Iran with reciprocal agreements on Russia's top priorities, NATO expansion and missile defense.

In short, every opportunity for a U.S.-Russian partnership during the past twenty years was lost, or is being lost, in Washington, not in Moscow.

Fourth: How to explain, we must also ask, such unwise U.S. policies over such a long period? The primary explanation is a policy-making outlook, or ideology, that has combined the worst legacy of the Cold War with the worst American reaction to the end of the Soviet Union.

- Washington's two most consequential (and detrimental) decisions regarding post-Soviet Russia have continued the militarized approach of the Cold War: to move NATO eastward; and to build missile defense installations near Russia's borders.

- At the same time, Washington's triumphalist reaction to the end of the Soviet state produced a winner-take-all diplomatic approach that has been almost as aggressive. Consider the three primary components of this so-called diplomacy:

1. Presumably on the assumption that Russia's interests abroad are less legitimate than America's, Washington has acted on a double-standard in relations with Moscow. The unmistakable example is that while creating a vast U.S.-NATO sphere of military and political influence around Russia, Washington adamantly denounces Moscow's quest for any zone of security, even on its own borders.

2. Similarly, U.S. negotiations on vital issues have been based on the premise (called "selective cooperation") that Moscow should make all major concessions while Washington makes none. And on rare occasions when Washington did promise major concessions, it reneged on them, NATO's eastward expansion being only the first instance. (Can anyone who doubts this generalization cite a single meaningful concession -- any substantive reciprocity -- that Moscow has actually gotten from the United States since 1992?)

3. Meanwhile, presumably on the assumption that Russia's political sovereignty at home is less than our own, Washington has pursued intrusive "democracy-promotion" measures that flagrantly trespass on Moscow's internal affairs. This practice began in the 1990s with actual directives from Washington to Moscow ministries and with legions of onsite U.S. "advisers" and it continues today -- recently, for example, with the American vice president lobbying in Moscow against Putin's return to the Russian presidency and with the new U.S. ambassador's profoundly ill-timed meeting with leaders of Moscow's street protests.

In short, blaming Putin for anti-Americanism in Russia, as the U.S. State Department and media do, ignores the real cause: Twenty years of American military and diplomatic policies have convinced a large part of Russia's political class (and intelligentsia) that Washington's intentions are aggressive, aggrandizing and deceitful -- anything but those of a partner. (In that context, part of the Russian elite has criticized Putin for being "pro-American.")

Fifth: None of these unwise, counter-productive U.S. policies toward Russia since the 1990s have been specifically Democratic or Republican. They have been bipartisan, enacted and supported by Democratic and Republican presidents and congresses alike. They have been, that is, a fully bipartisan failure of American leadership and policymaking.

To which must be added the complicit role of the American media:

- Since the 1990s, mainstream press coverage of Russia has been woefully less professional than it was when the Soviet Union existed. It has been more ideological; less diverse in its sources and perspectives; less receptive to non-standard opinions; less observant of the necessary distinction between reporting and news analysis; and, worse yet, less factual and accurate.

- Press coverage has also been less independent of U.S. policy than it was in Soviet times. In the 1990s, the mainstream media narrative hardly differed from that of the Clinton White House, cheerleading for Russian President Boris Yeltsin. In recent years, the media narrative, like Washington's, has been overwhelmingly anti-Putin.

- Indeed, press analysis of Russian politics has been all but replaced by reflexive Putin-bashing equating him with Saddam, Qaddafi and even Stalin, and based on a welter of non- factual or unsubstantiated allegations.

- For example, the dismantling of Russian democracy, the creation of a corrupt financial oligarchy (which is the main obstacle to democracy) and the killing of journalists did not begin under Putin, who assumed the presidency in 2000, but under Yeltsin in the 1990s. And there are no facts or logic to support standard U.S. press assertions that Putin was personally responsible for the murders of the journalist Anna Politkovskaya, the supposed KGB defector in London, Aleksandr Litvinenko or any of his other Russian political opponents.

Nor is this journalistic malpractice unrelated to U.S. policy-making. It has polluted American public discussion of Russia in ways that encourage the worst impulses of our politicians and that all but prohibit any reconsideration of U.S. policy.

Toward a New Russia Policy

Clearly, the United States needs a fundamentally different policy toward Russia. Given the right approach, partnership with Moscow is still possible, no matter who is in the White House or Kremlin after this year's presidential elections. But the window of opportunity is closing, not only because of the factors I mentioned earlier but because Moscow is increasingly mistrustful of Washington and because Moscow no longer needs anything from the United States except military security. Everything else, including modernizing funds, technology and markets, Russia can get from its flourishing partnerships with China and Europe.

The Russia policy America urgently needs requires at least four fundamental changes, each based on new thinking. Again, briefly stated:

1. The policy must be de-militarized in favor of political diplomacy. And the guiding diplomatic tenet must be recognition of Russia's parity with the United States as a sovereign nation and legitimate great power. This means, in particular, that the same rules of international behavior apply equally to Washington and Moscow and that negotiations require reciprocal concessions, as befit partners. Such a U.S. approach would almost certainly lead to new and expanded areas of cooperation.

2. Vital cooperation will not be possible (or stable), however, as long as Washington continues to promote NATO expansion along Russia's borders. This must stop, which means no longer encouraging membership for Georgia or Ukraine. Membership for either would cross Moscow's declared "red lines." The proxy American-Russian war in Georgia, in August 2008, which risked a nuclear confrontation like the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis, was an unmistakable warning. (Russia has a right, as the United States asserted for itself in that crisis, to be free of menacing foreign military bases near its territory.)

3. But the thirteen-year expansion of NATO to Russia's borders has already institutionalized the worst geo-political, and potentially military, U.S.-Russian conflict. The new NATO members cannot be expelled, but Washington should now honor its promise, also broken, that those countries would not host any NATO or U.S. military installations. Honoring that pledge would, in effect, de-militarize NATO expansion and considerably lessen Moscow's anxieties, resentments and resistance to new forms of security cooperation, including on missile defense and deeper nuclear reductions on both sides.

4. Finally, "democracy-promotion" measures inside Russia also must stop. Many proponents of this two-decade U.S. policy sincerely believe in it, but it is wrong on all counts:

- We, the United States, do not have the right, wisdom or power to intervene so directly or deeply in the internal workings of another great nation, especially one whose history is older, different and no less proud than our own. (Russians have shown they know how to democratize their country. To suggest that they do not is contemptuous and an ethnic slur.)

- Here too the proof is in the factual record. Since the 1990s, U.S.-sponsored "democracy-promotion" inside Russia has done more to undermine democratic prospects there than to promote them.

- Even worse, "democracy-promoters" and leaders of opposition groups they sponsor are moving in a profoundly reckless direction. Increasingly, they speak of "delegitimizing" and "de-stabilizing" Russia's political system, even of a "revolution," but without asking what that might mean for a vast state with uncertain control over its enormous, sprawling quantities of devices of mass destruction. When the Russian state suddenly disintegrated in 1991, this kind of catastrophe was averted. But miracles rarely, if ever, happen twice.

The policy changes I propose are, of course, unlikely to be adopted. After twenty years, many powerful American interests are invested in the existing policy, however badly it has failed. But it is not enough to blame the U.S. political and media establishments. American critics of Washington's longstanding approach to Moscow also bear some responsibility: They have not fought for the nation's best interests.

This too was different forty years ago, when there was such an organization, The American Committee on East-West Accord. Based in Washington, with a Board composed of CEOs of major corporations, academics, policy intellectuals, nuclear scientists, journalists and representatives of grass-roots movements, the Committee fought our cold warriors of that time on many fronts, from Congress to the media. In the end, the struggle helped to make possible the historic breakthrough achieved by Reagan and Gorbachev in the 1980s. Where are such Americans and organizations today, when perhaps the last chance for a U.S.-Russian partnership is being lost?

This post is adapted from remarks by Stephen F. Cohen to the World Russia Forum in Washington, DC on February 27, 2012.

Bron: ->> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/stephen-f ... 07727.html
De volgende gebruiker(s) zeggen bedankt: wodan, Toxopeus
Omhoog
Gebruikersavatar
baphomet
Administrator
Administrator
Berichten: 23147
Lid geworden op: za 21 aug 2010, 16:08

zo 09 mar 2014, 23:43

Missilito ‏@Missilito 15m Allegedly Ukrainian Army deployments near Kherson some 50 km from Crimea "Buk" #Airdefense, tanks, artillery & MRLS pic.twitter.com/P1AgABaHpz
Bron: Twitter
Gebruikersavatar
baphomet
Administrator
Administrator
Berichten: 23147
Lid geworden op: za 21 aug 2010, 16:08

zo 09 mar 2014, 23:43

LOL

Gebruikersavatar
baphomet
Administrator
Administrator
Berichten: 23147
Lid geworden op: za 21 aug 2010, 16:08

zo 09 mar 2014, 23:44

WolfgangH ‏@Wolfgang_H 2m

#Krim #Ukraine: Ukrainian airbase at #Novofedorivka, which was stormed earlier today, is now under Russian control. via interpreter
Bron: Twitter
Gebruikersavatar
baphomet
Administrator
Administrator
Berichten: 23147
Lid geworden op: za 21 aug 2010, 16:08

zo 09 mar 2014, 23:46

Gebruikersavatar
Toxopeus
Administrator
Administrator
Berichten: 4226
Lid geworden op: ma 15 nov 2010, 19:53

ma 10 mar 2014, 00:17

In de erfenis der eeuwen ligt veel wijsheid opgetast. Ook hier geldt: dwaas is hij die zijn eigen geschiedenis versmaadt.
De volgende gebruiker(s) zeggen bedankt: baphomet
Omhoog
Gebruikersavatar
Toxopeus
Administrator
Administrator
Berichten: 4226
Lid geworden op: ma 15 nov 2010, 19:53

ma 10 mar 2014, 00:19

In de erfenis der eeuwen ligt veel wijsheid opgetast. Ook hier geldt: dwaas is hij die zijn eigen geschiedenis versmaadt.
De volgende gebruiker(s) zeggen bedankt: baphomet
Omhoog
Gebruikersavatar
Toxopeus
Administrator
Administrator
Berichten: 4226
Lid geworden op: ma 15 nov 2010, 19:53

ma 10 mar 2014, 00:25

Putin defends Crimean referendum legitimacy to EU leaders as Ukraine's southeast rises
Published time: March 09, 2014 21:19

Clashes, Conflict, Germany, Human rights, Opposition, Politics, Protest, Rally, Russia, UK, Ukraine
Crimea’s upcoming referendum will reflect the legitimate interests of its people, Russian President Vladimir Putin told two EU leaders over the phone. Inspired by Crimea’s actions, eastern Ukraine is also protesting the coup-imposed government in Kiev.
The Russian president “underlined in particular that the steps taken by Crimea’s legitimate authorities are based on international law and aimed at guaranteeing the legitimate interests of the peninsula’s population,” the statement said.
The “lack of any action” on part of the current Kiev authorities with regard to ultra-nationalists and radical forces acting in Ukraine has particularly been noted by Putin.

While Putin reminded that the power in Kiev was seized in an unconstitutional armed coup, Merkel stressed that, according to Europe’s view, the Crimean referendum violates the Ukrainian constitution and international law.

The German Chancellor also “pointed out the urgency of finally coming to a substantial result” on the issue of forming the “international contact group” on Ukraine, Reuters reported.
Despite the difference of opinions, the sides have agreed that the de-escalation of tension in Ukraine is in everyone’s interest, the Kremlin statement notes.
Meanwhile, the coup-imposed Kiev government has stepped up pressure on Crimea, blocking the electronic system of the region’s treasury, freezing the autonomy’s accounts, and ramping up the presence of border police on the autonomy’s borders.

According to Crimean Deputy Prime Minister Rustam Temirgaliyev, Kiev’s recent moves will not affect state payments, including pensions, and Crimean authorities are now opening accounts in Russian banks instead of relying on the frozen ones.

Temirgaliev also told Interfax that authorities are expecting that some additional railway traffic to and from Russia will be ferried over the Kerch Strait. A bridge connecting Kerch and Russia’s Krasnodar Region is also being built “at a rapid pace,” he said.

The future status of the region has yet to be decided by its people; the All-Crimean referendum will take place on March 16.
According to the speaker of the Supreme Council of Crimea, Vladimir Konstantinov, Crimea would prefer to keep its status of autonomous parliamentary republic in the case of a favorable outcome of the referendum.

On Sunday, thousands of anti-Maidan demonstrators rallying in the eastern Ukrainian city of Lugansk blocked and occupied the regional administration building, hoisting a Russian flag on top. The protesters have demanded that Mikhail Bolotskikh, the region’s head, step down. Bolotskikh was appointed by the self-proclaimed Kiev authorities.

Some 3,000 people took part in the rally and about 1,000 broke inside the building, according to Itar-Tass and local media reports. Twitter users claimed that Bolotskikh has already signed his resignation and escaped the city center in a car through a “disgrace corridor” formed by the protesters.

Later on Sunday, the fugitive official declared that he signed the document under pressure and that he is still carrying out his duties.
Before the takeover, pro-Russian demonstrators reportedly clashed with Euromaidan activists demonstrating near a monument to Ukrainian poet Taras Shevchenko, whose 200th birthday was celebrated on Sunday.

The eastern Ukrainian city, which is located just 26 kilometers away from the Russian border and has a large Russian minority, has been extremely divided on whether to accept the current Kiev regime as a legitimate power. On Saturday, more than 10,000 pro-Russian Kharkov residents rallied in favor of rejecting Kiev’s rule, urging the formation of a southeastern federation of regions.

The issue of the federation, referred to as the Autonomous South-Eastern Republic within the Ukrainian state, should be decided by a popular vote as soon as possible, the people demanded.

While the rally itself was peaceful, it ended with several attempts of provocations. Two people were beaten and one shot by unidentified masked people, who quickly left the scene by car. The radical Right Sector movement has denied that its members waged the attack.

Around 7,000 pro-Russian demonstrators in the city of Donetsk on Sunday also supported the holding of a referendum on the status of their region. The people demanded that the status of the Russian language, stripped by the coup-imposed government, be reinstated, and that the “People’s Governor” of Donetsk, Pavel Gubarev, be freed.

Gubarev, who was detained in Donetsk by Special Security Forces, has reportedly been brought to Kiev on charges of violating the territorial integrity of Ukraine, takeover of power, and seizure of government buildings.

The coup-imposed Ukrainian authorities were also quick to respond to the situation in Lugansk, opening a criminal case on similar charges. Ukraine’s prosecutor general has taken control of the case.

Despite the ongoing popular protests in southeastern Ukraine, the country’s former opposition remained deaf to the people’s demands. UDAR party leader Vitaly Klitschko said in a Sunday interview with BBC Ukraine that those demanding referendums in eastern Ukraine are simply “citizens of another state,” for whom the borders of the country “must be closed.”

Bron: http://rt.com/news/ukraine-referendums- ... erkel-802/
In de erfenis der eeuwen ligt veel wijsheid opgetast. Ook hier geldt: dwaas is hij die zijn eigen geschiedenis versmaadt.
De volgende gebruiker(s) zeggen bedankt: baphomet
Omhoog
Plaats reactie

Terug naar “Politiek / Oorlog”