porucnik vasic Posted November 17, 2016 Posted November 17, 2016 Ovo pitanje bi mozda bili relevantno tamo negde 2010.-12. Sa potpisanim briselskim sporazumom, Kosovo je otislo Није на нашу срећу.
francuski sobar Posted November 17, 2016 Posted November 17, 2016 Ma da, ko jebe BPM bitno je da Rusija uzme Odesu... Elem nekih novih crtanja verovatno ce biti bar na bliskom istoku uskoro. To obicno ide ratom, ja s samo nadam da ce mozda negde moci i samo trgovinom uticaja i interesa. Aj ok da ne trolujemo, ja video da trafika radi a pivo hladno pa me malo ponelo :)
Takeshi Posted November 17, 2016 Posted November 17, 2016 englezi i francuzi su vrlo pazljivo odredili granice na bliskom istoku, lenjirom.
Eraserhead Posted November 17, 2016 Posted November 17, 2016 Dobar Bremmer na temu Americko-ruskih odnosa u vreme Trampa. Trump Will Thaw Chilly U.S.-Russia Relationship ian bremmer No foreign policy question loomed larger during the bitter presidential campaign than U.S. relations with Russia. Hillary Clinton painted Russian President Vladimir Putin as an aggressive autocrat who threatens U.S. national security, while Donald Trump treated him as a strong and decisive leader with whom Washington could do business. Putin, a Soviet man from head to toe, has always chafed at what he sees as U.S. post–Cold War triumphalism. He has never welcomed claims by Americans that the U.S. is an indispensable and exceptional nation with a responsibility to promote Western values everywhere, including across Russia’s neighborhood and inside Russia itself. Putin likes Trump in part because he believes that the new President has no interest in asserting that privilege. He’s right. Trump isn’t going to criticize Putin for building a Potemkin democracy at home. His Administration will see no value in challenging Russia’s claim to Crimea or in going nose to nose over the broader question of Ukraine, an issue Putin cares deeply about. Nor is he going to fight Putin over the future of Syria’s Bashar Assad. Trump wants to destroy ISIS, preferably with Russian help, and he doesn’t care about the Syrian strongman’s use of chemical weapons against civilians. Trump isn’t going to treat Putin like a thug and his country as a second-rate power. That’s why, once Trump takes the oath, we should expect improvement in U.S.-Russian relations. He might even ease U.S. sanctions against Russian businesses and individuals. And there is value in this for the U.S. Both Democrats and Republicans in Washington have a bad habit of picking fights that other powerful states care much more about than Americans do. That creates costs and risks for U.S. policymakers and taxpayers with little promise of a successful return. The U.S. could benefit from better relations with Russia in managing growing tensions with Europe, coordinating to help stabilize Middle East hot spots and even dealing with problems in Asia. Trump has a point that confrontation is pointless and that there is surely something to gain from toning down what might become a dangerous escalatory spiral in cyberconflict. A new approach to Moscow might even appeal to those who mistrust Putin most and despise his government. Russia now faces a long period of economic decline, one brought about more by technological change in energy markets and Moscow’s own failure to modernize and diversify the Russian economy than by Western pressure. Perhaps the shortest path to change in Moscow is to deny Putin a foreign scapegoat as Russia’s economy becomes encased in rust. This appears in the November 28, 2016 issue of TIME.
Prospero Posted November 17, 2016 Posted November 17, 2016 ovaj ruski deklinizam se provlači gde god okreneš, malo je dosadno, a i nema neko uporište u širem političkom smislu. no, to na stranu. šta će rusi dati trampu zauzvrat za npr američko ukidanje sankcija rusiji? krim vratiti neće, da li će povući svoje igrače iz ist. ukrajine? ne bih rekao. teza o raprošmanu je još uvek vrlo tanka, pogotovo što ne znamo ko će sa američke strane sedeti u stejt depu i voditi ga (i odsek za evropske i evroazijske poslove). to tzv njuškanje 2 jaka igrača je, imho, overhajpovano, kao što je overhajpovana i ruska "podrška" trampu. i nju treba čitati u posebnom ruskom kontekstu: [...] And yet it was clear yesterday that the Clinton upset was as much of a surprise for the Russian elites as it was for the establishments in many other countries. Konstantin Kosachev, chairman of the International Relations Committee of the Federation Council, the upper house of parliament, told Russia One that he did not expect Trump to win because he “went against the system.” “And the Americans have taught me that the system always prevails,” Kosachev was quoted as saying.“The system” is an important term in the Russian political vocabulary. This vague word usually refers to a combination of direct and indirect influence that the government institutions, media, and punditry have over society. A clever system, in the Russian establishment’s view, is the one that can keep its grip on power while holding elections and paying lip service to other democratic institutions. Many in Moscow are convinced that this is how the U.S. system works and that this is what Russia has to learn from the Americans: the system should always prevail.My reading of Moscow’s reactions yesterday is that the Kremlin only needed Trump as a good story, not as a real counterpart to Putin. Trump the underdog who went against the system and failed would be a protagonist in a saga of a rigged election. Dmitry Kiselev, a journalist often considered Russia’s propagandist-in-chief, was saying last week that the presidential campaign was bound to produce a “lame-duck president since day one.”“Democracy R.I.P.,” Margarita Simonyan, editor-in-chief of RT, tweeted on election night. Simonyan meant that while Clinton was winning, democracy was losing. She later wrote that she had lost a crate of beer on the Trump win.I would not be surprised to learn that Russia’s state media were preparing a campaign built around Trump’s earlier “rigged election” claims. It would make perfect sense as retaliation for Hillary Clinton’s statements five years ago that the Russian parliamentary election of 2011 was “neither free, nor fair.” That comment was said to have infuriated Putin, who said at the time that Clinton, by questioning the fairness of the Russian electoral system, signaled to certain actors within Russia to start an anti-government protest.Several Kremlin insiders who spoke to Bloomberg on Thursday also expected Trump would lose. Most of them said Putin was likely to be cautious to see just how far Trump was ready to go before opening the embrace too far.The real Donald Trump as president is as enigmatic a figure for the Kremlin as he is for anyone. “What we have heard Trump saying about Russia was campaign rhetoric,” Kosachev, the Federation Council member, said yesterday. “I would expect this rhetoric to tone down in the coming months.... Right now we should not change anything in our policies toward the U.S.”- See more at: https://www.wilsoncenter.org/article/the-paradox-russias-support-for-trump#sthash.RND9nSgO.dpuf na kraju, rusko-američki odnosi ne zavise samo od... rusko-američkih odnosa, nego i od širih pitanja. šta će biti sa tim odnosima ako npr ameri zaigraju ozbiljnije protiv irana? krenu da pročiste bliski istok po svom nahođenju, a u međuvremenu samo malo spuste tenzije na bilateralnom nivou sa rusima ali ne na nivo za koji su rusi uvereni da im nije pretnja u nekom brzom američkom manevru protiv nje?
Eraserhead Posted November 17, 2016 Posted November 17, 2016 Dobra ti je poenta ali nemam sad mnogo vremena. U medjuvremenu sam naleteo na ovo: Bankers celebrate dawn of Trump era NEW YORK — Christmas has arrived early for Wall Street in the early days of the Donald Trump era. A populist candidate who railed against shady financial interests on the campaign trail is now putting together an administration that looks like an investment banker’s dream. Former Goldman Sachs banker Steven Mnuchin has been seen at Trump Tower amid rumors that he’s the leading candidate for Treasury secretary. Billionaire investor Wilbur Ross appears headed to the Commerce Department. Steve Bannon, another Goldman alum, will work steps from the Oval Office. JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon remains a possibility as Treasury secretary and will serve as an outside adviser if he doesn't get the job. It’s a restoration of Wall Street power — and a potential flip in the way the industry is regulated — perhaps unparalleled in American history. “You would have to go back to the 1920s to see so much Wall Street influence coming to Washington,” said Charles Geisst, a Wall Street historian at Manhattan College. “It’s the most dramatic turnaround one could imagine. That’s the truly astonishing part.” Evidence of Wall Street’s improved prospects is everywhere. The Dodd-Frank financial reform law that bedeviled the industry for years and cost banks untold billions could soon get burned to the ground. Bank stocks are soaring. Trump is going around Manhattan promising to lower rich people’s taxes. And industry critics led by Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren — long in ascendance — are seeing their populist power deflate. The anti-banker culture of Washington has been turned on its head in an instant. And the industry can barely believe its good fortune. “Those of us who have been around D.C. for a long time, are we relieved that we are not going to be subpoenaed every week? Of course we are,” said Richard Hunt, head of the Consumer Bankers Association. Bank stocks are up by around 10 percent since Trump’s win, according to the KBW Bank Index, as investors contemplate an agenda tailormade for the industry including deregulation and potentially higher interest rates sparked by significant deficit spending. Bankers themselves also stand to make a killing. Massive tax cuts, including an elimination of the estate tax and big reductions for top earners seem like slam dunks in Trump’s Washington. Wall Street bankers and their Washington lobbyists are quietly celebrating. They went from expecting fresh crackdowns from a Hillary Clinton administration with Warren wielding heavy influence to the cusp of a deregulatory bonanza with Republicans in complete control of Washington. “There is a joke going around here that if I’d have known how good Trump was going to be for Wall Street, I’d have campaigned for him,” said one Goldman Sachs executive who declined to be identified by name speaking about the incoming president. “What people are reacting to is this incredible cultural shift. People thought it might be 10 or 15 years until regulators stopped demanding heads and now all of a sudden you can envision it happening overnight.” Goldman CEO Lloyd Blankfein last week spoke of Trump as great for the stock market. “His policies are market-supportive,” he said at a New York Times conference. "I'm not saying it's good or bad. Just as far as asset prices in the market are concerned, how could they not be supportive?" All this has left Wall Street reformers led by Warren in close to flat-out panic over what Trump and the GOP Congress could do to the Dodd-Frank law and how Trump could reshape financial regulatory agencies. He will now be able to install a new head of the Securities and Exchange Commission as well as senior leadership positions at the Federal Reserve, possibly including the head of supervision. Changes at the Fed, including the possible exit of Chair Janet Yellen and Vice Chair Stanley Fischer in a year, could wind up being the biggest boon to Wall Street if Trump can fill their slots with candidates less inclined to hold banks to high capital requirements and otherwise rein in their activities. “If you really want to reduce bank regulation you have to change the nature of the Fed so it really has the desire to start easing off,” said Dick Bove, banking analyst at Rafferty Capital Markets. “And I think it will be pretty easy for Trump to do that. You have two board seats empty and there is a good chance he can push out Yellen and Fischer and that would give him four out of seven, and five if [Daniel] Tarullo becomes isolated and resigns.” In the House, Financial Services Chairman Jeb Hensarling (R-Texas), also mentioned as a possible Treasury secretary along with Moelis & Co. banker and former GOP Rep. Eric Cantor, has a pile of bills ready to slice and dice Dodd-Frank out of existence. Senate Democrats have promised to resist whole-scale changes to the financial reform law, especially efforts to gut the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. But many industry analysts believe it will ultimately be a losing battle. “I do think that Republicans will pick at it piece by piece and by the time they are done it will be largely weakened,” said Ian Katz, director at Capital Alpha Partners. “It may take a while, you can’t just flip a switch and do all this stuff. But eventually they can do it.” Warren, meanwhile, no longer has any real power beyond her ability to rhetorically rally the left and try to turn populists — who have no love for Wall Street — against the incoming president. And that’s exactly what she’s attempting to do. “Based on public reports, your transition team and your potential ccabinet include over twenty Wall Street elites, industry insiders, and lobbyists,” Warren wrote in a public letter to Trump on Tuesday, demanding that he drop lobbyists and Wall Street executives from his transition team and administration. “Should you refuse, I will oppose you, every step of the way, for the next four years. I will champion the millions of Americans you will fail to protect.” Trump is not likely to heed any of Warren’s warnings, people close to the president-elect say. He derisively referred to the Massachusetts senator as “Pocahontas” and “goofy Elizabeth” on the campaign trail. And bankers believe Warren will be quickly sidelined. “You now have a president-elect who will absolutely delight in steamrolling her,” one Wall Street banker said this week. There remains at least some hope among financial reformers that Trump will rediscover some of his anti-Wall Street zeal once he takes office. The GOP nominee intermittently criticized the banking industry during his campaign and spoke of a desire to reinstate the Glass-Steagall law separating retail and investment banking. And Bannon, despite making a fortune at Goldman, has spoken in the past about punishing bad banker behavior and simplifying the industry. It’s a thin reed of hope for the left, given Trump’s early personnel moves, but progressives are clinging to it. “Candidate Trump understood the American people’s disgust with Washington’s bipartisan business-as-usual corruption, where the biggest corporations and Wall Street’s too-big-to-fail banks in particular buy access and influence to promote their special interests,” said Dennis Kelleher, CEO of Better Markets, a financial reform group. “That is the fetid swamp he was elected to drain.” The left is also hoping that the U.S. can simply avoid another financial crisis before a less-Wall Street friendly administration wins the White House. “I think praying there is no financial meltdown before pro-regulatory forces return to power may be the least implausible path forward,” said Jeff Hauser, director of the Revolving Door Project.
MancMellow Posted November 17, 2016 Posted November 17, 2016 ovaj ruski deklinizam se provlači gde god okreneš, malo je dosadno, a i nema neko uporište u širem političkom smislu. no, to na stranu. šta će rusi dati trampu zauzvrat za npr američko ukidanje sankcija rusiji? krim vratiti neće, da li će povući svoje igrače iz ist. ukrajine? ne bih rekao. teza o raprošmanu je još uvek vrlo tanka, pogotovo što ne znamo ko će sa američke strane sedeti u stejt depu i voditi ga (i odsek za evropske i evroazijske poslove). to tzv njuškanje 2 jaka igrača je, imho, overhajpovano, kao što je overhajpovana i ruska "podrška" trampu. i nju treba čitati u posebnom ruskom kontekstu: na kraju, rusko-američki odnosi ne zavise samo od... rusko-američkih odnosa, nego i od širih pitanja. šta će biti sa tim odnosima ako npr ameri zaigraju ozbiljnije protiv irana? krenu da pročiste bliski istok po svom nahođenju, a u međuvremenu samo malo spuste tenzije na bilateralnom nivou sa rusima ali ne na nivo za koji su rusi uvereni da im nije pretnja u nekom brzom američkom manevru protiv nje? Pa da. To (sve) je uprav i razlog zasto kada dve (ili vise) velike sile jednom kroce na collision path da se to tesko menja. Bez obzira, ja skromno mislim da ce biti otopljavanja i da ce neki dilovi biti postignuti, posebno ako u Beloj kuci prevlada ova...hmm, kultur-rasisticka ekipa kojoj je rusija otprilike deseta na listi problema. No, to ne znaci neminovno i vecu stabilnost posto ce takvi dilovi domino efektom pogoditi druge, manje, ucesnike na raznim figurativnim i doslovnim frontovima, od kojih neki mogu da reaguju nervozno, a neki mogu da vide sansu za nesto sto se do sada nisu usudjivali. Sto onda povratnom spregom moze ponovo da destabilizuje rusko-americke odnose. No, objektivno, nista se ne zna.
MancMellow Posted November 17, 2016 Posted November 17, 2016 Dobra ti je poenta ali nemam sad mnogo vremena. U medjuvremenu sam naleteo na ovo: Bankers celebrate dawn of Trump era Borac protiv elita Covek koji zivi u kuci od zlata.
Lord Protector Posted November 17, 2016 Posted November 17, 2016 (edited) Trump Needs Good Advice Posted By Philip Giraldi On November 16, 2016 I would very much like to see the White House revert to a George Marshall type of foreign policy, in which the United States would use its vast power wisely rather than punitively. As Donald Trump knows little of what makes the world go round, senior officials and cabinet secretaries will play a key role in framing and executing policy. One would like to see people like Jim Webb, Chas Freeman, Andrew Bacevich, or even TAC’s own Daniel Larison in key government positions, as one might thereby rely on their cool judgment and natural restraint to guide the ship of state. But that is unfortunately unlikely to happen. Instead, by some accounts, we will quite possibly be getting Newt Gingrich, Chris Christie, Rudy Giuliani, John Bolton, Sarah Palin, Jose Rodriguez, Michael Ledeen, and Michael Flynn. Bolton, who is being tagged as a possible secretary of state, would be a one-man reactionary horror show, making one long for the good old days of Condi Rice and Madeleine Albright. There are also lesser, mostly neocon luminaries lining up for supporting roles, résumés ready at hand. To be sure, we won’t be seeing the Kagans, Eliot Cohen, Eric Edelman, or Michael Hayden, who defected to Hillary in dramatic fashion, but there are plenty of others who are polishing up their credentials and hoping to let bygones be bygones. They are eager to return to power and regain the emoluments that go with high office, so they will now claim to be adaptable enough to work for someone they once described as unfit to be president. It is reported that [1] associates from the conservative Heritage Foundation have been tasked with the search for suitable national-security candidates as part of the transition team. One candidate to head the CIA [2] is Jose Rodriguez, who back under W headed the agency’s torture program. Another former CIA officer [3] who is a particularly polarizing figure and is apparently being looked at for high office is Clare Lopez, who has claimed that the Obama White House is infiltrated by the Muslim Brotherhood. Lopez is regarded by the Trump team as “one of the intellectual thought leaders about why we have to fight back against radical Islam.” She has long been associated with the Center for Security Policy [4], headed by Frank Gaffney, a fanatical hardliner who believes that [5] Saddam Hussein was involved in both the 1993 World Trade Center attack and the Oklahoma City bombing, that Americans for Tax Reform head Grover Norquist is a secret agent of the Muslim Brotherhood, that Gen. David Petraeus has “submitted to Sharia,” and that the logo of the U.S. Missile Defense Agency reveals “official U.S. submission to Islam” because it “appears ominously to reflect a morphing of the Islamic crescent and star.” But if Rodriguez and Lopez and others like them can be either discarded or kept in a closet somewhere, let us hope for the best. If Trump appoints competent senior officials, they might actually undertake a serious review of what America does around the world. Such an examination would be appropriate, as Trump has more or less promised to shake things up. He has indicated that he would abandon the policy of humanitarian intervention so loved by President Barack Obama and his advisors, and has signaled that he will not be pursuing regime change in Syria. He will also seek détente with Russia, a major shift from the increasingly confrontational policy of the past eight years. Donald Trump rejects arming rebels as in Syria because we know little about whom we are dealing with and increasingly find that we cannot control what develops from the relationship. He is against foreign aid in principle, particularly to countries like Pakistan where the U.S. is strongly disliked. These are all positive steps, and the new administration should be encouraged to pursue them. The White House might also want to consider easing the United States out of Afghanistan through something like the negotiated Paris Peace talks arrangement that ended Vietnam. Fifteen years of conflict with no end in sight: Afghanistan is a war that is unwinnable. Apart from several easy-to-identify major issues, Trump’s foreign policy [6] is admittedly quite sketchy, and he has not always been consistent in explaining it. He has been slammed, appropriately enough, for being simple minded in saying that he would “bomb the [crap] out of ISIS” and that he is willing to put 30,000 soldiers on the ground if necessary to destroy the terrorist group, but he has also taken on the Republican establishment by specifically condemning the George W. Bush invasion of Iraq. He has more than once indicated that he is not interested in being either the world’s policeman or a participant in new wars in the Middle East. He has repeatedly stated that he supports NATO, but not as a blunt instrument designed to irritate Russia. He would work with Putin to address concerns over Syria and Eastern Europe. He would demand that NATO countries spend more for their own defense and also help pay for the maintenance of U.S. bases, which many argue to be long overdue. Trump’s controversial call to stop all Muslim immigration has been rightly condemned, but he has somewhat moderated that stance to focus on travelers and immigrants from countries that have been substantially radicalized or where anti-American sentiment is strong. And the demand to take a second look at some potential visitors or residents is not unreasonable in that the current process for vetting new arrivals in this country is far from transparent and apparently not very effective. Beyond platitudes, the Obama administration has not been very forthcoming on what might be done to fix the entire immigration process, but Trump is promising to put national security and border control first. If Trump were to receive good advice on the issue, he would indeed tighten border security and gradually move to repatriate most illegal immigrants, but he would also look at the investigative procedures used to examine the backgrounds and intentions of refugees and asylum seekers who come in through other resettlement programs. The United States has an obligation to help genuine refugees from countries that have been shattered through Washington’s military interventions, but it also has a duty to know exactly whom it is letting in. Trump is also critical of the Iran nuclear agreement and the steps to normalize relations with Cuba, the two most notable foreign-policy successes of the Obama administration. Any change in the latter would have relatively little impact on the United States, but the Iran deal is important as it stopped potential proliferation by Iran, which likely would have produced a nuclear arms race in the Middle East. Trump has called the agreement “horrible” because it stopped short of total capitulation by Tehran and has pledged to “renegotiate it,” which might prove impossible given that the pact had five other signatories. Iran would in any event refuse to make further concessions, particularly as it would no longer be prepared to accept assurances that Washington would comply with any agreement. The White House could, however, de facto scuttle the agreement by imposing new sanctions on Iran and continuing to apply pressure on Iranian banks and credit through Washington’s influence over international financial markets. If enough pressure were applied, Iran could rightly claim that the U.S. had failed to comply with the agreement and withdraw from it, possibly leading to an accelerated nuclear-weapons program justified on the basis of self-defense. It is precisely the outcome that many hardliners both in Washington and Iran would like to see, as it would invite a harsh response from the White House, ending any possibility of an accord over proliferation. Someone has to try to convince Trump that the Iranian agreement is good for everyone involved, including Israel and the United States. Even though such a suggestion is unlikely to come from the current group of advisors, who are strongly anti-Iranian, a good argument might be made based on what Trump himself has been urging vis-à-vis Syria, stressing that ISIS is America’s real enemy and Iran is a major partner in the coalition that is actively fighting the terrorist group. As in the case of Russia, it makes sense to cooperate with Iran when it is in our interest, and it also is desirable to prolong the process, delaying Iran’s possible decision to acquire a nuclear capability. Working with Iran might even make the country’s leadership less paranoid and would reduce the motivation to acquire a weapon in the first place, an argument analogous to Trump’s observations about dealing with Russia. But it all comes down to the type of “expert” advice Trump gets. The president-elect is largely ignorant of the world and its leaders, so he has relied on a mixed bag of foreign-policy advisors. Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, former head of the Defense Intelligence Agency, appears to be the most prominent. Flynn is associated with arch-neocon Michael Ledeen, and both are rabid about Iran, with Flynn suggesting that nearly all the unrest in the Middle East should be laid at Tehran’s door. Ledeen is, of course, a prominent Israel-firster who has long had Iran in his sights. Their solution to the Iran problem would undoubtedly entail the use of military force against the Islamic Republic. Given what is at stake in terms of yet another Middle Eastern war and possible nuclear proliferation, it is essential that Donald Trump hear some alternative views. There are other foreign-policy areas as well where Trump will undoubtedly be receiving bad advice and would benefit from a broader vision. He has said that he would be an even-handed negotiator between Israel and the Palestinians, but he has also declared that he is strongly pro-Israel and would move the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem—which is a bad idea, not in America’s interest, even if Benjamin Netanyahu would like it. It would produce serious blowback from the Arab world and would inspire a new wave of terrorism directed against the U.S. Someone should explain to Mr. Trump that there are real consequences to pledges made in the midst of an acrimonious electoral campaign. The Trump Asia policy, meanwhile, consists largely of uninformed and reactionary positions that would benefit from a bit of fresh air provided through access to alternative viewpoints. In East Asia, Trump has said he would encourage Japan and South Korea to develop their own nuclear arsenals to deter North Korea. That is a very bad idea, a proliferation nightmare, but Trump evidently eased away from that position during a recent phone call [7] to the president of South Korea. Trump would also prefer that China intervene in North Korea and make Kim Jong Un “step down.” He would put pressure on China to stop devaluing its currency because it is “bilking us of billions of dollars” and would also increase U.S. military presence in the region to limit Beijing’s expansion in the South China Sea. It is to be hoped that Donald Trump and his transition team will be good listeners over the next 60 days. Positions staked out during a heated campaign do not equate to policy and should be regarded with considerable skepticism. American foreign policy, and by extension U.S. interests, have suffered for 16 years under the establishment-centric but nevertheless quite different groupthinks prevailing in the Bush and Obama White Houses. It is time for a little fresh advice. Philip Giraldi, a former CIA officer, is executive director of the Council for the National Interest. Edited November 17, 2016 by slow
hazard Posted November 17, 2016 Posted November 17, 2016 Borac protiv elita Covek koji zivi u kuci od zlata. To je isto kao i Aleksandar Vucic borac protiv korupcije
Prospero Posted November 17, 2016 Posted November 17, 2016 Dobra ti je poenta ali nemam sad mnogo vremena. U medjuvremenu sam naleteo na ovo: ... ma ok, polemisao sam s bremerom :D više nego što sam tebe cimao
porucnik vasic Posted November 17, 2016 Posted November 17, 2016 Pa da. To (sve) je uprav i razlog zasto kada dve (ili vise) velike sile jednom kroce na collision path da se to tesko menja. Bez obzira, ja skromno mislim da ce biti otopljavanja i da ce neki dilovi biti postignuti, posebno ako u Beloj kuci prevlada ova...hmm, kultur-rasisticka ekipa kojoj je rusija otprilike deseta na listi problema. No, to ne znaci neminovno i vecu stabilnost posto ce takvi dilovi domino efektom pogoditi druge, manje, ucesnike na raznim figurativnim i doslovnim frontovima, od kojih neki mogu da reaguju nervozno, a neki mogu da vide sansu za nesto sto se do sada nisu usudjivali. Sto onda povratnom spregom moze ponovo da destabilizuje rusko-americke odnose. No, objektivno, nista se ne zna. Што није да се није дешавало у историји.
Budja Posted November 17, 2016 Posted November 17, 2016 Borac protiv elita Covek koji zivi u kuci od zlata. S tim sto ovaj clanak, prepun spekulacija, i sa tviter argumentima kako je Trampara nazvao Vorenovu nista ne kazuje. NYT, WP, Politico, Huffington, Daily Beast i sl... moraju da se citaju u partizanskom kljucu. To vise nisu izvori informacija.
Eraserhead Posted November 17, 2016 Posted November 17, 2016 S tim sto ovaj clanak, prepun spekulacija, i sa tviter argumentima kako je Trampara nazvao Vorenovu nista ne kazuje. NYT, WP, Politico, Huffington, Daily Beast i sl... moraju da se citaju u partizanskom kljucu. To vise nisu izvori informacija. Ono sto mogu da posvedocim iz prve ruke je da medju bankarima vlada nekakav novi optimizam po pitanju Trampa.
Recommended Posts