Толстый и тонкий

[maximus]

hehe bice 1 bank run sa tenkovima?!?

[maximus]

a dok ruje budu трчали на банке, patriocki tv kanali ce vrteti klipove o propasti США&доларев

[Lord Protector]

 

A Russophobic Rant From Congress

Tuesday - December 9, 2014 at 12:02 am

 

By Patrick J. Buchanan

Hopefully, Russians realize that our House of Representatives often passes thunderous resolutions to pander to special interests, which have no bearing on the thinking or actions of the U.S. government.

Last week, the House passed such a resolution 411-10.

As ex-Rep. Ron Paul writes, House Resolution 758 is so “full of war propaganda that it rivals the rhetoric from the chilliest era of the Cold War.”

H. R. 758 is a Russophobic rant full of falsehoods and steeped in superpower hypocrisy.

Among the 43 particulars in the House indictment is this gem:

“The Russian Federation invaded the Republic of Georgia in August 2008.”

Bullhockey. On Aug. 7-8, 2008, Georgia invaded South Ossetia, a tiny province that had won its independence in the 1990s. Georgian artillery killed Russian peacekeepers, and the Georgian army poured in.

Only then did the Russian army enter South Ossetia and chase the Georgians back into their own country.

The aggressor of the Russo-Georgia war was not Vladimir Putin but President Mikheil Saakashvili, brought to power in 2004 in one of those color-coded revolutions we engineered in the Bush II decade.

H.R. 758 condemns the presence of Russian troops in Abkhazia, which also broke from Georgia in the early 1990s, and in Transnistria, which broke from Moldova. But where is the evidence that the peoples of Transnistria, Abkhazia or South Ossetia want to return to Moldova or Georgia?

We seem to support every ethnic group that secedes from Russia, but no ethnic group that secedes from a successor state.

This is rank Russophobia masquerading as democratic principle.

What do the people of Crimea, Transnistria, Georgia, Abkhazia, South Ossetia, Luhansk or Donetsk want? Do we really know? Do we care?

And what have the Russians done to support secessionist movements to compare with our 78-day bombing of Serbia to rip away her cradle province of Kosovo, which had been Serbian land before we were a nation?

H.R. 758 charges Russia with an “invasion” of Crimea.

But there was no air, land or sea invasion. The Russians were already there by treaty and the reannexation of Crimea, which had belonged to Russia since Catherine the Great, was effected with no loss of life.

Compare how Putin retrieved Crimea, with the way Lincoln retrieved the seceded states of the Confederacy — a four-year war in which 620,000 Americans perished.

Russia is charged with using “trade barriers to apply economic and political pressure” and interfering in Ukraine’s “internal affairs.”

This is almost comical.

The U.S. has imposed trade barriers and sanctions on Russia, Belarus, Iran, Cuba, Burma, Congo, Sudan, and a host of other nations.

Economic sanctions are the first recourse of the American Empire.

And agencies like the National Endowment for Democracy and its subsidiaries, our NGOs and Cold War radios, RFE and Radio Liberty, exist to interfere in the internal affairs of countries whose regimes we dislike, with the end goal of “regime change.”

Was that not the State Department’s Victoria Nuland, along with John McCain, prancing around Kiev, urging insurgents to overthrow the democratically elected government of Viktor Yanukovych?

Was Nuland not caught boasting about how the U.S. had invested $5 billion in the political reorientation of Ukraine, and identifying whom we wanted as prime minister when Yanukovych was overthrown?

H.R. 578 charges Russia with backing Syria’s Assad regime and providing it with weapons to use against “the Syrian people.”

But Assad’s principal enemies are the al-Nusra Front, an al-Qaida affiliate, and ISIS. They are not only his enemies, and Russia’s enemies, but our enemies. And we ourselves have become de facto allies of Assad with our air strikes against ISIS in Syria.

And what is Russia doing for its ally in Damascus, by arming it to resist ISIS secessionists, that we are not doing for our ally in Baghdad, also under attack by the Islamic State?

Have we not supported Kurdistan in its drive for autonomy? Have U.S. leaders not talked of a Kurdistan independent of Iraq?

H.R. 758 calls the President of Russia an “authoritarian” ruler of a corrupt regime that came to power through election fraud and rules by way of repression.

Is this fair, just or wise? After all, Putin has twice the approval rating in Russia as President Obama does here, not to mention the approval rating our Congress.

Damning Russian “aggression,” the House demands that Russia get out of Crimea, South Ossetia, Abkhazia and Transnistria, calls on Obama to end all military cooperation with Russia, impose “visa bans, targeted asset freezes, sectoral sanctions,” and send “lethal … defense articles” to Ukraine.

This is the sort of ultimatum that led to Pearl Harbor.

Why would a moral nation arm Ukraine to fight a longer and larger war with Russia that Kiev could not win, but that could end up costing the lives of ten of thousands more Ukrainians?

Those who produced this provocative resolution do not belong in charge of U.S. foreign policy, nor of America’s nuclear arsenal.

 

 

 

The Rise of Putinism

Tuesday - December 16, 2014 at 2:51 am

 

By Patrick J. Buchanan

 

“Abe tightens grip on power as Japanese shun election.”

So ran the page one headline of the Financial Times on the victory of Prime Minister Shinzo Abe in Sunday’s elections.

Abe is the most nationalistic leader of postwar Japan. He is rebooting nuclear power, building up Japan’s military, asserting her rights in territorial disputes with China and Korea.

And he is among a host of leaders of large and emerging powers who may fairly be described as the new nationalistic strong men.

Xi Jinping is another. Staking a claim to all the islands in the South and East China seas, moving masses of Han Chinese into Tibet and Uighur lands to swamp native peoples, purging old comrades for corruption, Xi is the strongest leader China has seen in decades.

He sits astride what may now be the world’s largest economy and is asserting his own Monroe Doctrine. Hong Kong’s democracy protests were tolerated until Xi tired of them. Then they were swept off the streets.

Call it Putinism. It appears to be rising, while the New World Order of Bush I, the “global hegemony” of the neocons, and the democracy crusade of Bush II seem to belong to yesterday.

Narendra Modi, leader of the Hindu nationalist party who was denied entry into the United States for a decade for complicity in or toleration of a massacre of Muslims is now Prime Minister of India.

“Members of the rightwing Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh,” the FT reports, “the Organisation of National Volunteers that gave birth to the Bharatiya Janata party headed by Mr. Modi — have been appointed to key posts in the governing party and cultural institutions.

“Nationalists have railed in public against the introduction of ‘western’ practices such as wearing bikinis on the beach, putting candles on birthday cakes and using English in schools — all to the chagrin of fretful liberals.”

Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan is another such leader.

Once seen as a model of the enlightened ruler who blended his Islamic faith with a secular state, seeking friendship with all of his neighbors, he has declared cold war on Israel, aided the Islamic State in Syria, and seems to be reigniting the war with the Kurds, distancing himself from his NATO allies and the U.S., and embracing Putin’s Russia.

Not since Ataturk has Turkey had so nationalistic a leader.

And as the democracy demonstrators were routed in Hong Kong, so, too, were the Tahrir Square “Arab Spring” demonstrators in Egypt, home country to one in four Arabs.

With the overthrow of Hosni Mubarak, the Muslim Brotherhood came to power in free elections, but was then overthrown by the Egyptian Army.

General Abdul Fattah al-Sisi is now president and rules as autocratically as Mubarak, or Nasser before him.

Thousands of the Muslim Brotherhood are in prison, hundreds face the death penalty. Yet, despite the military coup that brought Sisi to power, and the repression, the American aid continues to flow.

What do these leaders have in common?

All are strong men. All are nationalists. Almost all tend to a social conservatism from which Western democracies recoil. Almost none celebrate democracy or democratic values the way we do.

And almost all reject America’s claim to be the “indispensable nation” or “exceptional nation” and superpower leader.

Fareed Zakaria lists as “crucial elements of Putinism … nationalism, religion, social conservatism, state capitalism and government domination of the media. They are all, in some way or another, different from and hostile to, modern Western values of individual rights, tolerance, cosmopolitanism, and internationalism.”

Yet not every American revels in the sewer that is our popular culture. Not every American believes we should impose our democratist ideology on other nations. Nor are Big Media and Hollywood universally respected. Patriotism, religion and social conservatism guide the lives of a majority of Americans today.

As the Associated Press reports this weekend, Putinism finds echoes across Central and Western Europe. Hungary’s Viktor Orban has said he sees in Russia a model for his own “illiberal state.”

The National Front’s Marine Le Pen wants to bring France into a new Gaullist Europe, stretching “from the Atlantic to the Urals,” with France seceding from the EU superstate.

“Of the 24 right-wing populist parties that took about a quarter of the European Parliament seats in May elections, Political Capital lists 15 as ‘committed’ to Russia,” writes the AP.

These rising right-wing parties are “partners” of Russia in that they “share key views — advocacy of traditional family values, belief in authoritarian leadership, a distrust of the U.S., and support for strong law and order measures.”

While the financial collapse caused Orban to turn his back on the West, says Zakaria, to the Hungarian prime minister, liberal values today embody “corruption, sex and violence,” and Western Europe has become a land of “freeloaders on the backs of welfare systems.”

If America is a better country today than she has ever been, why are so many, East and West, recoiling from what we offer now?

 

:)

Edited December 19, 2014 by slow

[Hella]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZL2Hk02aUbY

 

zvanično potvrđeno ono što su pametni ljudi oduvek znali

 

TripAdvisor: Moskva je najgori grad na svetu

 

29.05.2014 u 20:30 časova

 

U godišnjoj anketi TripAdvisora, jednog od najpoznatijih vodiča za putovanja na internetu, turisti su po kategorijama ocenili gradove. Ruska prestonica našla se na poslednjem mestu.

 

http://www.lepotaizdravlje.rs/lifestyle/putovanja/tripadvisor-moskva-je-najgori-grad-na-svetu

 

[Lord Protector]

 

Tusk:Strateški problem EU je Rusija

 

 

Brisel -- Ruski pristup Ukrajini i EU predstavlja izazov za Uniju, što ne čini evropske lidere previše optimističnim, kaže novi predsednik Evropskog saveta Donald Tusk.

 

"Zapravo je danas Rusija naš strateški problem, a ne Ukrajina", rekao je bivši poljski premijer na konferenciji za novinare po završetku samita lidera EU u Briselu, prenosi Rojters.

"Najveći izazov danas jeste ruski pristup ne samo Ukrajini, već i Evropskoj uniji", kazao je Tusk.

 

Predsednik Evropskog saveta je naveo da je agresivni stav Moskve prema Ukrajini i EU izazvan odlukom Kijeva da potpiše trgovinski sporazum i sporazum o saradnji sa EU, navodi Rojters.

 

"Očigledno je da nećemo naći dugoročnu perspektivu za Ukrajinu bez adekvatne, dosledne i jedinstvene evropske strategije prema Rusiji", rekao je Tusk.

Edited December 19, 2014 by slow

[x500]

Slow,

 

Sta je tacno Tusk izjavio? Lepo je sto si preneo vest, ali tesko razumeti njegove reci :(

 

Pozdrav,

X500

[Lord Protector]

Tusk hoće da predstavi krizu u Ukrajini kao agresiju Rusije na celu EU, da Rusija nije samo agresor na Ukrajinu već na kompletan evropski prostor. Pokušava da delokalizuje konflikt i podigne ga na globalni/strateški nivo, ali tako da suprotstavi direktno Rusiju i EU. To je mala lukavština kojom hoće da prikrije suštinu sukoba: USA protiv EU i Rusije. Ovim pokušava da ućutka one članice EU koje su protiv sankcija Moskvi i koje su za smirivanje situacije, tj da im izbije argument da je sve ovo što se dešava štetno po EU i njene interese, posebno dalje sukobljavanje sa Rusijom. Jer kako da EU spusti loptu kada je Rusija direktni agresor na nju?

Kriza naravno najviše šteti EU i Rusiji, jedino ko ima koristi od nje su Amerikanci i Britanci. Poljska ima komotnu poziciju jer je američki pion u Evropi i rukovodi se strogo po nalozima Vašingtona iako to pokušava da prikrije iza EU politike. Ovo je jedan od tih pokušaja mimikrije američke politike iza briselske zavese.

Edited December 19, 2014 by slow

[namenski]

Slowe ne zajebaj :)

 

Aj malo da se igramo povijesnih analogija: ovo bi mogao da bude 2. krimski rat.

Rusija posle obaranja Napoleona i Svete alijanse, jaka, umesana u evropske poslove, sa sve gasenjem revolucija po Evropi 1848, dakle situacija poprilicno nalik onoj iz perioda 1945. - 1990, Evropa u kojoj su - mislim na 19. vek u pogonu liberalne struje koje daju vjetar u ledja i ideoloskim napadima na Rusiju kao bastion konzervativizma, samodrzavlja, itd, itd...

Geopoliticki, to je trenutak da se pokusa da se Rusija postavi na svoje mesto: u 19. veku formalni, ali i strateski razlog bila je sprecavanje pristupa Rusiji Moreuzima i njeno ucesce u komadanju Turske.

Danas se komada Istocna Evropa ili ono sto je od nje ostalo dostupno Rusima, koaliciju vode zapadne sile, Pruska/Nemacka su kenjkave i ne ratuje im se s Rusijom, nikom nije u interesu da se bambusa sire i na opstem planu, pa je konsenzusom, precutnim ili koji ce to tek da postane, usvojeno resenje lokalizacije: u 19. veku samo Krim i nesto pomorskih akcija, danas Donbas, opet Krim i ekonomski zahvati kao sredstvo politike i to na obe strane.

Rusija je gubila tada, gubi i sada: tehnoloski i drustveno zaostala, nedovoljno jaka da se suprotstavi koaliciji koja moze duze i efikasnije da izdrzi...

Konacni skor moze jos da ispadne i povoljan po Rusiju, opet paralela: nuzda da se pristupi kakvim-takvim reformama, kapiranje da mora nesto da se menja u igranju danasnje uloge Saudijske Arabije koja ima nuklearno naoruzanje, modernizacija i pokusaj da se izadje iz uloge snabdevaca sirovinama koji je uvek bio jebena strana.

A?

[Ravanelli]

polako kreće...

 

na početku je bilo da se ništa ne oseća i nema problema. sada "of course they hurt" by lavrov i putin već prigovara centralnoj banci što nije pametnije reagovala, a mogla je.

 

 

zamislite gomile nesretnika koji su uzeli stanove u moskvi i sentpitu za po 3k evra kvadrat na kredit u devizama. kremlj više ne može da ignoriše to. uskoro će da sledi poziv na strpljenje ili pravljanje neprijatelja na koje će se usmeravati problemi.

Edited December 19, 2014 by Ravanelli

[duda]

najiskrenije pitam :

 

šta bi svet (ne amerika, nego svet, a pre svega evropa jer smo i sami eto tu negde u blizini) dobio propašću rusije ?

[Lord Protector]

Slowe ne zajebaj :)

 

Aj malo da se igramo povijesnih analogija: ovo bi mogao da bude 2. krimski rat.

Rusija posle obaranja Napoleona i Svete alijanse, jaka, umesana u evropske poslove, sa sve gasenjem revolucija po Evropi 1848, dakle situacija poprilicno nalik onoj iz perioda 1945. - 1990, Evropa u kojoj su - mislim na 19. vek u pogonu liberalne struje koje daju vjetar u ledja i ideoloskim napadima na Rusiju kao bastion konzervativizma, samodrzavlja, itd, itd...

Geopoliticki, to je trenutak da se pokusa da se Rusija postavi na svoje mesto: u 19. veku formalni, ali i strateski razlog bila je sprecavanje pristupa Rusiji Moreuzima i njeno ucesce u komadanju Turske.

Danas se komada Istocna Evropa ili ono sto je od nje ostalo dostupno Rusima, koaliciju vode zapadne sile, Pruska/Nemacka su kenjkave i ne ratuje im se s Rusijom, nikom nije u interesu da se bambusa sire i na opstem planu, pa je konsenzusom, precutnim ili koji ce to tek da postane, usvojeno resenje lokalizacije: u 19. veku samo Krim i nesto pomorskih akcija, danas Donbas, opet Krim i ekonomski zahvati kao sredstvo politike i to na obe strane.

Rusija je gubila tada, gubi i sada: tehnoloski i drustveno zaostala, nedovoljno jaka da se suprotstavi koaliciji koja moze duze i efikasnije da izdrzi...

Konacni skor moze jos da ispadne i povoljan po Rusiju, opet paralela: nuzda da se pristupi kakvim-takvim reformama, kapiranje da mora nesto da se menja u igranju danasnje uloge Saudijske Arabije koja ima nuklearno naoruzanje, modernizacija i pokusaj da se izadje iz uloge snabdevaca sirovinama koji je uvek bio jebena strana.

A?

 

Odgovorio sam X500 u vezi Tuska, o njegovoj izjavi i kako bi to moglo da se tumači. Nisam išao u šire elaboracije i istorijske kontekste kao ti.

 

Ne slažem se sa tobom da je sada na delu neka podela Istočne Evrope, i da postoji neki dil u vezi toga, kao i neki prihvatljiv minimalnog dela koji bi ''dobila'' Rusija.  Amerikanci vide istočnoevropske zemlje kao svoj ekskluzivni bafer kojim bi sprečili eventualno približavanje Nemačke i Rusije i kojim bi držali Rusiju podalje od evropskih poslova i integracija. Taj bafer konstantno ojačavaju novim članicama, i u njihovim projekcijama se tu kao idealno pojačanje našla Ukrajina jer ona je ogromna zemlja, ako bi ona bila u toj grupaciji zemalja koja su neprijateljski nastrojene prema Rusiji izbio bi se Rusima poslednji bedem odbrane i faktički bi došli pred vrata Moskve. Ovo ne pričam napamet, postovao sam već jednu diskusiju u Brukings institutu gde se upravo govori o tome. I američki i ruski stručnjaci su svesni ovoga, politička i medijska ulepšavanja samo služe da bi se javnost ubedila da nisu po sredi čisto geostrateške stvari već nešto sasvim drugo.

Edited December 19, 2014 by slow

[iDemo]

Rusija je gubila tada, gubi i sada: tehnoloski i drustveno zaostala, nedovoljno jaka da se suprotstavi koaliciji koja moze duze i efikasnije da izdrzi...

Rusija sve ovo radi u vrlo vrlo teshkoj iznudici™ a Amerika ih nateze da vidi dokle moze (ovog puta) da se ide... Bilo u Gruziji, sad je u Ukrajini...

A za 5 godina?? Moj tip nije nista bolji (a ni gori) od vasheg...

[iDemo]

najiskrenije pitam :

 

šta bi svet (ne amerika, nego svet, a pre svega evropa jer smo i sami eto tu negde u blizini) dobio propašću rusije ?

Zezash??

[namenski]

Odgovorio sam X500 u vezi Tuska, o njegovoj izjavi i kako bi to moglo da se tumači. Nisam išao u šire elaboracije i istorijske kontekste kao ti.

 

Ne slažem se sa tobom da je sada na delu neka podela Istočne Evrope, i da postoji neki dil u vezi toga, kao i neki prihvatljiv minimalnog dela koji bi ''dobila'' Rusija.  Amerikanci vide istočnoevropske zemlje kao svoj ekskluzivni bafer kojim bi sprečili eventualno približavanje Nemačke i Rusije i kojim bi držali Rusiju podalje od evropskih poslova i integracija. Taj bafer konstantno ojačavaju novim članicama, i u njihovim projekcijama se tu kao idealno pojačanje našla Ukrajina jer ona je ogromna zemlja, ako bi ona bila u toj grupaciji zemalja koja su neprijateljski nastrojene prema Rusiji izbio bi se Rusima poslednji bedem odbrane i faktički bi došli pred vrata Moskve. Ovo ne pričam napamet, postovao sam već jednu diskusiju u Brukings institutu gde se upravo govori o tome. I američki i ruski stručnjaci su svesni ovoga, politička i medijska ulepšavanja samo služe da bi se javnost ubedila da nisu po sredi čisto geostrateške stvari već nešto sasvim drugo.

Ko je bre pominjao podelu Istocne Evrope; imao sam na umu standardni i uobicajeni postupak postavljanja Rusije na svoje mesto, dakle - sve u svemu - najvece moguce smanjenje njenog uticaja na evropska desavanja, i to koriscenjem njene drustvene i tehnoloske zaostalosti.

Jedan od standardnih postupaka u tom procesu bio je drzanje Rusije u ulozi snabdevaca sirovinama, u 19. veku zitarice i ljudi kad zatreba, danas energenti.

[namenski]

Rusija sve ovo radi u vrlo vrlo teshkoj iznudici™ a Amerika ih nateze da vidi dokle moze (ovog puta) da se ide... Bilo u Gruziji, sad je u Ukrajini...

A za 5 godina?? Moj tip nije nista bolji (a ni gori) od vasheg...

Rusija je ovo zapocela onda kad se zazpijevski osetila dovoljno jakom; kriza je pocela ruskom inicijativom, iznudica je sad na snazi i tek ce da bude, mislim na ruski prelazak u defanzivu.