Ad blocker detected: Our website is made possible by displaying online advertisements to our visitors. Please consider supporting us by disabling your ad blocker on our website.
GandalfSivi wrote: ↑18/03/2022 17:01
75% Rusa jos uvijek koristi drzavnu TV kao primarni izvor informacija, te dobijes ovo kao rezultat. Ali opet, ako pogledas drugi video (mislim da je na temi Ukrajina) sa malo vecim gro planom, vidjet ces da pola ljudi na stadionu nisu ni aplaudirali kada je izasao, nego su tu dosli za 800 rubalja (manje od 8 dolara) i toplin obrok…
dal 5 ili 8 dolara nebitno, ne djeluje kao neko anti-ratno raspoloženje.
sjetimo se Gazimestana i Miloševića, tada nam je djelovalo kao skup papaka na livadi, bez nekog značaja.
I kako zavrsi na kraju Zajebajem se, da je jebeno jebeno je, ali iskreno, niko ni ne ocekuje od naroda da ga skine. Poklopio je cijelo drustvo, gadno se toga kotarisati…
Ogromna sramota. Frajer nam zaprijetio invazijom kao u Ukrajini - niko ništa.
A sta treba?
Reagovali su politicki predstavnici.
Protestna nota se zna kako se urucuje, i ciji je to posao.
Sta su reagovali? Pojavili se pred kamerama na pet minuta? Normalno da je to nekima, vecini uredu ali tako se to ne radi. Zna se kako i kada se urucuje protestna, ali samo oni ciji je posao izgleda ne znaju.
Totalitarna društva i jesu opasna po tome što ideologiziraju većinu stanovništva koje stoji iza stavova režima. Ruske prijetnje koje i dalje odašilju na sve strane počev od konvoja koji dostavljaju pomoć Ukrajini preko brojnih zemalja kojima se diktira šta smiju a šta ne samo pokazuju da utihla pomoć EU Ukrajini sokoli Putina da već sada može biti siguran da neće snositi ozbiljnije posljedice. Uz to velika večina stanovništva ga podržava u toj drskoj i opasnoj politici i prijetnjama koje odašilju. Ako se Rusija definitivno ne učini nemoćnom a čini se da EU to zanemaruje još mnogo Ukrajina će nastati.
GandalfSivi wrote: ↑18/03/2022 17:01
75% Rusa jos uvijek koristi drzavnu TV kao primarni izvor informacija, te dobijes ovo kao rezultat. Ali opet, ako pogledas drugi video (mislim da je na temi Ukrajina) sa malo vecim gro planom, vidjet ces da pola ljudi na stadionu nisu ni aplaudirali kada je izasao, nego su tu dosli za 800 rubalja (manje od 8 dolara) i toplin obrok…
dal 5 ili 8 dolara nebitno, ne djeluje kao neko anti-ratno raspoloženje.
sjetimo se Gazimestana i Miloševića, tada nam je djelovalo kao skup papaka na livadi, bez nekog značaja.
Dosta je tu i drzavnih sluzbenika koji moraju biti tu jer inace ode poso, nije to bas sve tako kako drzavna tv hoce da prikaze.
toska wrote: ↑18/03/2022 17:11
dal 5 ili 8 dolara nebitno, ne djeluje kao neko anti-ratno raspoloženje.
sjetimo se Gazimestana i Miloševića, tada nam je djelovalo kao skup papaka na livadi, bez nekog značaja.
I kako zavrsi na kraju Zajebajem se, da je jebeno jebeno je, ali iskreno, niko ni ne ocekuje od naroda da ga skine. Poklopio je cijelo drustvo, gadno se toga kotarisati…
Bilo je interseantno gledati kako je u zadnjih dvadesetak godina gusio nezavisne medije, eliminsao novinare, politicke protivnike, dok je preko poklopljenih medija u isto vrijeme gradio kult licnosti.
Kad se sjetim da mnogi u ovom psihopati vide svjetlo na kraju tunela/ nadu covjecanstva, dodje mi da se bacim pod avion .
Putin’s Endgame Is Not a Mystery. It’s Regime Survival.
Ukraine is a speed-chess version of the wars in Bosnia, Chechnya, and Syria, with the pieces on the board including nuclear weapons.
Peter Maass
March 12 2022,
HE IS THE president of a Slavic nation who takes advice from no one and gambles on a war that does not go as planned. Fierce resistance prevents his forces from seizing the capital he covets. Western sanctions send his economy into a tailspin, the middle class flees, and state media offers ridiculous propaganda (“Our enemy is bombing themselves”).
This sounds like Vladimir Putin in 2022, but it’s Slobodan Milošević in 1992, when military forces under the Serbian leader’s control went on a genocidal rampage in Bosnia. The war dragged on for years and involved sieges of Sarajevo and other cities, including Srebrenica. Milošević claimed Bosnia was an artificial country that didn’t deserve to exist — the kind of lie that Putin has deployed against Ukraine. Serbs shelled apartment buildings and attacked civilians as they tried to flee — just as the Russian army is now doing in Ukraine. You can look at a picture of Sarajevo in 1992 and a picture of Kyiv in 2022 and not know which is which.
There’s a lot of guessing about what Putin will be able to achieve in Ukraine and whether he’ll survive in power, now that his opening gambit has failed. But there has been surprisingly little reference to the precedent of Milošević and Bosnia. It’s as though what happened in Bosnia is not regarded as an authentic chapter of Europe’s history — because most of the war’s 100,000 victims were Muslim, and Muslims aren’t considered fully European. As the historian Edin Hajdarpašić noted last week: “If 1990s Bosnia is taught, it is in courses on genocide & violence, but rarely as part of European history courses.” It’s an omission that does more than reveal how prejudice tilts our choices about which history to highlight and which history to ignore; it deprives us of a greater understanding of what may lie ahead.
There are two sides to the lessons from Belgrade and Sarajevo. The first is that a leader who embarks on a violently nihilist path can remain in power far longer than you might expect. There is speculation about a possible coup in Moscow, but Milošević stayed in office throughout the war, which ended after four years, and wasn’t ousted until late in 2000 when he tried to rig an election that he lost. The second lesson is that an underdog fighting for survival can stave off, though with immense loss of life, a far larger force that lacks its motivation. The Bosnian Army was thrown together after the Serb onslaught began and persevered, despite an unconscionable arms embargo by the United Nations (imposed against all parties but hurting only the Bosnian side, because Serbs had plenty of weapons of their own).
It goes without saying — so of course I feel obliged to say it — that what happened a generation ago in the Balkans is not predictive of what will happen in Ukraine and Russia. The differences are considerable. In many ways, what we’re seeing in Ukraine is a speed-chess version of the wars in Bosnia, Chechnya, and Syria, with the pieces on the board now including nuclear weapons. But in addition to covering the war in Bosnia, I studied Russian at Leningrad State University back in the Soviet era and occasionally reported from the USSR during its collapse and afterward, including a brief stint in Ukraine when it became independent (a story I wrote in 1991 was headlined “Ukrainians Fear Border Disputes Could Bring Conflict With Russia”). What is happening today is uncanny, an old tune played in a new key with a faster tempo and higher stakes.
Putin’s Endgame Is Not a Mystery. It’s Regime Survival.
Ukraine is a speed-chess version of the wars in Bosnia, Chechnya, and Syria, with the pieces on the board including nuclear weapons.
Peter Maass
March 12 2022,
HE IS THE president of a Slavic nation who takes advice from no one and gambles on a war that does not go as planned. Fierce resistance prevents his forces from seizing the capital he covets. Western sanctions send his economy into a tailspin, the middle class flees, and state media offers ridiculous propaganda (“Our enemy is bombing themselves”).
This sounds like Vladimir Putin in 2022, but it’s Slobodan Milošević in 1992, when military forces under the Serbian leader’s control went on a genocidal rampage in Bosnia. The war dragged on for years and involved sieges of Sarajevo and other cities, including Srebrenica. Milošević claimed Bosnia was an artificial country that didn’t deserve to exist — the kind of lie that Putin has deployed against Ukraine. Serbs shelled apartment buildings and attacked civilians as they tried to flee — just as the Russian army is now doing in Ukraine. You can look at a picture of Sarajevo in 1992 and a picture of Kyiv in 2022 and not know which is which.
There’s a lot of guessing about what Putin will be able to achieve in Ukraine and whether he’ll survive in power, now that his opening gambit has failed. But there has been surprisingly little reference to the precedent of Milošević and Bosnia. It’s as though what happened in Bosnia is not regarded as an authentic chapter of Europe’s history — because most of the war’s 100,000 victims were Muslim, and Muslims aren’t considered fully European. As the historian Edin Hajdarpašić noted last week: “If 1990s Bosnia is taught, it is in courses on genocide & violence, but rarely as part of European history courses.” It’s an omission that does more than reveal how prejudice tilts our choices about which history to highlight and which history to ignore; it deprives us of a greater understanding of what may lie ahead.
There are two sides to the lessons from Belgrade and Sarajevo. The first is that a leader who embarks on a violently nihilist path can remain in power far longer than you might expect. There is speculation about a possible coup in Moscow, but Milošević stayed in office throughout the war, which ended after four years, and wasn’t ousted until late in 2000 when he tried to rig an election that he lost. The second lesson is that an underdog fighting for survival can stave off, though with immense loss of life, a far larger force that lacks its motivation. The Bosnian Army was thrown together after the Serb onslaught began and persevered, despite an unconscionable arms embargo by the United Nations (imposed against all parties but hurting only the Bosnian side, because Serbs had plenty of weapons of their own).
It goes without saying — so of course I feel obliged to say it — that what happened a generation ago in the Balkans is not predictive of what will happen in Ukraine and Russia. The differences are considerable. In many ways, what we’re seeing in Ukraine is a speed-chess version of the wars in Bosnia, Chechnya, and Syria, with the pieces on the board now including nuclear weapons. But in addition to covering the war in Bosnia, I studied Russian at Leningrad State University back in the Soviet era and occasionally reported from the USSR during its collapse and afterward, including a brief stint in Ukraine when it became independent (a story I wrote in 1991 was headlined “Ukrainians Fear Border Disputes Could Bring Conflict With Russia”). What is happening today is uncanny, an old tune played in a new key with a faster tempo and higher stakes.
Kalabuhovljevo gostovanje kod Senada Hadžifejzović prvorazredan je i šokantn skndal koji otvara bezbroj pitanja među kojima su prije svega ona iz domena psihijatrije. Ova struka zaista se treba pozabaviti fenomenom koji je široki auditorij mogao da gleda pitajući se pri tome šta je to zdrav razum, šta zdrava logika, pa čak i šta je s jezikom kao sredstvom komunikacije među ljudima? Ovaj tzv. diplomata, ambasador jednog totalitarnog društva i režima pokazao je da totalitarizam proizvodi pandemiju šizofrenije koja potpuno pomrači um, prekine kontakt sa stvarnošću pa čak i jezik izoblići do mjere da se više nije moguće sporazumijevati i njime komunicirati nego se čovjek mora čuditi kakvi su to ti novi zombiji koji obitavaju među ljudima?
Tu osionost koju smo gledali, tu bahatost koja je pokazana i to još uz sablasnu vedrinu na licu teško je opisati i shvatiti. Idiot izriče najsmrtonosnije prijetnje narodima i državama uz podsmjeh kao da dijeli komplimente, agresiju svoje zemlje na nedužni narod i suverenu državu naziva ratom protiv svoje zemlje, temeljito razaranje i ravnanje sa zemljom sela, gradova i svih tragova civilizacije u Ukrajini pravda pravom svoje zemlje da uređuje svijet i odnose u njemu prema vlastitom nahođenju totalitarne svijesti koja otvoreno poručuje i nabrja ko je još na redu da se disciplinuje.
Svako nastojanje novinara da ukaže na besmisao tako šizofrene logike, da pokuša odvagati težinu izrečenih prijetnji i cinizma, ova spodoba kao da ne razumije nego jednostavno nastavlja tvrditi na ništa u svijetu nije onako kako se čini drugima nego samo onako kako vide i kažu šizofrene spodobe ovog totalitarnog režima koji je bez sumnje postao globalna prijetnja opstanku ljudskog roda i civilizacije. Logika krvožedne zvijeri koja izbija iz svake rečenice ovoga monstruma doima se još sablaznijom zbog lahkoće kojom monstrum uz osmjeh i pokušaje ubacivanja humora izriće šokantne i sablasne prijetnje. Za te prijetnje čak nalazi i smisao koji leži u volji i interesu njegove zemlje.
Mi na Balkanu smo se nagledali zvijeri i monstruma kao niko u svijetu ali ovo što smo sinoć vidjeli istinski je šok za zdrav razum.
Ruska carevina se sirila kroz reforme zbog katastrofalnih poraza. Porazi 1905 su doveli do stepena efikasnosti 1914 koji ce biti koban za AH imperiju. Porazi 1940 i 1941 do pobjeda 1943 i 1944. Mada je to puno duzi trend, Narva u Poltavu itd…
Armija se inace nikad ne mjesa u unutrasnje stvari, to je stari drustveni dogovor.
Tako da za Ukrainu nije pametno da prihvate bilo kakvo primirje, za dvije godine bi gledali reprizu.
madner wrote: ↑19/03/2022 19:44
Ruska carevina se sirila kroz reforme zbog katastrofalnih poraza. Porazi 1905 su doveli do stepena efikasnosti 1914 koji ce biti koban za AH imperiju. Porazi 1940 i 1941 do pobjeda 1943 i 1944. Mada je to puno duzi trend, Narva u Poltavu itd…
Armija se inace nikad ne mjesa u unutrasnje stvari, to je stari drustveni dogovor.
Tako da za Ukrainu nije pametno da prihvate bilo kakvo primirje, za dvije godine bi gledali reprizu.
madner wrote: ↑19/03/2022 19:44
Ruska carevina se sirila kroz reforme zbog katastrofalnih poraza. Porazi 1905 su doveli do stepena efikasnosti 1914 koji ce biti koban za AH imperiju. Porazi 1940 i 1941 do pobjeda 1943 i 1944. Mada je to puno duzi trend, Narva u Poltavu itd…
Armija se inace nikad ne mjesa u unutrasnje stvari, to je stari drustveni dogovor.
Tako da za Ukrainu nije pametno da prihvate bilo kakvo primirje, za dvije godine bi gledali reprizu.
Do stepena efikasnosti tj. I dalje su bili losi ali dovoljno dobri da se nose ravnopravno sa AH i da ih prase po turu povremeno dok se ne umjesa babo Svabo.
madner wrote: ↑19/03/2022 19:44
Ruska carevina se sirila kroz reforme zbog katastrofalnih poraza. Porazi 1905 su doveli do stepena efikasnosti 1914 koji ce biti koban za AH imperiju. Porazi 1940 i 1941 do pobjeda 1943 i 1944. Mada je to puno duzi trend, Narva u Poltavu itd…
Armija se inace nikad ne mjesa u unutrasnje stvari, to je stari drustveni dogovor.
Tako da za Ukrainu nije pametno da prihvate bilo kakvo primirje, za dvije godine bi gledali reprizu.
madner wrote: ↑19/03/2022 19:44
Ruska carevina se sirila kroz reforme zbog katastrofalnih poraza. Porazi 1905 su doveli do stepena efikasnosti 1914 koji ce biti koban za AH imperiju. Porazi 1940 i 1941 do pobjeda 1943 i 1944. Mada je to puno duzi trend, Narva u Poltavu itd…
Armija se inace nikad ne mjesa u unutrasnje stvari, to je stari drustveni dogovor.
Tako da za Ukrainu nije pametno da prihvate bilo kakvo primirje, za dvije godine bi gledali reprizu.
Kakve gluposti ti pises, nevidjeno…
Razocaran sam ako ovo ne znas, a mislis da nesto znas o WWI. Koji je to manjak osnova.
Razocaran sam ako ovo ne znas, a mislis da nesto znas o WWI. Koji je to manjak osnova.
Recimo ideja tenkova, koja nema veze sa Rusima, ili pak da je Rusija izgubila vise teritorije zbog WWI nego AU, stavise nije ni sjedila sa pobjednicima kada se dijelila Evropa. Hajde sada ti, pa ti objasnim sve drzava koje je Rusko carstvo izgubilo…
PS, Na prvu ih izbrojim 7
Last edited by GandalfSivi on 19/03/2022 21:02, edited 1 time in total.
Zajebajem se, da je jebeno jebeno je, ali iskreno, niko ni ne ocekuje od naroda da ga skine. Poklopio je cijelo drustvo, gadno se toga kotarisati…
.
