Jos Venäjä jatkaa oman kansan köyhdyttämisen hinnalla,niin Ukraina ratkeaa joko Venäjän isolla operaatiolla tai Ukrainan kansan väsymisellä ja äänestämällä. Tuosta Ukrainan kansan tahtotilasta ei saa luotettavaa tietoa. On monia mielipiteitä. Toki mielellään kerrotaan,että uhrit ovat olleet liian suuret ja enää Ukraina ei koskaan palaa venäjän syliin vapaaehtoisesti.
Erityisen vaikeaa on maallikon arvailla mikä tahtotila on vuoden tai kahden päästä jos sota jatkuu. Siihen voi vaikuttaa myös Eu:n tapahtumat. Ei ole tähtiin kirjoitettu,että eu:n vetovoima säilyy. Etenkin kun jäsenmaissa vastaisuus kasvaa.
Venäjän oma sietokyky on toinen täysi mysteeri. Venäjän piti romahtaa jo ajat sitten. Veikata voisi kuitenkin, että jos rahastot on syöty ja nyt tuli todella pahat leikkaukset eläkkeisiin ja muuhun hyvinvointiin,niin ratkaisu on saatava tulevana vuonna. Muuten vuonna 19 oppositionuorten mukana on eläkeläisetkin. Venäjän unohdetut eläkeläiset menettää yli 10% jos oikein ymmärsin.
Hyvaa tietoa, harmi kun ei ole lahteita.
Ei nuo varaston syönnit tapahdu hetkessä vaan hiljaa jos rahaa tulee kuitenkin sisään jonkinverran.
Veikkaisin että nyt eletään hiljaiseloa vaaleihin ast
Noin varmaankin.
Kerran jo referoin (uutisten puolella) tata artikkelia:
Russia’s economy would be growing a lot faster today if it hadn’t spent so much money on reequipping the military, former finance minister and co-head of the presidential council Alexei Kudrin wrote in a controversial paper released in the first week of October.
It was exactly this outspoken criticism of Russia’s preference for military spending that got him sacked from his job as finance minister in 2011.
At that time President Vladimir Putin had already made up his mind that Russia was on the path to an inevitable clash with the west and was determined to sacrifice much of Russia’s prosperity to getting ready for the face off. Having a creditable military threat to counter Nato was core to this plan.
- Kudrin was more focused on delivering economic prosperity and so he had to go.
No, mita ehti tapahtua tassa valissa (palaan Ukrainaan lopuksi. kysymys silta osin on ajoituksesta):
Whether and to what extent the Trump campaign was complicit in the Russian efforts is the subject of active inquiries today.
-Regardless, Putin pulled off a spectacular geopolitical heist on a shoestring budget—about $200 million, according to former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper. This point is lost on many Americans: The subversion of the election was as much a product of improvisation and entropy as it was of long-range vision. What makes Putin effective, what makes him dangerous, is not strategic brilliance but a tactical flexibility and adaptability—a willingness to experiment, to disrupt, and to take big risks.
“They do plan,” said a senior Obama-administration official. “They’re not stupid at all. But the idea that they have this all perfectly planned and that Putin is an amazing chess player—that’s not quite it. He knows where he wants to end up, he plans the first few moves, and then he figures out the rest later. People ask if he plays chess or checkers. It’s neither: He plays blackjack. He has a higher acceptance of risk. Think about it. The election interference—that was pretty risky, what he did. If Hillary Clinton had won, there would’ve been hell to pay.”
Even the manner of the Russian attack was risky. The fact that the Russians didn’t really bother hiding their fingerprints is a testament to the change in Russia’s intent toward the U.S., Robert Hannigan, a former head of the Government Communications Headquarters, the British analogue to the National Security Agency, said at the Aspen Forum. “The brazen recklessness of it … the fact that they don’t seem to care that it’s attributed to them very publicly, is the biggest change.”
That recklessness nonetheless has clear precursors—both in Putin’s evolving worldview and in his changing domestic circumstances. For more than a decade, America’s strategic carelessness with regard to Russia has stoked Putin’s fears of being deposed by the U.S., and pushed him toward ever higher levels of antagonism. So has his political situation—the need to take ever larger foreign risks to shore up support at home, as the economy has struggled. These pressures have not abated; if anything, they have accelerated in recent years.
Kotimaan protestit ja yksi lisaa "Colour Revolutions" -listaan uhka oli jo hoideltu vuosikymmenen alussa. Miksi menna lisattyyn vastakkain asetteluun, kun talous ei sita selvastikaan kestaisi?
In the spring of 2016, an international consortium of journalists began publishing revelations from a vast trove of documents belonging to a Panamanian law firm that specialized in helping its wealthy foreign clients move money, some of it ill-gotten, out of their home countries and away from the prying eyes of tax collectors. (The firm has denied any wrongdoing.) The documents revealed that Putin’s old friend Sergei Roldugin, a cellist and the godfather to Putin’s elder daughter, had his name on funds worth some $2 billion. It was an implausible fortune for a little-known musician, and the journalists showed that these funds were likely a piggy bank for Putin’s inner circle. Roldugin has denied any wrongdoing, but the Kremlin was furious about the revelation. Putin’s spokesman, Dmitry Peskov, whose wife was also implicated, angrily ascribed the reporting to “many former State Department and CIA employees” and to an effort to “destabilize” Russia ahead of its September 2016 parliamentary elections.
The argument was cynical, but it revealed a certain logic:
- The financial privacy of Russia’s leaders was on par with the sovereignty of Russia’s elections.
- “The Panama Papers were a personal slight to Putin,” says John Sipher, a former deputy of the CIA’s Russia desk. “They think we did it.” Putin’s inner circle, Soldatov says, felt “they had to respond somehow.” According to Soldatov’s reporting, on April 8, 2016, Putin convened an urgent meeting of his national-security council; all but two of the eight people there were veterans of the KGB.
Given the secrecy and timing of this meeting, Soldatov believes it was then that Putin gave the signal to retaliate.
The original aim was to embarrass and damage Hillary Clinton, to sow dissension, and to show that American democracy is just as corrupt as Russia’s, if not worse. “No one believed in Trump, not even a little bit,” Soldatov says. “It was a series of tactical operations. At each moment, the people who were doing this were filled with excitement over how well it was going, and that success pushed them to go even further.”
Round 3 on tulossa: USAn lakiasaatavan osan, pyhasta kolmiyhteydesta, vaatimat sanktiot, joihin liittyvat Putin-piirin ja siihen loyhemminkin liittyvien oligarkkien rikastumisen keinojen julkistaminen on jo ihan kohta ovella... koskas ne olikaan, ne Venajan vaalit?
Ja naiden keskinainen ajoitus selittaa Ukrainan osalta seuraavan:
Ilmoitus joulun alla, Venajan reagointi heti seuraavana paivana ja virallinen kiertely ja kaartelu "mehan annoimme vain vientiluvan, ei tassa mitaan apua olla lahettamassa":
The sale of anti-tank missiles, which could possibly include the U.S.-made Javelin system, provoked a strong reaction from Russia on Saturday, saying it “crossed the line,” and could threaten to derail Trump’s calls for better relations with Moscow.
The total defense package of $47 million includes the sale of 210 anti-tank missiles and 35 launchers. Additional supplies will need to be purchased, according to a senior State Department official,” ABC News’ article says.
The move would mark a major escalation in lethal US military support to the Poroshenko regime battling forces the Donetsk and Logansk People’s Republics in eastern Ukraine.
On December 22, the US State Department announced that the US will provide the Ukrainain regime with “enhanced defensive capabilities”. However, the Department of State spokesperson Heather Nauert provided no details what kind of “enhanced” weapons the US is going to supply to the Ukrainian regime. The announcement followed an official confirmation that the Trump administration had authorized lethal weapons supplies to Kiev.
On December 23, Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov said in a statement that the US decision to provide lethal weapons to Ukraine “crosses a line”
Odotetaan siis, etta Ukrainassa tulee rahinat, joiden uutisoinnin alle (ainakin Venajalla) jaisivat nuo ikavat Panama-Paperit paljastukset, ihan vahan vaan paranneltuina ja taydennettyina
- jaihan Amerikoissakin tiedusteluyhteenvedot ja niiden julkistaminen cyber-kampanjasta sen jalkoihin, miten Trump oli naurattanut ihan kaikkein nuorinta Bushia (ei siis sita esivaalien vastaehdokasta) joskus kauan sitten, kommentoimalla mehukkaaseen tapaan vastakkaisen sukupuolen edustajia ja parhaita menettelytapoja,
