Krc pasikartosiu, kad PIRMA REIKIA MUZTI SAVO VALDZIA, kuri mus visus silpnina,o tik PO TO LIKUSI PASAULI, KAD MUMS NEPADEDA.
Vnz jeigu V. Europa ir JAV minksteja Rusijos atzvilgiu, tai reikia isauginti trecia jega: VIDURIO EUROPA!

Kazinskis juk jau buvo kazka tai uzsimines apie 100mln zmoniu sajunga... Nes... v. europieciai ir net amerikieciai tikrai nesius savo zmoniu i kara su Rusija - taip pat, kaip jie nesiunte i Gruzija...

Tad mes turim pasirupinti savimi. Po to igauti vertes. Ir tapti svarbia Pasaulio dalimi.

O tiems lietuviams, kurie turi nepilnavertiskumo komplesku, pasakysiu sitai: PASIKARKIT. Taip bus lengviau, jei jums sis Pasalis per sunkus ;-)

O del Rusijos, tai... dar islaukim apie 20-30m ir nebebus jokios Rusijos. Kinija ir musulmonai ta imperija, issidrebusia per 2zemynus, atves i pabaiga. Nes visos imperijos griuna.

Taigi - dar 20-30m. ir musu amzino prieso rytuose galbut nebeliks :-)

2000-2005 gyvenau Maskvoj. Ten susipažinau su 2 demobilizavusiaisiais iš branduolinių pajėgų bazės kažkur Baškirijoj leitinantais. Tai jie pasakojo, kad jiem nereik jokio Prezidento lagaminėlio-jie žino kokius kabelius nupjaut, kaip sujungt laidus ir paleist branduolinį užtaisą. Ir pyzd--c visiem-jokia NATO nepadės. Todėl ir reikia kantriai eiti branduolinio nusiginklavimo keliu. Jokie geriausi lėktuvai PRG skydai nepadės jei koks apsirūkęs majoras nuspręs tokiu būdu atkeršyt pulkininkui, dulkinančiam jo žmoną...

Mano nuomone pirmiausiai reiketu pasistengti MUMS PATIEMS del SAVO saugumo. Jeigu Lietuva net nesugeba ginzbai skirti 2proc BVP, tai ar mes turim teise kritikuti V. Europa ir JAV, kad MUSU NEGINA??? Ar mes kokie nors afrikieciai, kad savimi nesugebam pasirupinti, ar ka???
Man tai butu geda keiksnoti visa Pasauli, kad negina MANES... Savigarbos reikia...

Pavyzdi parodyti reikia... Ir tik po to kitus kaltinti.

Nors kas liecia Lietuva, tai... mums greiciausiai pirmiausia reiketu SUSITVARKYTI VIDU, nes Lietuvoje betvarke per didele, kad galetumeme kovoti su tokiais galiunais, kaip Rusija... Ir Rusija, tai ne juokas - Putinas juk pasake, kad probaltai - slaviskos zemes... Tad velniai zino kas gali nutikti 2010 - 2020m....

Vnz as uz tai, kad Vidurio Europa pati pasitemptu, o tik po to kitus kaltinitu, kad jos niekas negina...

Ir is viso - O KODEL TURETU MUS KAS NORS GINTI???

Sakai "labusai", maskoli? Kokia ten jūsų galia? "Kalašnikovai"? Nejuokink. Koks dar "kalašnikovas" - pavogėte iš vokiečių Sturmgewehr 44 (StG 44) ir priplagijavote milijonais. Tas pats visur. Ar iš vokiečių pavogėte "Opelį" ir pavadinote "Pobeda", ar iš amerikiečių vogėte kompiuterines technologijas. Bet kadangi šikniarankiai esate, tai viską blogai kopijavote.

Ruskeli, žinome ką čia darote ir dar ketinate iškrėsti. Atleidimo jums nebuvo ir nebus. Už visą blogį, kurį padarėte ir ketinate padaryti. Aš tau tik vieną stebuklingą žodį pasakysiu. KINIJA. Net bukiausias rusas stuburo smeginimis nujaučia užuominą. Geriau jau nesipykite su kaimynais.

Nematau jokios problemos, jei Kremlius panaudos šį laišką tolesniam savo visuomenės durninimui. Nes rusai su savuoju imperiniu mąstymu jau pakankamai sukvailinti per paskutinius 100 metų. Toliau kažin ar beįmanoma.

Nurimkit, labusai. Ne jum turintiem 2 tankus ir tris geldas jūroj spręst apie Rusijos galią. Rusija tebelieka pagrindinis veiksnys ir vienintelė valstybė, galinti nušluoti JAV nuo žemės paviršiaus. Rusijos invazija į Gruziją, Ukrainai ir Baltijos šalims daromas spaudimas yra labai rimti signalai. Amerikos politikos ekspertai neteigia, kad Maskvos reikia bijoti, tačiau ragina skaitytis su tuo faktu, kad Kremlius šiose valstybėse turi savų strateginių ir teisėtų interesų. Formuluotė labai jau prisitaikėliška. Jeigu Maskva daro energetinį spaudimą Baltijos šalims, tai, pasak Amerikos politikų, reiškia jos teisėtus interesus regione. Taigi nors ataskaitoje raginama tvirtai remti Baltijos valstybių nepriklausomybę, sudaromas įspūdis, kad naujasis JAV prezidentas Barackas Obama ekspertų stumiamas į padėtį, kurią jie suformulavo taip: pro medžius reikia matyti mišką. Tai reiškia, kad mažų valstybių interesai, menkos svarbos klausimai neturi užgožti esminių problemų. Atrodo, europietiška „realpolitik“ praktika persikėlė per Atlantą...

Kiekvienas turi savo tiesą:
Mes šikome jiems prie slenksčio-tai gerai;
Jiems nepatinka ir ruošiasi mums duoti į marmūzę-tai blogai.
Amerika su jais kalba draugiškai-tai gerai;
Amerika mus negins- karaul!

Kiekvienas turi savo tiesą:
Mes šikome jiems prie slenksčio-tai gerai;
Jiems nepatinka ir ruošiasi mums duoti į marmūzę-tai blogai.
Amerika su jais kalba draugiškai-tai gerai;
Amerika mus negins- karaul!

Amerika tai sudo kruva,o letuva tai tik tuscia vieta.Ateis rusas i tuscia vieta,patres JAV sudo kruva ir uzaugs nauja kultura.Tegu nukarses dvaselis durnu rastu nepasirasineja,o geria vyneli PORTO,kur buvo isrinkstas pasutusios backos brigadierium.O gal nepamenat?

Visuomet naudojosi tokiais pareiškimais ir nauduosis.

Aciu Laurynui Jonaviciui uz straipsni aktualia tema EU-USA.


Sis laiskas be abejo suaktyvins (ir as to linkiu) Amerikos itaka EU, nes yra proga pamatyti Amerika "is salies".

-bet as manau, kad putinrusijai gresia subyrjimas is vidaus ir ne uz kalnu...

Butu gerai kad parasytumete apie norima ikurti
Finn-Ugru respublika, kuri butu nuo Karelijos iki 2500 kilometru i rytus t.y. ten, kur yra pagrindiniai duju, naftos laukai.

Noreciau pateikti idomu The Wall Street Journal straipsni ir kai kuriuos komentarus.


***The President's Mission to Moscow***

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124683525998697831.html


pavz:

Actually, the rational for throwing Georgia to the Russian Wolf/Bear is the same one that could be used for every other country in NATO.

NATO countries know this.

Most of central Asia has decided the United States would abandon them and cut a deal with Putin instead.

It should be remembered Hitler's early conquests were bullying and bluster, with not that much military might to back it up.

***The question is what kind of man Putin is and what kind of man Obama is.

To judge Obama by what he says when he is outside the country,

-* he hates what this country is and what it stands for, and thus is capable of offering the unconditional surrender of the United States to Russia as a stand in for the defunct Soviet Union.

Not being as complete an idiot, Putin will settle for what he can get away with for now and come back for more six months from now.

What could be done?

Given Soviet misrule has left both eastern Europe and trans Caucasia depopulated and impoverished, and Roe v. Wade producing such a shortage of young men in this country that even with a draft that we don't and will not have for the forseeable future the manpower to place adquate garrisons in each threatened country, and it might not be advisable if we did.

*The reason why is that when Russian soldiers charged into Georgia they were looking to avenge fallen comrades who perish fighting Americans in Iraq,
suggesting those "Chechin" snipers in Iraq are really Russian special forces,
and in effect, Russia has been at war with us for the last several years.

* Since deploying American troops anywhere near Russia could esclate into a World War in short order, the logical move is to arm all the citizens of threatened nations into a defensive homeguard, rather than expensive modern armies that can be casted as "threatening" to mighty Russia.

While Franklin Roosevelt once called the United States the arsenal of democracy, today we do not have enough rifles and bullets for our troops to fight and train with, let alone provide for anyone else.

Unfortunately this means World War at some point in the future.

Because it is by our very weakness that thwe provoke dictators into attacking us.

Thus those who shrilly cry the loudest are truely calling for world wars.

Sisler komentaras


Vienas CZV karininkas prasitare apie Amerikos naivuma, kuomet derejosi su rusais:

-Jus turite xxxx raketu sako Amerika,
-tai atsako rusai....

-ir Amerika derisi su rusu raketu skaiciais, kuriuos jie patys ivardino, net nezinodami, kad 2-3 kartus daugiau raketu yra pasleptos ir apie jas nieko nezinojo!
-------------------------------
I once heard a former CIA operative say that everytime we went to negotiate with the Russians, during the First Cold War, we said,

- "You have X number of missiles of this type," and they said,
"That's right," and we would negotiate from that position without them ever telling us how many missiles they really did have.

Different topics for discussion -- perhaps -- but what makes Obama think the current leadership is any different?

David

-Negotiations with dictatorships is a waste of time.
- Dictators do not bargain in good faith, they simply trick democracies into droping their guard.
-While the American left venerate arms control agreements, in doing so they unwittingly become warmongers.
-This is because dictators will ignore the treaties to gain military advantage. So why bother in the first place?

By and large, liberal politicians in democracies look to buy peoples' votes with government spending.
Their focus on this causes the world beyond their nations borders to take on fantasy quality in their minds.
They reason "Surely, there can be no danger that justifies all this money we spend on weapons, when I can better use the money to give welfare checks to illegal immigrants so they will vote for me.", and embark on arms control.

Amerika labiau akcentuoja Tautu Laisves ideja o ne nauja ginkluotes sumazinimo derybas
---------------------
Any U.S. administration will have plenty of business to carry out with Russia.

But an American President in Moscow needs to keep his eyes on the bigger prize in Russia and the region.

And that prize is an expansion of freedom, not a new START treaty.

Wiiliam Gensert

Obama will get his treaty on reducing nuclear stockpiles.

He will give up missile defense and the moral high ground.

* Russia will agree to help with Iran, North Korea and Afghanistan. And they will help.

* They will help Iran get those nuclear warheads they always wanted.


* Maybe they could send some scientists to North Korea and teach them how to get that extra thousand miles of distance from their missiles.


We've been arrogant, just ask our president.

This reset will give us peace in our time.

It's not like we have anything to fear, is it?

Ziurint i 10 dienu senumo Amerikos pasiruosimo i rusija ivykius, esme, dvasia - kokie jie buvo savalikiai,ar ne?

Siulau The Wall Street Straipsni.
July 6, 09

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124683525998697831.html


*The President's Mission to Moscow*

Obama doesn't need to engage Russia's leaders. He needs to deter them.

*(rusija reikia stabdyti)

President Barack Obama arrives here today facing a dilemma of his own making. Having called for a "reset" in U.S.-Russian relations, the U.S. side is virtually obliged to make some new overtures. But Russia does not need to be engaged. It needs to be deterred.

The expectations that Mr. Obama has inspired are substantial. Both officials and ordinary citizens in Russia interpret the call for a reset as an admission of U.S. guilt for ignoring Russia's interests.
Sergei Rybakov, the Russian deputy foreign minister, said that mutual trust was "lacking over the last several years." It was the task of the U.S. to show its good intentions with "concrete actions" because in Russia, the U.S. is "deeply distrusted."

David Gothard Accepting the Russian view of reality on the issues that divide the U.S. and Russia, however, would be a grave mistake.


Russia aspires to resurrect a version of the Soviet Union in which it projects power and dominates its neighbors. To encourage its ambitions in any way would be to undermine not only U.S. security but, in the long run, the security of Russia as well.

***There are three important areas of conflict between the U.S. and Russia:

-NATO expansion,
-the U.S. missile shield in Eastern Europe
-and the Russian human rights situation.

In each case, any reset should be on the Russian side.

The most urgent issue may be NATO expansion.

***There are serious indications that Russia is preparing for a second invasion of Georgia.

1. The first Georgian war was accompanied by a burst of patriotism in Russia but didn't achieve its strategic objectives.
2. Georgian president Mikheil Saakashvili remains in power
3.and Georgia remains a supply corridor to the West for energy from Central Asia and the Caspian Sea.

Many Russian leaders want to finish the job.

At a televised forum in December, Prime Minister Vladimir Putin was asked about press reports that he had told French president Nicolas Sarkozy that Mr. Saakashvili should be "hung by his ba**s (balls)."

-He replied, "Why only by one part?" (!)

***Under these circumstances, the best protection for Georgia is NATO membership.***


According to Pavel Felgenhauer, a defense analyst with Novaya Gazeta, the decision to invade Georgia last August came in April after NATO failed to offer outright a Membership Action Plan to Georgia and Ukraine at its annual summit in Bucharest.


***Russia will argue strenuously that Georgia, Ukraine and the other former Soviet republics are part of its sphere of "privileged interests."

This is an issue on which Mr. Obama cannot give way.

***If the former Soviet republics are denied NATO membership at Russia's behest, they either will be turned into Russian satellites with manipulated elections and a controlled foreign policy or form a zone of instability along Russia's borders with unpredictable consequences for both Russia and the West.

Beside the issue of NATO expansion, Russia and the U.S. have a critical conflict over U.S. plans to install a missile shield in the Czech Republic and Poland.

Not only have U.S. experts argued that the anti-missile system is not aimed at Russia but Russia's military experts agree.

Nonetheless, the system is described by Russian leaders as a threat and denunciations of the missile shield are a staple of the anti-Western programming on Russian state television.

According to Mikhail Delyagin, who served as an adviser to former Russian Prime Minister Mikhail Kasyanov, the placement of rockets in Poland is unacceptable to Russia for emotional and symbolic reasons.

--"It shows that the U.S. is now the master in Eastern Europe," he said. --

*Any decision to yield to Russian objections, however, would effectively divide NATO into countries that need Russian approval for deployments and those that do not.*

Even dubious Russian promises to help with Iran would not compensate for the damage done to the alliance by such a concession to Russian pretensions.

Finally, there is the conflict between Russia and the U.S. over human rights.

-The status of human rights is a universal concern but it also has strategic implications.

-A population that lacks democratic rights and is subject to constant anti-Western propaganda can easily be mobilized against the U.S.


-By any measure, the state of human rights in Russia is unacceptable.

-Russia today lacks honest elections or a separation of powers.

-The regime allows a degree of freedom but the features of daily life include police torture, prisoner abuse, political control of the courts and, for democratic activists, the danger of being beaten or killed.

-The result is that fear has returned to Russia less than two decades after the fall of the Soviet Union.

-The regime is also taking steps to curtail freedom of speech.

-Freedom of the press has long been restricted under Mr. Putin with censorship on state run television and pressure on newspapers through their owners, to exercise self censorship.

-Peaceful demonstrations have also been forcibly dispersed.

-In recent weeks, however, a bill has been introduced in the State Duma that would make it illegal to deny the role of the Soviet Union in the victory in World War II or the crimes of Hitler's cronies (but not the crimes of Stalin and his entourage).
The punishment both for Russian citizens and for foreigners will be three to five years in prison.

In the run up to Mr. Obama's visit, Russian academics and self described realists in the U.S. have called for a "grand deal" in which the U.S. accedes to Russian demands in the former Soviet Union in return for Russian help on Iran, North Korea and Afghanistan.

In the case of Iran, Russia, which has repeatedly thwarted tough United Nations resolutions on that country's nuclear energy program, is offering to assist in dealing with a problem that it helped to create.


Unfortunately such a deal, the only "reset" in which the Russians have shown any interest, would eliminate moral criteria from the U.S.-Russian relationship and deprive the U.S. of any basis for limiting Russia's demands in the future.

Under those circumstances, Russia's appetite is likely to grow.

Mr. Obama may wish to improve the U.S.-Russia relationship but the problems in that relationship come not from our actions but from assumptions on the Russian side about the prerogatives of power that we cannot possibly accept.

Instead of resetting relations, we may just have to content ourselves with resisting Russian pretensions until such time as the mentality that gives rise to them can be changed.

Mr. Satter is a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute and a visiting scholar at the Johns Hopkins University School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS). He is writing a book on the Russian attitude to the Soviet past.