On May 6, 12:27=A0am, vello <vellok...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> On May 6, 7:13=A0am, ostap_bender_1...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 3, 12:17=A0am, vello <vellok...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
> > > On May 3, 7:38=A0am, ostap_bender_1...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
>
> > > > On May 2, 8:18=A0am, "Henry Alminas" <halmi...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
> > > > > ... space" matushka is in the process
> > > > > of engulfing her neighbors yet one
> > > > > more time. =A0These activities need to
> > > > > be closely monitored by the Balts. =A0Akin
> > > > > to the case in Georgia matushka planted
> > > > > great numbers of her colonizing
> > > > > kiddies in the Baltics (post war) =A0and has been
> > > > > making noises about "protecting her
> > > > > compatriots" for some time now.
>
> > > > > One should note, however, that rather than
> > > > > the "bull in the china shop" approach used
> > > > > in Georgia they are engaged much more
> > > > > subtle moves.
>
> > > > > Why - one might ask. =A0The answer is very
> > > > > simple the Baltic countries are in NATO
> > > > > - even if largely symbolically. =A0Thus the
> > > > > Kremlin is not quite sure as to the reaction
> > > > > of this organization to its more crass (and
> > > > > more natural for russkies) activities. =A0As a
> > > > > result it has restricted itself to doing "spade
> > > > > work" in preparation of getting the Baltic
> > > > > countries into a Georgian position. =A0It is
> > > > > investing massive efforts (and funds) in
> > > > > driving a wedge between the Baltic countries
> > > > > and other club members within NATO as
> > > > > well as the EU. =A0This effort has been but
> > > > > moderately successful. =A0 On the other hand
> > > > > the Kremlin has lots of time.
>
> > > > > Certainly Europe, Rather than being mesmerized
> > > > > by the pornographic spectacle of the ongoing
> > > > > krautoid-russkie fornication, needs to wake
> > > > > up and understand that the Kremlin is playing
> > > > > the same old russkie game - a game that has not
> > > > > even gained much in sophistication over the many
> > > > > centuries.
>
> > > > > Surely even in societies, completely submerged
> > > > > within a "I got mine/wanna get mine" mentality,
> > > > > there must be =A0individuals with enough
> > > > > intelligence to recognize the game and enough
> > > > > intestinal fortitude to condemn it and counteract
> > > > > it.
>
> > > > > That is all I ask.
>
> > > > > Best - - Henry
>
> > > > > For educational purposes only:
>
> > > > > From: The Jamestown Foundation
> > > > > (Eurasia Daily Monitor)
>
> > > > > ANNEXATION AND MILITARIZATION OF
> > > > > ABKHAZIA CONTINUE APACE
>
> > > > That's clearly a typo: "Akhazia" instead of "Kosovo". Clearly,
this
> > > > article was written back in the 1990s about NATO's aggression
agains=
t
> > > > Serbia, stealing Koovo and destroying Serbia's territorial
integrity=
..
> > > > However, some clown took that old article, replaced =A0"Kosovo"
with=
> > > > "Akhazia" everywhere, "Serbia" with "Georgia", and "NATO" with
> > > > "Russia". What a cheap piece of plagiarism. I wonder what clown
did
> > > > that...
>
> > > Well there are also differencies - serbians were tiny minority in
> > > kosovo, but georgians clear maiority in Abkhazia.
>
> > > Is it somehow important to you?
>
> > Let's not go in that direction for the 1000th time. For every reason
> > in favor of Kosovo's indpendence, I have in the past given 100 reasons
> > in favor of Transdniestria, Abkhazia and Ossetia. That's not the issue
> > right now.
>
> > The issue is that either territorial integrity is considered sacred
>
> It may be considered sacred if we are sure no colonial borders are
> left. Unhappily things are not this way.
>
> > and only a UN resolution can change that - in which case Koosvo should
> > be given back to Serbia and/or Montenegro - or individual countries
> > and/or militant organisations can at their will wage unprovoked
> > aggressions against any countries they wish in order to occupy them
> > and/or steal territory from them - in which case neither NATO nor
> > Socor can complain about the upcoming (hopefully peaceful)
> > independence of Transdniestria, Abkhazia and Ossetia. =A0Stop double
> > standards.
>
> Real double standards are right inside region, even inside your last
> sentence. Russia, so bravely fighting for independence of
> "southossetians" have no plans to give independence to northern part
> of Ossetia, occupied by them.
>
Ossetia was not occupied. Just as Georgia and Armenia, it joined the
Russian Empire purely voluntarily in order to be protected from
genocidal islamic Persians and Turks. Read up history books.
Unfortunately, South Armenia could not join Russia, and as the result
they all perished in a genocide in Turkey about 100 years ago, with
Russia prevented to protect them.
Go ahead, hold an independence referendum in North Ossetia. I
guarantee you that at least 97% will vote to remain with Russia. Even
South Ossetians and Abkhazians (the latter being Muslim!) prefer to be
with Russia than to be independent and be raped by their deranged
neighbors. Welcome to the Caucusus!
>
> and - in time they support seccessionist
> movement in Abkhazia, they drown in blood Chechen nation - a clear
> maiority in Chechenia.
>
>
>
> > Instead of giving your reasons why Kosovo's desire for independence
> > should be treated better than Abkhazia's to me for the 20th time, save
> > them for the UN discussion, in which the international community can
> > set objective standards how to decide which region deserves
> > independence and which doesn't. =A0How come US and the rest of NATO
are
> > more scared of such public discussions more than vampires are scared
> > of silver crosses and stakes?
>
> Because UN as it is is not very effective tool - it is more relict of
> ww2.
>
NATO countries consider UN ineffective because UN doesn't go along
with their non-stop rapes of little defenceless countires. Hitler and
Stalin also considered the League of Nations ineffective.
>
> World do need such a structure but it must be rebuilt by
> standards of 21 century.
>
But there already exist more than one: NATO, CIA, MI5/6, Halliburton,
Exxon, Guantanamo Bay, Al Ghraib. The structure to rule the World in
the 21st century is in place and working on overdrive. The New World
Order. Das Neue Weltordnung, as Hitler coined the phrase some 50 years
before Bush and Albright resurrected it. Sadly for Hitler, he was
long dead (those terrible Russians forced him to commit suicide!)
before his Germany and the rest of NATO fulfilled his two biggest
dream: Neues Weltordnung and Drang Nach Osten. Too bad for him that
the Rulers of the World are not Germans but Anglos: US and its
concubine Britain.
>
> Not regions but nations are natural subjects of history
>
Oh, you are a follower of Stalin's "science"?
|
