Subpage under development, new version coming soon!
¡¡¡Tema cerrado!!!
Asunto: Worldwar
1) so I agree!
2)Most politicians on the scene, are the same ones..
after the ww2 and the fall of fascism in Italy almost every fascist politician and administrator got "democratic".
It is "normal" while it's sick..
3)lets say employer, you pick the one that gives you more freedom.
Or the one that pays more.
4) I disagree.
5) I think we should better not find out the alternatives..
6) the point is the EU and US, and NATO the whole western world are all separately reacting (in a similar way) to Russian actions, not vice-versa.
I disagree, you can't count the crimea militar operation as an invasion and in the same time not count the "orange revolution" etc as if those were really "internal affairs".
those are the same thing. Even if formally are not, in reality those are only two different paths to lead a war.
The aggressor is US/UE, the aggressed is Russia (not Ukraine that doesn't exist before, and will not exist after). It was plain clear since the start.
(editado)
2)Most politicians on the scene, are the same ones..
after the ww2 and the fall of fascism in Italy almost every fascist politician and administrator got "democratic".
It is "normal" while it's sick..
3)lets say employer, you pick the one that gives you more freedom.
Or the one that pays more.
4) I disagree.
5) I think we should better not find out the alternatives..
6) the point is the EU and US, and NATO the whole western world are all separately reacting (in a similar way) to Russian actions, not vice-versa.
I disagree, you can't count the crimea militar operation as an invasion and in the same time not count the "orange revolution" etc as if those were really "internal affairs".
those are the same thing. Even if formally are not, in reality those are only two different paths to lead a war.
The aggressor is US/UE, the aggressed is Russia (not Ukraine that doesn't exist before, and will not exist after). It was plain clear since the start.
(editado)
"orange revolution" etc as if those were really "internal affairs".
- they literally were internal affairs, ...even if one side was sponsored or supported by cash! :-o from zimbabwe or the usa, an the other (state) side was sponsored, supported or pressured (not to join EU) by Moscow, or Honolulu. These are only pressures on a internal conflict, which can go both ways, both revolutions happened because people who went to them protests, due to opposition oppression, government theft and pro-russian anti-population legislation was taken, people had enough of ex-kgb and oligarch rulling, and the ended up on the streets, simple.
"4) I disagree." - it is quite interesting which bit do you disagree with?, since I don't think anyone in their right mind, can reject the legitimacy of a sovereign Ukraine (including Crimea) since their Independence in 1991. (sorry I wrote 1992 in the previous post)
If we stick to the facts, and I have tried to make this distinction very clear, I write on this subject.
The conflict in Ukraine had two stages, one was internal conflict (even if there was external support) Orange Revolution, Maidan, shooting on the streets, even the 3 (EU) foreign ministers meeting in Kiev all were a part of the Internal Conflict (the clue is even in the name, foreign ministers) who helped to stop the bloodshed, they happend to be from EU, as 90% of western neigbours of Ukraine are. (also It is worth noting, it was a clear and quick reaction, to the Internal situation which, could have, and now does hane impact on the neighbours literally.
An then there was the other stage (lead by completely different set of rules), the External (International) Conflict which was started by a "unknown army", and Russian military ships, blocking the Sevastopol harbour... all this was just strange at first, but on the 1 of march 2014 it all became very apparent, that this was no accident, or a necessity to keep peace in Ukraine (protect russian citizens, from a Ukrainian minority), but it was a devious Russian trick, to steal a bit of Ukrainian territory by force ("unknown green army" and the "russian fleet already in Sevastopol") knowing that Russia along other "powers" agreed in 1994 to protect Ukrainian sovereignty!!! so that ro stop the Ukrainian Nuclear programe, and to make it worse, Russia didn't stop there... :-] one day saying there was nobody for russia there, and the next day, saying that they had to send troops, and that some Russian soldiers "on exercises" just lost their way in the Mariupol region.... only to send a massive convoy against the will of the Ukrainian gov. through a border taken by again "unknown" rebels, who happen to be russians, speak russian and are continuing pro-russian goals... :] which Putin himself never denied, just helps by spreading propaganda (against most of the world -not just EU, NATO members) swaying the public opinion (mainly Internally in Russia, but not only) on... the reason for invading (annexing)... "fascism = fascist minority", "soviet army remembrance"?! and so on, in general making up anything as not to let the simple facts out. Only then, the EU started to react... and not vice-versa, reacting weakly in my view.
That is a essential difference internal conflict (2004-feb 2014), and a exeternal (international conflict started by Russia (on 1 march 2014) these are very different things, the second one could lead to a global conflict (which again, is another thing) if not open war, which in a sense... is already happening, as Ukraine is trying to keep the sovereignty of their borders, shooting at Russians. And Russia seems to be adding bits to their territory sending equipement, to "unknown" armed rebels near their borders, borders which Russia controls. :-]
Honestly, how hard is it to grasp?
The Terminal of the most industrial city in Ukraine, which in 2012 received the France team for Euro2012. Now imagine... Torino, Katowice, or Dortmund airports looking like this, with "French (armes and speaking) rebels", "Czech rebels" or "Dutch rebels" ... fighting for Torino joining France, Katowice joining Czech, or Dortmund joining Holland, its pure absurdity. PS: Internal Ukrainian conflict was not a military, or any threat to Russia!! Russia is a threat to its neighbours like Georgia or Ukraine, whatever nonsense RT tells us...
Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances is a political agreement signed in Budapest, Hungary on 5 December 1994
According to the memorandum, Russia, the U.S., and the UK confirmed, in recognition of Ukraine becoming party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons and in effect abandoning its nuclear arsenal to Russia, that they would:
Respect Ukrainian independence and sovereignty within its existing borders (1994).
Refrain from the threat or use of force against Ukraine.
Refrain from using economic pressure on Ukraine in order to influence its politics.
Seek immediate United Nations Security Council action to provide assistance to Ukraine, "if Ukraine should become a victim of an act of aggression or an object of a threat of aggression in which nuclear weapons are used".
Refrain from the use of nuclear arms against Ukraine.
Putin's Russia on the 1 of March 2014 by annexing Crimea, changed the internal Ukrainian protests, into a international (external) armed conflict which is going on till this day (despite two cease-fires), that is a fact - which we can date in history. Just like the fact that Stalin's Russian army crossed the Polish border on the 17 septemper 1939, and collaborated with Hitler's army in "annexation" of territory, which was celebrated in Brest, on 22 september 1939 by a Soviet-Nazi parade. These are undeniable facts, and the last one is almost unknown to Russians who are fed RT propaganda, or who are taught in schools about war mainly since 1941 when "fascists attacked mother Russia" disregarding all the atrocities they committed. And most people in the west (also the media) are just not really interested in this kind of worrying reality.
(editado)
- they literally were internal affairs, ...even if one side was sponsored or supported by cash! :-o from zimbabwe or the usa, an the other (state) side was sponsored, supported or pressured (not to join EU) by Moscow, or Honolulu. These are only pressures on a internal conflict, which can go both ways, both revolutions happened because people who went to them protests, due to opposition oppression, government theft and pro-russian anti-population legislation was taken, people had enough of ex-kgb and oligarch rulling, and the ended up on the streets, simple.
"4) I disagree." - it is quite interesting which bit do you disagree with?, since I don't think anyone in their right mind, can reject the legitimacy of a sovereign Ukraine (including Crimea) since their Independence in 1991. (sorry I wrote 1992 in the previous post)
If we stick to the facts, and I have tried to make this distinction very clear, I write on this subject.
The conflict in Ukraine had two stages, one was internal conflict (even if there was external support) Orange Revolution, Maidan, shooting on the streets, even the 3 (EU) foreign ministers meeting in Kiev all were a part of the Internal Conflict (the clue is even in the name, foreign ministers) who helped to stop the bloodshed, they happend to be from EU, as 90% of western neigbours of Ukraine are. (also It is worth noting, it was a clear and quick reaction, to the Internal situation which, could have, and now does hane impact on the neighbours literally.
An then there was the other stage (lead by completely different set of rules), the External (International) Conflict which was started by a "unknown army", and Russian military ships, blocking the Sevastopol harbour... all this was just strange at first, but on the 1 of march 2014 it all became very apparent, that this was no accident, or a necessity to keep peace in Ukraine (protect russian citizens, from a Ukrainian minority), but it was a devious Russian trick, to steal a bit of Ukrainian territory by force ("unknown green army" and the "russian fleet already in Sevastopol") knowing that Russia along other "powers" agreed in 1994 to protect Ukrainian sovereignty!!! so that ro stop the Ukrainian Nuclear programe, and to make it worse, Russia didn't stop there... :-] one day saying there was nobody for russia there, and the next day, saying that they had to send troops, and that some Russian soldiers "on exercises" just lost their way in the Mariupol region.... only to send a massive convoy against the will of the Ukrainian gov. through a border taken by again "unknown" rebels, who happen to be russians, speak russian and are continuing pro-russian goals... :] which Putin himself never denied, just helps by spreading propaganda (against most of the world -not just EU, NATO members) swaying the public opinion (mainly Internally in Russia, but not only) on... the reason for invading (annexing)... "fascism = fascist minority", "soviet army remembrance"?! and so on, in general making up anything as not to let the simple facts out. Only then, the EU started to react... and not vice-versa, reacting weakly in my view.
That is a essential difference internal conflict (2004-feb 2014), and a exeternal (international conflict started by Russia (on 1 march 2014) these are very different things, the second one could lead to a global conflict (which again, is another thing) if not open war, which in a sense... is already happening, as Ukraine is trying to keep the sovereignty of their borders, shooting at Russians. And Russia seems to be adding bits to their territory sending equipement, to "unknown" armed rebels near their borders, borders which Russia controls. :-]
Honestly, how hard is it to grasp?
The Terminal of the most industrial city in Ukraine, which in 2012 received the France team for Euro2012. Now imagine... Torino, Katowice, or Dortmund airports looking like this, with "French (armes and speaking) rebels", "Czech rebels" or "Dutch rebels" ... fighting for Torino joining France, Katowice joining Czech, or Dortmund joining Holland, its pure absurdity. PS: Internal Ukrainian conflict was not a military, or any threat to Russia!! Russia is a threat to its neighbours like Georgia or Ukraine, whatever nonsense RT tells us...
Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances is a political agreement signed in Budapest, Hungary on 5 December 1994
According to the memorandum, Russia, the U.S., and the UK confirmed, in recognition of Ukraine becoming party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons and in effect abandoning its nuclear arsenal to Russia, that they would:
Respect Ukrainian independence and sovereignty within its existing borders (1994).
Refrain from the threat or use of force against Ukraine.
Refrain from using economic pressure on Ukraine in order to influence its politics.
Seek immediate United Nations Security Council action to provide assistance to Ukraine, "if Ukraine should become a victim of an act of aggression or an object of a threat of aggression in which nuclear weapons are used".
Refrain from the use of nuclear arms against Ukraine.
Putin's Russia on the 1 of March 2014 by annexing Crimea, changed the internal Ukrainian protests, into a international (external) armed conflict which is going on till this day (despite two cease-fires), that is a fact - which we can date in history. Just like the fact that Stalin's Russian army crossed the Polish border on the 17 septemper 1939, and collaborated with Hitler's army in "annexation" of territory, which was celebrated in Brest, on 22 september 1939 by a Soviet-Nazi parade. These are undeniable facts, and the last one is almost unknown to Russians who are fed RT propaganda, or who are taught in schools about war mainly since 1941 when "fascists attacked mother Russia" disregarding all the atrocities they committed. And most people in the west (also the media) are just not really interested in this kind of worrying reality.
(editado)
I think that you make an artificial and only formal distinction between two type of war.
I think this distinction you make is useless and tend to hide reality of facts, it was a foregin war since the start.
I think the whole problem is in understanding what is a sovereign state and I think also that discussing about internal affairs about ukraine is like discussing of internal affair for the north ireland indipendence and asking london not to intervene in that situation.
I think this distinction you make is useless and tend to hide reality of facts, it was a foregin war since the start.
I think the whole problem is in understanding what is a sovereign state and I think also that discussing about internal affairs about ukraine is like discussing of internal affair for the north ireland indipendence and asking london not to intervene in that situation.
I think that you make an artificial and only formal distinction between two type of war.
Definitely not, its a clear distinction to which different law's apply. State law, and international law.
Large protests in Catalonia (internal affairs of Spain), do not justify French army to cross the French-Spanish border! which is what Russia did in this case, its a clear and simple distinction.
Also any foreign financing "the main argument" of any of the parties in Catalonia, does not make a difference, or does not make it a international conflict, by international law. Armed Army within another countries sovereign borders, does that. (In Russia's case it is even worse, as they swore to protect Ukrainian sovereignty.
It really is - that simple, and straight forward, no matter how many Tatars, Russians or Chinese lived in Crimea, or how many Polish or Pakistani immigrants live in London or Helsinki - Ukrainian citizens had to flee their own homes, because of a armed takeover by the Russian army, and the Russian state, or do you suggest that foreign citizens are allowed (with army support) take over bits of different countries, to add it to theirs.
"Russians cross border to 'protect minorities'" - september 1939
(editado)
Definitely not, its a clear distinction to which different law's apply. State law, and international law.
Large protests in Catalonia (internal affairs of Spain), do not justify French army to cross the French-Spanish border! which is what Russia did in this case, its a clear and simple distinction.
Also any foreign financing "the main argument" of any of the parties in Catalonia, does not make a difference, or does not make it a international conflict, by international law. Armed Army within another countries sovereign borders, does that. (In Russia's case it is even worse, as they swore to protect Ukrainian sovereignty.
It really is - that simple, and straight forward, no matter how many Tatars, Russians or Chinese lived in Crimea, or how many Polish or Pakistani immigrants live in London or Helsinki - Ukrainian citizens had to flee their own homes, because of a armed takeover by the Russian army, and the Russian state, or do you suggest that foreign citizens are allowed (with army support) take over bits of different countries, to add it to theirs.
"Russians cross border to 'protect minorities'" - september 1939
(editado)
Definitely not, its a clear distinction to which different law's apply. State law, and international law
I 've said what international laws is a few times.
nothing.
look:
Also any foreign financing "the main argument" of any of the parties in Catalonia, does not make a difference, or does not make it a international conflict, by international law.
International law says the stronger can do what he wants. OR, if you're not the stronger, it says what the stronger decide it should says.
I you refuse this point we shall not discuss anymore. It is written in every manual of international right, BEFORE the content of the principal treaties.
For the rest I really can't see differences between paying people to make a revolution or to make a war. And the nationality of those who do the war it seem to me even less interesting. Soldier are payd people too. Exactly as politician in a colony.
I thnk this discussion is getting useless.
I refuse to use your cathegories, and you to use mine.
So what?
I 've said what international laws is a few times.
nothing.
look:
Also any foreign financing "the main argument" of any of the parties in Catalonia, does not make a difference, or does not make it a international conflict, by international law.
International law says the stronger can do what he wants. OR, if you're not the stronger, it says what the stronger decide it should says.
I you refuse this point we shall not discuss anymore. It is written in every manual of international right, BEFORE the content of the principal treaties.
For the rest I really can't see differences between paying people to make a revolution or to make a war. And the nationality of those who do the war it seem to me even less interesting. Soldier are payd people too. Exactly as politician in a colony.
I thnk this discussion is getting useless.
I refuse to use your cathegories, and you to use mine.
So what?
About this:
"Russians cross border to 'protect minorities'" - september 1939
I can show that it is way older of that this exscuse:
« Raptores orbis, postquam cuncta vastantibus defuere terrae, mare scrutantur; si locuples hostis est, avari, si pauper, ambitiosi, quos non Oriens, non Occidens satiaverit; soli omnium opes atque inopiam pari adfectu concupiscunt. Auferre, trucidare, rapere falsis nominibus imperium, atque ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant. »
(link)
"Russians cross border to 'protect minorities'" - september 1939
I can show that it is way older of that this exscuse:
« Raptores orbis, postquam cuncta vastantibus defuere terrae, mare scrutantur; si locuples hostis est, avari, si pauper, ambitiosi, quos non Oriens, non Occidens satiaverit; soli omnium opes atque inopiam pari adfectu concupiscunt. Auferre, trucidare, rapere falsis nominibus imperium, atque ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant. »
(link)
I don't see your point, in this comparison.
...who, what, where? ...is that your anti-EU or maybe anti-NATO quest again? what does it have to do with Ukrainian borders?
And these are not: mine or your categories, these are international agreements between states.
You can deny international law as "nothing" just like that Romanian user who doesn't accept Ukraine as a nation state... :-] ...but what is the point of that in a discussion, and who cares, honestly? You can deny everything, more and more people do.
My point is simple, Russia broke their agreement of respecting Ukrainian sovereignty.
There was relative peace in Poland in 1938... Hitler invaded, and Russia invaded, and annexed territory. There was relative peace in Ukraine in 2012/2013... until armed Russian troops appeared in Crimea, and stole it/annexed territory. Russia gives the same excuses on both occasions.
What I do see on the other hand, is a destroyed airport in the most industrial city in Ukraine ...3 years ago. What I do see is Ukrainian refuges leaving the Ukrainian homes, What I do see is Russian propaganda, flags and motorbike club supporting Russian speaking "pro"Russian rebels with Russian gear that are stealing land for Russian Fed. benefit and profit, and destroying Ukraine. What I don't see is NATO or EU fighting in Ukraine, apart from some instructors...
People seem to make life harder that it actually is. And I am weary of future Russian military moves, as history seems to be repeating itself - more and more often, That's all.
(editado)
...who, what, where? ...is that your anti-EU or maybe anti-NATO quest again? what does it have to do with Ukrainian borders?
And these are not: mine or your categories, these are international agreements between states.
You can deny international law as "nothing" just like that Romanian user who doesn't accept Ukraine as a nation state... :-] ...but what is the point of that in a discussion, and who cares, honestly? You can deny everything, more and more people do.
My point is simple, Russia broke their agreement of respecting Ukrainian sovereignty.
There was relative peace in Poland in 1938... Hitler invaded, and Russia invaded, and annexed territory. There was relative peace in Ukraine in 2012/2013... until armed Russian troops appeared in Crimea, and stole it/annexed territory. Russia gives the same excuses on both occasions.
What I do see on the other hand, is a destroyed airport in the most industrial city in Ukraine ...3 years ago. What I do see is Ukrainian refuges leaving the Ukrainian homes, What I do see is Russian propaganda, flags and motorbike club supporting Russian speaking "pro"Russian rebels with Russian gear that are stealing land for Russian Fed. benefit and profit, and destroying Ukraine. What I don't see is NATO or EU fighting in Ukraine, apart from some instructors...
People seem to make life harder that it actually is. And I am weary of future Russian military moves, as history seems to be repeating itself - more and more often, That's all.
(editado)
I don't see your point, in this comparison.
...who, what, where? ...is that your anti-EU or maybe anti-NATO quest again? what does it have to do with Ukrainian borders?
If you are referring to the Tacito's quote I was showing that the rethoric about "peace" used to lead wars, is always used by the big powerful countries against the little one (those were romans invading scotland 2000 yeras ago)
For the rest I can only repeat what I wrote. We are in a vicious circle!
...who, what, where? ...is that your anti-EU or maybe anti-NATO quest again? what does it have to do with Ukrainian borders?
If you are referring to the Tacito's quote I was showing that the rethoric about "peace" used to lead wars, is always used by the big powerful countries against the little one (those were romans invading scotland 2000 yeras ago)
For the rest I can only repeat what I wrote. We are in a vicious circle!
I 've said what international laws is a few times.
nothing.
BS! International law is not something fictional.
(editado)
nothing.
BS! International law is not something fictional.
(editado)
"We are in a vicious circle" We are. :-]
An yes, "peace" rhetoric is used to justify war, (which it does not)
Still, what you write about the "strong big powerful" attacking the "weak" is just unfortunate reality, nature you might say, yet it still is not the rule... What I am about is less philosophical, more to the point, about facts of action (of troops), not words ...also I point to historical facts which showed us a very similar scenario, in essence the scenario on which this one i based on now (WW-1), all this may lead us to the truth, of the old age question "who actually started - it", just as we can say about previous world wars.
"blame game"
You cannot pin the blame on words from some minister in Estonia as they prove almost nothing (or from either side), You cannot pin the blame on accusation either, towards the "west", or corporations sponsoring or whatever, but you can pinpoint a fact of a "unknown"(Russian) army annexation/theft without consent of most the of the world, I know "the evil US empire world - called west" which provoked ;-) (that was irony) , ...still Russia made themselves the aggressor in this case, by crossing a red line, of sending troops - which is essential to remember. (even if EU or whoever, "provoked") Russia made themselves the aggressor by disrespecting a deal which they agreed to respect, also 'respect' almost the opposite of what they did "defending Ukrainian borders from 1994 sovereignty" :-], And it doesn't matter whoever they may want to shift the blame to: "Ukrainians, euro-fascists, russophobes, EU, NATO or the whole world (western world)" "Truth will prevail."
In 1918 US Senator Hiram Warren Johnson is purported to have said: The first casualty when war comes is truth. However, this was not recorded. In 1928 Arthur Ponsonby's wrote: The 'When war is declared, truth is the first casualty'. :-]
My point is that this event of 1 march 2014 and the feburary leading up to it - was a clear cut case of a hostile takeover, that may have or has already started a spiral of war, a world war possibly :-] (from a internal Ukrainian conflict), war which might de-escalate, re-escalate, a probably will just very slowly escalate as it historically does... (definitely there is already a world war in a "cold war 2.0" sense), ...and in the end it will be - is now, very hard to stop. :-]
"for startes" of understanding what it actually means:
(editado)
An yes, "peace" rhetoric is used to justify war, (which it does not)
Still, what you write about the "strong big powerful" attacking the "weak" is just unfortunate reality, nature you might say, yet it still is not the rule... What I am about is less philosophical, more to the point, about facts of action (of troops), not words ...also I point to historical facts which showed us a very similar scenario, in essence the scenario on which this one i based on now (WW-1), all this may lead us to the truth, of the old age question "who actually started - it", just as we can say about previous world wars.
"blame game"
You cannot pin the blame on words from some minister in Estonia as they prove almost nothing (or from either side), You cannot pin the blame on accusation either, towards the "west", or corporations sponsoring or whatever, but you can pinpoint a fact of a "unknown"(Russian) army annexation/theft without consent of most the of the world, I know "the evil US empire world - called west" which provoked ;-) (that was irony) , ...still Russia made themselves the aggressor in this case, by crossing a red line, of sending troops - which is essential to remember. (even if EU or whoever, "provoked") Russia made themselves the aggressor by disrespecting a deal which they agreed to respect, also 'respect' almost the opposite of what they did "defending Ukrainian borders from 1994 sovereignty" :-], And it doesn't matter whoever they may want to shift the blame to: "Ukrainians, euro-fascists, russophobes, EU, NATO or the whole world (western world)" "Truth will prevail."
In 1918 US Senator Hiram Warren Johnson is purported to have said: The first casualty when war comes is truth. However, this was not recorded. In 1928 Arthur Ponsonby's wrote: The 'When war is declared, truth is the first casualty'. :-]
My point is that this event of 1 march 2014 and the feburary leading up to it - was a clear cut case of a hostile takeover, that may have or has already started a spiral of war, a world war possibly :-] (from a internal Ukrainian conflict), war which might de-escalate, re-escalate, a probably will just very slowly escalate as it historically does... (definitely there is already a world war in a "cold war 2.0" sense), ...and in the end it will be - is now, very hard to stop. :-]
"for startes" of understanding what it actually means:
(editado)
and more current stuff: yesterday.
April 30, 2015 Lithuania Protests Russia’s Disruptive Naval Activities
On Thursday Lithuania called for the Russian ambassador to protest against persistent attempts to stop the installation of underwater power cable in the Baltic Sea . The installation is expected to reduce energy dependence on Russia Lithuania.
Lithuanian Foreign Ministry reported that units of the Russian Navy during exercises in the Baltic repeatedly attempted to interfere with NordBalt cable installation .
- We believe that the Russian navy violates the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea and hinders economic activity. Their exercises interfere in our work . We have sent to Russia three notes of protest. For we have not received any response - she told AFP the head of the Lithuanian diplomacy Linas Linkeviczius.
_ _ _ _ _
three days ago: 28 April 2015
Finland fires on suspected Russian submarine in waters off Helsinki
Six months after a Russian sub lurking off the coast of Stockholm triggered Sweden’s biggest naval mobilization since the Cold War, officials in Finland said Tuesday that the country’s military had fired underwater depth charges at a suspicious vessel in waters near Helsinki.
_ _ _ _ _
And that is not, a one off...
Russia Baltic military actions 'unprecedented' - Poland 11 December 2014
_ _ _ _ _
Is Russia Deliberately Provoking the West? (2014)
(editado)
April 30, 2015 Lithuania Protests Russia’s Disruptive Naval Activities
On Thursday Lithuania called for the Russian ambassador to protest against persistent attempts to stop the installation of underwater power cable in the Baltic Sea . The installation is expected to reduce energy dependence on Russia Lithuania.
Lithuanian Foreign Ministry reported that units of the Russian Navy during exercises in the Baltic repeatedly attempted to interfere with NordBalt cable installation .
- We believe that the Russian navy violates the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea and hinders economic activity. Their exercises interfere in our work . We have sent to Russia three notes of protest. For we have not received any response - she told AFP the head of the Lithuanian diplomacy Linas Linkeviczius.
_ _ _ _ _
three days ago: 28 April 2015
Finland fires on suspected Russian submarine in waters off Helsinki
Six months after a Russian sub lurking off the coast of Stockholm triggered Sweden’s biggest naval mobilization since the Cold War, officials in Finland said Tuesday that the country’s military had fired underwater depth charges at a suspicious vessel in waters near Helsinki.
_ _ _ _ _
And that is not, a one off...
Russia Baltic military actions 'unprecedented' - Poland 11 December 2014
_ _ _ _ _
Is Russia Deliberately Provoking the West? (2014)
(editado)
Good guys don't have guns, don't lie, and don't steal. :-p
(editado)
good guys should have guns, otherwise how will they protect themselves against the bad ones?