Αγορά Πολιτών

Τρόπος Συμμετοχής

Χορηγίες

Πολίτες στην Αγορά

Έχουμε 512 επισκέπτες συνδεδεμένους

Επικοινωνία

Γερμανία 004917667046073 (SMS)

7/3/2017, 20:00

Έλληνες, στο έλεος...

 

Harvester's log 16/3/17

 

 

Legal Notice 66

 

Execrable

 

Legal Notice 62

 

  

My story

 

  

Aggression?

 

  

Η Εστία μου

 

  

Why so untidy?

 

  

Αποικιοκρατία

 

  

Εξόντωση Ελλήνων αντιφρονούντων;

 

  

Ζήτημα εμπιστοσύνης

 

  

Μεθοδικότητα

 

  

Ανοικτή Επιστολή πρέσβη ΗΠΑ

Αφορμή, U2RIT vs Ελλάδα;

Βιοηθική

A request to U2RIT

Colonial aggression - 2

Open Letter to UN S.G.

Open Letter to p.C. & p. O.

Δήλωση πρόθεσης επαναπατρισμού

 

Ο "εφιάλτης" της Νυρεμβέργης

Συλλογή Φωτογραφιών

Αίτημα προστασίας, προς Ιταλία

Chroma key, background removal

Science and Ethics

Να συμβάλει και η U2RIT

Θα ξαναφτιάξουν πολλές φορές Άουσβιτς και Zyclon B

 

Split-Screen effect

Η Ζωή είναι Ωραία.

Βόρεια Κορέα

Λευτεριά στους Έλληνες, εξανα- γκαστικά "Εξαφανισμένους"

 

Μυστικές δίκες;

Trustworthiness

Πολιτισμό, ή, απληστία;

Ακραία Στυγνότητα

Η Τέχνη της Επιβίωσης

Political Asylum 3

Επιστροφή στις ρίζες

The Human Cost of Torture

An urgent appeal for solidarity

More obvious than the Sun

Western "culture"

Political Asylum

Έννομη Προστασία

Μια μήνυση που εγείρει ερωτηματικά

 

 

 

Honor your father...

Noise

Creative Greeks

A pair of Dictatorships

Αντιδρώντας αποκλειστικά θετικά, σε αρνητικές συνθήκες PDF Εκτύπωση E-mail
Αξιολόγηση Χρήστη: / 0
ΧείριστοΆριστο 
Συνεννόηση για Δράση - Απόψεις
Συντάχθηκε απο τον/την Χρήστος Μπούμπουλης (Christos Boumpoulis)   
Σάββατο, 22 Απρίλιος 2017 20:49
Αντιδρώντας αποκλειστικά θετικά, σε αρνητικές συνθήκες
 
Είναι, νομίζω, ακραία σημαντικό να αντιδρούμε, αποκλειστικά, θετικά σε όλες τις συνθήκες της καθημερινότητας μας, ακόμη και όταν αυτές είναι αρνητικές.
Για παράδειγμα, οι τρέχουσες διεθνείς συνθήκες είναι αρνητικές καθώς μοιάζει, οι χώρες μέλη της άτυπης αποικιοκρατικής ομοσπονδίας U2RIT να συναγωνίζονται μεταξύ τους για την πρωτοκαθεδρία στις παραβιάσεις της διεθνούς νομοθεσίας, ενώ, μάλιστα, οι κυβερνήσεις των χωρών μελών της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης, είτε, συναινούν σιωπηρώς, είτε, νομιμοποιούν de jure (π.χ. συνθήκη Minsk II), αυτές τις παραβιάσεις. Επίσης, οι αντίστοιχες ευρωπαϊκές, κοινωνίες των πολιτών, παραμένοντας σε μια κατάσταση καχεξίας, αποφεύγουν, είτε, αδυνατούν, να συμβάλλουν, με δημιουργικές πράξεις και δημιουργικές παραλήψεις, στην εξομάλυνση της διεθνούς κατάστασης.
Πάραυτα, η ανάγκη, αποκλειστικά, θετικής αντίδρασης σε αυτές τις συνθήκες παραμένει. Με αυτό το σκεπτικό, ό,τι περίσσευμα διαθέσιμου χρόνου και διαθέσιμης δημιουργικότητας μου απομένει, φροντίζω να το αξιοποιώ ευχάριστα, εάν και όταν οι συνθήκες μου το επιτρέπουν, απασχολούμενος με τα χόμπι μου, ως εξής:
 
Gibson Les Paul Standard Hard Rock
 
Εξάσκηση στην ηλεκτρική κιθάρα: Η εξάσκηση στην ηλεκτρική κιθάρα, δίχως ταλέντο στη μουσική, είναι αρκετά δύσκολη. Αυτή η δυσκολία σε συνδυασμό με τον υπέροχο ήχο της ηλεκτρικής κιθάρας, την κάνει πολύ ευχάριστη.
 
RC HELICOPTER CRASH COMPILATION
www.youtube.com/watch?v=pAkq6Ou3M
 
Τηλεκατευθυνόμενα ελικόπτερα: Τα δυσκολότερα, στον χειρισμό τους, πτητικά μέσα είναι τα τηλεκατευθυνόμενα ελικόπτερα. Αυτή η δυσκολία είναι που κάνει την ενασχόληση με αυτά, εξαιρετικά ενδιαφέρουσα. Ωστόσο, το χρηματικό κόστος αυτού του χόμπι παραμένει υψηλό, καθώς, συχνά, από αδεξιότητα, είτε, από κακό χειρισμό, παθαίνουν ζημίες που είναι ακριβές στην επισκευή τους, όπως φαίνεται και στο ανωτέρω βίντεο.
 
Model Spaceship w/Camera Crashes at Sea
www.youtube.com/watch?v=58RdTBpLCGo
 
Μοντέλα διαστημοπλοίων: Το ενδιαφέρον με τα μοντέλα αυτού του είδους έγκειται στις πολύ ενδιαφέρουσες φωτογραφίες τις οποίες αυτά μπορούν να απαθανατίσουν, καθώς, η πτήση τους φτάνει σε πολύ μεγάλα ύψη. Ωστόσο, αρκετές φορές, είτε, από ελαττώματα στην κατασκευή τους, είτε, από κακό χειρισμό, παθαίνουν ζημιές που είναι ακριβές στην επισκευή τους, όπως φαίνεται και στο ανωτέρω βίντεο.
 
How to Film A Fight Scene
www.youtube.com/watch?v=ubU_PXIGzr8
 
Εξάσκηση στη δραματική τέχνη: Περίπου, το έτος 2001, παρακολούθησα κάποιο σεμινάριο "δραματικής τέχνης στην εκπαίδευση". Από τότε, τόσο, η σχετική μελέτη, όσο, και η εξάσκηση στη "δραματική τέχνη", αποτελούν δυο από τις  αγαπημένες μου ενασχολήσεις. Από αυτή την τέχνη, ιδιαίτερη εντύπωση μου προξενούν οι έννοιες, της σκηνικής οικονομίας και του αντιπερισπασμού.
Εν κατακλείδι, παραμένω της γνώμης ότι, για την μεγιστοποίηση της ποιότητας, τόσο, της προσωπικής μας ζωής, όσο, και της συλλογικής (δηλαδή, της κοινότητας στην οποία είμαστε ενταγμένοι) μας ζωής, ο, αποκλειστικά, θετικός χαρακτήρας των οποιονδήποτε αντιδράσεών μας, έναντι της, πασιφανώς, ζοφερής κατάστασης η οποία έχει επικρατήσει στην Ευρωπαϊκή μας Ήπειρο, αποτελεί μια ουσιώδη προϋπόθεση.
 
Χρήστος Μπούμπουλης
οικονομολόγος
 
Υ.Γ.:
1. Απορρίπτω, οριζοντίως, καθέτως και διαγωνίως, τη βία, σε κάθε μορφή της.
2. Προσπαθήστε, με θετικό τρόπο, να "ξαναβρείτε τους εαυτούς σας" γιατί, οι συλλογικές προκλήσεις της εποχής μας είναι πρωτόγνωρες.
3.  Θετική αντίδραση δεν σημαίνει παραίτηση από τα ανθρώπινα δικαιώματα και τις θεμελιώδεις ελευθερίες, ούτε σημαίνει ανοχή στην βία και την κακοποίηση.
 
Britain's Violations of International Law
UK policy is allowing trade with ‘Israeli’ goods from illegal settlements in the occupied territories.[1] The British government has stated that it does not even keep a record of imports into the UK from the illegal Israeli settlements.[2] Acquiescing in this illegal trade by an occupying power is a violation of international law.[3] The December 2016 UN Security Council Resolution, to which the UK agreed:
‘reaffirms that the establishment by Israel of settlements in the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967, including East Jerusalem, has no legal no legal validity and constitutes a flagrant violation under international law”.[4]
Relationship with Israeli Navy
The UK has recently been conducting exercises with the Israeli Navy[5] which is illegally blockading Gaza[6]. A Royal Navy commander has said that it has “great relationship with the Israeli Navy”.[7]
Covert action in Libya
SAS forces have reportedly been secretly deployed to Libya since the beginning of 2016.[8] The reason for this UK covert operation in Libya is likely to be because it is illegal. UN Resolution 1970 of 2011 requires an arms embargo on the country, including the provision of technical assistance and training:
“Decides that all Member States shall immediately take the necessary measures to prevent the direct or indirect supply, sale or transfer to the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, from or through their territories or by their nationals, or using their flag vessels or aircraft, of arms and related materiel of all types, including weapons and ammunition, military vehicles and equipment, paramilitary equipment, and spare parts for the aforementioned, and technical assistance, training, financial or other assistance, related to military activities or the provision, maintenance or use of any arms and related materiel, including the provision of armed mercenary personnel”. [9]
War in Yemen
The UK has consistently and falsely[10] told Parliament that it is “not a party” to the Saudi war in Yemen[11] presumably since this would formally implicate it in the illegal violations of humanitarian law of which Saudi Arabia is accused. The British government has even stated that it is “not acting to determine whether” Saudi Arabia violates international law in Yemen.[12] UK arms exports to Saudi Arabia for use in Yemen are also illegal in that they fuel war crimes and human rights violations and thus violate the legally-binding international Arms Control Treaty. This states:
“State Party shall not authorize any transfer of conventional arms covered under Article 2 (1) or of items covered under Article 3 or Article 4, if it has knowledge at the time of authorization that the arms or items would be used in the commission of genocide, crimes against humanity, grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions of 1949, attacks directed against civilian objects or civilians protected as such, or other war crimes as defined by international agreements to which it is a Party”.[13]
Libya war of 2011
Britain’s war in Libya in 2011 was illegal but no action has been taken or appears imminent to hold Ministers to account for this. British bombing in Libya, which began in March 2011, was a violation of UN Resolution 1973, which authorised member states to enforce a no-fly zone over Libya and to use ‘all necessary measures’ to prevent attacks on civilians but did not authorise the use of ground troops[14] or regime change[15] promoted by the Cameron government. That these were policies were illegal is confirmed by Cameron himself, who told Parliament on 21 March 2011 that the UN resolution ‘explicitly does not provide legal authority for action to bring about Gaddafi’s removal from power by military means’.[16]
[stopwar.org.uk/index.php/news-comment/2382-britain-s-violations-of-international-law]
 
US Violations of International Law
Syria: Civil War or War of Aggression?
The conflict in Syria has caused staggering destruction and bloodshed.The death toll is approaching 200,000 out of total population of 22 million. Somewhere between 70 and 100 thousand of the dead are Syrian soldiers and militia. The conflict has pitted the Syrian government supported by a majority of the population (documented here and here) against domestic and international fighters, many on salary and actively supported by Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Turkey, Egypt, USA, France and Britain.
While Syria’s President is of Alawi religious background, the Defense Minister is Sunni Muslim and the Foreign Minister is Christian. The majority of soldiers are Sunni.  In fact it is a secular country where it’s considered impolite to ask one’s religion. With changes in the Constitution the country is no longer a one party state although the socialist Baath Party is still dominant. Higher education and healthcare are free. While any Syrian can start his or her own business with modest restrictions and taxes, foreign corporations investing in Syria are limited to 49% ownership. Thus the country is not under the thumb of Wall Street or the International Monetary Fund, and you do not see Burger King/Pizza Hut/Bank of America or Bank of London in downtown Damascus. The country has lots of economic and social challenges but compared to other countries in the Arab world is a bastion of secularism and independence from Western domination.
The international opponents are not hidden. They are the active members of the “Friends of Syria” openly dedicated to overthrowing the Damascus government.  Some of their plans and actions are public information.  After one conference it was publicly recorded that US would provide communications and non-lethal equipment while Saudi Arabia and Qatar would supply and fund the weapons and arms.  Meanwhile Turkey has provided logistical support and the base of operations of the external arm and rebel command. At the conferences these foreign powers have also taken it on themselves to decide who is the “legitimate representative” of the Syrian people. The assertion that the US has not supported the rebels is false. As just one piece of evidence: during the winter 2012/2013 three thousand TONS of weapons were delivered to the rebels.
An Earlier War of Aggression:  USA vs Nicaragua
During the 1980’s the US funded, trained and supplied weapons to the Contra rebels fighting the Sandinista government in Nicaragua.  Nicaragua took the situation to the World Court, claiming the US was in violation of international law which prohibits countries from financing military forces to attack another country.  On June 27, 1986 the International Court at the Hague issued its legal ruling:
Decision of the International Court at the Hague
Decides that the United States of America, by training, arming, equipping, financing and supplying the “contra” forces or otherwise encouraging, supporting and aiding military and paramilitary activities in and against Nicaragua, has acted, against the Republic of Nicaragua, in breach of its obligation under customary international law not to intervene in the affairs of another State.
By “training, arming, equipping, financing and supplying” the military rebel groups waging war against the Damascus government, the US and “friends” are committing the same crime that the USA did in the 1980’s.
The Negroponte Connection
There is an additional connection between Central America and Syria: the creation and management of the “Contra” rebels was overseen by the US Ambassador to Honduras, John Negroponte. In addition.  he managed US policy supportive of the military dictatorships which used death squads in El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras.
Ambassador Negroponte later went to Baghdad where he was US Ambassador and head of the Coalition Provisional Authority in 2004-2005, when death squads and sectarian bloodshed in Iraq began. His deputy in Baghdad was Robert S. Ford.  Mr Ford went on to be US Ambassador to Syria in the period leading up to the outbreak of violence in March 2011.  Later in 2011, US Ambassador Ford was expelled from Syria because he was considered an instigator of violence and protest.  Ambassador Ford had publicly encouraged the protests and was suspected of much more.  Since his expulsion from Syria and up until earlier this year, Robert S. Ford has been the lead American in charge of managing US policy of ‘regime change’ in Syria.
Ignoring the Most Serious Crimes
The violation of Syrian sovereignty should have been exposed and publicly criticized by international justice organizations and United Nations’ officials.  Unfortunately the major rights organizations are guided by liberal interventionists and the United Nations has become dominated by US and Western interests. For example Human Rights Watch is significantly funded by liberal billionaire George Soros while Executive Director Roth is a member of the 1% club with annual compensation of nearly half a million dollars ($477K in 2011).  That might not matter except that Human Rights Watch (HRW) has been good at documenting specific violations and transgressions but does not distinguish between major and minor violations of international law and ignores or minimizes the most extreme violations of international law by powerful countries. For example, 9 months after the US invasion of Iraq HRW reported that it was “not a humanitarian invasion” and explained why it did not support or oppose the invasion. More recently HRW does not distinguish between Israeli violations in maintaining the prison of Gaza and periodically massacring thousands of Palestinians versus the Palestinian response of random rockets which are largely harmless.  They have prominently focused on war crimes of the Syrian “regime”, but ignored the fact that many of the rebels are mercenaries supplied with weapons and paid by foreign governments.  HRW goes soft pedals the violations of the major abusers and comes down hard on the victims. They ignore the “supreme crime” of initiating war by the US and “friends” while vigorously denouncing the transgressions of the Assad government. By not differentiating between crimes, and favoring the powerful, they effectively use international law as another tool of the powerful.
Meanwhile the United Nations has come under the dominance of the United States. For example the head political authority (Deputy Secretary for Political Affairs) is the former US Ambassador to Lebanon, Jeffrey Feltman.  When you see UN reports and statements on situations, consider the source. Another real world example of what this means: In Syrian refugee camps run by the United Nations Syrian youth are recruited to join the rebels while UN officials pretend not to see.
Violating Air Space of Sovereign Syria
Under international agreement “Every state has complete and exclusive sovereignty over airspace above its territory.” President Obama is proposing to ignore the international agreement and to send military jets into Syrian airspace without authorization.  The pretext is to attack ISIS but it’s likely this would simply be the foot in the door with attacks on Syrian soldiers to eventually follow.  The rationale for NATO entering Libyan air space was to create a “no fly zone” to prevent a humanitarian crisis.  But the emergency justifications turned out to be a fraud and the “no fly zone” quickly turned into devastating bombing attacks on the Libyan government.
ISIS does not recognize the Iraqi Syrian border but obviously there is an internationally recognized border, regardless whether it is recognized by a terrorist organization such as ISIS.  Another legal fig leaf for the violation of Syrian sovereignty is that since ISIS has murdered American citizens in Syria, the US can intervene to attack the perpetrators.  Again, this is without legal basis.  Will Obama cook up a legal “justification” as the Bush Administration did to justify torture, rendition, etc etc?
Selective Use of American Deaths
In the past weeks the media have given extensive sensational coverage about the deaths of American journalists James Foley and Steven Sotloff.  Their beheading murders are being used to justify US military escalation and violations of international law. Ironically, both writers documented how unpopular the “moderate rebels” are and Steven Sotloff was reportedly sold to ISIS by one of the “moderate rebels” favored by President Obama. Unknown to most Americans many journalists have been killed in the Syrian conflict.
In sharp contrast, there was relatively little media attention when Americans were murdered in Central America by “our” rebel Contras and “our” Salvadoran dictatorship.  Benjamin Linder was a young American engineer who went to Sandinista Nicaragua to help with development in rural areas. He was murdered by the US funded Contras. What was the reaction?  Very little.  In El Salvador four American nuns who were critical of the military dictatorship were murdered. The US reaction? Jeanne Kirkpatrick , US Ambassador to the UN, did not even express remorse let alone anger or outrage. Instead she remarked that “they were not just nuns”.
From Central America in the 1980’s to Syria and the Middle East today there is a consistency in US policy. Governments which challenge US domination are demonized.  Surrogate armies to overthrow them are sometimes created. Bloodshed and mayhem follows. Individual American deaths are ignored or sensationalized depending on whether it benefits US policy. International law is ignored or used as another weapon against the victim.
It’s time for a realistic look at the Syrian government and rebels, including ISIS.  It’s time to demand that the US start respecting instead of trampling on international law.
 
U.S. broke international law by killing civilians with drones: rights groups
By Susan Cornwell and Mark Hosenball | WASHINGTON
Human rights groups on Tuesday accused the United States of breaking international law and perhaps committing war crimes by killing civilians in missile and drone strikes that were intended to hit militants in Pakistan and Yemen.
Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch released separate reports detailing the deaths of dozens of civilians in the two countries. They urged the Obama administration and Congress to investigate, and end a policy of secrecy on the attacks.
"In some of the cases we looked at ... they appear to be war crimes, but really the full picture is for the U.S. authorities to reveal," Mustafa Qadri, Pakistan researcher at Amnesty International, said after describing the death of a 68-year-old Pakistani grandmother in an alleged drone strike.
"We are saying for the U.S. authorities to come clean," he said at a joint news conference with Human Rights Watch.
Responding to the reports, White House spokesman Jay Carney said Obama administration officials "take the matter of civilian casualties enormously seriously." He said he could not speak to specific operations, but that U.S. policies met international and domestic legal obligations and the standard of "near certainty" that civilians would not be hit.
U.S. officials have argued that any drone strikes are very carefully targeted and that civilian casualties have been kept to a bare minimum, possibly in the low dozens.
Letta Tayler of Human Rights Watch said her organization had found violations of international law when civilians were "indiscriminately" killed in Yemen.
In a September 2, 2012, attack, the target - an alleged al Qaeda militant, Abd al-Raouf al-Dahab, - was "nowhere in sight" when the United States hit a passenger van and killed 12 people returning from the market, she said.
"Their loved ones found their charred bodies in pieces on the roadside, dusted in flour and sugar that they were bringing home to their families," Tayler told reporters.
Both the Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch reports looked at handful of U.S. attacks in Pakistan and Yemen to urge transparency and accountability in U.S. policy.
U.S. drone strikes in Pakistan and Yemen increased dramatically after President Barack Obama took office in 2009, and the pilotless aerial vehicles became a key part of the fight against al Qaeda. More recently the number of strikes has slowed.
The United States has also used drones over Afghanistan, Somalia, Libya, and Iraq, and this year received approval to base drones in Niger.
Obama discussed drone strikes in a speech on counterterrorism policy last May, when he also signed a document codifying guidelines for the use of force against terrorists. He said that before drone strikes were taken, there must be near-certainty that no civilians would be killed or wounded.
CIVILIAN DEATHS
Earlier this month, Pakistan told the United Nations that of some 2,200 people killed by drone strikes in the past decade, at least 400 were civilians, a U.N. human rights investigator said.
The United States has not followed its own guidelines, even striking in cases where the targets were not present, or when it would have been easy to capture targets instead of killing them, the human rights advocates said.
The Central Intelligence Agency declined comment.[http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-yemen-drones-idUSBRE99L1A420131022]
 
Legal obstacles to Crimea annexation
Both Russia and Ukraine are signatories to the Charter of the United Nations. The ratification of said charter has several ramifications in terms of international law, particularly those that cover the subjects of declarations of independence, sovereignty, self-determination, acts of aggression, and humanitarian emergencies. Vladimir Putin said that Russian troops in the Crimean peninsula were aimed "to ensure proper conditions for the people of Crimea to be able to freely express their will",[143] whilst Ukraine and other nations argue that such intervention is a violation of Ukraine's sovereignty.[136]
Russia, United States, United Kingdom and Ukraine also signed the Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances, by which all these countries reaffirmed their obligation to respect the territorial integrity of Ukraine (including Crimea) and to refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of Ukraine.[144]
According to the Constitution of Russia, the admission of new federal subjects is governed by federal constitutional law (art. 65.2).[145] Such a law was adopted in 2001, and it postulates that admission of a foreign state or its part into Russia shall be based on a mutual accord between the Russian Federation and the relevant state and shall take place pursuant to an international treaty between the two countries; moreover, it must be initiated by the state in question, not by its subdivision or by Russia.[146]
On 28 February 2014, Russian MP Sergey Mironov, along with other members of the Duma, introduced a bill to alter Russia's procedure for adding federal subjects. According to the bill, accession could be initiated by a subdivision of a country, provided that there is "absence of efficient sovereign state government in foreign state"; the request could be made either by subdivision bodies on their own or on the basis of a referendum held in the subdivision in accordance with corresponding national legislation.[147]
On 11 March 2014, both the Supreme Council of Crimea and the Sevastopol City Council adopted a declaration of independence, which stated their intent to declare independence and request full accession to Russia should the pro-Russian option receive the most votes during the scheduled status referendum. The declaration directly referred to the Kosovo independence precedent, by which the Albanian-populated Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija declared independence from Russia's ally Serbia as the Republic of Kosovo in 2008—a unilateral action Russia staunchly opposed. Many analysts saw the Crimean declaration as an overt effort to pave the way for Crimea's annexation by Russia.[148]
Crimean authorities' stated plans to declare independence from Ukraine made the Mironov bill unnecessary. On 20 March 2014, two days after the treaty of accession was signed, the bill was withdrawn by its initiators.[149]
At its meeting on 21–22 March, the Venice Commission stated that the Mironov bill violated "in particular, the principles of territorial integrity, national sovereignty, non-intervention in the internal affairs of another state and pacta sunt servanda" and was therefore incompatible with international law.[150]
Crimean status referendum
On 27 February, following the takeover of its building by Russian special forces, the Supreme Council of Crimea voted to hold a referendum on 25 May, with the initial question as to whether Crimea should upgrade its autonomy within Ukraine.[151] The referendum date was later moved from 25 May to 30 March.[152] A Ukrainian court declared the referendum to be illegal.[153]
On 4 March, Russian President Vladimir Putin said Russia was not considering annexing Crimea. He said of the peninsula that "only citizens themselves, in conditions of free expression of will and their security can determine their future".[154] Putin later acknowledged that he had ordered "work to bring Crimea back into Russia" as early as February.[155] He also acknowledged that in early March there were "secret opinion polls" held in Crimea, which, according to him, reported overwhelming popular support for Crimea's incorporation into Russia.[156]
On 6 March, the Supreme Council moved the referendum date to 16 March and changed its scope to ask a new question: whether Crimea should accede to Russia or restore the 1992 constitution within Ukraine, which the Ukrainian government had previously invalidated. This referendum, unlike one announced earlier, contained no option to maintain the status quo of governance under the 1998 constitution.[157] Ukraine's then-acting President, Oleksander Turchinov, stated that "The authorities in Crimea are totally illegitimate, both the parliament and the government. They are forced to work under the barrel of a gun and all their decisions are dictated by fear and are illegal."[158]
On 14 March, the Crimean status referendum was deemed unconstitutional by the Constitutional Court of Ukraine,[159] and a day later, the Verkhovna Rada formally dissolved the Crimean parliament.[38]
The referendum was held despite the opposition from the Ukrainian government. Official results reported about 95% of participating voters in Crimea were in favour of Russian annexation of Crimea.[160] The results of referendum were questioned;[161] another report by Evgeny Bobrov, a member of the Russian President's Human Rights Council, suggested the official results were inflated and only 15% to 30% of Crimeans eligible to vote actually voted for the Russian option.[37][162]
The means by which the referendum was conducted were widely criticised by foreign governments and in the Ukrainian and international press, with reports that anyone holding a Russian passport regardless of residency in Crimea was allowed to vote.[163] After the OSCE refused to send observers Russia invited a group of observers from various European far-right political parties aligned with Putin, who stated the referendum was conducted in a free and fair manner.[164][165]
 
According to Ukrainian officials,[a] the sanctions forced Russia to change its approach towards Ukraine and undermined the Russian military advances in the region.[3][4] Representatives of these countries say that they will lift sanctions against Russia only after Moscow fulfils the Minsk II agreements.[5][6][7]
 
At a summit in Minsk on 11 February 2015, the leaders of Ukraine, Russia, France, and Germany agreed to a package of measures to alleviate the ongoing war in the Donbass region of Ukraine.[1][2][3][4] The talks that led to the deal, overseen by the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE), were organised in response to the collapse of the Minsk Protocol ceasefire in January–February 2015. The new package of measures is intended to revive the Protocol, which had been agreed to on 5 September 2014.
 
Ιστορίες αποικιοκρατικής μεθοδικότητας
[http://agorapoliton.gr/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1350:colonial-effectiveness&catid=35:apopseis&Itemid=61]
  

Τελευταία Ενημέρωση στις Σάββατο, 22 Απρίλιος 2017 21:55