http://news.mail.ru/inworld/ukraina/politics/19077400/
МВД Украины вызвало российских чиновников на допрос

Главное следственное управление МВД Украины вынесло сообщение о подозрении в финансировании и организации незаконных вооруженных формирований на территории Украины гражданам России Владимиру Жириновскому, Геннадию Зюганову, Сергею Миронову, Сергею Шойгу и Константину Малафееву

Девочки, как же блин, больно это всё. Вот смотрю, и у меня к нему больше жалости, чем неприязни. Правда. Боже, как жалко всех ребят! Как жалко всех матерей. Остановите Землю, я сойду.
"Украина донбасс военнопленные в шахтерске"
http://youtu.be/H1iXdEn81Pg

Pink Panther писал(а):
Novaya + писал(а):

Ну хорошо, пусть буду я лицемерной, мне вот пофиг, как вы меня ни назовете, главное, чтобы хунта остановила там войну и геноцид против местного населения, а меня вы можете обзывать как угодно


Да, да
и я не обижусь, если вы на меня пожалуетесь в госдеп
может заодно и вас проверят
Ну вот ты,бындеро,че за Крым то переживаешь?Поздно,что упало,то пропало,То что нужно России по стратегическим соображениям,уже никакими зубами не отодрать,только войну развязывать,а тогда и на Киев бомбочку не жалко,ой,типа,от самолетика случайно оторвалась......

_________________
Я ПЕРЕЖИЛАЗастой70,Перестройку80,Лихие90,Кризис98,Коровье бешенство,Птичий,Свиной грипп,Кризис09,Конец света12,Да мне по
Заголовок сообщения: Re: Новороссия-5
Добавлено: Чт июн 19, 2014 6:52 pm

viewtopic.php?f=60&t=122439&hilit=%D0%BA%D0%B8%D0%B5%D0%B2&start=570




Пишите, Пишите и в Кремль пошлите, там оценят вашу ненависть к Украине.

_________________
не путайте общение и сообщничество.(c)
Hey Russia!stick to making booze out of potato!(c)

http://www.1tv.ru/news/world/264474

Я не увидела ни одной форумчанки, которая ненавидит Украину.
Мож, пропустила что-то.
Ни Украину, ни украинцев.

_________________
Если хочешь быть счастливым- будь им.

Ща пойду госдеп.ком проверю)))

_________________
Если хочешь быть счастливым- будь им.

МИД: Страны ЕС договорились о поставках оружия на Украину
В дипведомстве уверены, что такое решение противоречит основным правилам Евросоюза.
http://lifenews.ru/news/137752
Министерство иностранных дел России выступило с официальным комментарием по поводу того, что страны Евросоюза в ходе недавнего заседания в Брюсселе договорились о снятии ограничений на экспорт на Украину снаряжения, которое может использоваться для внутренних репрессий. Причем сделали это "по-тихому". Также был разрешен экспорт военных технологий и оборудования.

Немецкий телеканал WDR призвал Европу осудить убийства, творимые киевской хунтой

Подробнее: http://antifashist.com/item/nemeckij-te ... z39G50DQqv

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rTiIRRsmV5c




Сегодня сон приснился страшный
Как будто Киев весь в огне
А из винтовок с крыши дома
Стреляет Ярош по толпе

А президент сбежал в Россию
Зассал и кинул свой народ
Готовят олигархи в раде
Очередной переворот
............................................

Скандал в Бундестаге: «Фрау Меркель, вы обманываете Германию о событиях на Украине!» http://politikus.ru/articles/25936-skan ... raine.html

Надрыв просто. Какая там неприязнь, дурень с промытыми мозгами. Родину он пошел защищать. А спросил бы себя - от кого? Какие чеченцы? Мать-то вот увидит все это, это ж что пережить ей придется. Ну хоть домой отправляют, не убивают, так и то весь трясется. Божечки мои, люди там с ума посходили

_________________
Вот она какая, бабская натура:
Рассуждаешь мудро,
а живешь, как...

Когда мне говорят:" А что подумают люди ?"
Я отвечаю:" Если есть чем, пусть хотя бы подумают"

Люди, многабукав, но я обещала проверить госдеп)))))
Вот бриффинг свеженький (относительно)
MS. HARF: Well, we could condemn civilian casualties wherever they take place. But obviously, we have to look at every individual incident.

QUESTION: Have you now – yesterday, when Jen was asked about this, she said that there were reports, but you couldn’t confirm them, of the Ukrainian military using artillery and heavy – in Donetsk in heavily-populated --

QUESTION: Short-range missiles.

QUESTION: So, yeah.

MS. HARF: Mm-hmm. So on that, the Ukrainians have a responsibility to protect their citizens in their own country. The weapons cited in these reports are a standard artillery component in former Soviet militaries. We’re certainly not going to tell the Ukrainians they can’t use standard weaponry, particularly when they’re coming under such fire, but as with the use of all weapon systems in this conflict, it is imperative that the Ukrainians continue to exercise as much care as possible to protect innocent lives, and of course, the reason there is all of this instability is because of Russia’s actions here.

QUESTION: Are you concerned at all that, as you have said with Israel, that they are not living up to their own high standards? Are you – do you have the same concerns in Ukraine, that the Ukrainian military is not doing enough to prevent civilian casualties?

MS. HARF: Well, look, we are going to also hold them to their commitments on – particularly with – when we talk about exclusion zones, right, when we’ve talked about ceasefires, but also in protecting civilian casualties, we’ve seen them exercise extraordinary restraint in the face of incredible opposition from the Russians, and we’ll continue working with them.

QUESTION: Okay, when you say the Ukrainians have a responsibility to protect their citizens in their own country, does that apply to all Ukrainians, all people in Ukrainian soil?

MS. HARF: What – I don’t understand the crux of your question.

QUESTION: Well, it just seems to me that if they’re firing artillery or, what – or these rockets or missiles into civilian apartment buildings, including one that’s holding – housing an old folks home, basically, that those people who are getting hit and killed and wounded are – the Ukrainian Government also has the responsibility to protect them as well, correct?

MS. HARF: That’s correct. I can’t confirm reports about what this artillery hit. There are, again, a variety of reports out there. We’re still trying to get a little more clarity on that.

QUESTION: Okay. And then on the sanctions that were imposed --

MS. HARF: Yes. We announced more sanctions yesterday.

QUESTION: Correct. I know that it is probably too early to tell if these are going to be the tipping point, if this is what’s finally going to get the Russians to change their calculus, but I’m wondering, given the fact that this morning the Russian official – the Russian Government’s response has been very dismissive, to say the least, if you have any realistic expectation that this going – that these – that this latest round is actually going to do what you say you want it to do.

MS. HARF: Well, I mean, the point here is to continue upping the pressure and increasingly squeezing them economically so that President Putin will make the right decision here. But if he doesn’t, we will continue putting the pressure him. I mean, look, the fact that even before yesterday, nearly $100 billion in capital was expected to flee Russia, at some point I think the Russian citizens are going to be pretty unhappy that because of his actions in the region and other countries, their economy is tanking. So that’s what it’s designed to do and we’ll keep upping the pressure. These are key sectors yesterday – the firms in these sectors really want access to the U.S., really want access to the EU, and are going to feel the pressure.

QUESTION: So you – so that means the intent of these sanctions is to, using your words, tank the Russian economy?

MS. HARF: The purpose of these sanctions is to put enough pressure on the Russian Government that eventually President Putin will change his calculation.

QUESTION: Right.

MS. HARF: But if he doesn’t, he is going to face a situation where the people of his country who’ve worked so hard to be part of the international community won’t be.

QUESTION: Because --

MS. HARF: And he can face those consequences.

QUESTION: Because you – because your sanctions have affected them?

MS. HARF: Have very negatively affected the Russian economy, which will affect them.

QUESTION: So in fact, you’re saying that the goal here is to make it painful on the Russian people?

MS. HARF: Not at all.

QUESTION: Oh, okay.

MS. HARF: That is not what I said, Matt.

QUESTION: All right, well it seems like that’s what you’re saying.

MS. HARF: The goal – I will repeat it for you yet again --

QUESTION: Yeah.

MS. HARF: -- is to put enough pressure on the Russian Government that they change their calculation and do different things in the future.

QUESTION: Has the --

MS. HARF: Part of how that happens is the people of Russia say, look, I don’t want to not have access to the international financial system because President Putin is off trying to invade other countries. That’s part of what can affect a leader’s calculation, which I know you’re very well aware of.

QUESTION: Yeah – excuse me – yes, I am. But is the goal right now then to drive the Russian economy into recession?

MS. HARF: No.

QUESTION: Because a lot of people say that that’s what --

MS. HARF: The goal is to pressure the Russian Government to change their behavior.

QUESTION: Have you come to the conclusion that getting to that point would – will require putting – driving the Russian economy into recession?

MS. HARF: No. That’s too simplistic. What we’ve always said is the longer sanctions are in place, the more impact they have, and we want that to change their calculations.

QUESTION: The President yesterday was asked if this is a new cold war. He said, no, this is a very specific set of circumstances. But whether or not it is or isn’t a cold war or a new cold war, it certainly looks like an economic war. Whether “war” is the right term or not, you are trying to negatively affect the Russian economy to put pressure on the government. How is that not an economic war? How is that not a new East-West, since the Russians are – I mean, since the Europeans are onboard with you too, how is that not a new East-West --

MS. HARF: Well, we put sanctions on a number of countries.

QUESTION: -- conflict?

MS. HARF: This is a tool we use all across the globe.

QUESTION: I understand that, but this is --

MS. HARF: It’s not specific --

QUESTION: -- intentionally --

MS. HARF: This isn’t an east-west issue.

QUESTION: Okay, well, you know you put sanctions on the Venezuelans. You just announced that this morning.

MS. HARF: Those aren’t sanctions technically.

QUESTION: Well, they’re travel bans. They’re punishments.

MS. HARF: But technically they’re not sanctions.

QUESTION: Those do not affect – fair enough.

MS. HARF: Yeah.

QUESTION: Whatever, but they are steps. They are measures that you take to show your displeasure. That’s what you’re doing with these sanctions as well. The travel bans and visa bans on people do not impact entire economies; they impact targeted – specific, targeted individuals. Your – the sanctions that you guys and the Europeans have put in place are intended to affect a broad swath of Russia’s economy.

MS. HARF: Right. But it’s not about east-west. We’ve also done that in Iran. We’ve done it in North Korea. We’ve done it elsewhere. It doesn’t have anything to do with east-west or some weird Cold War –

QUESTION: So you’re at war with --

MS. HARF: -- throwback that President Putin wants to somehow, like, return to.

QUESTION: Okay, so you’re not just in a – you’re not just at war with – an economic war with Russia; you’re also in an economic war with Iran, with North Korea, with all these countries --

MS. HARF: No. We believe that sanctions are an incredibly effective and important tool to – that can impel countries to change their behavior.

QUESTION: But you would also admit that thus far your sanctions have not changed the Russians’ behavior, correct?

MS. HARF: Well, that’s – and I’ve also said last week that we don’t know what they would have done if we hadn’t. So --

QUESTION: Yeah, but I mean just to kind of broaden it out, I mean you saw that the – I’m sorry if you missed it and I was just checked out for a minute, but did you see the tweet of the --

MS. HARF: Maybe that happened to me, too.

QUESTION: -- member of parliament that said that President Obama is sparking a new – is going to be the president that goes down in history as starting a new cold war?

MS. HARF: We’re not the country that invaded another country.

QUESTION: Right, but I mean if you --

MS. HARF: I mean our actions are in response to actions --

QUESTION: I understand, but --

MS. HARF: -- the Russian Government took.

QUESTION: -- if you’re taking it on the totality, okay, you have these sanctions, you have these other measures that you’ve kicked Russia out of the G-8 for now, you’ve stopped a lot – most of the political cooperation at NATO, you --

MS. HARF: Well --

QUESTION: Let me finish. You put this violation that – you slapped them with a violation for their arms treaty. I mean, you can see from the Russian point of view that you are interested in kind of fueling a renewal of the Cold War where it’s like --

MS. HARF: Not at all.

QUESTION: -- the world against Russia.

MS. HARF: No, not at all. And look, first, it’s not just about us; it’s about the EU, it’s about the rest of the world standing up and saying --

QUESTION: I mean not just you, but that there is a new cold war in effect.

MS. HARF: Well, no, because the – this is a very limited set of circumstances, not a broad, ideological, decades-long conflict that we saw during the Cold War. This is in response to specific Russian Government actions that – by invading another country. It is about --

QUESTION: But you don’t think it’s a broad – it may be not a decades-long ideological war, but it does seem to be an ideological war over how Russia views its role in the world and how --

MS. HARF: Whether you can invade other countries?

QUESTION: Well, no, just about Russia’s role in that region versus how you view it.

MS. HARF: Well, look, what we have said is everything we’ve done – if Russia hadn’t invaded Ukraine, none of this would be happening. So I think that’s the only proof point you need here. President Obama very clearly said yesterday this actually isn’t what we wanted. This is not the kind of relationship we wanted, but we’re also not going to stand by and let Russia do this and get away with it.

QUESTION: Just a quick follow-up, madam, thank you.

MS. HARF: Uh-huh.

QUESTION: As far as these sanctions are concerned, if the countries doing business with Russia, like India – they have a business relations and commercial relations and all that, is going to affect?

MS. HARF: I can check on that. Obviously, these are unilateral sanctions we put in place for the U.S. I can check on other impacts they may have.

QUESTION: And finally, if this is going to be discussed during Secretary’s visit in India?

MS. HARF: I can check, but I can imagine it would probably come up, but it’s not really the focus.

QUESTION: Thank you.

MS. HARF: Yes.

QUESTION: Can I --

QUESTION: Excuse me --

QUESTION: One more on Russia.

MS. HARF: Okay.

QUESTION: Snowden’s one-year asylum expires tomorrow.

MS. HARF: You’re asking the question again, today.

QUESTION: And he’s applied for an extension. Have you had any discussions with them recently about that?

MS. HARF: I’m happy to check. Not to my knowledge, but --

QUESTION: The tanker, please.

MS. HARF: Let’s go to Scott, actually. He hasn’t had a question yet. Then we’ll do the tanker. I’m going to go – I’m going to get to everyone.

QUESTION: Russia.

MS. HARF: I’m going to get to everyone. I’m going to go to Scott first, and then I’m going to go around the room.

Scott.

QUESTION: On Russia.

MS. HARF: Thank you.

QUESTION: The UN register of conventional weapons says that the Russians are selling more weapons to Azerbaijan. You should have it in your book. I submitted it.

MS. HARF: I’m sorry. I don’t. That’s on us if you submitted it. That’s on us. We’ll get you something.

QUESTION: Thank you.

MS. HARF: Yes, Russia.

QUESTION: Yes, talking about sanctions and visa restrictions. Unfortunately, in Russia, there is a mispresentation in recent days about total failure of U.S. visa system, and Russian citizen decided it’s a kind of new restriction for Russian citizens who want travel United States. Could you just explain what happened to U.S. visa restriction?

MS. HARF: Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: It’s not measure against Russia; it’s global?

MS. HARF: No, there is a – as we’ve talked about a little here, we’ve had some global issues across the globe, not in any one country, with our visa processing system. It’s the computer system. This is not anything to do with Russia.

QUESTION: Do you know the reasons, could be cyber attack?

MS. HARF: No.

QUESTION: Why technical failure?

MS. HARF: It’s not. So here: Our system was experiencing intermittent performance issues for several months leading up to July 20th, when we patched it to try and address the issues. Our Bureau of Consular Affairs updated the software, as had been recommended by the company. However, our database began experiencing performance issues shortly after maintenance was performed. We believe the root cause of the problem was a combination of software optimization and hardware compatibility issues. And if you know what that means, you can come up here and answer, but we believe there was no malicious intent. It’s a hardware and a software issue that we are working to fix.

QUESTION: And --

QUESTION: Well, that was pretty much the answer you gave when I first asked this question last week.

MS. HARF: Yeah.

QUESTION: Is there anything new?

MS. HARF: No, still working on it.

QUESTION: So it’s still a mess?

MS. HARF: Well, they are making progress on restoring the system to full functionality. We anticipate it may take some time before we’ve processed all of the pending cases created by the performance issues.

QUESTION: Do you – does anyone have an idea of how big the backlog is right now and how --

MS. HARF: Let me see if I have a number. I don’t seem to have a number. I am happy to check. We may not actually have one, but we probably do. Let me check on that.

QUESTION: Marie, I don't know if you have this level of specificity, but are these problems being worked on country by country where you’ll have things with Russia back to normal, and then following --

MS. HARF: That’s not how the systems works. Yeah, it’s --

QUESTION: I understand, but yeah, do you --

MS. HARF: Okay. Well --

QUESTION: Yeah. Or --

MS. HARF: Your question implied that you understood.

QUESTION: Can you explain?

MS. HARF: Uh-huh. So basically, there’s servers that fuel how this whole process works, and we’re getting servers back online. They’re just operating now. Basically, things come in in a queue. They come in by dates and time, and we are working now through the queue. Obviously, there’s actually a huge crush right now because of the Africa Leaders Summit, so obviously that’s a huge priority for us to make sure everybody gets their visas for the Africa Leaders Summit. We do believe that a vast majority of the travelers who have applied for visas for the summit have been issued. We’re working with countries on that, but we’re not fixing it on a country-by-country basis. It’s really how you come into the queue. There are all main servers located here, so it’s not country by country.

QUESTION: Wait a second. They’re just still getting visas? Doesn’t it start, like, tomorrow, or is it next week?

MS. HARF: We’re still working on it.

QUESTION: When does it start?

MS. HARF: Next week.

QUESTION: Thank you.

QUESTION: Thank you.

MS. HARF: Oil tanker.

QUESTION: Oh, sorry.

MS. HARF: I promised.

QUESTION: So on Monday, a Texas court issued a ruling ordering the U.S. Marshals to seize the oil, a million barrels, on that tanker coming from Kurdistan. And then, just --

MS. HARF: If it came into U.S. territorial waters.

QUESTION: Yes. Hours later, he – she issued a ruling. She didn’t say that. She said, “Seize it.” And then hours later, she held up --

MS. HARF: She clarified.

QUESTION: -- a surprising conference saying that, “Well, my ruling is not enforceable.” I would like to know whether any pressure had been exerted on her to make that announcement.

MS. HARF: No, this is a crazy question. No, the ship is not in U.S. territorial waters. So the judge --

QUESTION: But why did she issue a ruling while it’s not enforceable?

MS. HARF: The magistrate judge ordered the cargo to be attached and held pending the resolution of the litigation if it was brought into U.S. jurisdiction. It’s my understanding she clarified, to make that point clear, that it was not yet in U.S. jurisdiction.

QUESTION: But why would you – I don’t understand. Why would you issue a ruling about something that’s not even in – within U.S. jurisdiction?

MS. HARF: Because the Government of Iraq filed suit in her court, in a Texas court Monday against the cargo onboard the tanker.

QUESTION: Well, is that because the cargo was going to U.S. companies? Is that – it was bound for the U.S., right?

QUESTION: Yeah, U.S. companies, yeah.

MS. HARF: So the government --

QUESTION: So that’s why the – that’s why --

MS. HARF: That’s why --

QUESTION: -- a U.S. judge ordered the injunction?

MS. HARF: Well, but they really ordered it because the Government of Iraq filed suit in a court because it was bound for the United States.

QUESTION: Right.

QUESTION: So if the ship comes to the U.S, it’s still subject to seizure?

MS. HARF: If it enters U.S. territorial waters, then the legal process will kick in. This judge – this magistrate judge has ordered that in that case, the cargo would be attached and held pending the resolution of the litigation, again, if it’s brought into U.S. legal waters – jurisdictional waters.

QUESTION: Do you have in there who it’s intended for?

QUESTION: So you – sorry, one more question.

MS. HARF: I’m sorry?

QUESTION: Sorry, one more question.

MS. HARF: Yeah, I don’t.

QUESTION: So are you saying that you had no conversation at all with the magistrate?

MS. HARF: That anyone from the State Department spoke to the magistrate?

QUESTION: Yeah.

MS. HARF: I don't know if that’s true, but obviously, this is a completely separate legal proceeding. This is not – the U.S. Government’s not involved in this. It’s a commercial transfer, and my understanding is the judge made a ruling, period, and it’s not the State Department’s job to get (inaudible).

QUESTION: But why do you think she held up the conference afterwards?

MS. HARF: To make it clear that the ship was not in U.S. waters, to make it clear that all these questions that everyone had would be cleared up.

QUESTION: Okay.

QUESTION: Thank you.

MS. HARF: I think there’s a couple more, so – yes. Yes, one, and then Scott.

QUESTION: Yeah. I just wanted to go back. Since the Secretary is in the region, what is the U.S. position on Pakistan and India improving their relations?

MS. HARF: Well, we’ve said they should take steps to, and we’ve welcomed steps when they’ve attempted to, and think that the conversation should be ongoing. We think that both countries should have good relationships with their neighbors.

Scott.

QUESTION: The Venezuela visa restrictions that you opened with.

MS. HARF: Yes.

QUESTION: Is that related to the pressure that you said Venezuela brought on the Netherlands and Abuja to release Carvajal?

MS. HARF: No, it is not.

QUESTION: Okay.

MS. HARF: It was in process before and it’s not related.

QUESTION: You explained in your statement why you would not name the Venezuelans who were named in that. However, in some of the sanctions against Russians, you do name the Russians. So what’s the difference?

MS. HARF: So in the Russian case, it was not just visa bans, it was broader sanctions, which are – names are made public, are not confidential under immigration law. But if it’s just a visa ban, we can’t put the names out. And I will check on Matt’s taken question from the beginning.

Anything else?

QUESTION: Thank you.

QUESTION: No, sorry.

MS. HARF: Oh. One more.

QUESTION: Do you have anything on the knife attack in Xinjiang that occurred?

MS. HARF: Let me see.

QUESTION: I think it was yesterday or two days ago.

MS. HARF: I can check on that. I think I had something. Do you have any more specifics on it?

QUESTION: It happened, like – I think it was two days ago. There was a knife attack in Xinjiang and the Chinese police shot dozens. They called it a terrorist attack, and I was wondering if you had anything on that.

MS. HARF: Let me check on that for you after --

QUESTION: Okay. Thanks, Marie.

MS. HARF: Thanks, guys.

_________________
Если хочешь быть счастливым- будь им.

Не бейте- она сами все это наговорили.
Напомню: это брифинг в Госдепе США.
Начали они про Израиль, но потом перекинулись по аналогии на Украину.

_________________
Если хочешь быть счастливым- будь им.

_________________
http://olgaslifehacks.com

Девочки-россиянки, если кто-то хочет помочь, то я так поняла, что этот товарищ из Москвы занимается гуманитаркой для Луганска. Это его коммент к своему же посту на его же странице:

_________________
http://olgaslifehacks.com