Зажали бабки на народный гнев

Так лужайки в Киеве останутся зелёными.
Если только уже «коалиция» что-нибудь не придумает. 😉

Главное, чтобы приняли все по ВТО — и могут дальше ничего не делать.

Пока депутат бездельничает — страна может спать спокойно! 🙂

Dear Friends of Russia,

For very important decisions about the NATO and the EU, a referendum is very necessary and very important in Ukraine.

A majority of two/third (66%) of the «yes votes» is very necessary and very important, so the «yes votes» must account for 2/3 of the total number of votes to become a member of the NATO and the EU.

My opinion is that only 51% of the «yes votes» is not enough to become a member of the NATO and the EU.

A big majority of the «yes votes» is very necessary and very important, so two/third (66%) of Ukrainians must vote «YES» to become a member of the NATO and the EU.

Ukrainian membership of the NATO is very necessary and very important for the USA, so that the USA always can use Ukrainian Airports (Ukrainian military bases) to attack Iraq, Iran and Afghanistan.

Ukraine doesn’t need a machinery for global military intervention.

Ukraine doesn’t need military alliances that threaten the rest of the world.

Europe serves as a staging ground for military interventions worldwide.

The framework can differ: NATO, EU, US coalition of the willing, UN.

The target as well: Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon, …

But the departure points not: military bases, airports and harbours in Europe.

Europe hosts a large military intervention machinery.

NATO Game Over

Through NATO, Europe is involved in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
European states train military forces for the NATO Response Force and due to NATO the US still maintains bases in Europe used for military interventions worldwide.
During the Iraq war US soldiers deployed from their bases in Europe to the Persian Gulf.
In Afghanistan NATO has taken the lead in the military occupation and a lot of European states have soldiers in Afghanistan.
Last but not least, NATO nuclear weapons are still deployed in Europe.
And they are as illegal here as elsewhere.
The coming year will be decisive for NATO’s nuclear policy.
On the summit of Bucharest beginning April (2 weeks after the NATO Game Over-action) NATO will start the process to develop a new Strategic Concept, the basic document outlining for the coming ten years the common military policy, including the nuclear policy.
A year later, on the 60th anniversary of NATO, another summit will adopt this new Strategic Concept. Or the US tactical nuclear weapons in Europe will be withdrawn or they get a new role towards rogue states in the Middle East, that will be the discussion on the table.
In Bucharest missile defense is high on the agenda as well. NATO wants to bring this discussion to a conclusion, what could mean the adoption of the US missile defense plans as NATO policy.
Peace activists from all over Europe will join in Brussels, Belgium on March 22 2008 for the first edition of ‘NATO — Game Over’.
We go to NATO’s headquarters and close them.
We will enter and inspect NATO for evidence of war preparations and the deployment of nuclear weapons.
‘NATO – Game Over’ is not a ordinary demonstration, neither is it a game.
It is a nonviolent and resolute attempt to close NATO.
Up till today, every nonviolent direct action at or around NATO’s headquarters was met with large numbers of police, miles of barbed wire, prohibitions,… a shameful waste of tax payers money.
This will not stop us.
Through nonviolent direct action we prevent wars and stop war crimes.
NATO, What will it become?

The Americans know exactly where they want to go with NATO.
The Europeans are not very enthusiastic but have no alternative.
NATO and the governments of its member states are in agreement that NATO has to change.
A new reform process has started.
It should become clear where this process is going at the NATO Top for government leaders in April 2008 in Bucharest.
They would like to be able to launch a new Strategic Concept on the 60th anniversary of NATO in 2009.
The first stage of this reform process, the Riga Top in November 2006, didn’t produce many results. The opinions vary. The discussion was postponed for the future.
EUROPEAN OR WORLDWIDE? THE OPINIONS
NATO reached concensus about its policy during the Cold War because it was only about the situation in Europe.
NATO had nothing to do with the rest of the world. Therefore the colonies were and are excluded from the guarantee of defence in Article 5 from the NATO Treaty.
Today the US is pushing a Global agenda to the forefront as NATO’s task.
The opinions differ regarding this matter.
NATO reaches concensus about the European agenda, the Balkans…but opinions are divided about dealing with Russia, the continuing expansion to include Ukraine and Georgia, the Missile Defense Project,…
NATO let itself be dragged into the occupation of Afghanistan, without the European leaders having much say in the chosen course of action.
As a result many leaders are now reluctant to deliver troops.
If they deliver troops it is in order to get on the good side of the US rather than because they believe in the purpose of a military operation.
There is no consensus about the role of NATO in the Middle East (Iraq, Iraeli-Palestine conflict, Iran, Lebanon).
At the moment NATO only has a limited training mission in Iraq, partnership agreements with the Mediterranean countries and preliminary co-operation with the Gulf States.
There is no agreement about the big political questions.
The US is looking to place Africa on the NATO agenda. One can realistically say that there is more competition between the US and the European countries than collective politics regarding this region.
Nicholas Burns, de US Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs, states that «there has been a very dramatic and undeniable shift in the European-American relationship … And that is that the United States’ policy towards Europe is no longer about Europe. It’s about the rest of the world. And the U.S.-European alliance is no longer about the divisions in Europe, as it certainly was over the course of the 20th century. It’s about what we together have to do to be effective and purposeful around the globe in all the regions of the world.».
The US wants to use NATO as a tool to push the European countries into involvement in its global politics. The European countries are trying to keep this process at bay, but due to their lack of collective vision, they are easy prey for the American politics of Divide and Rule.
EUROPEAN OR WORLDWIDE? THE EXPANSION.
The American Vision of NATO goes even further. The US wants NATO to evolve from a European-American military alliance to a worldwide, military security organisation.
A kind of ‘United Nations of the Willing’, which will result in the marginalisation of the actual United Nations.
The United Nations is not popular amongst American politicians. Many would happily see the UN abolished and replaced by something that better represents American interests. The final report of the Princeton Project on National Security makes it clear that this vision is widely shared. This project includes both Democrats and Republicans under leadership of George Shultz, the former minister of Foreign affairs. The report recommends the creation of a Concert of Democracies: «While pushing for reform of the United Nations and other major global institutions, the United States should work with its friends and allies to develop a global “Concert of Democracies” – a new institution designed to strengthen security cooperation among the world’s liberal democracies. This Concert would institutionalize and ratify the “democratic peace.” If the United Nations cannot be reformed, the Concert would provide an alternative forum for liberal democracies to authorize collective action, including the use of force, by a supermajority vote.» (Concert is an old name for a collaboration and refers to the Concert in Europe after the Congress of Vienna in 1815, when all the main European states worked together to keep the power balance in order to protect peace in Europe.)
THE START?
The discussion about partnerships with countries from the Pacific has been on NATO’s political agenda since the beginning of 2006. Officially it relates to practical co-operation between countries taking part in the same missions.
At the Security Conference in Munich in 2006, NATO — secretary General De Hoop-Scheffer stated: «We need to ensure that we have the closest possible partnership with those countries that can, and are willing to, help defend our shared values. To my mind, that means also building closer links with other likeminded nations beyond Europe — nations such as Australia, New Zealand, South Korea or Japan.
NATO is not a global policeman, but we have increasingly global partnerships.» This was kept at bay during the NATO Top in Riga in 2006: there will be no Global Partnership Council with all the partners involved. However, the co-operation agreements are being negociated and the partnerships are in silent but full development. The US is able to realise exactly what it wants by using the stealthy decisionmaking process.
Ivo Daalder, Clinton’s former adviser, states his case clearly in his article entitled ‘Global NATO’ in Foreign Affairs. He states unequivocably that these partnerships are a first step to membership, exactly as the Partnership for Peace were for the Eastern European countries. The fact that Democratic voices, such as Ivo Daalder as Clinton’s former adviser, also defend this vision, make it clear that a Democratic President after Bush will make absolutely no difference.
However, this step is not self-evident. Partnerships with Australia and Japan, suddenly give NATO a role in the Pacific and drastically change our relationship with China. Becoming a member means that the guarantee of collective defence is extended to countries in the Pacific. This transforms NATO into a worldwide military alliance. If there is a conflict in the Pacific then Europe is automatically involved. WW I showed clearly how a local conflict can escalate into a World War through treaties promising military support.
It can be regularly heard in American military circles that the next big conflict will be with China. Do we really want to get involved?
What does this mean for countries who are not part of this military alliance and who could potentially be defined as a security threat? For them these developments are a threat to which they will strive to respond to militarily.
The result is the further arms race and militarisation of international relations.
The idea that the threats are global could well become a self-fulfilling prophesy.
Until now we have had one global collective security organisation, the United Nations. Problems of security are discussed in the Security Council. The Security Council should be able to offer guarantees against the militarisation of international relations. In practice it’s being eroded..
If the US and her allies worldwide form an alliance to meet their collective security problems with a unified military solution, the Security Council will have no further function. The discussion in the Security Council will then be reduced to a pro forma excercise where the NATO decision or operation is confirmed.
If Russia or China disagree, the temptation will be great to simply act in the name of NATO.
In practice NATO would then become THE worldwide collective security organisation with a military arm. However, the most important political contradictions are to be found outside the organisation. How will the countries who do not belong to the group of the ‘Willing’ react? What will it be like to not be part of the ‘right’ camp? These countries will be confronted by a global military alliance that can brand them as a security problem. They are going to want to defend themselves. Probable result: a far reaching arms race and the militarisation of international relations.

NATO, WHAT HAS IT GOT TO DO WITH ME?

A US which goes its own way is far more dangerous than a US bound to NATO.
An argument regularly heard to justify NATO membership.
We pay a large price for this. The American influence on european politics is extremely clear. The european NATO countries are mainly forced to follow the american vision of international relations. Any influence in the other direction is an illusion. There are many negative consequences of our NATO membership. It forces us to agree with a far too aggressive foreign policy and reduces the playing field for a different european foreign policy. It provides us with military commitments which we would never choose in a different political alliance.
NATO nuclear weapons.
Six european countries – Belgium, Germany, Italy, The Netherlands, Turkey and the United Kingdom – house 350 american nuclear weapons. This is on the basis of NATO’s ‘nuclear sharing’ treaty.
NATO’s nuclear policy is laid out in NATO’s Strategical Concept. In this document it states that “A credible Alliance nuclear posture and the demonstration of Alliance solidarity and common commitment to war prevention continue to require widespread participation by European Allies involved in collective defence planning in nuclear roles, in peacetime basing of nuclear forces on their territory and in command, control and consultation arrangements.” (par.63)
This means that five non-nuclear powers made agreements about ‘nuclear co-operation’ with the US more than 40 years ago.
SOLIDARITY?
According to NATO, the presence of american nuclear weapons in Europe creates essential political and military ties between the European and North American NATO members and enables them to collectively carry the burdens and risks.
Out of the 26 NATO member states there are only six who actually carry american nuclear weapons on their territory. Every nuclear weapon is a threat to european safety and undermines international efforts towards nuclear disarmament. Every bomb is a potential target for acts of terror and brings with it an unacceptable risk of accident.
BOOM!
In 2000, NATO, under influence from the US, signed a new strategy for the use of nuclear weapons. This allows that nuclear weapons can be used against countries who have no nuclear weapons. Originally nuclear weapons were used as deterrent against other countries with nuclear weapons. Today countries suspected of having weapons of mass destruction, such as chemical or biological weapons, can be threatened with nuclear weapons. Considering that many more countries have acces to chemical and biological weapons than nuclear weapons, many more countries are now potential targets of NATO nuclear weapons. It is therefore possible to use nuclear weapons against a country simply if you suspect they have weapons of mass destruction.
The NATO policy of using nuclear weapons as a preemptive strike adds a dangerous dimension to the situation in combination with the american security policy pushing for war as a preventative tool.
ILLEGAL
NATO’s nuclear sharing principle is illegal because it is in conflict with international humanitarian law and with the Non-proliferation treaty. From the statement of the International Court of Justice in The Hague in 1996 about the legality of nuclear weapons we can conclude that all existing nuclear weapons are illegal. The non-proliferation treaty, the treaty that counters the spread of nuclear weapons, obligates all signatories to strive for a nuclear free world. The reiteration of the political and military importance of the NATO nuclear weapons is a violation of this obligation.
JUST DO IT
The Belgian chamber of parliament and the Senate were, in 2005, the first parliamentary organ to pass a resolution requesting the removal of the American nuclear weapons from Belgian territory. To this day the Belgian government has not take a single step to carry this resolution out. Canada and Denmark (Greenland) have proved that is is possible to remove American nuclear weapons. More recently Greece (2001) sent their American nuclear weapons packing.
Nuclear weapons in European NATO-countries:
European involvement in NATO interventions.

Would European countries have troops in Afghanistan if they were not members of NATO? There is reason to doubt this. As member of NATO we subscribe to a politics of worldwide military intervention.
AFGHANISTAN
After the attacks on 11 september 2001 the US invaded Afghanistan and toppled the Taliban regime. NATO announced their solidarity and called upon article 5 of the NATO treaty: «an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area».
At that moment the US refused NATO’s help and requested assistance from countries specially chosen by themselves. It was when the war began to go wrong, that the US called for NATO help. Since August 2003 the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) is active in Afghanistan under NATO leadership. The american troops also remain active under their national leadership. Initially ISAF was only active in the capital. Subsequently they have expanded to cover the whole country.
MILITARY INTERVENTION FAILS
This intervention, just as it has in Iraq, is going wrong. NATO is involved in a never ending counter insurgency operation.
In theory the military intervention should create safety and peace to enable the political process to get started and build a stable democracy. In practice safety has been an illusion for years. The US with their careless ‘collateral damage’ provoke the population to more and more resistance. President Karzai’s power doesn’t generally reach further than Kabul and he is mainly seen as a puppet of the US. There is hardly any political process to speak of, let alone one that could lead to a stable regime.
It is obvious to blame the heavy handed american tactics for this failure. However, these failures in Iraq and Afghanistan illustrate that the instrument ‘Military intervention’ is a failure. Peace making and the building of a democracy using military methods is an illusion. These political objectives are not achievable with military methods. On the contrary, military intervention is in fact an obstacle.
In a military intervention the importance of armed groups grow. It sharpens the contrasts and reduces the room for political solutions. Through military intervention one becomes a party in the struggle and ends up fighting a full blown guerilla war.
Even if such an intervention leads to a military victory, it polarises the conflict leaving a political solution more difficult to reach than before. If there is no real possibility of a working peace process, one is confronted with the choice between a military presence for years, maybe decades, or a reawakening of the conflict after the troops have pulled out.
INSTRUMENTS FOR MILITARY INTERVENTION
Still NATO continues to increase its resources to enable more efficient military interventions in the future. The NATO Response Force has been fully operational since the end of 2006. This is a quick intervention army made up of 21. 000 soldiers with the necessary military and logistic capacity to be mobilised within a week to a months time and who can face 30 days of heavy fighting. Different troops are made ready for action as NATO Response Force every 6 months. NATO invests extra funds in the necessary transport, intelligence etc. In addition, all member states aim to enable 40% of their army to be mobilised overseas and to effectively permanently mobilise 8% of their army overseas.
In other words, NATO has chosen to develop itself into an instrument for worldwide military intervention. It is questionable whether this military instrument is also able to promote its original objectives of stability, peace and democracy. This question is not being asked within the NATO structures.
The Bilateral military agreements.

Even if a country does not agree with a military intervention or a war, due to its membership of NATO it can still be involved. A good example of this is the last war in Iraq.
SECRET AGREEMENTS
NATO does not have its own army. It is the member states who assign their armies to NATO and place them under a NATO commander. In addition to this, you have the national armies. Parts of these armies can be stationed on the territory of other NATO countries. NATO members make agreements about common strategy, necessary troops and their material. These agreements are not legally binding. The member states are responsible for the fulfillment of these agreements and therefore make deals with each other to create bilateral military agreements. Often these are draught agreements followed by a whole series of technical agreements before they are effectively put into practice.
A few examples: The nuclear strategy, including how many nuclear weapons are needed is agreed within NATO. Before the actual transfer of the weapons, the US and the host country make an agreement stipulating the mutual responsibilities. The same goes for the stationing of American troops in Germany. All aspects of this manoeuvre are agreed with Germany. An agreement is also made with Belgium about the so called ‘communication lines’ or the organisation of transport and supplies for these troops across Belgian territory. The European NATO countries have a whole series of these agreements with the US and other countries. Their content is secret.
VIOLATION
These agreements make the military function of NATO possible. They are created in order to carry out the agreements in a NATO context. However, these agreements can be used for military operations that have nothing to do with NATO. This occurred during the last war with Iraq. The US used the NATO framework for their own ends.
The US often use the stationing of American troops in Europe in a way that has nothing to do with NATO strategy. The American troops in Europe are used as forward operating bases for interventions in the Middle East and Africa, without the host countries having much to say in the matter.
LOGISTICAL SUPPORT FOR WAR
The last Iraqi war is a striking example of this. Officially the Belgian government was against the war in Iraq. They found, just as the German government, it to be against international law. In practice, 20,000 American soldiers were flown out to the Gulf region from Germany and all their equipment was brought to Antwerp and Rotterdam to be shipped. Belgium, Germany and The Netherlands functioned as a logistical centre for the war. Without this co-operation the war would have been impossible, or at least more difficult to organise. With this co-operation, Belgium, Germany and the Netherlands violate their obligations under the Hague Convention about neutral countries and under the UN Charter. This is questionable. On reading the leaked bilateral agreements, it becomes clear that Belgium retains the right to cancel the execution of this agreement if it is againt its national interests. Separate from this legal discussion, the war in Iraq clearly shows NATO membership can mean an involvement in unilateral American military adventures.
AND THE NUCLEAR WEAPONS?
America’s abuse of the NATO framework could in theory be far worse. American nuclear weapons in Europe have a different function in the American military strategy than they do for NATO. The US sees the potential use of nuclear weapons in the Middle East. This means that the US could transport these weapons to the Middle East at any moment for use by their own troops. The stationing of American nuclear weapons also plays a role as a forward operating base for the american army, just as in the case of conventional troops.
NATO and the American politics of war.

The NATO Strategic Concept states that NATO embodies the trans-atlantic bond which binds the security in Europe with the security in North-America. This sounds fine as long as the visions of security are moving in the same direction. However, in practice it is a different story.
NATO membership is pushing the European member states into a much more aggressive political policy then they would choose for themselves. The trans-atlantic bond seems to be more of a stranglehold, often making any other sort of foreign policy impossible. The US force their vision on the other member states, threatening them if they as much as think of questioning the ‘consensus’.
The earlier chapters about nuclear policy and interventions in Afghanistan and Iraq already illustrate this view.

Here are a few more examples:

THE MISSILE DEFENCE SYSTEM

The US has been dreaming of Star Wars since the 1980’s. Star Wars is a space defence system that would defend them from nuclear weapons. Twenty years ago this technology was not possible. However, recently the current president Bush approved a national missile defence system. He terminated the ABN-treaty (Anti Ballistic Missile) in order to do this. This treaty, between the US and Russia, forbids missile defence systems.

Whether it works or not is questionable, however, the initial arrangements already exist for anti-missile missiles. Europe has always been less enthusiastic about this system.

The US couldn’t sell it to NATO. As a compromise, there was a study about the technical feasibility of a ‘Missile Defence System’ under the NATO charter. This was a way of keeping it at bay for many countries. This was the start of a stealthy decision making process for the US. By commissioning a study, the discussion remained about the technical feasibility and any discussion about how necessary such a system actually is has been effectively sidelined.

At the NATO top in RIGA in 2006, the US didn’t get their way. Another study was commissioned! However, the Bush government is determined to develop the Missile Defense System within its term of office to such an extent that it would be impossible for any future government to stop its development.

In order to make this happen they return to the old policy of ‘divide and rule’: the US negotiate with Poland and the Czech Republic separately about placing installations for the missile defense system. Result: There will be a radar installation in the Czech Republic and anti-missile missiles in Poland.

Russia is inscenced. The missile defense plans are not as such a direct threat for Russia, but Russia is considering future developments. A country with a good functioning missile defence system has the potential to launch a nuclear attack, without the possibility that the attacked country can retalliate in an equally destructive way. The whole strategic balance based on deterrence would be disturbed.

This is the trigger for Russia to threaten to terminate the INF-treaty which forbids middle-long distance missiles. The results of this angry response from Russia affect the whole of Europe.

Every discussion about the necessity of such a system is already useless due to the fact that the US persist in pushing their agenda accross the board. The discussion is no longer about the necessity of such a system but about which context it will be placed in (NATO or an East European coalition of the Willing). Europe backs down, the US has won their battle.

Europe is being dragged into an aggressive political policy against Russia.

THE EXPANSION

The US wants to use the current weakness of Russia against it to contain its freedom of movement to the extent that it can never regain its former strength.

The US is trying to gain influence over as many of the former Soviet states as possible.

NATO is the perfect instrument for this tactic.

The US are pushing for an expansion to include Ukraine and Georgia.

The fact that Ukrainian population is divided about this question and a large part of the population feels more alligned with Russia is of no importance.

That in Georgia NATO is getting involved in a political snake pit comparable to former Yugoslavia is also of no importance.

Russia is furious.

This doesn’t mean much for the US, who are mainly aiming to eliminate a potential competitor.

A good relationship with Russia is far more important for Europe.

Russia is a neighbour.

We are better off with a good neighbour than a far away friend.

Despite this, NATO decision making moves, under constant pressure, slowly towards the American position.

NATO, WHAT DOES IT COST?

NATO is collectively financed by its member states. The contributions from the member states are divided on the basis of their Bruto National Product (BNP). More than 95% of the costs are not included in the NATO budget, they are paid by the member states. The NATO budget only covers the headquarters and a limited amount of collective infrustructure. The cost of training, kitting out, holding their own troops ready and sending them on military missions is for the member states themselves.
A COLLECTIVE NATO BUDGET
NATO has 3 collective budgets:
The civil Budget, from which the NATO headquarter, the Civilian staff and the scientific programmes are financed. In 2007 this amounted to 181 million Euro. The contribution to this budget falls under the budget of Foreign affairs in the most member states.
The Military Budget, from which the military Headquarters (SHAPE), several smaller headquarters and the air defence installations are financed. In 2007 this budget amounted to 954 million Euro. The contribution to this budget falls under the budget for defence in the most member states.
The NATO Security Investment Programma (NSIP) from which diverse projects are financed in order to increase the military capacity and deployment potential. The NATO pipelines fall under this budget, as do storage bunkers for nuclear weapons. The US use this budget to let the other member states help pay for their European military installations. In 2007 this budget amounted to 640,5 million Euro. The contribution to this budget falls under the budget for Defence in most member states.
COST OF AMERICAN BASES FOR THE HOST COUNTRIES
The US keep statistics showing to what extent they have been able to let other countries pay for their foreign installations. These costs are very unevenly distributed and are mainly for the countries with the largest american military presence such as Germany and Italy. The Belgian contribution has to do with the NATO headquarters, the air force bases in Chièvres (in practice an American base), the MUNSS-squadron in Kleine Brogel and the transport of American military material.
This table shows direct support, direct payment or subsidies, indirect support, the cancellation or reduction of taxes, fees, etc.

NATO, WHAT DO WE WANT?

NATO creates more problems than it solves. We do not need a machine for worldwide military interventions or a military alliance which threatens the rest of the world, creating enemies and provoking retalliations.
OUR DEMANDS
We want to reduce the military intervention capacity:
— the NATO Response Force to be dismantled.
— a reduction of the military budgets and a move towards actual crisis prevention and development aid.
We want to demilitarise international relations:
We want an end to activities which increase conflict:
— American nuclear weapons to be removed and an end to the role of nuclear weapons in military strategy
— A review of the military agreements
— an end to the development of a missile defense system
— troops to be pulled out of Afghanistan and Iraq
— No NATO expansion into Ukraine and Georgia
HOW DO WE WANT TO ACHIEVE THIS?
Whatever our analysis, we face two problems:
— Whoever seeks fundamental change always comes up against NATO.
— Whoever seeks fundamental change in our security policy will be unable to achieve that only from one country. European co-operation is a necessity.
WE ARE NOT ALONE
There are powerful movements with similar aims, developing in several European countries.
Czech Republic
After the Cold War, East European countries approached NATO. Countries like Poland, Czech Republic and Hungary turned out to be well behaved and enthusiastic members.

However, protest in these countries is also growing.

In Czech Republic it is focussed on the placement of a radar for the American Missile Defense System.

In August 2006 a coalition was formed called ‘Ne Základnám’ translated as: ‘No to military bases’. They organised the first demonstration in Prague against these plans. This movement now has local groups all over the Czech Republic and is collecting signatures for a referendum. There have been referenda in the villages around the proposed site and the results show nearly 100% of the people are against the plans.
Poland
There is also a broad movement against the Star Wars plans in Poland, where a missile site is planned. Alongside demonstrations, the action groups are also using the possibility of a referendum as a way to reach a broad public. This movement is made up of groups from various backgrounds, brought together under the coalition ‘Stop Wojnie ‘ (Stop War) which started during the war in Iraq.
Hungary
Finaly there is Hungary, the first signs of resistance are visible, but on a local level. There are actions in Tubes and Pécs against the plans for a NATO radar site.

I’ll wait for your opinion,

Johan De Broyer
Party of Regions — United Ukraine — United Colors of Ukraine

NO NATO IN UKRAINE!

The US are pushing for an expansion to include Ukraine and Georgia.

The fact that Ukrainian population is divided about this question and a large part of the population feels more alligned with Russia is of no importance.

That in Georgia NATO is getting involved in a political snake pit comparable to former Yugoslavia is also of no importance.

Russia is furious.

This doesn’t mean much for the US, who are mainly aiming to eliminate a potential competitor.

A good relationship with Russia is far more important for Europe.

Russia is a neighbour.

We are better off with a good neighbour than a far away friend.

NATO, WHAT DO WE WANT?

NATO creates more problems than it solves. We do not need a machine for worldwide military interventions or a military alliance which threatens the rest of the world, creating enemies and provoking retalliations.
OUR DEMANDS
We want to reduce the military intervention capacity:
— the NATO Response Force to be dismantled.
— a reduction of the military budgets and a move towards actual crisis prevention and development aid.
We want to demilitarise international relations:
We want an end to activities which increase conflict:
— American nuclear weapons to be removed and an end to the role of nuclear weapons in military strategy
— A review of the military agreements
— an end to the development of a missile defense system
— troops to be pulled out of Afghanistan and Iraq
— No NATO expansion into Ukraine and Georgia

Ооооооооо, только не это!

Опять Бройлер свою тошниловку развёл. 🙁

Интересно, где он живёт?

Вот почитаешь такое, и сразу начинаешь думать, что не все американцы милитаристы.
Бройлер- это своеобразный американский Каспаров. 😉 🙂

Ха, а говорят, что мову избегают только русские.
Теперь оказывается, что к этому есть склонность ещё и у сумасшедших.
Ужасная компания получается.

Что он сумасшедший, надо ещё проверить, а вот почему у него такие мысли, интересно.
Может, кто обидел его там, у буржуев.

Вообще такой подход: «все, кто несогласен- сумасшедшие», смахивает на советские времена.
Ведь компьютер у него есть, значит уже не сумасшедший.
Или в украинских психбольницах уже компьютеры в каждой палате? 🙂

Саше: А он не потому сомошэдший. Он потому что типа как сам с собою. Типа героев Татарстана.

Бройлеру: Ты чё буловишь ёптить, оленевод? ПА-РУСССКИ пиши чукча.

THE END OF AMERICA!

THE US BANKING CRISIS!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EBZ81hmZuNk

http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/h3/hist/h3hist1.txt

What about the US BANKING «non-borrowed reserves»?

http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/h3/Current/

RUSSIA BANKING with much more «non-borrowed reserves»!

USA ECONOMIC SANCTIONS AGAINST BELARUS! Belarus angered by US sanctions!

USA President George W Bush just made economic sanctions against Belarus.

Dear,

We noticed that you have transacted with an iKobo account in Belarus.

Due to US government restrictions (economic sanctions) applied to Belarus, we regret to inform you that iKobo is no longer providing services to residents in Belarus.

We hope you understand our obligations as a US company and we apologize for any inconvenience this may cause.

* If the iKobo card in Belarus still has a remaining balance, please spend down your funds within 5 business days.

If you have any further questions regarding the above notice please contact our Customer Care Center or call us at 1-678-483-4562.

We apologize for this inconvenience.

Sincerely,
The iKobo Team
Copyright © 2001-2008 iKobo, Inc. All rights reserved. The iKobo Visa® Prepaid Card is issued by MetaBank pursuant to a license from Visa U.S.A. Inc. Copyright @2001-2008 iKobo, Inc. All rights reserved.

Why do you send her money? Come to her and live in Belarus. It is much better than Ukraine, police will not stop you on the street after Orange revoultion and there is no threat to join NATO. I think — Belarus is a perfect country for you and you have to go there immediately. Thank you in advance.

If you like Putin so much, why don’t you marry him?

Sorry, Johan, cannot help you with your passion. I’m supporting myself and trying to avoid exciting or angry masturbation over any «presidents» or their friends.

PS: Pls, buy a really new newspaper to learn new name of Tzar of Russia.

Friend of the President of America, Bush,

Why you don’t want to answer my question about a possible Russian Missile Defense System in Belarus, Venezuela, Cuba and Ukraine?

Do you think that the President of America, Bush will accept the Russian Missile Defense System in Belarus, Venezuela, Cuba and Ukraine?

The truth about your Friend, the President of America, Bush:

http://www.ronpaulwarroom.com

Top Ranking CIA Operatives Admit Al-qaeda Is a Complete Fabrication!

http://polidics.com/cia/top-ranking-cia-operatives-admit-al-qaeda-is-a-complete-fabrication.html

BBC’s killer documentary called “The Power of Nightmares“.

Top CIA officials openly admit, Al-qaeda is a total and complete fabrication, never having existed at any time.

The Bush administration needed a reason that complied with the Laws so they could go after “the bad guy of their choice” namely laws that had been set in place to protect us from mobs and “criminal organizations” such as the Mafia.

They paid Jamal al Fadl, hundreds of thousands of dollars to back the U.S. Government’s story of Al-qaeda, a “group” or criminal organization they could “legally” go after.

This video documentary is off the hook…

The President of America, Bush Power of Nightmares

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2081592330319789254&hl=en

I live in Minsk, Belarus in the apartment of my Love Dasha and I’m also a lot in Moscow, St. Petersburg and Kiev, because of my work.

You just wrote: «I will personally wellcome them if they wil pay for it really good money».

Who you’ll personally wellcome?

The Russian Missile Defense System or the American Missile Defense System?

You support The President of America, Bush after you saw all these movies with the truth about the aggressive American political policy against Belarus, Russia and Ukraine!

The blockade (Blocked Belarus Accounts) is an economic war!

It is an American discrimination, rascism against other people, against residents in Belarus!

You’ll now understand why I fully support (sponsor) the Party of Regions?

You’ll now understand why I fully support the President of Russia, Mr Vladimir Putin!

Хм… If you live in Minsk, why you need to send money to your beloved Dasha?

I’ll personally wellcome ANY System, as I’m not in a position to like any president or country without benefits or pleasure for me.

PS: I do not like idea of any Missle Defence System on the territory of Ukraine. But if it will be beneficial for me and my country — wellcome.

You ask me to think? Why shouldn’t we just look at world energy market and two major players?

What about flats in your model of «Cheap Russia» — «Expensive Ukraine»?

You want to know, what world energy market thinks of you?
How much did you pay for petrol in Russia, please tell (0.80 USc)?
How much average apartment costs in Moscow (5.5K USD)?
Don’t you think, that I can easily find French petrol prices using google (1,3 EUR)?

You just lie.

If you had written in ukrainian, I would have thougt that some evil ukrainian nazi had drawn the russian buttons out of you keybord, but why do you write in english?

Some evil us-bush nazi messing around with you keyboard?

Use holy canonical ortodox russian letters instead of bullshitty us! Shame on you!

Мэг, друг президента Америки, Буша. Пожалуйста посетите Белый дом в Вашингтоне для встречи с вашим другом Бушем, потому что все ваши слова в вашем комментарии полны дискриминации, rascism! Буш — ваша семья, потому что он — также расист и ненависть российские, Белорусские люди. То, что Вы делаете, — дискриминация, rascism против других людей, того русского разговора, украинского языка. Я пишу на английском языке, потому что я не имею никакого российского, украинского keybord.

Жители автономии Черного моря Украины Крыма держат собрание в воскресенье, чтобы возразить движению страны к членству НАТО. В январе, прозападный Президент Украины Виктор Ющенко, Премьер-министр Юлиа Тимошенко и Парламентский Спикер Арсений Ятсенюк послали письмо Генеральному секретарю союза Жапу de Обруч Scheffer высказывание, они надеялись, что страна могла присоединиться к Плану Действия Членства НАТО. Однако, Сторона оппозиции Областей во главе с прежним премьер-министром Виктором Януковичом и Коммунистической партией блокировала парламентскую работу в течение более чем месяца в протесте против движения, требуя референдум по вопросу. Недавние опросы общественного мнения показали, что более чем 50 из Украинцев будут голосовать против присоединения к НАТО. Парламент недавно повторно открыл для работы после того, как решение компромисса было достигнуто на возможности проведения референдума по проблеме. Президент России, Владимир Путин, угрожал предназначаться для ядерных ракет на Украине, если это присоединилось к НАТО. Экссоветская республика Джорджии также ищет членство в организации. Западные страны были осторожны о предложениях этих двух стран НАТО, не желая далее возмущать Россию, уже раздраженную и опасающийся продолжающегося расширения союза на восток.

It is better to copy-paste than use software translators…

Да уж, эти американские «санкции» против тех, кто «рылом не вышел»- это что-то! 🙁

У каждого- свои возможности: о российских санкциях хоть что-то слышали только рядом находящиеся страны.
Зато в американких весь мир купается.
У них ведь зоны жизненных интересов неграниченные.

На вкус и цвет товарища нет. 🙂