Tag Archives: rahvus

In extremely harsh statement, China and the EU’s new leader ordered to stop Ukrainian punishers.

В крайне резком заявлении Китай и новый лидер ЕС приказали остановить украинских карателей.

Китай и новый лидер ЕС приказали остановить украинских карателей

 

В крайне резком заявлении Китай и новый лидер ЕС приказали остановить украинских карателей

 

Впервые за весь украинский кризис, еще одна ведущая держава мира – Китай – высказалась без каких-либо дипломатических уловок, напрямую потребовав от Украины прекратить карательную операцию в Новороссии. В крайне резком заявлении генерального штаба НОАК прозвучало требование к украинским властям немедленно остановить “силовую операцию против мирного населения на юго-востоке Украины” – об этом собравшимся объявил китайский генерал-лейтенант Ван Гуаньчжун.

 

 

 

В крайне резком заявлении Китай и новый лидер ЕС приказали остановить украинских карателей

 

 

 

В крайне резком заявлении Китай и новый лидер ЕС приказали остановить украинских карателей

 

 

 

Напомним, что Китай и ранее обвинял в трагических событиях в Одессе, гражданской войне на Востоке Украины и Майдане “новые власти” Киева, пришедшие после свержения легитимного руководства страны. Кроме того, МИД КНР обвинил США и Европу в “воздействиях на украинцев”, фактически, заявив о том, что Майдан был организован и поддержан Западом. Добавим, что РФ и КНР недавно подписали “контракт тысячелетия” на более чем $400 миллиардов долларов, перевели расчеты в рубль и начали сверхтесное сотрудничество – это уже вызвало шок американских экспертов, начавших обвинять администрацию Обамы в том, что она “не повернулась к Азии, как обещала и это сделала Россия”.

 

Кроме того, Россия и Китай впервые начали совместные глобальные военные учения, в которых военные эксперты США видят “опасность военного объединения двух ядерных держав против Америки”.

 

Также с крайне жестким заявлением в адрес Украины и Запада выступила триумфатор выборов в Европарламент, глава “Национального фрона” Франции Мари Ле Пен. Она сообщила, что Европа и США виноваты в случившемся кризисе и кровопролитиях, подчеркнув, что “ЕС по американской указке представляют Россию в совершенно невыгодном свете”.

 

 

 

 

 

В крайне резком заявлении Китай и новый лидер ЕС приказали остановить украинских карателей

 

“Я выступаю за немедленную федерализацию Украины. Евросоюз подлил своего масла в огонь, когда решил предложить тесное экономическое партнерство государству, где примерно половина населения до сих пор смотрит на Восток”,- говорится в ее заявлении. Мари Ле Пен заметила, что “европейским политикам нужно осознать, что Штаты прежде всего преследуют свои интересы в странах Европе, стремясь расширить собственное присутствие в мире”.

 

Восхитилась Ле Пен и тем, что президент России “не позволяет никоим образом другим государствам навязывать ему решения”. Констатирует правоту Путина, пусть и перемежая это критикой и заместитель главреда The National Interest Миллер.

 

По ее словам, “Евросоюз сам заварил кашу и сейчас не хочет за собой убирать. “Путин оказался прав, когда в своей речи о присоединении крымского полуострова заявил, что эти земли в плане культуры и истории ближе к России. Он был прав, когда называет русских и украинцев братьями. У Украины и России история тесно взаимосвязана и переплетена, Киев поближе к Западной Европе”,- резюмирует она.

                                                                                 

First time in the Ukrainian crisis , another leading power in the world – China – expressed no diplomatic tricks directly from Ukraine to stop demanding punitive operation in the New Russia . In the extremely sharp statement of the General Staff of the PLA requirement sounded Ukrainian authorities to immediately stop the ” military operation against the civilian population in the south- east of Ukraine ” – this is announced to the Chinese audience , Lieutenant General Wang Guanzhong .

Recall that China previously blamed for the tragic events in Odessa, the Civil War in the East and the Independence of Ukraine ” new government ” in Kiev , came after the overthrow of the legitimate government. In addition, the Chinese Foreign Ministry accused the United States and Europe ” impacts on the Ukrainians ,” in fact , saying that the Maidan was organized and supported by the West. Add that Russia and China have recently signed a ” contract Millennium ” by more than $ 400 billion dollars were transferred settlements in rubles and began sverhtesnoe cooperation – it is shocked American experts began to accuse the Obama administration that it “was not turned to Asia, as promised and Russia did . ”

In addition, Russia and China first began joint global military exercises in which U.S. military experts see “the danger of a military union of two nuclear powers against America .”

Also extremely tough statement against Ukraine and the West made ​​victor of the elections to the European Parliament , the head of the “National fron ” Marie Le Pen in France . She reported that the U.S. and Europe are to blame for the crisis happened and bloodshed , stressing that ” the EU U.S. orders represent Russia in a very unfavorable light .”

In extremely harsh statement , China and the EU ‘s new leader ordered to stop Ukrainian punishers

“I stand for immediate federalization of Ukraine. European Union poured oil on the fire of his , when he decided to offer closer economic partnership between the state , where about half the population still looks to the East ,” – said in its statement . Marie Le Pen noted that ” European politicians need to realize that the United States primarily pursue their interests in the countries of Europe , seeking to expand their presence in the world .”

Le Pen and admired the fact that the president of Russia ” does not allow in any way other states to impose his decisions.” Putin says correctness , albeit punctuated this criticism and deputy chief editor of The National Interest Miller.
According to her, ” the EU itself brewed mess and now does not want to clean up after themselves . ” Putin was right when, in his speech on the accession of the Crimean peninsula , said that the land in terms of culture and history closer to Russia . He was right when he calls the Russian and Ukrainian brothers. In the history of Ukraine and Russia closely interrelated and intertwined , Kiev closer to Western Europe “- sums it .

A different kind of opinion: Ukrainians in Estonia vision of what is happening in Ukraine.

I’m sorry, Googe translation !

The conflict in Ukraine has unleashed a massive flood of news and views , which are very difficult to navigate . In order to form its opinion , it would be good to explore different points of view and opinions expressed in them to accept, as well as those that are against the grain . And not only in Africa , Europe , the EU , U.S. and Russian official positions but also visions of ordinary people . Today we offer you to read one of the Ukrainians in Estonia , Alexander Gilenko opinion. Alexander was born in Tallinn , and his mother is from Western Ukraine and Eastern Ukraine ‘s father .

Information war is going on in Ukraine into its hottest phase. Even those who had not done any political posts , now take the word on Facebook and write something in Ukraine . For those who already know everything anyway , and all can understand , that’s not the point to be considered . For them , the world is divided into black and white , and uncomfortable questions do not make sense. This issue , however, needs a bit of independent thinking .

First of all, talking about what constitutes today’s Ukraine

Ukraine is a big country , but it took its present shape only during the Soviet era , the 1950s . The current Ukrainian territory are also those parts that were previously associated in any way with Ukraine : for example Zakarpatskaja region ( Trans-Carpathia ) . Before the Second World War , it was part of Czechoslovakia . After the war, Stalin joined the Soviet Union and the ” gifted ” in Ukraine. Due to this fact, the Federal Council of the border with Hungary .

Secondly, in the western part of Ukraine , Lvov and other cities were historically an ancestral territory of Poland , inhabited mostly Poles. Before the Second World War, was a Polish city of Lvov . This part of the country of Poland during World War II as well as adding to the Soviet Union, and it became part of Ukraine .

Third, the Crimea was also not in any way related to Ukraine . It was a peninsula of Crimea by the Russian Empire (Russian Empress Catherine II ) got a war with Turkey 18 century. Since then, however, the Crimea has always been a strategic part of Russia on the Black Sea. This was during World War II and later . If, however, the Soviet leader Khrushchev, the Ukrainian was , he gave in 1954. In Ukraine, the Crimea .

Fourth, eastern Ukraine , Luhansk and Donetsk Oblast , Don Cossacks were autonomous land , large parts of Russia , which had never been directly linked to the Ukrainians . There are a lot of Cossacks. Ruthenians and Hungarians living in Ukraine , southern and eastern Ukraine spoken mostly in Russian. Thus , culturally and historically has been a very mixed in modern Ukrainian state in the West ( which was before Poland) is Roman Catholicism , most of the people living there wants to integrate with the West , the East is the Orthodox Christian majority , and speaks Russian . Many of the people living in the south east, and working in Russia ( almost the same way as many Estonians working in Finland) . They are already very closely associated with Russia , and not just economically . Living in the Crimea Tatars , who are Muslims, and instead wants no part of the Russian Federation and the European Union to integrate , but would like to have more sovereignty. Thus , Ukraine is one of the modern state, as was once Yugoslavia : Ukraine is not a typical European nation state within the meaning of the last century . And every conflict in Ukraine may lead to a scenario of Yugoslavia . Now that it is interested in ? Russia ? Hardly.

What began in the latest conflict in Ukraine?

Voltage worsened from the time when the Ukrainian president Yanukovych is not a signatory to the association and a free trade agreement with the European Union . Why did he do it ? He had the option to choose whether Ukraine will be a customs union with Russia and Ukraine can be a partner with Belarus and Kazakhstan, who make up a common customs union , or the Ukraine signed an Association Agreement with the European Union . Purely economically would be a customs union with Russia (and others ) a lot more beneficial for Ukraine , because Ukraine’s products and services are exported mainly to Russia , Kazakhstan and Belarus. Ukraine is not Europe but the competitive products . Thus , by signing an Association Agreement with the EU , Ukraine would lose a large share of the Russian market and will not be able to afford anything .

The European Union , however, wants to be sure your getting the Ukraine , and this became the beginning of the conflict .

This conflict is necessary to look at the world of geopolitics in the context of

Russia, it is believed that they are near the partner of Ukraine . The U.S. and EU , however, want to Ukraine itself . Thus , there will be no freedom in Ukraine (as well as Ireland did not get it ) . In the long run, Russia , Ukraine may be either a partner or a close member of the European Union . Of course , the globalists want in Ukraine, because it is a large and resource -rich country . But even this is not the most important thing. The most important is that the globalists want to irritate Russia , Ukraine as well as the globalists themselves have actually historically part of Russia . Precisely because they want to take a large part of the historic Russian ( Ukrainian State ) itself. And they take advantage of all the currently topical problems to achieve their goal . The economic situation in the country is very difficult, power is corrupt and inefficient. It does not issue no-one less than in Ukraine or Russia. Yanukovych has led to the extremely poor state of the country , economic and other issues remain unresolved. The globalist ‘s primary purpose is to weaken Russia.

I remember that Russia was the only country that prevented the U.S. pommitamast Syria . War with Syria was basically decided at the last moment , and the question was being driven opposition to Russia after the holiday cottage . Syria does not grind him to powder bombed back to the Middle Ages ( as was done in Afghanistan, Iraq , Libya , etc. ) . Syria and Iran were on their plans and it became an obstacle to Russia’s war with these countries .

Thus , in my opinion, is taking place in Ukraine to Russia vengeance .

Currently living in Ukraine is much worse than in Russia , speak of the people who have lived recently in both countries , but it is confirmed by the statistics and economic indicators . So in Ukraine , things are very bad. U.S. uses people’s righteous anger in order to carry out a violent coup d’etat . Unfortunately, ordinary people can not Maidanil whose behalf they fought . People are fighting for freedom , desiring liberty to corrupt politicians. It is natural and understandable. However, there will be no freedom . People are waiting for ” unpopular reforms ” , ” austerity policies ” and the EU directives , in principle, the Greek scenario .

Now, let’s look at what were the power of the first decisions of the new Maidan . They canceled the regional languages ​​of the Act ( in a multicultural country like Ukraine) , which enabled to use the official language in Ukraine , but also Hungarian, Russian, Polish and Romanian languages. Second , they destroyed all the nationwide death toll in World War II monuments and even took off the pillar Kutuzov (who won the war against Napoleon in the 19th century ) . And who was the Prime Minister of the place ? Jatsenjuk . Who is he ? Jatsenjuk is a puppet who goes once a week for consultations in Brussels and Berlin . He has promised to give Ukraine globalistidele .

Every revolution ends the same way

People are fighting for freedom , but eventually someone will take power for themselves , and people are allowed without . So what happened during the French Revolution , the Russian Revolution, as well as the recent Egyptian revolution is .

What does Russia now ? It is clear that Russia is irritated. Russia sees Ukraine as historically, his brother , or a “family member ” , which is great for them an integral part of the Russian world . Crimea is Russian military bases in the Black Sea Fleet , and much more. Moscow , it’s all a dirty game against Russia , and it protects your interests. A large part of Ukraine is not in favor of this revolution in the Maidan . Since the U.S. already publicly playing his great game in Ukraine , the Russian Federation has decided to take over control of the Crimean least . It aims to consolidate its position on the peninsula , and to avoid any unpleasant surprise of a new power in the Maidan , the latter has been shown many times that the agreements are not respected .

Now back to Estonia

Yesterday was IRL organized a demonstration in front of the Russian embassy . There were some Estonian politicians , which was pretty stupid of them . Estonia has constantly been used to irritate the Russian bear . Estonia, while it is not useful at all , unlike the U.S., which it is very useful. They make use of Russia’s neighbors (Estonia , Latvia , Lithuania , and now Ukraine) to irritate Russia and provoke the action. Finally , when Russia responds , then they say , “Well , you see, we told you that Russia is a very dangerous, very evil and very wild. ” But the reality is very foolish and unreasonable to irritate the bear . He’ll have to be more careful and friendly .

In this sense, we would need to take the example of Finland. Finnish – Russian relations were very heavy. There was even a war. But, eventually came to power in Washington , and his policy of neutrality . Finland has received a lot of benefits that are consistently avoided the Russian bear agitation, Russia tried to be a good neighbor and trading partner , and to maintain neutrality . I really care about Estonia and, in my opinion, this is a good example for Estonia .

We saw it rally ? Feel Kelam , who was in Parliament on Iran and Syria bombing plan a big supporter of the U.S. . Kelam do not care about world peace , but the globalist agenda fulfillment . Now, we saw him demonstration . That he is not in favor of a large Russian forces in the Crimea , but are against it. But as an independent state in the U.S. to Iran , the second major bombing raids freely . Naturally …

What happens now?

In my opinion, the Crimean Peninsula, to decide the future of the people who live there . This requires that a referendum in which the Crimean residents have the opportunity to decide whether they will continue with the Ukraine or the Crimea goes back to the Russian Federation or the staff there will be a new independent state on the world map instead . Taking into account the Kosovo precedent , Estonia should favor such a referendum and agree with the result , whatever it may be.

Alexander Gilenko

Konflikt Ukrainas on vallandanud massilise uudiste- ja arvamustetulva, kus on väga raske orienteeruda. Et oma seisukohta kujundada, oleks hea tutvuda erinevate vaatenurkade ja arvamustega, nii nendega, millega nõustud, kui ka nendega, mis on vastukarva.  Ja mitte ainult Eesti, Euroopa-Liidu, USA ja Vene ametlike seisukohtade vaid ka tavainimeste nägemustega. Täna pakume teile lugemiseks ühe Eesti ukrainlase, Aleksander Gilenko arvamust. Aleksander on sündinud Tallinnas ning tema ema on pärit Lääne-Ukrainast ja isa Ida-Ukrainast.

Infosõda Ukraina ümber toimuva kohta on oma kõige kuumemas faasis. Isegi need, kes varem ei teinud ühtegi poliitilist postitust, võtavad nüüd sõna ja kirjutavad Facebookis midagi Ukrainast. Neil, kes juba niikuinii kõike teavad ja kõigest aru saavad, polegi mõtet edasi lugeda. Nende jaoks on maailm mustvalgeks jagatud ja ebamugavaid küsimusi esitada pole mõtet. See teema vajab aga natuke iseseisvat mõtlemist.

 

Kõigepealt räägime sellest, mida kujutab endast tänapäeva Ukraina

Ukraina on suur riik, aga oma praeguse kuju võttis ta alles Nõukogude ajal, 1950-ndatel aastatel. Praeguse Ukraina territooriumil asuvad ka sellised osad, mis enne ei olnud Ukrainaga kuidagi seotud: näiteks Zakarpatskaja oblast (Taga-Karpaatia). Enne Teist maailmasõda oli see Tšehhoslovakkia osa. Pärast sõda liitis Stalin selle Nõukogude Liiduga ja “kinkis“ Ukrainale. Tänu sellele sai Nõukogu Liit piiri Ungariga.

Teiseks, Ukraina lääneosa, Lvov ja muud linnad olid ajalooliselt igipõline Poola territoorium, kus elasid enamuses poolakad. Enne Teist maailmasõda oli Lvov Poola linn. See osa Poola riigist liideti Teise maailmasõja käigus samuti Nõukogude Liiduga ja sellest sai Ukraina osa.

Kolmandaks, Krimm ei olnud samuti kuidagi Ukrainaga seotud. Krimm oli see poolsaar, mille Vene impeerium (Vene keisrinna Katariina II) sai endale sõjas Türgiga 18. sajandil. Sellest ajast peale on Krimm aga olnud alati strateegiline osa Venemaast Mustal merel. Nii oli Teise maailmasõja käigus ja ka hiljem. Kui aga Nõukogude Liidu liidriks sai ukrainlane Hruštšov, kinkis ta 1954. aastal Krimmi Ukrainale.

Neljandaks, Ukraina idaosa, Luganski ja Donetski oblast, olid Doni kasakate autonoomsed maad, suure Venemaa osad, mis ei olnud kunagi otseselt ukrainlastega seotud. Seal on palju kasakaid. Ukrainas elavad russiinid ja ungarlased, Lõuna- ja Ida-Ukrainas räägitakse enamjaolt vene keelt. Seega, kultuuriliselt ja ajalooliselt on tänapäeva Ukraina väga kirju riik, läänes (kus enne oli Poola) on katoliiklus, enamus seal elavatest tahab läänega integreeruda; idas on õigeusk ja enamus räägib vene keelt. Paljud idas ja lõunas elavatest inimestest töötavad Venemaal (peaaegu samamoodi, nagu paljud eestlased töötavad Soomes). Nad on juba praegu Venemaaga väga tihedalt seotud ja mitte ainult majanduslikult. Krimmis elavad ka tatarlased, kes on hoopis moslemid ja taha sugugi ei Venemaaga ega Euroopa Liiduga integreeruda, vaid soovivad endale rohkem suveräänsust. Seega, tänapäevane Ukraina on selline segariik, nagu kunagi oli Jugoslaavia: Ukraina ei ole tüüpiline Euroopa rahvusriik eelmise sajandi mõistes. Ja iga konflikt Ukrainas võib viia Jugoslaavia stsenaariumini. Nüüd, kes on sellest huvitatud? Venemaa? Vaevalt.

 

Millest sai alguse see viimane konflikt Ukrainas?

Pinge süvenes sellest hetkest, kui Ukraina president Janukovõtš ei kirjutanud alla assotsiatsiooni- ja vabakaubandusleppele Euroopa Liiduga. Miks ta seda siis ei teinud? Tal oli võimalus valida, kas Ukraina saab tolliliidu Venemaaga ja Ukrainast saab koostööpartner koos Valgevenega ja Kasahstaniga, kes moodustavad ühise tolliliidu, või Ukraina kirjutab alla assotsiatsioonilepingu Euroopa Liiduga. Puhtalt majanduslikult oleks tolliliit Venemaaga (ja teistega) Ukrainale palju kasulikum, sest Ukraina tooted ja teenused eksporditakse peamiselt just Venemaale, Kasahstani ja Valgevenesse. Euroopas ei ole Ukraina tooted aga konkurentsivõimelised. Seega, kirjutades alla assotsiatsioonilepingu EL-iga, kaotaks Ukraina suure osa Venemaa turust ja ei saaks endale midagi.

Euroopa Liit aga tahab kindlasti Ukrainat endale saada ja sellest saigi konflikt alguse.

 

Seda konflikti on vaja vaadata maailma geopoliitika kontekstis

Venemaal arvatakse, et Ukraina on nende lähipartner. USA ja EL aga tahavad Ukrainat endale. Seega, mingisugust vabadust Ukrainas ei tule (nagu ei saanud seda ka Eesti). Pikemas perspektiivis võib Ukraina olla kas Venemaa lähipartner või Euroopa Liidu liige. Loomulikult, globalistid tahavad Ukrainat, sest see on suur ja ressurssiderikas riik. Aga isegi see ei ole kõige tähtsam. Tähtsaim on see, et globalistid tahavad ärritada Venemaad, sest ka globalistid ise peavad Ukrainat tegelikult ajalooliselt Venemaa osaks. Just nimelt seetõttu tahavad nad võtta ajalooliselt Venemaa suure osa (Ukraina riigi) endale. Ja nad kasutavad ära kõiki praegu aktuaalseid probleeme, et oma eesmärki saavutada. Majanduslik olukord riigis on väga raske, võim on korrumpeerunud ja ebaefektiivne. Seda ei sea vaidluse alla keegi ei Ukrainas ega Venemaal. Janukovõtš on viinud riigi väga viletsasse seisu, majanduslikud ja muud küsimused on jäänud lahendamata. Globalistide esmane eesmärk on nõrgestada Venemaad.

Mäletagem, et Venemaa oli ainus riik, kes takistas USA-d Süüriat pommitamast. Sõda Süüriaga oli põhimõtteliselt otsustatud küsimus ja viimasel hetkel jäi sõida vaid vastuseisu pärast Venemaaga puhkemata. Süüriat ei pommitatud pihuks ja põrmuks tagasi keskaega (nagu seda tehti Afganistanis, Iraagis, Liibüas jne). Süüria ja Iraan olid nende plaanis sees ja just Venemaa sai takistuseks nendes riikides sõja alustamisel.

Seega, minu arvates on Ukrainas toimuv kättemaks Venemaale.

Praegu on elu Ukrainas palju halvem kui Venemaal, sellest räägivad inimesed, kes on elanud viimasel ajal mõlemas riigis, aga seda kinnitab ka statistika ja majanduslikud näitajad. Nii et Ukrainas on asjad väga halvasti. USA kasutas inimeste õiglast viha selleks, et viia läbi vägivaldne riigipööre. Kahjuks lihtinimesed Maidanil ei saa seda, mille nimel nad võitlesid. Inimesed võitlesid vabaduse eest, tahtes priiust korrumpeerunud poliitikutest. See on loomulik ja arusaadav. Mingisugust vabadust aga ei tule. Inimesi ootavad “ebapopulaarsed reformid“, “range kokkuhoiupoliitika“ ja EL-i direktiivid, põhimõtteliselt Kreeka stsenaariumi järgi.

Nüüd aga vaadakem, millised olid uue Maidani võimu esimesed otsused. Nad tühistasid regionaalkeelte seaduse (sellises multikultuurses riigis nagu Ukraina), mis võimaldas ametlikult kasutada ukraina keele kõrval ka ungari, vene, poola ja rumeenia keeli. Teiseks, nad hävitasid üleriigiliselt kõik Teises maailmasõjas hukkunute ausambad ning võtsid maha isegi Kutuzovi samba (kes 19. sajandil võitis sõja Napoleoni vastu). Ja kes sai peaministri koha? Jatsenjuk. Kes ta on? Jatsenjuk on marionett, kes käib kord nädalas Brüsselis ja Berliinis konsultatsioonides. Ta on lubanud Ukraina globalistidele anda.

 

Iga revolutsioon lõpeb ühtemoodi

Inimesed võitlevad vabaduse eest, aga lõpuks keegi võtab võimu endale ja inimesed jäävad lubatust ilma. Nii juhtus Prantsuse revolutsiooni käigus, Vene revolutsiooni käigus ja samuti hiljutise Egiptuse revolutsiooni tulemusena.

Mida nüüd teeb Venemaa? Selge, et Venemaa on ärritunud. Venemaa näeb Ukrainat ajalooliselt oma venna või “perekonnaliikmena“, mis on nende jaoks suure vene maailma lahutamatu osa. Krimmis on Vene sõjaväebaasid, Musta mere laevastik ja palju muud. Moskva jaoks on see kõik räpane mäng Venemaa vastu ja ta kaitseb oma huve. Suur osa Ukrainast ei poolda seda Maidani revolutsiooni. Kuna USA juba avalikult mängib oma suurt mängu Ukrainas, siis Venemaa otsustas võtta vähemalt Krimmi enda kontrolli alla. Sellega tahetakse kindlustada oma positsiooni poolsaarel ja vältida igasugust ebameeldivat üllatust uue Maidani võimu poolt, kuna viimane on juba mitu korda näidanud, et kokkulepetest kinni ei peeta.

 

Nüüd tagasi Eestisse

Eile toimus IRL-i korraldatud meeleavaldus Vene saatkonna ees. Kohal olid mõned Eesti poliitikud, mis oli nendest üsna rumal. Eestit on pidevalt ära kasutatud, et ärritada vene karu. Kusjuures Eesti jaoks ei ole see üldse kasulik, vastupidiselt USA-le, kellele see on väga kasulik. Nad kasutavad Venemaa naabreid (Eesti, Läti, Leedu ja nüüd ka Ukraina), et ärritada Venemaad ja provotseerida vastutegevusele. Lõpuks, kui Venemaa reageerib, siis öeldakse: “No, näete, me ju rääkisime teile, et Venemaa on väga ohtlik, väga kuri ja väga metsik.“ Aga tegelikult on väga rumal ja ebamõistlik ärritada karu. Temaga tuleb pigem olla sõbralik ja ettevaatlik.

Selles mõttes oleks meil vaja võtta eeskuju Soomest. Soome-Venemaa suhted olid väga rasked. Oli isegi sõda. Aga lõpuks tuli võimule Kekkonen ja tema neutraalsuse poliitika. Soome on saanud väga palju kasu sellest, et on pidevalt vältinud vene karu ärritamist, üritanud olla Venemaale hea kaubanduspartner ja naaber ning säilitanud neutraalsuse. Ma väga hoolin Eestist ja minu meelest on see Eesti jaoks heaks eeskujuks.

Keda me nägime seal meeleavaldusel? Tunne Kelamit, kes oli Euroopa Parlamendis Iraani ja Süüria pommitamise plaanis USA suur toetaja. Kelam ei hooli maailma rahust, vaid globalistide agenda täitmisest. Nüüd nägime teda meeleavaldusel. Et ta ei poolda suure Venemaa vägede sisseviimist Krimmi, vaid on selle vastu. Aga samuti iseseisvat Iraani võib teine suurriik USA vabalt pommitada. Loomulikult…

 

Mis nüüd edasi saab?

Minu arvates peavad Krimmi poolsaare tuleviku otsustama need inimesed, kes seal elavad. Selleks peab referendumi korraldama, kus Krimmi elanikel on võimalus otsustada, kas nad jätkavad koos Ukrainaga või Krimm läheb tagasi Venemaa Föderatsiooni koosseisu või tekib maailmakaardile hoopis uus iseseisev riik. Võttes arvesse Kosovo pretsedenti, peaks Eesti sellist referendumit pooldama ja nõustuma selle tulemusega, milline iganes see ka poleks.

 

Aleksander Gilenko

Riga authorities permitted a March 16 march veterans “Waffen SS” and the action of anti-fascists !

Власти Риги разрешили провести 16 марта шествие ветеранов “Ваффен СС” и акцию антифашистов

6 марта, 20:19 UTC+4
Рижская дума также ввела ограничения на использование звукоусилителей во время мероприятий 16 марта

 Латвия. Рига. Вид на церковь Святого Петра

Латвия. Рига. Вид на церковь Святого Петра

ИТАР-ТАСС/Владимир Астапкович

РИГА, 6 марта. /Корр. ИТАР-ТАСС Мария Иванова/. Рижская дума (РД) разрешила латышским экстремистским организациям провести публичные мероприятия 16 марта – в неофициальный день памяти латышского легиона “Ваффен СС”. С акциями протеста в этот день также выступят русскоязычные антифашисты. Об этом в четверг заявил журналистам исполнительный директор столицы Юрис Радзевич.

 

В этом году РД получила несколько заявок на проведение мероприятий 16 марта. Организация ветеранов латышского легиона “Ваффен СС” – “Даугавские ястребы в Латвии” – намерена провести в центре столицы традиционное шествие бывших латышских легионеров и их молодых сторонников-радикалов к памятнику Свободы. Местные антифашисты из “Объединения против нацизма” в этот день запланировали акцию протеста против этого шествия. Еще одна акция протеста против прославления ветеранов “Ваффен СС” пройдет на центральной Домской площади.По словам Радзевича, РД также ввела ограничения на использование звукоусилителей во время мероприятий 16 марта. “Учитывая, что 16 марта – воскресенье, а вокруг находятся церкви, в которых проходят богослужения, и тут же находится Латвийское радио, работающее в прямом эфире, чтобы не мешать работе этих учреждений, мы договорились с организаторами не использовать звукоусиливающую аппаратуру”, – указал он.

Ukraine and the ‘Little Cold War’ !

We must consider the future of Eurasia after the fall of the Soviet Union. Since 1991, the region has fragmented and decayed. The successor state to the Soviet Union, Russia, is emerging from this period with renewed self-confidence. Yet Russia is also in an untenable geopolitical position. Unless Russia exerts itself to create a sphere of influence, the Russian Federation could itself fragment.

For most of the second half of the 20th century, the Soviet Union controlled Eurasia — from central Germany to the Pacific, as far south as the Caucasus and the Hindu Kush. When the Soviet Union collapsed, its western frontier moved east nearly 1,000 miles, from the West German border to the Russian border with Belarus. Russian power has now retreated farther east than it has been in centuries. During the Cold War it had moved farther west than ever before. In the coming decades, Russian power will settle somewhere between those two lines.

After the Soviet Union dissolved at the end of the 20th century, foreign powers moved in to take advantage of Russia’s economy, creating an era of chaos and poverty. Most significantly, Ukraine moved into an alignment with the United States and away from Russia — this was a breaking point in Russian history.

The Orange Revolution in Ukraine, from December 2004 to January 2005, was the moment when the post-Cold War world genuinely ended for Russia. The Russians saw the events in Ukraine as an attempt by the United States to draw Ukraine into NATO and thereby set the stage for Russian disintegration. Quite frankly, there was some truth to the Russian perception.

If the West had succeeded in dominating Ukraine, Russia would have become indefensible. The southern border with Belarus, as well as the southwestern frontier of Russia, would have been wide open.

Russia’s Resurgence

After what Russia regarded as an American attempt to further damage it, Moscow reverted to a strategy of reasserting its sphere of influence in the areas of the former Soviet Union. The great retreat of Russian power ended in Ukraine. For the next generation, until roughly 2020, Russia’s primary concern will be reconstructing the Russian state and reasserting Russian power in the region.

Interestingly, the geopolitical shift is aligning with an economic shift. Vladimir Putin sees Russia less as an industrial power than as an exporter of raw materials, the most important of which is energy (particularly natural gas). He is transforming Russia from an impoverished disaster into a poor but more productive country. Putin also is giving Russia the tool with which to intimidate Europe: the valve on a natural gas pipeline.

But the real flash point, in all likelihood, will be on Russia’s western frontier. Belarus will align itself with Russia. Of all the countries in the former Soviet Union, Belarus has had the fewest economic and political reforms and has been the most interested in recreating some successor to the Soviet Union. Linked in some way to Russia, Belarus will bring Russian power back to the borders of the former Soviet Union.

From the Baltics south to the Romanian border there is a region where borders have historically been uncertain and conflict frequent. In the north, there is a long, narrow plain, stretching from the Pyrenees to St. Petersburg. This is where Europe’s greatest wars were fought. This is the path that Napoleon and Hitler took to invade Russia. There are few natural barriers. Therefore, the Russians must push their border west as far as possible to create a buffer. After World War II, they drove into the center of Germany on this plain. Today, they have retreated to the east. They have to return, and move as far west as possible. That means the Baltic states and Poland are, as before, problems Russia has to solve.

Defining the limits of Russian influence will be controversial. The United States — and the countries within the old Soviet sphere — will not want Russia to go too far.

Russia will not become a global power in the next decade, but it has no choice but to become a major regional power. And that means it will clash with Europe. The Russian-European frontier remains a fault line.

It is unreasonable to talk of Europe as if it were one entity. It is not, in spite of the existence of the European Union. Europe consists of a series of sovereign and contentious nation-states.

In short, post-Cold War Europe is in benign chaos. Russia is the immediate strategic threat to Europe. Russia is interested not in conquering Europe, but in reasserting its control over the former Soviet Union. From the Russian point of view, this is both a reasonable attempt to establish some minimal sphere of influence and essentially a defensive measure.

Obviously the Eastern Europeans want to prevent a Russian resurgence. The real question is what the rest of Europe might do — and especially, what Germany might do. The Germans are now in a comfortable position with a buffer between them and the Russians, free to focus on their internal economic and social problems. In addition, the heritage of World War II weighs heavily on the Germans. They will not want to act alone, but as part of a unified Europe.

Russia is the eastern portion of Europe and has clashed with the rest of Europe on multiple occasions. Historically, though, Europeans who have invaded Russia have come to a disastrous end. If they are not beaten by the Russians, they are so exhausted from fighting them that someone else defeats them. Russia occasionally pushes its power westward, threatening Europe with the Russian masses. At other times passive and ignored, Russia is often taken advantage of. But, in due course, others pay for underestimating it.

Geographic Handicaps, Energy Assets

If we are going to understand Russia’s behavior and intentions, we have to begin with Russia’s fundamental weakness — its borders, particularly in the northwest. On the North European Plain, no matter where Russia’s borders are drawn, it is open to attack. There are few significant natural barriers anywhere on this plain. Pushing its western border all the way into Germany, as it did in 1945, still leaves Russia’s frontiers without a physical anchor. The only physical advantage Russia can have is depth. The farther west into Europe its borders extend, the farther conquerors have to travel to reach Moscow. Therefore, Russia is always pressing westward on the North European Plain and Europe is always pressing eastward.

Europe is hungry for energy. Russia, constructing pipelines to feed natural gas to Europe, takes care of Europe’s energy needs and its own economic problems, and puts Europe in a position of dependency on Russia. In an energy-hungry world, Russia’s energy exports are like heroin. It addicts countries once they start using it. Russia has already used its natural gas resources to force neighboring countries to bend to its will. That power reaches into the heart of Europe, where the Germans and the former Soviet satellites of Eastern Europe all depend on Russian natural gas. Add to this its other resources, and Russia can apply significant pressure on Europe.

Dependency can be a double-edged sword. A militarily weak Russia cannot pressure its neighbors, because its neighbors might decide to make a grab for its wealth. So Russia must recover its military strength. Rich and weak is a bad position for nations to be in. If Russia is to be rich in natural resources and export them to Europe, it must be in a position to protect what it has and to shape the international environment in which it lives.

In the next decade, Russia will become increasingly wealthy (relative to its past, at least) but geographically insecure. It will therefore use some of its wealth to create a military force appropriate to protect its interests, buffer zones to protect it from the rest of the world — and then buffer zones for the buffer zones. Russia’s grand strategy involves the creation of deep buffers along the North European Plain, while it divides and manipulates its neighbors, creating a new regional balance of power in Europe. What Russia cannot tolerate are tight borders without buffer zones, and its neighbors united against it. This is why Russia’s future actions will appear to be aggressive but will actually be defensive.

Russia’s actions will unfold in three phases. In the first phase, Russia will be concerned with recovering influence and effective control in the former Soviet Union, re-creating the system of buffers that the Soviet Union provided it. In the second phase, Russia will seek to create a second tier of buffers beyond the boundaries of the former Soviet Union. It will try to do this without creating a solid wall of opposition, of the kind that choked it during the Cold War. In the third phase — really something that will have been going on from the beginning — Russia will try to prevent anti-Russian coalitions from forming.

If we think of the Soviet Union as a natural grouping of geographically isolated and economically handicapped countries, we can see what held it together. The countries that made up the Soviet Union were bound together of necessity. The former Soviet Union consisted of members who really had nowhere else to go. These old economic ties still dominate the region, except that Russia’s new model, exporting energy, has made these countries even more dependent than they were previously. Attracted as Ukraine was to the rest of Europe, it could not compete or participate with Europe. Its natural economic relationship is with Russia; it relies on Russia for energy, and ultimately it tends to be militarily dominated by Russia as well.

These are the dynamics that Russia will take advantage of in order to reassert its sphere of influence. It will not necessarily recreate a formal political structure run from Moscow — although that is not inconceivable. Far more important will be Russian influence in the region over the next five to 10 years.

The Russians will pull the Ukrainians into their alliance with Belarus and will have Russian forces all along the Polish border, and as far south as the Black Sea. This, I believe, will all take place by the mid-2010s.

There has been a great deal of talk in recent years about the weakness of the Russian army, talk that in the decade after the collapse of the Soviet Union was accurate. But here is the new reality — that weakness started to reverse itself in 2000, and by 2015 it will be a thing of the past. The coming confrontation in northeastern Europe will not take place suddenly, but will be an extended confrontation. Russian military strength will have time to develop. The one area in which Russia continued research and development in the 1990s was in advanced military technologies. By 2010, it will certainly have the most effective army in the region. By 2015-2020, it will have a military that will pose a challenge to any power trying to project force into the region, even the United States.

RSS for Posts RSS for Comments