NATO in Rusija

nsa_ag3nt je 17. mar 2018 ob 18:24 izjavil:

Jaz ga ne vidim.



Čččikn.

Dejte nehat.
Rusija bo v Sirija delovala minimalno in v interesu nje. Recimo testiranje opreme. Vojna s polnim "engagement" pač stane. To vejo po drugi strani zelo dobro Američani. Ceneje je prodajati opremo kot so emirati proti Iranom, yemnom in sirskimi uporniki, ceneje je pošiljati okoli drobne. Večina vojaškega proračuna pokurijo baze in ljudje ki so tam. Recimo Število smrtnih žrtev, zaradi dronov stmoglavo raste, pa se noben ne sekira. Vse skupaj je pač samo $$$. Za vsako stvar se mora Amerika pač zadolžiti, tudi za povišanje porabe vojske se je morala zadolžiti. Kar pa je potrebno vedeti, je morala amerika natisniti dolarje, zato da jih drugi kupijo. Ko drugi nehajo kupovati $$$ pač ne bo pomagal nobena amerika first. Trenutno se stanje vzdržuje samo zato, ker tisti ki so kupili toliko $, nočejo da investicija propade. S trgovinsko vojno, ki se gre amerika, pa pomeni, da bo kupcev $ vedno manj, in cena zadolževanja bo samo rasla.
Da bi Rusija interviral na polno v Siriji, je skoraj ne verjetno. Problem ima tudi, da nima "rusija" dovolj nadzora nad ozemljem, da bi lahko pripeljala konkretno opremo, ker kaj ti pomaga, če ti tam zmerni uporniki, iz 20km oddaljenih položajev, spuščajo bombe. Potem moraš to narediti tako kot Izraelci, pač solzivec nad šolo, narediš tamponsko cono, pa ko boste upali priti čez cono, no veliko sreče.
Po drugi stani, imaš recimo tudi dejsto, da če bo iran odstopil iz jedrskega sporazuma, bo SA kupila jedrske bombe : Saudi Arabia's crown prince has announced his country's readiness to develop nuclear weapons in the event that Iranheads in that direction

Trenutno amerika rabi, tako kot rusija, tako kot Anglija zunanjega sovražnika, kitajska gre pa dalje, pa lepo po koščkih. Sicer bo pa kak Smreki, samuel, pac-man znal bolj obrazložiti, kako pričakuje, da ko na meji rusije postaviš aegis radarje s patriot raketami, nebi pričakoval odgovora. Potem pa jokal, kako se Rusija ne drži dogovorov.

zmaugy je 17. mar 2018 ob 17:31 izjavil:

A se ti zdi, da Rusija ne bo izkoristila kaosa, ki bi nastal ob tem? Če se to zgodi, pričakuj dogodke na svetovni sceni, ki bojo imeli trajne posledice za cel svet.

Vsekakor bodo kaj poskusili, precej pa bo odvisno od republikancev. Če so razumeli sporočila vmesnih volitev je lahko vse skupaj končano v dnevu ali dveh, sicerp pa se lahko zavleče.

Upam samo, da bodo Javelini že v Ukrajini.

Sicer bi pa Rusiji zadostovalo že zavzetje Ukrajine, Poljske in Baltskih držav - za začetek (Belorusijo bi si lahko itak kar priključili). Če bi to šlo skozi brez posledic, bi se EU in ostala okolica Rusije posrala.
Zveni znano?

NATO z ZDA, kjer je Trump predsednik, je papirnati tiger, sploh če pride do masovnih nemirov, demonstracij, nasilja in anarhije. Centralna točka NATO so ZDA.

Pac-Man,
to se bere BABA KAZALA,

n his testimony before the Senate Intelligence Committee on June 8, Comey revealed that he had been the source, through a friend (later revealed to be Columbia Law School professor Daniel Richman), of the public revelation of his February 14 memo. He said he decided to make it public in hopes that it might "prompt the appointment of a special counsel

Če bi imel imeli karkoli, bi že zdavnaj dali črno na belem. Torej move on, in se smeši dalje. AL boš dal naslednji vir, baba kazala papirje, samo te še niso prišli do ...

Imajo. Obstrukcijo, lenoba.

Dismissal of James Comey @ Wikipedia

One memo referred to an Oval Office meeting on February 14, 2017, during which Comey says Trump attempted to persuade him to abort the investigation into Michael Flynn.[151][17][153] The meeting had begun as a broader national security briefing, the day after Trump had dismissed Flynn as National Security Advisor. Near the conclusion of the briefing, the President asked those in attendance other than Director Comey to leave the room--including Vice President Pence and Attorney General Sessions. He then reportedly said to Comey "I hope you can see your way clear to letting this go, to letting Flynn go. He is a good guy. I hope you can let this go."[17] Comey made no commitments to Trump on the subject.[17]

The White House responded to the allegations by stating that "the president has never asked Mr. Comey or anyone else to end any investigation, including any investigation involving General Flynn," and "this is not a truthful or accurate portrayal of the conversation between the president and Mr. Comey."[151]

kje spite da vas ne ukradejo?

Mr.B je 17. mar 2018 ob 21:01 izjavil:

Torej je sedaj to v nasprotju z vsemi sporazumi, ki jih je ZDA podpisala z Rusijo, glede jedrskega sporazuma. Torej EU bo dobila na ruske meje recimo Kalibr rakete z jedrskimi konicami. No za te rakete, žal letijo prenizko pridejo komot do Pariza, da bi bili patriot uporaben. In če bodo v EU še preveč pametni, bodo vse te aegis radarje in zraven sedeče patriote, tako preventivno z recimo to non stoppable reketo poslali v luft.

Kup nabijanja. ZDA so izstopile iz ABM sporazuma leta 2002 in lahko takšne sisteme postavljajo kolikor hočejo, na nejevoljo RF in Kitajske. Slednji bosta v odgovor na to razvila boljše ofenzivne jedrske zmogljivosti. ZDA bodo potem razvile še boljši ABM. RF in Kitajska še boljše nuke delivery sisteme itn. Kdo je začel to novo hladno vojno in oboroževalno tekmo je jasno..tisti, ki je z izstopom iz ABM sporazuma in postavitvijo le teh povzročil neravnotežje med akterji.

Vsak enostranski napad na ozemlje držav zveze NATO, EU ali na ozemlje RF pomeni vojno, zato se s tem ne opleta oz. to počno adolescenti v zanosu kako ima njihova stran neko superiorno vojaško igračo. Med ZDA, RF in Kitajsko ni superiorne strani, ki bi preživela jedrski konflikt med tema državama oz. bolje povedano, tega ne bi nihče preživel.

Medtem Trump za svojega glavnega ekonomskega svetovalca najel ultimativnega kretena:



Rusi si res lahko čestitajo, dobro so zajahali butaste Američane.

Putin ni tako neumen da neposredno napade članico nata. Ga bodo oligarhi spametovali brez skrbi.

Tam imaš vsaj odkrit boj med dvema. V rusiji imaš odkrit boj med putinom in ničemer..
Je velika razlika. Če te razlike ne vidiš .. no comment oz. Trollaš.

Niti približno ni isto. Tudi dvomim da grozijo ljudem da morajo volit drugače papa služba in podobno.

Ko je edina skrb oblasti ali bo dovolj visoka udeležba ti je marsikaj jasno

Fritz je 18. mar 2018 ob 14:51 izjavil:

zmaugy je 18. mar 2018 ob 13:55 izjavil:

Nihče ne bo začel spopada z Rusijo, če bojo njeni tanki v dveh dneh pregazili na primer Litvo. Ravno iz razloga, ki si ga navedel, sploh če Dimitrij Trump ne bo dal ukaza.
Posledica: NATO se razpade kot hiša iz kart.

Zelo zanimivo razmišljanje. Ne glede na to, kaj si mislim o NATU, je takšno podcenjevanje ekstremno kratkovidno.

Organizacija, ki obstaja že 60 let in katere bistvo je kolektivna obramba bo, po tvojem, prej razpadla kot branila napadeno državo članico? Me prav zanima od kod takšno prepričanje, glede na to, da so določene stvari v NATO pogodbi že določene in niso stvar naknadnih odločitev in parlamentiranja. Tukaj ne govorimo o posameznem kemičnem napadu v Salisburyu, kjer so krivci Rusi, ali pa morda ne. Vojaški napad na članico zveze NATO s strani tretje države je popolnoma jasna reč in popolnoma jasno je kaj temu sledi.

Article 5
The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.

Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall immediately be reported to the Security Council. Such measures shall be terminated when the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security.

.
Vemo kakšne varnostne garancije so bile dane Ukrajini s strani ZDA za njeno jedrsko razorožitev. In? So ZDA napadle Rusijo zaradi okupacije in aneksiranja Krima? Niso. Zahod nima želodca za trpljenje, zato se nihče ne bo spopadal z Rusi zaradi ene “brezvezne” Litve, ki je niti ne najdejo na zemljevidu.

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/inve...

Independent investigators from the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) will arrive in the UK tomorrow to kick off their investigation into the nerve agent used in the attempted assassinations of Mr Skripal and his daughter in Salisbury on 4 March.

The team from The Hague will meet with officials from the Defence Science and Technology Laboratory and the police to discuss the process for collecting samples, including environmental ones.

These will then be despatched to highly reputable international laboratories selected by the OPCW for testing with results expected to take a minimum of two weeks.

...

On 12 March the Foreign Secretary summoned the Russian Ambassador and sought an explanation from the Russian Government, as Article 9 of the convention is clear we have the right to do. We received no meaningful response. It is therefore Russia which is failing to comply with the provisions of the convention. We should resist any Russian attempts to muddy the waters.

...

The Foreign Secretary revealed this morning that we have information indicating that within the last decade, Russia has investigated ways of delivering nerve agents likely for assassination. And part of this programme has involved producing and stockpiling quantities of novichok. This is a violation of the Chemical Weapons Convention.



Medtem se gre ruska ambasada memetsko vojskovanje.

https://twitter.com/RussianEmbassy/stat...

Kasparov.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/the-truth...

On March 18, the popular leader of Russia, Vladimir Putin, will be reelected to another six-year term as president. This is both a plain statement of fact and a complete falsehood.

...

But let us turn to the first lie in that opening sentence, that Putin is being elected on March 18. There is no real selection taking place. When I retired from professional chess in 2005 to join the Russian pro-democracy movement against Putin, I was frequently asked how my chess experience might help me in politics. My answer was that it wouldn’t help much at all, because in chess we had fixed rules and uncertain results, while in Russian politics it was exactly the opposite.

...

Even calling Putin a “president” is at best inaccurate and abominable propaganda at worst. A president is “the elected head of a republican state” according to my dictionary, while Putin isn’t elected and Russia isn’t a republic. He may have been a president when he first came to power in 2000, that I will grant. But since 2012, when he returned to the presidency, unconstitutionally, (...), there has been no doubt at all that Putin should simply be called a dictator.

Let’s move on to the next major lie in my opening statement, the idea of Putin’s popularity in Russia. (...) Terms like “polls” and “popularity” as applied to politicians in the free world have very different meanings in authoritarian regimes. I’m fond of asking in response to questions about Putin’s “popularity” if a restaurant is popular if it’s the only one in town and every other restaurant was burned to the ground.

This is not to say that a dictator or his policies cannot have popular support. The problem is defining what support means after 18 years of a personality cult and 24/7 propaganda that portrays Putin as a demigod protecting Russia from deadly enemies without and within. A year of fake news trolling and half-baked social media memes had half of America and its vaunted media running in circles in 2016.

...

If he and his policies were truly popular, in the real sense of the word, he wouldn’t need to spend so much time and effort dominating the media, eliminating rivals, and rigging elections large and small. Persecuting bloggers and arresting a single protester standing in the town square with an anti-Putin sign does not strike me as the behavior of a ruler who believes in his own popularity.

...

It is a testament to the bravery of many of my countrymen that Putin does not yet receive the 99 percent approval scores that Saddam Hussein and Muammar Qaddafi enjoyed up until the minute they no longer had the power of life and death over their own citizens.

...

Most previous elections followed a formula of including one Communist and one Nationalist candidate to frame Putin as the moderate protecting Russia and the world from these dangerous extremes. It says quite a bit about how tired this tactic has become that the Nationalist being trotted out, Vladimir Zhirinovsky, first ran for president against Yeltsin in 1991.

...

The Communist bogeyman wasn’t just a prop back in 1996, when many liberals, including me, made the profound mistake of supporting Boris Yeltsin against Zyuganov to the point of turning a blind eye to Yeltsin’s abuse of power to win the election. He did lasting damage to Russia’s democratic institutions. (...) Russians had been under the illusion that democracy would lead directly to a better standard of living, as if ballot boxes were ATMs. The free Russian press—yes, one existed for a while, yellow and raucous as it was—enjoyed blasting Yeltsin as a lackey of our former archenemy, America. Many Russians were starting to wonder if a return to communism would really be so bad.

...

Yeltsin was saved in 1996, at the high cost of failing to build up the strong democratic institutions the country desperately needed. Four years later, a leader far more ruthless and anti-democratic came along, and Putin found it all too easy to bend and break these feeble institutions. It’s still unfathomable that Russia went from joyously celebrating the end of totalitarianism to electing a KGB lieutenant-colonel in just nine years. Never take your liberty for granted, and be careful whom you vote for because it may be the last election you’ll ever have.

...

That 2012 presidential election took place in the shadow of the largest Russian political protests of the post-Soviet era.

...

It is easy to say in hindsight that this was our opportunity to risk all. Had we set up a camp that day, would the people have supported us in demanding new elections? Had we marched to Red Square, would a million Muscovites have come out to join us in demanding Putin’s exit? We’ll never know. In chess, we say that the player with the initiative is obliged to attack, otherwise the initiative will be lost and the counterattack will likely be decisive. In December 2011, we had the initiative, but we did not attack. Putin did not make the same mistake.

...

Putin’s gloves were off. By spring 2013, I understood that I could not return safely to Russia, and I joined my wife and daughter permanently in New York. In February 2015, the opposition leader Boris Nemtsov was gunned down in front of the Kremlin.

The implicit, or even explicit, offer made by authoritarians is stability in exchange for liberty. High oil prices allowed Putin to keep this bargain for a while, aided by an international community that lost interest in promoting liberty as soon as the Berlin Wall fell. (...) Imagine how difficult it was for us in Russia to attack Putin’s regime as undemocratic while he was being embraced by the leaders of the free world. Even Putin’s invasion of neighboring Georgia in August 2008 resulted in no censure or sanction. He was rewarded by Obama and Hillary Clinton’s reset a few months later, confirming to him that a move into Ukraine would also go unchallenged.

...

The vile anti-American and anti-E.U. rhetoric in the Russian media reached new levels of hatred and fear-mongering. Only recently have Americans and Europeans seen up close how much damage these toxic disinformation campaigns can do even in small doses, but Russians have been immersed in them for years. Every channel, every paper, every online forum and social platform—it’s a barrage, a flood of poison.

This isn’t the old Communist scheme of heavy-handed state censorship and official party lines. (...) Nor is it the labor-intensive “Great Firewall of China” model of real-time censorship and high-tech filtering. Befitting Putin’s KGB roots, he instead built an alternate reality of propaganda, one in which there are hundreds of sources and opinions that all may contain elements of fact and fiction while always making sure to keep the larger truths well hidden—and reinforcing support for Putin above all.

The clearest example of this method in action was the Kremlin’s response to the shooting down of Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 on July 17, 2014. It didn’t take long to determine that MH17 was downed by a Russian-operated BUK antiaircraft missile battery inside Ukrainian territory. If you have any doubts about this at all, it is testament to how effective the Kremlin disinformation campaign has been at sowing doubt. By this point, we have everything from radio intercepts to visual identification of the actual BUK battery being moved back and forth across the Ukrainian border.

Issuing denials and attacking all the evidence was only a small part of the Russian response. Most of the effort instead went into churning out alternative scenarios about what had happened to MH17.

...

There are an infinite number of ways to lie and only one truth. Propaganda today is not a wall, not a dike holding back information from reaching the people. It is a flood, overwhelming our critical thinking. The concept is not to promote a particular narrative or agenda but to create doubt and to make people believe that the truth is unknowable.

...

Last week’s attempted assassination with a nerve agent of a former Russian spy in England reminds us that Putin is willing to poison bodies in the free world, not only minds. Why would he do this? Why would he call attention to his murderous ways now? Well, I’ll turn that around and ask instead, why wouldn’t he? Dictators don’t ask “Why,” they ask “Why not?” Putin killed FSB whistleblower Alexander Litvinenko with a radioactive isotope in the center of London in 2006, and what price did he pay? Three British prime ministers collaborated in hushing up the investigation in order not to offend Putin and shut down the countless billions in Russian cash that has flooded Britain in the last decades. After 18 years in power, Putin believes he can buy or bully his way out of anything. Will anyone prove him wrong?

Putin will push until he is pushed back. This will only take will from the West, and the methods exist. Putin cannot afford a geopolitical defeat that would make him look weak in front of his cronies in Russia. Targeted sanctions like the Magnitsky Act can force Putin’s gang to choose between their loyalty to him and their riches abroad. Isolation and deterrence work, and they are more likely to avoid war than the current track of appeasement. Like any bully, Putin only picks fights that he is sure he can win. History tells us that sooner or later, he will become so overconfident, so accustomed to his opponents folding their cards against his weak hand, that he will overstep, potentially resulting in a catastrophe on a global scale.

...

There is no form of democratic process or opposition in Putin’s Russia. Pretending otherwise makes you complicit in his propaganda. Stop calling them elections. Stop calling Putin a president. Stop calling to congratulate him on his victories. Let us begin the fight against Putin’s lies with the fundamental truth about what he really is.

Garry Kasparov je Rus.

In Hrvat :)

zmaugy je 14. mar 2018 ob 09:35 izjavil:

Smo mislili, da so se ljudje iz Nuremberških procesov kaj naučili, ampak ne. Kandidatka za šefico CIA je sodelovala pri mučenju zapornikov.
Nekateri republikanski gnoji to opravičujejo na način kot so svoja grozodejstva opravičevali nacisti - izpolnjevanje ukazov. V Nurembergu to ni bila uspešna obrambna taktika.

https://edition.cnn.com/2018/03/13/poli...

In Oranžni tako osebo predlaga za visok položaj namesto v kazenski postopek?

Nemčija zahteva izročitev te zločinke:

Pac-Man je 17. mar 2018 ob 19:51 izjavil:

Impičment bi znal biti hiter. Na koncu morajo republikanci skrbeti tudi za brand stranke in svoje stolčke. MAGA idioti niso dovolj.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-...

Republicans to Trump: Let Mueller do his job

Republican senators warned President Donald Trump on Sunday not to fire Special Counsel Robert Mueller, and said the president must let federal investigators looking into Russian meddling in the U.S. election do their jobs.

...

Republican Senator Jeff Flake, who has criticized Trump harshly, said the president’s latest comments appeared to be aimed at the firing of Mueller. Senator Lindsey Graham, another Republican, said if Trump were to dismiss Mueller it would mark “the beginning of the end of his presidency.”

AshLee Strong, a spokeswoman for Republican House Speaker Paul Ryan, said: “As the speaker has always said, Mr. Mueller and his team should be able to do their job.”

...

Republican U.S. Representative Trey Gowdy criticized Dowd in an interview with “Fox News Sunday.”

“I think the president’s attorney, frankly, does him a disservice when he says that and when he frames the investigation that way,” Gowdy said. “If you have an innocent client, Mr. Dowd, act like it.”

Diktator v Rusiji ni niti najmanjši krivec, da je EU skregana z rusi?

zmaugy je 18. mar 2018 ob 20:30 izjavil:

Se je treba vprašati, kdo je začel sranje.
Sicer pa, imenovanje te ženske na čelo CIA, kljub temu da je v eni od pomembnih "zaveznic" in eni od najpomembnejših držav na svetu iskana oseba - osumljena zločinov, je signal, ki bi ga morali prepoznati tudi povsem politično slepi.

Prosim bodi malce bolj specifičen.
A je šlo za random mučenja ali pa morda za posebne zasliševalske taktike?

Rusi niso nič bolj neumni od Američanov. Putin ima v rokah vse medije, nasprotnike zapre ali ubije, kaj pričakuješ od ljudi?
Butasta večina (ki je enaka v vseh državah) se pusti nasrat medijem in ga voli. Ker so prebutasti ali preleni/prekamot, da bi se lahko šlo politiko, nimajo nobene tovrstne izkušnje s sistemom, kar malega pa pride do njih, jim pa v možgane vgradi signal "Fuj to!" za politično angažiranje.
In lepo kot zombiji žrejo vodko, gledajo TV in hodijo v službo.
Putina sankcije zgolj motivirajo, za EU so slabe. Če sprejmem tvojo logiko - regime change v Ukrajini je bila poteza, s podporo katere smo se v EU totalno precenili in se zajebali.
Malo počekiraj koledar dogodkov v EU po tem.

Vazelin je 18. mar 2018 ob 20:18 izjavil:

Diktator v Rusiji ni niti najmanjši krivec, da je EU skregana z rusi?

Takoj ko boš priznal da je bil Tito diktator.

PS : no sej se lahko izgovarjaš, da je bil itak rus, kr ga je Stalin zamenjal..

Jarno je 18. mar 2018 ob 21:12 izjavil:

Zgleda, da je to neka administrativna zadeva, saj je taktike oddobril takratni predsednik ZDA.
Bolj zaskrbljujoče so posledice 9/11 napadov, saj zaradi njih počasi trpi več kot 5000 nedolžnih ljudi.
https://edition.cnn.com/2016/08/15/heal...

Obama je rekel da so delali v dobro Amerike, zato so jih no so jim dali imuniteto. Kdo smo pa mi, da bi lahko temu oporekali. Teh 5000 je majhen delež. Poglej koliko smrtnih žrtev Amerikaci priznavajo zaradi napaodv z droni, no bore malo.

zmaugy je 18. mar 2018 ob 21:23 izjavil:

Jarno je 18. mar 2018 ob 21:12 izjavil:

Zgleda, da je to neka administrativna zadeva, saj je taktike oddobril takratni predsednik ZDA.
Bolj zaskrbljujoče so posledice 9/11 napadov, saj zaradi njih počasi trpi več kot 5000 nedolžnih ljudi.
https://edition.cnn.com/2016/08/15/heal...

In kaj potem, če je predsednik Moron Bush odobril te zločinske taktike? Na Nuremberških procesih obramba “sem samo izpolnjeval ukaze” ni bila sprejeta. Zakaj bi naj bilo tokrat drugače?

A to je tako, kot če bi ti Kučko reke pobite domobrance, pa bi šu ti pobijat, sej je rekel veliki šef ? Aja sej so v vojni s celim svetom, mislim terorosti, v vojni se to kao sme, nje. A misliš da bi dobil imuniteto ? No morda v času Tita ali pa Stalina al pa Kima.