Er fand keine Antwort und hat abgelenkt mit Falschzitat.Zitat von Widder58
Jelzin, oder Sowjetunion oder Putin ?
AW: Krisenherd Ukraine
Er fand keine Antwort und hat abgelenkt mit Falschzitat.
Jelzin, oder Sowjetunion oder Putin ?
Ohne Skepsis verhungert die Demokratie.
AW: Krisenherd Ukraine
Und die von den USA induzierte Türkeninvasion wegen Nato nicht vergessen.
Russland ist nicht der Ex-Sowjetbolschewismus, ist das klar bei dir ?
Ohne Skepsis verhungert die Demokratie.
AW: Krisenherd Ukraine
Aktuell bezahlen wir gerade den Mist, den Amerikaner in der Ukraine anrichten. Merkel hat beim Besuch ihre Spendierhosen angezogen. Bring Belege für Deine Zahlenspiele.
AW: Krisenherd Ukraine
Stimmt, dem System nachbeten und Feminismus kritisieren.
Ohne Skepsis verhungert die Demokratie.
AW: Krisenherd Ukraine
100 Millionen € Bürgschaft kam im Radio heute.
Wohl gemerkt ein Land das nie zurück zahlen wird.
Ohne Skepsis verhungert die Demokratie.
AW: Krisenherd Ukraine
Selbst der Council On Foreign Relations (CFR), der Teil der Schattenregierung hinter dem Weissen Haus ist, erkennt langsam, dass sie bei der Ukraine einen riesen Fehler gemacht hat.
Im wichtigsten Blatt des CFR, dem Foreign Affairs Magazin, das alle zwei Monate rauskommt, und von allen westlichen Eliten mit aussen- und geopolitischen Interesse als Pflichtlektuere gelesen wird, wurde der Fehler des Westens bzgl. der Ukraine jetzt im September / Oktober-Heft 2014 eingeraeumt:
[Links nur für registrierte Nutzer]
...
The United States and its European allies share most of the responsibility for the crisis. The taproot of the trouble is NATO enlargement, the central element of a larger strategy to move Ukraine out of Russia’s orbit and integrate it into the West. At the same time, the EU’s expansion eastward and the West’s backing of the pro-democracy movement in Ukraine — beginning with the Orange Revolution in 2004 — were critical elements, too. Since the mid-1990s, Russian leaders have adamantly opposed NATO enlargement, and in recent years, they have made it clear that they would not stand by while their strategically important neighbor turned into a Western bastion. For Putin, the illegal overthrow of Ukraine’s democratically elected and pro-Russian president — which he rightly labeled a “coup” — was the final straw. He responded by taking Crimea, a peninsula he feared would host a NATO naval base, and working to destabilize Ukraine until it abandoned its efforts to join the West. Putin’s pushback should have come as no surprise. After all, the West had been moving into Russia’s backyard and threatening its core strategic interests, a point Putin made emphatically and repeatedly. Elites in the United States and Europe have been blindsided by events only because they subscribe to a flawed view of international politics.
***
U.S. and European leaders blundered in attempting to turn Ukraine into a Western stronghold on Russia’s border. Now that the consequences have been laid bare, it would be an even greater mistake to continue this misbegotten policy.
***
The West’s final tool for peeling Kiev away from Moscow has been its efforts to spread Western values and promote democracy in Ukraine and other post-Soviet states, a plan that often entails funding pro-Western individuals and organizations. Victoria Nuland, the U.S. assistant secretary of state for European and Eurasian affairs, estimated in December 2013 that the United States had invested more than $5 billion since 1991 to help Ukraine achieve “the future it deserves.” As part of that effort, the U.S. government has bankrolled the National Endowment for Democracy. The nonprofit foundation has funded more than 60 projects aimed at promoting civil society in Ukraine, and the NED’s president, Carl Gershman, has called that country “the biggest prize.” After Yanukovych won Ukraine’s presidential election in February 2010, the NED decided he was undermining its goals, and so it stepped up its efforts to support the opposition and strengthen the country’s democratic institutions.
When Russian leaders look at Western social engineering in Ukraine, they worry that their country might be next. And such fears are hardly groundless. In September 2013, Gershman wrote in The Washington Post, “Ukraine’s choice to join Europe will accelerate the demise of the ideology of Russian imperialism that Putin represents.” He added: “Russians, too, face a choice, and Putin may find himself on the losing end not just in the near abroad but within Russia itself.”
The West’s triple package of policies — NATO enlargement, EU expansion, and democracy promotion — added fuel to a fire waiting to ignite. The spark came in November 2013, when Yanukovych rejected a major economic deal he had been negotiating with the EU and decided to accept a $15 billion Russian counteroffer instead. That decision gave rise to antigovernment demonstrations that escalated over the following three months and that by mid-February had led to the deaths of some one hundred protesters. Western emissaries hurriedly flew to Kiev to resolve the crisis. On February 21, the government and the opposition struck a deal that allowed Yanukovych to stay in power until new elections were held. But it immediately fell apart, and Yanukovych fled to Russia the next day. The new government in Kiev was pro-Western and anti-Russian to the core, and it contained four high-ranking members who could legitimately be labeled neofascists.
Although the full extent of U.S. involvement has not yet come to light, it is clear that Washington backed the coup. Nuland and Republican Senator John McCain participated in antigovernment demonstrations, and Geoffrey Pyatt, the U.S. ambassador to Ukraine, proclaimed after Yanukovych’s toppling that it was “a day for the history books.” As a leaked telephone recording revealed, Nuland had advocated regime change and wanted the Ukrainian politician Arseniy Yatsenyuk to become prime minister in the new government, which he did. No wonder Russians of all persuasions think the West played a role in Yanukovych’s ouster.
***
Putin’s actions should be easy to comprehend. A huge expanse of flat land that Napoleonic France, imperial Germany, and Nazi Germany all crossed to strike at Russia itself, Ukraine serves as a buffer state of enormous strategic importance to Russia. No Russian leader would tolerate a military alliance that was Moscow’s mortal enemy until recently moving into Ukraine. Nor would any Russian leader stand idly by while the West helped install a government there that was determined to integrate Ukraine into the West.
Washington may not like Moscow’s position, but it should understand the logic behind it. This is Geopolitics 101: great powers are always sensitive to potential threats near their home territory. After all, the United States does not tolerate distant great powers deploying military forces anywhere in the Western Hemisphere, much less on its borders. Imagine the outrage in Washington if China built an impressive military alliance and tried to include Canada and Mexico in it. Logic aside, Russian leaders have told their Western counterparts on many occasions that they consider NATO expansion into Georgia and Ukraine unacceptable, along with any effort to turn those countries against Russia — a message that the 2008 Russian-Georgian war also made crystal clear.
***
In [a] 1998 interview, [the top American expert on Russia, George] Kennan predicted that NATO expansion would provoke a crisis, after which the proponents of expansion would “say that we always told you that is how the Russians are.” As if on cue, most Western officials have portrayed Putin as the real culprit in the Ukraine predicament.
...
Der Artikel des CFR ist bemerkenswert und duerfte auch den westlichen Geheimdiensten in der Fuehrungsebene nicht entgangen sein.
Die Frage, die sich jetzt stellt, ist die, ob die westlichen Machteliten bei der Ukraine langsam zurueckrudern werden ?
Fehlereingestaendnis des Westens hinter den Kulissen ?
Hintergrund:
[Links nur für registrierte Nutzer]
“The powers of financial capitalism had another far reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole.” –Prof. Caroll Quigley, Georgetown University, Tragedy and Hope (1966)
AW: Krisenherd Ukraine
Die Ukraine ist megapleite, was der BND eigentlich haette wissen muessen.
[Links nur für registrierte Nutzer]
[Links nur für registrierte Nutzer]
Das Merkel wird wahrscheinlich nicht faktenorientiert bei der Ukraine beraten ?
“The powers of financial capitalism had another far reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole.” –Prof. Caroll Quigley, Georgetown University, Tragedy and Hope (1966)
AW: Krisenherd Ukraine
ich habe kein falschzitat gemacht. du warst nur zu blöd zu zitieren, wolltest noch bischen was hervorheben und einfärben und hast auf antworten gedrücktdein pech, das ich es vor deiner "reparatur" entdeckte
„Zuerst ignorieren sie dich, dann lachen sie über dich, dann bekämpfen sie dich und dann gewinnst du.“
Mahatma Gandhi
AW: Krisenherd Ukraine
Entscheidend ist wohl, daß diese Herrschaften langsam begreifen, daß ihre Instrumente, wie z. B. die Medien, nicht mehr so funktionieren, wie sie es sonst gewohnt waren, um ihr linkisches Intregieren und ihr blutiges Handwerk in ein demokratisch lackiertes Licht rückten!
Terror, vornehmlich gegen unschuldige Zivilisten, ist Krieg.
Krieg ist die schlimmste Form des Terrors, weil es vornehmlich unschuldige Zivilisten trifft, die einfach nur das Pech haben, dort zu leben.
AW: Krisenherd Ukraine
Das ist für die alles eins - so ähnlich wie Indianer, USA, Erdbeben.
Völlig wirre Argumentation, Hauptsache Russlandbashing.
Der Krieg wäre längst vorbei müssten die Schmarotzer an die Front
Aktive Benutzer in diesem Thema: 2 (Registrierte Benutzer: 0, Gäste: 2)
Nutzer die den Thread gelesen haben : 73Du hast keine Berechtigung, um die Liste der Namen zu sehen.
Forumregeln
