Wat is het verschil precies tussen Rusland en de EU/VS in die context? Ik zie dat niet.quote:Op dinsdag 1 april 2014 22:16 schreef opgebaarde het volgende:
[..]
De vrijheid om zelf keuzes te maken. Zie dat maar als een negatief iets
Ow dat kan goed, ben het topic zoveel mogelijk gaan negeren maar vandaag is er toch een hoop gebeurd dus was benieuwd wat mijn vrienden voor mening hadden. Ik was in de veronderstelling dat je weer op je oude toer was dus als dit niet zo is dan hierbij excuus voor de zuigerige toonquote:Op dinsdag 1 april 2014 22:18 schreef SadPanda het volgende:
[..]
Hou toch op met je onzin, ik zeg niet dat Rusland geweldig is. Ik zei dat gewoon als losse opmerking omdat dat hier wel relevant is. Ik heb op alle antwoorden gewoon gereageerd zonder whataboutism...
Die over de NAVO was whataboutism van de bovenste plank...had geen zak met het onderwerp te maken...quote:Op dinsdag 1 april 2014 22:21 schreef SadPanda het volgende:
[..]
Gelul het was een losstaande opmerking. Ik heb overal op gereageerd zonder whataboutism.
Voor de NAVO/VS/EU valt er evenveel te halen als Rusland.quote:Op dinsdag 1 april 2014 22:20 schreef firefly3 het volgende:
[..]
In oekraine valt ook echt veel te halen voor de EU he. Ze kunnen niet eens de gasrekening betalenOekraine heeft ons meer nodig dan wij de oekraine hoor.
Het onderwerp in dit topic is Oekraïne wel dergelijk relevant dus.quote:Op dinsdag 1 april 2014 22:22 schreef SureD1 het volgende:
[..]
Die over de NAVO was whataboutism van de bovenste plank...had geen zak met het onderwerp te maken...
En dat is? Vertel maar wat wij zo graag van oekraine willen halenquote:Op dinsdag 1 april 2014 22:23 schreef SadPanda het volgende:
[..]
Voor de NAVO/VS/EU valt er evenveel te halen als Rusland.
Ok wel relevant, maar nog steeds whataboutism.quote:Op dinsdag 1 april 2014 22:24 schreef SadPanda het volgende:
[..]
Het onderwerp in dit topic is Oekraïne wel dergelijk relevant dus.
Nee want het was niet speciaal een reactie ergens op.quote:Op dinsdag 1 april 2014 22:25 schreef SureD1 het volgende:
[..]
Ok wel relevant, maar nog steeds whataboutism.
Hoe meer we 'van Rusland afpakken' de sterker dit ons maakt of de Russen zwakker. Bondgenoten willen we graag erbij hebbenquote:Op dinsdag 1 april 2014 22:25 schreef firefly3 het volgende:
[..]
En dat is? Vertel maar wat wij zo graag van oekraine willen halenHet ijzersterke leger van oekraine bij de navo? De rijkdom van oekraine?
Ik weet het niet precis. Ik zou hetzelfde aan jou kunnen stellen over Rusland.quote:Op dinsdag 1 april 2014 22:25 schreef firefly3 het volgende:
[..]
En dat is? Vertel maar wat wij zo graag van oekraine willen halenHet ijzersterke leger van oekraine bij de navo? De rijkdom van oekraine?
Je schreef: de NAVO breekt ook beloftes (wat overigens impliceert dat je vindt dat Rusland dat ook doet, anders hoef je daar 'ook' niet te gebruiken) omdat ze hadden beloofd niet ten oosten van Duitsland uit te breiden. Daarmee zeg je dus, Rusland mag Ukraïne kunstjes flikken (schiereiland afpakken, beet bully-en met de gasprijs en zo) omdat de NAVO ook niet gedaan heeft wat ze beloofd hadden....dat is de definitie van whataboutism...quote:Op dinsdag 1 april 2014 22:26 schreef SadPanda het volgende:
[..]
Nee want het was niet speciaal een reactie ergens op.
De enige die dat bij Oekraïne doet.quote:Op dinsdag 1 april 2014 22:29 schreef firefly3 het volgende:
Rusland is de enige die landjepik doet hoor. Handelsverdragen zijn gewoon legaal overigens.
Ook was vanwege dat akkoord in 199x over het inleveren van de nucleaire wapens die Rusland brak.quote:Op dinsdag 1 april 2014 22:30 schreef SureD1 het volgende:
[..]
Je schreef: de NAVO breekt ook beloftes (wat overigens impliceert dat je vindt dat Rusland dat ook doet, anders hoef je daar 'ook' niet te gebruiken) omdat ze hadden beloofd niet ten oosten van Duitsland uit te breiden. Daarmee zeg je dus, Rusland mag Ukraïne kunstjes flikken (schiereiland afpakken, beet bully-en met de gasprijs en zo) omdat de NAVO ook niet gedaan heeft wat ze beloofd hadden....dat is de definitie van whataboutism...
Kan je je voorstellen dat de Russen zichzelf bedreigd voelen? De grens tot waar men solidair is met de EU komt steeds dichter bij en de Russen verliezen grond (negeer de annexaties)quote:Op dinsdag 1 april 2014 22:29 schreef firefly3 het volgende:
Rusland is de enige die landjepik doet hoor. Handelsverdragen zijn gewoon legaal overigens.
De Krim is in feite al opgegeven en zal voortaan bij Rusland horen, het heeft weinig zin meer om hier aan te blijven tillen.quote:Crimea: Too small to matter
By Nicholas Wapshott | April 1, 2014
Crimea is permanently lost to Russia.
That is implicit in President Barack Obama’s remarks about where the Ukraine crisis heads next; the terms of the Paris talks between Secretary of State John Kerry and the Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, and the West’s rejection of military action to hurl back the occupying Russian forces.
That Crimea is gone forever is also the view of former Defense Secretary Robert Gates, who declared, “I do not believe that Crimea will slip out of Russia’s hand.”
It is now generally accepted in Washington that short of sparking a shooting war, Crimea is lost and will now always be Russian. President Vladimir Putin, presiding over an economy of $2 trillion, barely equal to California, has roundly defeated the United States and the European Union, with a combined worth of more than $34 trillion.
The loss of Crimea is a considerable blow to U.S. prestige and confirmation that Obama holds a weak hand in Ukraine, a country everyone agrees is too hard to defend from Russian aggression. But why has Obama’s response to Russia’s stealth invasion of Crimea been so muted? Where is the simple demand: “Mr. Putin, order your troops out of Crimea”?
Why is keeping Russia out of eastern Ukraine — rather than the swift return of Crimea to Ukraine — not the core of the Paris talks? Why are economic sanctions limited to a small number of Putin cronies and not applied to the entire population?
Why have the Crimeans been sacrificed? One quick answer is that Americans are not prepared to defend them. According to a recent poll, though two-thirds (66 percent) of Americans think the president has not been tough enough with Putin, with just 11 percent thinking he is handling Russia just right, a majority (53 percent) thinks the United States should not counter the threats to Ukraine. Half of Americans believe Crimea can only be wrested from Russia through military force, but there appears no appetite for sending troops, or even military aid, to Ukraine.
There are, however, larger forces at work here. Obama needs Putin’s continuing support in three pivotal geopolitical conflicts. The first is Afghanistan. After 12 years of occupation and 2,211 U.S. lives lost, America is on the point of withdrawing its final 33,000 troops from the country that once harbored the al Qaeda terrorists who attacked America.
The U.S. forces there, and the nascent Afghan security forces, are being and will continue to be supplied from the United States via a long overland route, known as the Northern Distribution Network, through Russia and territories allied to Russia — Belarus, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan. To further complicate matters, some important arms contracts to bolster Afghanistan’s frail army against a resurgent Taliban, including a $1 billion contract to buy helicopters, have been placed with Russian companies.
A war between the West and Russia, or even a full-scale sanctions regime, would abruptly cut that essential supply line, putting in jeopardy the fragile achievements of the 12-year Western occupation.
Never mind that if Afghanistan were to return to Taliban rule, it would harbor Islamist terrorists who would try to wrest Islamic Russian republics from the Russian federation. Putin feels that snatching Crimea and invoking the wrath of the West is worth the gamble. He is guessing — correctly thus far — that the United States and the European Union will shrug and do nothing.
Then there are the U.S.-led Western sanctions against the Islamist masters of Iran, who are believed to be seeking to build nuclear weapons and whose constant bellicose threats toward Israel suggest that if they manage to build nukes they will use them on the Jewish state. With Russian help, Iran has been tempted to the negotiating table.
Crimea has put those talks in jeopardy. The Russian deputy foreign minister has made clear that, if the West steps up its sanctions against Russia or Russian individuals to win back Crimea, Russia will withdraw its support for the Iran nuclear disarmament talks and help Iran dodge the tight Western sanctions regime that has forced the mullahs to start talking.
Again, there are many good reasons why it suits Russia to continue with the talks — not least that it does not want a new nuclear power on its southern doorstep. But it appears sentiment rather than realpolitik inspires the Kremlin.
Putin is gambling that Obama is under such domestic pressure to stay out of another war and halt Iran’s nuclear ambitions that Russia can both remain at the Iran talks and keep Crimea. Crimea is therefore the price for trying to disarm Iran.
The third U.S. foreign policy goal Russia is helping with is mediating in the Syrian civil war. After Obama blinked and Congress showed its lack of appetite for intervening militarily in Syria, Putin stepped up and forged a compromise with its longtime ally, in which President Bashar al-Assad’s murderous regime would hand over the chemical weapons it had been using to kill its own people.
Since then, though Russia has soft pedaled and allowed Syria to slow the pace of destruction of its poison gas and other weapons of mass destruction, Washington has been beholden to Moscow to keep the program on track. The story of Syrian disarmament so far has been one of deception and delays. But the prospect of Russia withdrawing its support for the United Nations effort and even further bolstering the Syrian regime with arms would be a profound setback for Obama’s efforts to bring peace and stability in the Middle East. Putin thinks the world owes him Crimea for doing the right thing in Syria.
So after 50 years as a province of Ukraine, first under the Soviets then an independent Ukraine, Crimea is once again a part of Russia. Even Putin’s successors will not wish to hand over land that has been such a bone of contention between Russia and the West.
Crimea is the price Putin has put on cooperating with Obama. And he may still demand more. But is the sacrifice of Crimea worth it?
Consider Tibet, an independent nation that the Chinese Communists annexed by force in 1950. For more than 60 years the Tibetan people have been subjugated and their natural resources plundered.
As with Crimea, Tibet was a country too far away and of insufficient importance to be saved from annexation. To have continued to demand the freedom of Tibet would have put at risk the settlement in the East that ended the Korean War, leaving both North Korea and Tibet in China’s grip.
Before long the State Department will come to consider Crimea part of Russia, just as it now considers Tibet part of China. Will the compromise have been worth it?
Perhaps to Americans, weary of conflict and eager to save money on defense. But Ukranians and, over time, the Crimeans, as they come to understand what it is to live in a bankrupt despotism, will not think so.
Abandoning them is not moral and it is certainly not dignified, but Crimea is not so much too big to fail as too small to matter.
Nicholas Wapshott is the author of Keynes Hayek: The Clash That Defined Modern Economics. Read extracts here.
Wachten met financiële sancties omdat ze ongelegen komen wordt zelden gedaan.quote:Op dinsdag 1 april 2014 22:04 schreef SureD1 het volgende:
[..]
Ik zal je in ieder geval zeggen waarom ze geen korting meer krijgen, omdat het beetje levensstandaard dat er was in Ukraïne naar de vaantjes helpt, wat destabilisatie in de hand werkt, wat Rusland vervolgens in de kaart speelt.
Natuurlijk wat Meth zegt, je gebruikt handels voor (of nadelen) natuurlijk altijd als 'sturingsmechanisme' maar het komt Rusland wel goed uit. Als ze echt het beste met Ukraïne voor zouden hebben zouden ze die korting in ieder geval in stand laten tot se zaak wat gestabiliseerd is.
VS schrapt hulp aan Pakistan na de veroordeling van een dokter die de CIA geholpen heeftquote:Secretary of State John Kerry has threatened to discontinue all American aid to the Palestinian Authority if the current round of negotiations does not result in a peace agreement, a senior Palestinian official claimed Thursday.
Bush en Palestina:quote:A US Senate panel says it is cutting $33m in aid to Pakistan after the jailing of a Pakistani doctor who helped the CIA find Osama Bin Laden.
Tijdens de eerste golfoorlog: Roemenië, als tijdelijk lid van de VN veiligheidsraad, stemde voor elke resolutie van de VS, kreeg 380 miljoen van het IMF.quote:U.S. President George W. Bush threatened today to cut off money to the Palestinians if they failed to embrace reform, stepping up pressure for the removal of longtime Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat.
"I've got confidence in the Palestinians, when they understand fully what we're saying, that they'll make the right decisions," said Bush.
http://www.dailymail.co.u(...)Palestinian-aid.html
Ik neem aan dat dit niet door gaat, gezien het nieuws van gisteren?quote:Op woensdag 2 april 2014 04:55 schreef TLC het volgende:
Rusland inspecteert Benelux
Een Russisch militair vliegtuig zal vandaag boven Nederland een observatievlucht uitvoeren. De vlucht maakt onderdeel uit van het zogenoemde Open Skies-verdrag.
Het toestel, een Antonov An-30B is gisteren in België op de militaire luchthaven van Melsbroek aangekomen, melden Belgische media.
Vertrouwen
Begin jaren 90 ondertekenden Rusland en de NAVO-lidstaten een verdrag dat voorzag in verkenningsvluchten boven elkaars grondgebied.
De observatievluchten moeten het vertrouwen tussen Rusland en de NAVO versterken.
(http://nos.nl/artikel/630842-rusland-inspecteert-benelux.html)
[ afbeelding ]
Waarom doet rusland niet gewoon mee voor een groot handels boost? Als je rusland gewoon normaal bestuurd dan blijft rusland gewoon rusland overigens. Waarom zou je je bedreigd moeten voelen?quote:Op dinsdag 1 april 2014 22:34 schreef opgebaarde het volgende:
[..]
Kan je je voorstellen dat de Russen zichzelf bedreigd voelen? De grens tot waar men solidair is met de EU komt steeds dichter bij en de Russen verliezen grond (negeer de annexaties)
Waarom? Open Skies is een overeenkomst tussen de betrokken landen, niet tussen de NAVO en Rusland.quote:Op woensdag 2 april 2014 08:02 schreef DustPuppy het volgende:
[..]
Ik neem aan dat dit niet door gaat, gezien het nieuws van gisteren?
https://www.kyivpost.com/(...)t-change-341701.htmlquote:Right Sector to continue arming itself if Ukraine situation does not change
The Right Sector intends to continue arming itself unless the situation on the Ukrainian borders and in Kyiv changes, said Ihor Mazur, Right Sector's Kyiv regional leader, according to the 112 Ukraine television channel.
"If the war continues to come to Ukraine, Right Sector will be in the first trenches, it will be defending the Ukrainian state. And a sufficient number of enemies know that," he said on Tuesday.
The weapons available to Right Sector members were either personal and registered, or rented from their friends, Mazur said.
"We did what was expected of us. First of all, I repeat once again, no one issued weapons to us to reclaim them back from us. And the weapons in our hands, most of them were registered, and those that were not were rented from our friends. We have friends who are hunters and have several firearms. We gave them their weapons back. No one was injured with them, no one was killed with them. They were used merely in self defense. They are now held by their owners," he said.
http://www.kyivpost.com/c(...)ro-hotel-341642.htmlquote:Interior Ministry: Weapons found at former Right Sector headquarters in Dnipro Hotel
Experts have confiscated several weapons from Kyiv's Dnipro Hotel, which used to house the headquarters of the Right Sector ultra-nationalistic movement.
"This morning, representatives of the Right Sector, escorted by officers of law enforcement agencies, left the Dnipro Hotel and headed to one of the [organization's] bases outside the city. Experts are currently working at the hotel. Several weapons have been found there," the Ukrainian Interior Ministry said on its Web site on Tuesday.
Police are also investigating whether or not the confiscated weapons could have been used in crimes other than the events that occurred in Kyiv on Monday evening, when a Right Sector member went on a shooting spree near the hotel, wounding three people, among them Kyiv city administration first deputy head Bohdan Dubas.
In response to the incident, police special operations units encircled the Right Sector's headquarters, based at the Dnipro Hotel.
Ukraine's Interior Minister Arsen Avakov, for his part, said on Tuesday morning that Right Sector representatives were leaving the Dnipro Hotel unarmed.
"They got on their buses and headed to one of the camps outside of the city escorted by officers of the Ukrainian Security Service. Interior Ministry experts have already started to examine the vacated building," Avakov said.
Wat is je bedoeling precies, de boel zo ver onder spammen dat mensen geloven in je propaganda over het "grote neofascistisch gevaar"?. Rusland zijn de grootste fascisten als je bekijkt dat ze land ingenomen hebben en de tartaren willen deporteren.quote:Op woensdag 2 april 2014 10:16 schreef meth1745 het volgende:
[..]
https://www.kyivpost.com/(...)t-change-341701.html
[..]
http://www.kyivpost.com/c(...)ro-hotel-341642.html
| Forum Opties | |
|---|---|
| Forumhop: | |
| Hop naar: | |