Russische vlag op het parlement van de Krim

[Jan van den Berghe]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door tomm

Uw Oekraiense vriendjes doen is alles aan om zoveel mogelijk burgerslachtoffers te veroorzaken.

En hop, daar zijn we weer met een halve waarheid. Altijd toch diezelfde reflex. Alles om toch maar de Oekraïners als des duivels af te schilderen en de Russen als de glorierijke bevrijders op wie men in Oekraïne te wachten zat. U vertelt natuurlijk niet dat er heel wat kritische bemerkingen waren bij de methodologie van dat rapport, en bijgevolg ook de conclusies. Daarnaast was er zelfs binnen AI kritische stemmen te horen.

Dus neen, uw beschuldiging houdt weer eens geen steek. Het rapport dateert trouwens uit augustus 2022. We zijn bijna twee jaar verder...

Leaked Amnesty review finds own Ukraine report ‘legally questionable’
Peter Beaumont
Fri 28 Apr 2023
Language was also said to be ‘ambiguous’ and ‘imprecise’, according to the New York Times

A leaked internal review commissioned by Amnesty International is said to have concluded there were significant shortcomings in a controversial report prepared by the rights group that accused Ukraine of illegally endangering citizens by placing armed forces in civilian areas.

The report, issued last August, prompted widespread anger in Ukraine, leading to an apology from Amnesty and a promise of a review by external experts of what went wrong. Among those who condemned the report was Ukraine’s president, Volodymyr Zelenskiy, who accused Amnesty of “shift[ing] the responsibility from the aggressor to the victim”.

Leaked to the New York Times, that unpublished review has concluded that the report was “written in language that was ambiguous, imprecise and in some respects legally questionable”, according to the newspaper.

In particular, the report’s authors were criticised for language that appeared to suggest “many or most of the civilian victims of the war died as a result of Ukraine’s decision to locate its forces in the vicinity of civilians” at a time when Russian forces were deliberately targeting civilians.

“This is particularly the case with the opening paragraphs, which could be read as implying – even though this was not AI’s intention – that, on a systemic or general level, Ukrainian forces were primarily or equally to blame for the death of civilians resulting from attacks by Russia.”

In the immediate aftermath of publication, the initial report was seized on by Russia, including the embassy in London, to claim that Ukrainian tactics were a “violation of international humanitarian law” at a time when Russian forces were being accused of serious war crimes.

The paper added, however, that sources had told it that Amnesty’s board had sat on the 18-page review for months amid suggestions there had been pressure to water down its conclusions.

At the centre of the controversy was Amnesty’s claim that by housing military personnel in civilian buildings and launching attacks from civilian areas, Ukraine had been in breach of international law on the protection of civilians.

The expert review was conducted by five experts including Emanuela-Chiara Gillard of the University of Oxford; Kevin Jon Heller of the University of Copenhagen; Eric Talbot Jensen of Brigham Young University; Marko Milanovic of the University of Reading; and Marco Sassòli of the University of Geneva.

Experts questioned whether the authors of the original report had correctly interpreted international law regarding Ukraine as a victim of aggression and whether there was evidence that Ukraine had put civilians in “harm’s way”.

The leaked report also disclosed that there had been significant unease within Amnesty before publication, not least over the issue of whether the government of Ukraine had been sufficiently engaged with.

“These reservations should have led to greater reflection and pause” before the organisation issued its statement, the review added.

Oksana Pokalchuk, the former head of Amnesty’s Ukraine office, who resigned over the report, said she believed the review should be made public as well as a promised internal review of relations inside the organisation on how decisions were made around the report.

“I want justice to be done and to be seen done,” she told the Guardian. “One of the things that was very important to me at the time was that we should be in communication with the Ukrainian government, formally or informally, to get information from them. This wasn’t done, and it caused a lot of damage.

“What I have also not seen so far in the reporting of this review is any discussion of the larger context of the war and how this report played in favour of Russian propaganda. We need to talk about who is the aggressor and who is the victim of this war.”

An Amnesty International spokesperson said: “Amnesty commissioned a panel of external experts in the field of international humanitarian law to conduct an independent review of the legal analysis in our 4 August press release.

“Amnesty staff reviewed a first draft of the panel’s report, and their comments were taken into account in the final version, to the extent the legal panel itself deemed appropriate.

“This is part of an ongoing internal learning process, and we welcome the full findings which will inform and improve our future work.”

https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...y-questionable

Amnesty got it terribly wrong

The report on Ukraine doesn’t even address what the alternative fate of the country’s civilians might have been had their military stood aside – perhaps Bucha and Irpin offer an idea.


AUGUST 15, 2022 4:01 AM CET
BY URIEL EPSHTEIN
Uriel Epshtein is executive director of the Renew Democracy Initiative. He tweets at @UrielEpshtein.

As the war in Ukraine rages on, Russia continues to pound Ukrainian population centers, killing and injuring civilians and destroying infrastructure with near impunity.

Just in the past few days, the country’s forces launched rocket attacks from the Zaporizhzhia power plant, which Russia occupies, onto buildings in the neighboring town of Nikopol, wounding three people.

Much of the world has united and nearly unanimously condemned these actions. But in this chorus of condemnation, human rights organization Amnesty International has become one of the most powerful discordant voices.

In a controversial report released on August 4, the organization claims that the Ukrainian military endangered civilians “by establishing bases and operating weapons systems in populated residential areas, including in schools and hospitals.” But in hastily publishing its findings, Amnesty has overlooked the severe implications of giving Russia exactly what it’s been looking for — a shift in blame.

First and foremost, the premise alone of Amnesty’s report is questionable. Many experts have said that the Ukrainian military has acted within the bounds of international humanitarian law by using vacant school buildings, positioning its soldiers in urban areas in order to protect them from being overrun by Russian troops.

Moreover, Ukraine did all it could to urge civilians to flee the country’s war-affected regions. Even a U.N. war crimes investigator pointed out that Amnesty “got the law wrong,” with Marc Garlasco emphasizing that “there is no requirement to stand shoulder to shoulder in a field,” which would obviously be poor military strategy for Ukraine’s military, especially when faced with a numerically superior force.

Meanwhile, the report doesn’t even address what the alternative fate of Ukrainian civilians might have been had the Ukrainian military stood aside and avoided operating in urban areas. Perhaps Bucha and Irpin can offer us some idea.

But the factual problems in Amnesty’s report are only the beginning. Its downstream impacts are arguably far more consequential than any individual factual dispute.

Coming from one of the most prominent human rights organizations, this report has obvious implications for whether or not the free world should regard Russia as wholly culpable for the countless Ukrainian civilians it has killed, and whether or not democratic governments should continue to support Ukraine.

One would think that anything as sensitive as this would be subject to the greatest scrutiny, not only to confirm the veracity of any underlying claims but also to ascertain their consequences in the real world. Unfortunately, Amnesty didn’t rise to the occasion.

According to Ukraine’s Center for Strategic Communications, Amnesty’s report didn’t actually heed its own employees in Ukraine, relying instead on material “collected on the territory of filtration camps and prisons,” where questioning Russian President Vladimir Putin’s narrative could be a life-threatening decision.

The decision to exclude its own Ukrainian affiliate is particularly troubling. And the head of the organization’s Ukraine office Oksana Pokalchuk immediately resigned in protest, claiming that Amnesty’s document “created material that sounded like support for Russian narratives of the invasion” and that it had “became a tool of Russian propaganda.”

Unsurprisingly, her prediction proved prophetic. Russian propaganda outlets have pounced on the report’s findings as proof that Ukraine uses civilians as “human shields” and is to blame for any civilian deaths.

By carelessly claiming that Ukraine was breaking international law by stationing its military in residential areas, Amnesty has essentially offered Russia the justification it wanted — but certainly didn’t need — to indiscriminately strike nonmilitary targets.

So, when Russian artillery pummels Ukrainian villages, Amnesty would now have us ask, “Is this actually Ukraine’s fault?” If this isn’t victim blaming, I don’t know what is.

Only in the report’s final section does the organization note that “[t]he Ukrainian military’s practice of locating military objectives within populated areas does not in any way justify indiscriminate Russian attacks.”

That is certainly true. But adding in a brief line on Russian aggression does not, in any way, justify the organization hastily throwing together a report blaming Ukraine for the murder of its own civilians.

Unrestrained since its invasion on February 24, Russia can now claim a thin veneer of legitimacy in its bombardment of civilian targets. By muddying the moral waters and giving Russia a PR win, Amnesty International will, ironically, have the blood of even more Ukrainian civilians on its own hands.

So, how does the organization justify its actions? After a huge outcry from Ukrainians and even people from within its organization — including resignations from the head of its Ukrainian office, and from the co-founder of its Swedish office — has it tried to clarify its report or own up to its mistake?

Not yet.

Instead, in a recent tweet, Amnesty International’s Secretary-General Agnes Callamard simply dismissed critics of the report as “trolls.” Protected from the war, Callamard is free to pat herself on the back after offering Russia more justification to level Ukrainian villages.

Amnesty’s misleading claims also do harm to its own mission and diminish its credibility in responding to countless other humanitarian crises around the world. After over a week of blowback, only now has the organization finally conceded to an external audit of its report. But this is far too little, and far too late. A belated review, the results of which may come weeks or months after the original report would do little to address the damage Amnesty has wrought.

Time is of the essence. And if Amnesty hopes to maintain its credibility and continue to play a critical role in defending human rights, the organization should retract or clarify its report as soon as possible, and Callamard should resign.

https://www.politico.eu/article/amne...-report-wrong/

[Jan van den Berghe]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door tomm

Het is duidelijk dat de Russische Federatie het volgende doelwit is van het Westen moesten ze de oorlog tegen Oekraine verliezen.

"Het is duidelijk... " Neen, beste commietommie, het is niet duidelijk. Het is slechts één van die zaken in de alternatieve wereld van Russischgezinden, daarbij het feit negerend dat Poetin en niemand anders de agressie tegen Rusland is begonnen. Het Westen was al die tijd erop om gewoon goede economische relaties met Rusland te ontwikkelen. Denk maar aan het naïeve geloof van Merkel, Hollande, Sarkozy, Schröder... Niemand was erop uit om Rusland in zijn territoriale soevereiniteit te raken. Het is evenwel een puur kwaadaardig denkbeeld dat in het hoofd van Poetin is beginnen spoken, ingefluisterd, zoals iedereen weet, door haatprediker Poetin. Als trouwe Poetintrol herhaalt u natuurlijk die onwaarheid.

Het mooiste voorbeeld dat het Westen er helemaal niet op uit was Rusland te raken, is de reactie van de westerse landen op de bezetting en inlijving van de Krim. In het Westen wou men gerust een oogje dichtknijpen. Buiten wat symbolische sancties (denk maar aan de Belgische uitvoer van peren naar Rusland) ging het niet. De economie werd belangrijker geacht.

[tomm]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Jan van den Berghe

De "dus" slaat weer eens nergens op. Het niveau van uw bijdragen is de laatste heel sterk aan het dalen. Ondertussen ze we voor logica al zwaar onder nul.

Wat Bandera betreft, ja, er wordt gelogen als men beweert dat hij "een genocidair collaborateur" was en "een holocaust medewerker". Dat kan alleen gezegd worden door wie niets van de geschiedenis van Bandera kent. U hebt in deze trouwens niets aangetoond. U hebt slechts beweerd dat hij de leiding zou behouden hebben, ook al zat hij opgesloten in het concentratiekamp van Sachenhausen. Enige bewijsvoering, getuigenissen, bronnen... hebt u compleet nagelaten. Dus, neen, u hebt uw punt niet kunnen onderbouwen.

According to historian Grzegorz Rossoli?ski-Liebe, "Bandera's worldview was shaped by numerous far-right values and concepts including ultranationalism, fascism, racism, and antisemitism; by fascination with violence; by the belief that only war could establish a Ukrainian state; and by hostility to democracy, communism, and socialism. Like other young Ukrainian nationalists, he combined extremism with religion and used religion to sacralize politics and violence."[116] Historian Timothy Snyder described Bandera as a fascist who "aimed to make of Ukraine a one-party fascist dictatorship without national minorities".[54][nb 4] Historian John-Paul Himka writes that Bandera remained true to the fascist ideology to the end.[52] Ukrainian historian Andrii Portnov writes that Bandera remained a proponent of authoritarian and violent politics until his death.[117]

Historian Per Anders Rudling said that Bandera and his followers "advocated the selective breeding to create a 'pure' Ukrainian race",[13] and that "the OUN shared the fascist attributes of anti-liberalism, anti-conservatism, and anti-communism, an armed party, totalitarianism, antisemitism, Führerprinzip, and adoption of fascist greetings. Its leaders eagerly emphasized to Hitler and Ribbentrop that they shared the Nazi Weltanschauung and a commitment to a fascist New Europe."[118]

In late 1942, his organization, the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists, was involved in a massacre of Poles in Volhynia. In early 1944, ethnic cleansing also spread to Eastern Galicia. It is estimated that more than 35,000 and up to 60,000 Poles, mostly women and children along with unarmed men, were killed during the spring and summer campaign of 1943 in Volhynia, and up to 133,000 if other regions, such as Eastern Galicia, are included.[125][126][127]

On 10 August 1940, Bandera wrote a letter to Andriy Melnyk saying that he would accept Melnyk's leadership of the OUN, provided he expelled "traitors" in the leadership. One of these was Mykola Stsibors'kyi, who Bandera accused of an absence of "morality and ethics in family life" due to having married a Jewish woman, and especially, a "suspicious" Russian Jewish woman.[132]

The factions differed in ideology, strategy and tactics:[51] the OUN-M faction led by Melnyk preached a more conservative approach to nation-building, while the OUN-B faction, led by Bandera, supported a revolutionary approach; however, both factions exhibited similar levels of radical nationalism, fascism, antisemitism, xenophobia and violence.[14][52][53] The vast majority of young OUN members joined Bandera's faction. OUN-B was devoted to the independence of Ukraine, as a single-party fascist totalitarian state free of national minorities.[54][nb 2][59] It was later implicated in the Holocaust.[12][nb 3][60][61][62][63][64][14]
On 23 June 1941, one day after the German attack on the Soviet Union, Bandera sent a letter to Adolf Hitler arguing the case for an independent Ukraine. On 30 June 1941, with the arrival of Nazi troops in Ukraine, the OUN-B unilaterally declared an independent Ukrainian state ("Act of Renewal of Ukrainian Statehood").[68][69] The proclamation pledged a cooperation of the new Ukrainian state with Nazi Germany under the leadership of Hitler.[5] The declaration was accompanied by violent pogroms.[68][52] Bandera was not actively supporting the Lviv pogroms, as well as other violence against Jewish and Polish civilians, but, being well informed about the violence, was however "unable or unwilling to instruct Ukrainian nationalist military troops (as Nachtigall, Roland and UPA) to protect vulnerable minorities under their control". As German historian Olaf Glöckner writes, Bandera "failed to manage this problem (ethnic and anti-Semitic hatred) inside his forces, just like Symon Petljura failed 25 years before him."[70]

In January 1942, Bandera was transferred to Sachsenhausen concentration camp's special prison cell building (Zellenbau) for high-profile political prisoners such as Horia Sima, the chancellor of Austria, Kurt Schuschnigg or Stefan Grot-Rowecki[78]212? and high risk escapees.[79] Bandera was not completely cut off from the outside world; his wife visited him regularly and was able to help him keep in touch with his followers.[80] In April 1944, Bandera and his deputy Yaroslav Stetsko were approached by a Reich Security Main Office official to discuss plans for diversions and sabotage against the Soviet Army.[81]

Bandera's release was preceded by lengthy talks between the Germans and the UPA in Galicia and Volhynia.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stepan_Bandera

Ukraine's Berlin envoy draws Israeli, Polish ire with views on WW2 nationalist

"The statement made by the Ukrainian ambassador is a distortion of the historical facts, belittles the Holocaust and is an insult to those who are murdered by Bandera and his people," the embassy wrote on Twitter.

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe...st-2022-07-01/

[Jan van den Berghe]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door tomm

Volgens het VN charter hebben onderdrukte minderheden recht op eigen wilsbeschikking dus ook Zuid- en Oost-Oekraine moest de meerderheid van de bevolking weg van Kiev willen.

Er is geen "onderdrukte minderheid" in het zuiden of oosten van Oekraïne. Er was wat onvrede (die grotendeels samenhing met de economische problemen alsook de invloed van enkele lokale potentaten - ik heb net een boek daarover besteld https://lostdonbass.com.ua/ ) , maar het is pas ontspoord door de agitatie die van Moskou werd geleid. Girkin heeft daarvan getuigd:

Russia's Igor Strelkov: I Am Responsible for War in Eastern Ukraine
By Anna Dolgov
Nov. 21, 2014

Russian national Igor Strelkov, a former commander of pro-Moscow separatists in eastern Ukraine, has claimed personal responsibility for unleashing the conflict in which 4,300 people have been killed since April.

"I was the one who pulled the trigger of this war," Strelkov said in an interview published Thursday with Russia's Zavtra newspaper, which espouses imperialist views.

"If our unit hadn't crossed the border, everything would have fizzled out — like in [the Ukrainian city of] Kharkiv, like in Odessa," Strelkov, who uses that nom-de-guerre meaning "Shooter" to replace his last name Girkin, was quoted as saying.

"There would have been several dozen killed, burned, detained. And that would have been the end of it. But the flywheel of the war, which is continuing to this day, was spun by our unit. We mixed up all the cards on the table," he said.

Following Russia's annexation of Crimea this spring, clashes between pro-Ukrainian and pro-Moscow activists broke out in the cities of Kharkiv and Odessa, with more than 40 people killed in a fire in Odessa in early May.

Since then, the two cities have remained largely peaceful, and most of the fighting between rebels and government forces has been limited to the eastern Luhansk and Donetsk regions.

Strelkov's interview was published the same day the United Nations released a report highlighting the involvement of Russian fighters in the eastern Ukraine conflict, which has resulted in the deaths of more than 4,300 people since mid-April.

"The continuing presence of a large amount of sophisticated weaponry, as well as foreign fighters that include servicemen from the Russian Federation, directly affects the human rights situation in the east of Ukraine," the report said.

Reluctant
Strelkov also told Zavtra that at the beginning of the conflict, Ukrainian separatists and government forces were reluctant to start fighting and that the main opposition to the rebels came from Ukraine's ultranationalist militants such as the Right Sector.

"At first, nobody wanted to fight," he was quoted as saying. "The first two weeks went on under the auspices of the sides trying to convince each other [to engage]."

But Strelkov claimed Kiev became emboldened after seeing that Russia was refraining from openly interfering in eastern Ukraine, as it did in Crimea, or from sending in large-scale forces.

He added that the lack of large-scale support from Russia was a major disappointment for the separatists, who lacked the manpower or weapons to combat government forces.

"Initially I assumed that the Crimea scenario would be repeated: Russia would enter," he told Zavtra. "That was the best scenario. And the population wanted that. Nobody intended to fight for the Luhansk and Donetsk republics. Initially everybody was for Russia."

Russian Involvement
Strelkov also gave an account of the degree of Russia's involvement in the conflict in eastern Ukraine.

At the start of this summer, 90 percent of the rebel forces were made up of local residents, Strelkov was quoted as saying. However, by early August, Russian servicemen supposedly on "vacation" from the army had begun to arrive, he said.

According to Strelkov, the assault on the Black Sea town of Mariupol in September, which prompted concerns in Ukraine and the West that Russia has entered the conflict on a large scale, was conducted mostly by the Russian military "vacationers."

The rebel forces advancing on Mariupol at that time met with little resistance from government troops and "could have been taken without a fight, "but there was an order not to take it," he was quoted as saying.

While Moscow has repeatedly denied supplying the rebels with weaponry and manpower, Strelkov said the assistance offered to rebels remains significant: "I can't say that we fully provide for them. But we are really helping them," he said, noting that half of the rebel army was equipped with winter clothes sent from Russia.

Shock Decision
After Donetsk and Luhansk held "referendums" on their independence from Ukraine in May, separatist leaders appealed to Moscow to accept the territories as Russian regions but Moscow responded with vague statements calling for "dialogue" between rebels and Kiev.

The separatist groups had not contemplated building functional states and had pinned their hopes on being absorbed by Russia, Strelkov said, reasoning that Moscow needed a land connection to Crimea, which it had annexed in March.

"And then, when I understood that Russia was not going to take us in — I associated myself with the resistance — for us that decision was a shock," Strelkov was quoted as saying.

Strelkov has been living in Russia since early this fall, when he said he was moving to Moscow to protect President Vladimir Putin from enemies and traitors.

While he seems to have fallen out of favor with Russia's state-run media, having disappeared from their newscasts, he has taken to YouTube and fringe publication to issue an occasional appeal for increased Russian military involvement in eastern Ukraine.

"From the very beginning we started to fight for real — destroying raiding parties of the Right Sector," Strelkov told Zavtra. "And I take personal responsibility for what is happening there."

According to a UN report released Thursday, at least 4,317 people had been killed in eastern Ukraine by mid-November, and 9,921 wounded. The casualties include nearly 1,000 who have perished since a "tenuous cease-fire" was established earlier this fall, the report said.

Contact the author at [email protected]

https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2014/...ukraine-a41598

[Jan van den Berghe]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door tomm

In January 1942, Bandera was transferred to Sachsenhausen concentration camp's special prison cell building (Zellenbau) for high-profile political prisoners such as Horia Sima, the chancellor of Austria, Kurt Schuschnigg or Stefan Grot-Rowecki[78]212? and high risk escapees.[79] Bandera was not completely cut off from the outside world; his wife visited him regularly and was able to help him keep in touch with his followers.[80] In April 1944, Bandera and his deputy Yaroslav Stetsko were approached by a Reich Security Main Office official to discuss plans for diversions and sabotage against the Soviet Army.[81]

Bandera's release was preceded by lengthy talks between the Germans and the UPA in Galicia and Volhynia.

Kortom, geen enkel bewijs dat Bandera de opdracht zou hebben gegeven om de Polen in Wolynië, pogroms op Joden en dergelijke meer. Over de gebeurtenissen in Wolynië heb ik trouwens al eerder uitgebreid geschreven, hoe de gebeurtenissen zich toen hebben voorgedaan en wie het bevel uiteindelijk heeft gegeven. U koos er echter weer eens voor om dat alles te negeren, want het past niet in uw vooropgesteld wereldbeeld. U toont iedere keer weer hoe u drijft op vooringenomenheid.

[Jan van den Berghe]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door tomm

Weer op de man af en heel persoonlijke verwijten die u niet kunt bewijzen, wat verboden is door het forum reglement.
Ik noemde u een leugenaar omdat U loog over Fico en ik kon bewijzen dat u bewust daarover loog.Ik begin niet over uw alhohol of drugsverslaving.

Neen, hoor. U hebt dat helemaal niet aangetoond. Ik postte laatst nog mijn commentaar met citaat uit de Slovaakse pers. In giftigheid deed u alsof het er niet stond en u herhaalde nadien weer dezelfde leugen. Sorry, commietommie, u valt keer op keer door de mand door die typische tactiek van "halve waarheden en hele leugens", van suggestie en manipulatie.

Mijn bericht van 28 mei:

https://forum.politics.be/showpost.p...ostcount=51610

[tomm]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Jan van den Berghe

"Het is duidelijk... " Neen, beste commietommie, het is niet duidelijk. Het is slechts één van die zaken in de alternatieve wereld van Russischgezinden, daarbij het feit negerend dat Poetin en niemand anders de agressie tegen Rusland is begonnen. Het Westen was al die tijd erop om gewoon goede economische relaties met Rusland te ontwikkelen. Denk maar aan het naïeve geloof van Merkel, Hollande, Sarkozy, Schröder... Niemand was erop uit om Rusland in zijn territoriale soevereiniteit te raken. Het is evenwel een puur kwaadaardig denkbeeld dat in het hoofd van Poetin is beginnen spoken, ingefluisterd, zoals iedereen weet, door haatprediker Poetin. Als trouwe Poetintrol herhaalt u natuurlijk die onwaarheid.

Het mooiste voorbeeld dat het Westen er helemaal niet op uit was Rusland te raken, is de reactie van de westerse landen op de bezetting en inlijving van de Krim. In het Westen wou men gerust een oogje dichtknijpen. Buiten wat symbolische sancties (denk maar aan de Belgische uitvoer van peren naar Rusland) ging het niet. De economie werd belangrijker geacht.

President Bill Clinton himself warned earlier this week that Russia would pay "a heavy price" for its conduct in Chechnya

By Thomas Graham, Jr.
published byNew York Times on December 10, 1999

President Boris Yeltsin was rattling his saber again, this time issuing an ominous reminder to President Clinton that Russia "has a full arsenal of nuclear weapons." Such bluster deserves a quick and firm response.

If the United States backs up its oratory with action, will the Russians listen? There are several reasons to think they will. The most important is that Russians respect strength. Prime Minister Vladimir Putin has become phenomenally popular largely because he has demonstrated toughness with the Chechen rebels. Likewise, we need to demonstrate resolve in defending our values and principles if we ever hope to persuade Moscow to negotiate with Chechnya. Also, for all their anti-Western talk, Russians fear isolation from the West. Most members of the elite have their savings and investments in Western institutions. Capital flight remains unabated. Russian elites need to understand that by continuing the war in Chechnya they are isolating themselves from the West and jeopardizing their investments.

Warn that continuing the Chechen war will jeopardize Russia's invitation to the meetings of the seven most industrialized countries. Step up our support for Georgia, the Caucasus nation that has come under increasing pressure from Moscow for its alleged support of Chechen rebels.

Granted, none of these actions will persuade Moscow to move immediately toward a political solution in Chechnya. But over time, the pressure, along with inevitable battle fatigue among Russians, will nudge Moscow toward a negotiated settlement.
https://carnegieendowment.org/posts/...echnya?lang=en

Het echte doel is al lang Rusland zelf. Het Westen wilde Rusland in 1999 dwingen om de praten met door het Westen bewapende Tsjetsjeense terroristen. Tsjetsjenie was toen en is nog steeds een onderdeel van de Russische Federatie.Het Westen bemoeide zich openlijk met de interne aangelegenheden van de RF. Dat dit niet gratuit was bewees het Westen door in datzelfde jaar Servie aan te vallen en Kosovo van hen af te pakken.

[Jan van den Berghe]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door tomm

President Bill Clinton himself warned earlier this week that Russia would pay "a heavy price" for its conduct in Chechnya

O ja, wat een bewijsvoering... Afkomen met een bericht uit 1999, zomaar los geplukt uit de context van toen. Nu zijn we vijfentwintig jaar later. Het vervolg heeft aangetoond dat uw stelling dus klopt, want het Westen heeft daarna eigenlijk gewoon weer overgegaan tot de orde van de dag en verder gebouwd aan goede economische relaties met Rusland.

[djimi]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door tomm

... wat de Oekrainers van plan zijn moesten ze de Krim heroveren gaat nog veel verder.
Bvb. alle leraars straffen die bleven lesgeven, etc.
Ze willen de Krim ook herbevolken met "echte" Oekrainers.

...

En wie (= welke ‘informant’) heeft u dat ‘wijs’ gemaakt?



Uit welke ‘bron’ ontspruit uw ‘voorkennis’?



Vergeet niet: “Rossiya zhavzdy breshe!”

[tomm]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Jan van den Berghe

Kortom, geen enkel bewijs dat Bandera de opdracht zou hebben gegeven om de Polen in Wolynië, pogroms op Joden en dergelijke meer. Over de gebeurtenissen in Wolynië heb ik trouwens al eerder uitgebreid geschreven, hoe de gebeurtenissen zich toen hebben voorgedaan en wie het bevel uiteindelijk heeft gegeven. U koos er echter weer eens voor om dat alles te negeren, want het past niet in uw vooropgesteld wereldbeeld. U toont iedere keer weer hoe u drijft op vooringenomenheid.

Er staat dat Bandera wel degelijk op de hoogte was van deze misdaden, hij heeft zijn banden met degene die de uitvoerders waren niet verbroken, en had hij contact met hen tijdens zijn luxe gevangenschap. In tegendeel zij voerden uit wat Bandera al jaren predikte, dus volgens Polen en Israel, dus niet alleen Rusland, was hij het echte brain achter deze misdaden.

U blijft beweren dat Israel en Polen Bandera ten onrechte een genocidaire moordenaar noemen?

[tomm]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door djimi

En wie (= welke ‘informant’) heeft u dat ‘wijs’ gemaakt?



Uit welke ‘bron’ ontspruit uw ‘voorkennis’?



Vergeet niet: “Rossiya zhavzdy breshe!”

In Kupiansk, teachers stand accused of collaboration during Russian occupation
FEATUREIn this liberated region of eastern Ukraine, some teachers continued to give classes during the Russian administration.

https://www.lemonde.fr/en/internatio...6010349_4.html

[Jan van den Berghe]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door tomm

Er staat dat Bandera wel degelijk op de hoogte was van deze misdaden, hij heeft zijn banden met degene die de uitvoerders waren niet verbroken, en had hij contact met hen tijdens zijn luxe gevangenschap. In tegendeel zij voerden uit wat Bandera al jaren predikte, dus volgens Polen en Israel, dus niet alleen Rusland, was hij het echte brain achter deze misdaden.

U blijft beweren dat Israel en Polen Bandera ten onrechte een genocidaire moordenaar noemen?

Ja, dat herhaal ik inderdaad met grote zekerheid. Ik kijk nog steeds uit naar het eerste bewijs waarmee aangetoond wordt dat Bandera hier de verantwoordelijkheid draagt. Bandera heeft trouwens nooit gepredikt om de Poolse bevolking uit te moorden.

[Jan van den Berghe]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door tomm

In Kupiansk, teachers stand accused of collaboration during Russian occupation
FEATUREIn this liberated region of eastern Ukraine, some teachers continued to give classes during the Russian administration.

https://www.lemonde.fr/en/internatio...6010349_4.html

Niets te maken met uw bewering dat de Oekraïense overheid van plan is om de etnische Russen te deporteren en de Krim te herbevolken met 'echte' Oekraïners. U citeert iets over collaboratie.

[tomm]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Jan van den Berghe

O ja, wat een bewijsvoering... Afkomen met een bericht uit 1999, zomaar los geplukt uit de context van toen. Nu zijn we vijfentwintig jaar later. Het vervolg heeft aangetoond dat uw stelling dus klopt, want het Westen heeft daarna eigenlijk gewoon weer overgegaan tot de orde van de dag en verder gebouwd aan goede economische relaties met Rusland.

En dan? U beweert dat het Westen de territoriale soevereiniteit van Rusland respecteert dat is duidelijk een leugen.

1999 is niet zo lang geleden. De huidige machthebbers in Washington hadden toen ook al veel te zeggen.

En de plannen om Rusland zelf te destabiliseren werden nooit opgeborgen, dat bewijst het "Warschau instituut". (zie boven)
Het Westen bleef Tsjetsjeense terroristen steunen tot Poetin ze zogoed als helemaal had uitgeroeid, en de steun nam ook af na de aanslagen van 9/11, toen Poetin het Westen wilde helpen in de strikd tegen Al-Quaida.

[Jan van den Berghe]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door tomm

En dan? U beweert dat het Westen de territoriale soevereiniteit van Rusland respecteert dat is duidelijk een leugen.

Natuurlijk is dat geen leugen. We leven nu in 2024 en de Tsjetsjeense oorlog (met de vele wreedheden van de Russen trouwens...) ligt al een hele tijd achter ons.

[tomm]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Jan van den Berghe

Niets te maken met uw bewering dat de Oekraïense overheid van plan is om de etnische Russen te deporteren en de Krim te herbevolken met 'echte' Oekraïners. U citeert iets over collaboratie.

... wat de Oekrainers van plan zijn moesten ze de Krim heroveren gaat nog veel verder.
Bvb. alle leraars straffen die bleven lesgeven, etc.

Dit schreef ik onder andere, of ontkent U dat?

Weinig zin om te liegen over wat ik wel of niet geschreven heb als je het gewoon hierboven kunt lezen en verifieren.

De Krim herbevolken heb ik met 100 % gelezen in een Oekraiense propaganda outlet, als ik tijd heb zoek ik het op en u weet dat ik in tegenstelling tot U woord hou.

[tomm]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Jan van den Berghe

Ja, dat herhaal ik inderdaad met grote zekerheid. Ik kijk nog steeds uit naar het eerste bewijs waarmee aangetoond wordt dat Bandera hier de verantwoordelijkheid draagt. Bandera heeft trouwens nooit gepredikt om de Poolse bevolking uit te moorden.

Dus U weet het beter dan Polen of Israel? Joden en Polen waren de voornaamste slachtoffers van uw held. Maar U zegt dat ze liegen?

[DebianFox]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door tomm

Dus U weet het beter dan Polen of Israel? Joden en Polen waren de voornaamste slachtoffers van uw held. Maar U zegt dat ze liegen?

Gelieve 'uw held' te definiëren.

[Jan van den Berghe]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door tomm

1999 is niet zo lang geleden. De huidige machthebbers in Washington hadden toen ook al veel te zeggen.

De spoeling moet bij u toch wel heel dun geworden zijn, dat u moet teruggrijpen naar een uitspraak uit 1999 in uw wanhopige poging om te bewijzen dat "het" Westen op de loer ligt om te morrelen aan de Russische grenzen. Blijkbaar vindt u niets voor de rest van die vijfentwintig jaar. En die vijfentwintig jaar tonen nu eenmaal het omgekeerde van wat u beweert. Ik heb ook al beschreven hoe westerse landen uit waren op goede relaties met Rusland, vooral economische.

In 1997 gingen de Europese landen bijvoorbeeld over tot verdiepen van de relaties met Rusland, gebaseerd op de bilaterale overeenkomst die werd afgesloten (PCA). In 2012 werd Rusland zelfs lid van de WTO en werd de handel verder uitgebouwd langs die lijn. In 2021 steeg de handelstrafiek tussen Rusland en de Europese landen tot een hoogte van meer dan 250 miljard euro. In de jaren 2019 en 2020 waren alweer de Europese landen de grootste investeerders in Rusland. Het toont gewoon het omgekeerde aan van wat u beweert en illustreert wat ik stelde: het Westen wou gewoon een vredevol samenleven, terwille van de uitbouw van goede economische relaties.

[Jan van den Berghe]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door tomm

Dus U weet het beter dan Polen of Israel? Joden en Polen waren de voornaamste slachtoffers van uw held. Maar U zegt dat ze liegen?

Ja, ik zeg inderdaad dat Bandera geen "genocidaire holocaust moordenaar" is. Net omdat er daarvoor geen bewijzen zijn.