Beki
Professional
- Učlanjen(a)
- 27.10.2015.
- Poruke
- 15.993
- Pohvaljen
- 36.831
Video sam da ima tri noge pa sam morao da proverimU tom kontekstu sam i okačio. Treba izvući antene za šalu/ironiju (ko ih ima).
Svetska politika
- Začetnik teme Duleja
- Datum pokretanja
Duleja
Advanced
Na temu imperijalizma, opet i uvek aktuelno.
"The concept of compensation in international law results from the violation of an international obligation. Such an obligation did not exist at the time of the injustice committed," the answer says. "The concept of reparation is therefore not applicable in the context of Germany's colonial past."
"The concept of compensation in international law results from the violation of an international obligation. Such an obligation did not exist at the time of the injustice committed," the answer says. "The concept of reparation is therefore not applicable in the context of Germany's colonial past."
Bender Rodriguez
Professional
- Učlanjen(a)
- 12.03.2017.
- Poruke
- 26.612
- Pohvaljen
- 61.688
Ma debil do debila, ne zna se ko je veći pacijent
Možda ipak lideri Evrope, koji u momentima dok im se ređaju unutrašnju problemi i krize, nemaju pametnija posla nego da i dalje glume Isuse pred Ukrajinom.
Kakva skupina bolida i plaćenika majko mila. Teško nama s njima za svetskim kormilima. Naravno, daleko od toga da su psihopate u Moskvi, Pekingu, Tel Avivu i Rijadu pa nešto bolje... Ali ovi u EU i Tramp su baš klovnovi.
Možda ipak lideri Evrope, koji u momentima dok im se ređaju unutrašnju problemi i krize, nemaju pametnija posla nego da i dalje glume Isuse pred Ukrajinom.
Kakva skupina bolida i plaćenika majko mila. Teško nama s njima za svetskim kormilima. Naravno, daleko od toga da su psihopate u Moskvi, Pekingu, Tel Avivu i Rijadu pa nešto bolje... Ali ovi u EU i Tramp su baš klovnovi.
Zuma
Professional
- Učlanjen(a)
- 19.05.2009.
- Poruke
- 12.357
- Pohvaljen
- 28.479
Pa poenta ovih poltičkih slika je politički komentar, a ne da li su i bukvalno slike stvarnosti. To treba posmatrati kao savremene političke karikature koje su postojale i kroz čitavu istoriju. AI se sada koristi samo zato što je postalo lakše izdati prompt za AI program nego crtati karikaturu. Ako neki ljudi i poveruju da je to stvarno, utoliko veći političko propagandni efekat za autora. Ali to nije primarno. Nego da se kroz sliku-karikaturu predstavi prava suština nekog odnosa u situaciji kad bi fotografiju koja prikazuje to isto bilo fizički nemoguće napraviti.
Ne znam da li se ikada desilo da je kompletna ekipa glavešina iz EU kolektivno otišla u Ameriku da "prati Zelenskog" uplašena da će se rat možda završiti. Ovo je jedna od najboljih vizuelnih političkih ispala koje sam skoro video.
nex999
Higher intermediate
- Učlanjen(a)
- 20.11.2019.
- Poruke
- 1.125
- Pohvaljen
- 2.377
Poenta je manipulacija i kontrolisanje narativa, i to se jasno vidi ko najviše deli ove uradke po mrežama. Sve isti FSB likovi, na istoj mreži.
Da bi ih posle forumski i internet eksperti komentarisali svuda i svugde onako po svom vidjenju, i projektovali sve vezano za dogadjaj u skladu sa tom slikom.
Karikatura nije nešto čemu se pregledaju pikseli da bi se videlo jel stvarno ili ne.
Ali politički komentar veli formuski ekspert koji redovno kači ovakve ai uradke verujući da su stvarni.
Da bi ih posle forumski i internet eksperti komentarisali svuda i svugde onako po svom vidjenju, i projektovali sve vezano za dogadjaj u skladu sa tom slikom.
Karikatura nije nešto čemu se pregledaju pikseli da bi se videlo jel stvarno ili ne.
Ali politički komentar
veli formuski ekspert koji redovno kači ovakve ai uradke verujući da su stvarni.
Poslednja izmena:
nex999
Higher intermediate
- Učlanjen(a)
- 20.11.2019.
- Poruke
- 1.125
- Pohvaljen
- 2.377
Video samo pokazuje normalnu interakciju izmedju fašiste i liberala u prirodi. Šteta što nije prisutan još gori faš u sali da mu se ovaj umiljava ko kučence da bude komedija potpuna, ali je otputovao u petak.
Fali samo Atenborou kao narator.
Fali samo Atenborou kao narator.
Još samo da se utvrdi ko je fašista a ko liberal.
Jedan je izabran na izborima, druga nije.
A i kakav je to liberal kad ide na noge fašisti i klima glavom na sve.
Bilo je interesantnije sa pričom o pingvinima, ovo fašisti/liberali je de mode.
Jedan je izabran na izborima, druga nije.
A i kakav je to liberal kad ide na noge fašisti i klima glavom na sve.
Bilo je interesantnije sa pričom o pingvinima, ovo fašisti/liberali je de mode.
Globalisti sad malo glume pred Trampom snihodljivost, ali će sve učiniti da razbucaju pregovore i da se rat nastavi nesmanjenom žestinom, a kvazi primirje bi želeli da bi se pregrupisali, naoružali miljenika i onda da Sirski nastavi sa nekim novim kontranastupljenijem.
nex999
Higher intermediate
- Učlanjen(a)
- 20.11.2019.
- Poruke
- 1.125
- Pohvaljen
- 2.377
Znači žele primirje ali rat i da se rat nastavi isto kao do sada a da u pauzi rata koja je i dalje rat da naoružaju Ukrajinu jer ovako ne mogu...Hoće li iko da smogne snage da zaustavi ovu agresiju na moskoviju ako tranp ne uspe
nex999
Higher intermediate
- Učlanjen(a)
- 20.11.2019.
- Poruke
- 1.125
- Pohvaljen
- 2.377
Gle,
Gosn Disen je izgleda obrisao još jedan svoj tviter post gde je ispao dalabu, kanda ne znajući da ima ljudi po internetima koji ga brane jer "politički komentar i karikatura". Ipak treba održavati reputaciju iole vrednog FSB aseta, čisto da ne poleti s prozora
Gosn Disen je izgleda obrisao još jedan svoj tviter post gde je ispao dalabu, kanda ne znajući da ima ljudi po internetima koji ga brane jer "politički komentar i karikatura". Ipak treba održavati reputaciju iole vrednog FSB aseta, čisto da ne poleti s prozora
Videćemo
Užice
Advanced
- Učlanjen(a)
- 14.01.2021.
- Poruke
- 4.138
- Pohvaljen
- 7.864
Naziv "Moskovija" je za Rusiju uvredljiv kao i za nas kada Srbiju nazivaju "Beogradskim Pašalukom" oni koji sanjaju da je vrate u te granice. Činjenica je da je moderna državnost Rusije posle mongolske invazije obnovljena u Velikoj Moskovskoj Kneževini kao i da je oslobođenje Srbije od Turaka započelo na teritoriji bivšeg Beogradskog Pašaluka, ali ista škola koja osporava etničko i istorijsko pravo Rusije na današnju Ukrajinu i Belorusiju nama negira državnost pa čak i nacionalni identitet južno od Šumadije i pogotovo zapadno od Drine. Oni iz geopolitičkih razloga bukvalno poništavaju sve što je od Srbije i Rusije postojalo pre Turaka odnosno Mongola, kao da je Carska Rusija neka tikva bez korena ili država nastala boljševičkim administrativnim dekretom kao ova protiv koje ratuje.
Kada je Kijev bio prestonica Rusije pre 1000 godina, Moskva još nije ni postojala. Kada je Ras bio prestonica Srbije, kada je imala izlaz na more i zapadnu granicu na Vrbasu, Beograd je bio krajnja periferija i najčešće pod vlašću stranaca.
nex999
Higher intermediate
- Učlanjen(a)
- 20.11.2019.
- Poruke
- 1.125
- Pohvaljen
- 2.377
Ne vidim što bi se našli uvredjenim. Za zemlju tolike silne istorije koja polaže toliko etničkih i istorijskih prava na tudje, ispada da se baš lako vredjaju, kanda imaju neke komplekse hmm
Možda im je istorija malo iskrivljena
Možda im je istorija malo iskrivljena
Zuma
Professional
- Učlanjen(a)
- 19.05.2009.
- Poruke
- 12.357
- Pohvaljen
- 28.479
Ti porediš njegovu stručnost u sferi politike, gde jeste ekspert, sa njegovom stručnošću u sferi AI grafike, koje je čisto tehička disciplina beskrajno daleko od onog prvog, zbog čega ljudi iz te oblasti već u principu nemaju razloga da o tome znaju nešto više, a pogotovo ne da rutinski rade grafičke analize razlika između AI kreacija i pravih fotografija za svaku sliku koju vide. Pa zatim NAMA ubeđeno tvrdiš kako je činjenica de neko greši u sferi sa kojom blage veze nema nepobitan dokaz da greši i tamo gde je vrhunski stručnjak!?
Ko onda manipuliše ?
StariPosmatrač
Higher intermediate
- Učlanjen(a)
- 19.09.2018.
- Poruke
- 1.990
- Pohvaljen
- 3.887
VIDEO Trump: Pomirio sam "Aberbajdžan" i Albaniju
AMERIČKI predsjednik Donald Trump jučer je zamijenio Armeniju i Albaniju i pritom izjavio da je posredovao u miru između Azerbajdžana i Albanije.
www.index.hr
Zuma
Professional
- Učlanjen(a)
- 19.05.2009.
- Poruke
- 12.357
- Pohvaljen
- 28.479
Izgleda da je najzad i formalno razrešeno pitanje da li "usmena" obećanja NATO-a Rusiji da se neće širiti na istok imaju pravnu težinu u međunarodnom pravu (jer i nisu bila samo usmena, ali čak i da su bila). Odgovor je imaju, isto kao i pisani dokumenti. A plus toga kasnije su potpisani i pisani dokumenti koje su NATO i Zapad prekršili. Rusija se poziva na to kao na jednu od više validnih pravnih osnova za svoju vojnu intervenciju u Ukrajini :
"And he (Lavrov) then continues by saying that all of this of course violates the charter, the UN charter. And then he goes on and discusses the root causes (Ukrajinskog sukoba). And he says one such root cause lies in Russia's security concerns. These arise from the decadesl long systematic violation of commitments made to us against NATO's eastward expansion. President Putin has repeatedly acknowledged that subsequently subsequent to these asurances, the alliance underwent five waves of expansion. To suggest that these were merely verbal promises is categorically false.
Now on this topic I should say that Pascal Lottaz at Neutrality Studies has undertaken a extraordinary amount of research on this topic and he's pointed out that in the early 1970s the International Court of Justice looked at this whole topic of verbal asurances and whether they have any carry any weight under international law and he discovered a decision of the International Court of Justice from the early 1970s, an actual case. So this is substantive law which says quite clearly that verbal assurances of the kind that NATO made, that the western powers made, at the end of the cold war not to expand NATO eastwards, that those sort of verbal asurances carry exactly the same weight in international law as written asurances do, and that is a decision of the international court of justice. It seems to me that this actually settles this topic conclusively and you do not in fact need something in writing to make the kind of assurance that the Russians were repeatedly given to, you don't need to formalize it in a written document to make it binding in international law terms. As I said Pascal Lottaz and his team have researched this and I have no reason to disagree with their conclusions which seem to me entirely wellfounded and absolutely spot on.
But Lavrov then goes on to say this. These asurances were formalized in writing through political declarations signed at the highest level during the OCE summits in Istanbul in 1999 and Astana 2010 which explicitly state that security is indivisible and no one may strengthen their own security at the expense of others. NATO did precisely that. No state or organization has the right to assert dominance over the OCE space. Yet they acted in direct contravention. To claim otherwise is mandacious, not least because verbal promise carries weight. And crucially, that's the point that Pascal Lottaz makes and crucially there exists not only document evidence of these facts but also highest level signed documents."
"And he (Lavrov) then continues by saying that all of this of course violates the charter, the UN charter. And then he goes on and discusses the root causes (Ukrajinskog sukoba). And he says one such root cause lies in Russia's security concerns. These arise from the decadesl long systematic violation of commitments made to us against NATO's eastward expansion. President Putin has repeatedly acknowledged that subsequently subsequent to these asurances, the alliance underwent five waves of expansion. To suggest that these were merely verbal promises is categorically false.
Now on this topic I should say that Pascal Lottaz at Neutrality Studies has undertaken a extraordinary amount of research on this topic and he's pointed out that in the early 1970s the International Court of Justice looked at this whole topic of verbal asurances and whether they have any carry any weight under international law and he discovered a decision of the International Court of Justice from the early 1970s, an actual case. So this is substantive law which says quite clearly that verbal assurances of the kind that NATO made, that the western powers made, at the end of the cold war not to expand NATO eastwards, that those sort of verbal asurances carry exactly the same weight in international law as written asurances do, and that is a decision of the international court of justice. It seems to me that this actually settles this topic conclusively and you do not in fact need something in writing to make the kind of assurance that the Russians were repeatedly given to, you don't need to formalize it in a written document to make it binding in international law terms. As I said Pascal Lottaz and his team have researched this and I have no reason to disagree with their conclusions which seem to me entirely wellfounded and absolutely spot on.
But Lavrov then goes on to say this. These asurances were formalized in writing through political declarations signed at the highest level during the OCE summits in Istanbul in 1999 and Astana 2010 which explicitly state that security is indivisible and no one may strengthen their own security at the expense of others. NATO did precisely that. No state or organization has the right to assert dominance over the OCE space. Yet they acted in direct contravention. To claim otherwise is mandacious, not least because verbal promise carries weight. And crucially, that's the point that Pascal Lottaz makes and crucially there exists not only document evidence of these facts but also highest level signed documents."
Poslednja izmena:
sutraw
Expert
- Učlanjen(a)
- 29.03.2023.
- Poruke
- 5.754
- Pohvaljen
- 17.513
To o usmenim obećanjima zvuči kao glupost prve klase na koju ne vredi trošiti forumske reči.
Ovo drugo već može da bude tema rasprave, međutim to može da pije vodu samo ako se pretpostavi da su jedini subjekti geopolitike velike sile, dok su sve ostale države samo objekti, bez sposobnosti donošenja samostalnih odluka. Po meni, veoma nezahvalna teza za odbranu, uzimajući u obzir mnoštvo istorijskih primera gde su manje države uspešno prkosile interesima velikih sila.
Ovo drugo već može da bude tema rasprave, međutim to može da pije vodu samo ako se pretpostavi da su jedini subjekti geopolitike velike sile, dok su sve ostale države samo objekti, bez sposobnosti donošenja samostalnih odluka. Po meni, veoma nezahvalna teza za odbranu, uzimajući u obzir mnoštvo istorijskih primera gde su manje države uspešno prkosile interesima velikih sila.
Zuma
Professional
- Učlanjen(a)
- 19.05.2009.
- Poruke
- 12.357
- Pohvaljen
- 28.479
Još jedan bitan citat iz intervjua Lavrova, uz ovo prethodno, važan da bi se razumelo kako Rusi vide razne vrste pravnih osnova za svoju vojnu interveniciju.
"In this case, I would like to reiterate: we have never stated any interest in seizing territories. Neither Crimea, nor Donbass, nor Novorossiya were ever the goal in and of themselves. Our goal was, and remains, to protect the Russian people – people who have lived on that soil for centuries, who first discovered those lands and shed their blood for them. They are the ones who built the major cities in Crimea and across the region – cities like Odessa and Nikolayev – and who developed the ports, factories, and plants.
Everyone is aware of the role Catherine the Great played in developing those lands. We all know how they were later incorporated into the Ukrainian SSR and, ultimately, became part of an independent Ukraine. They ended up as part of that independent state through the 1990 Declaration of State Sovereignty, adopted by the Kiev leadership. This document also stated that Ukraine would forever remain a non-nuclear, neutral, and non-aligned state. It was this very commitment that formed the foundational basis for its subsequent international recognition as an independent state.
If Vladimir Zelensky’s regime now rejects all these commitments – by discussing nuclear weapons, pursuing NATO membership, and outright rejecting neutrality – then it logically follows that those provisions, that very foundational basis for Ukraine’s independent statehood, cease to exist. This is a critical point that must be considered. Otherwise, we are left with a situation where international law is not front and centre. Instead, we see the application of those so-called “rules” again – the ones the West has never formally written down but seems to invent whenever it needs to justify an action, or condemn the very same action if its interests change. This will not work anymore."
"In this case, I would like to reiterate: we have never stated any interest in seizing territories. Neither Crimea, nor Donbass, nor Novorossiya were ever the goal in and of themselves. Our goal was, and remains, to protect the Russian people – people who have lived on that soil for centuries, who first discovered those lands and shed their blood for them. They are the ones who built the major cities in Crimea and across the region – cities like Odessa and Nikolayev – and who developed the ports, factories, and plants.
Everyone is aware of the role Catherine the Great played in developing those lands. We all know how they were later incorporated into the Ukrainian SSR and, ultimately, became part of an independent Ukraine. They ended up as part of that independent state through the 1990 Declaration of State Sovereignty, adopted by the Kiev leadership. This document also stated that Ukraine would forever remain a non-nuclear, neutral, and non-aligned state. It was this very commitment that formed the foundational basis for its subsequent international recognition as an independent state.
If Vladimir Zelensky’s regime now rejects all these commitments – by discussing nuclear weapons, pursuing NATO membership, and outright rejecting neutrality – then it logically follows that those provisions, that very foundational basis for Ukraine’s independent statehood, cease to exist. This is a critical point that must be considered. Otherwise, we are left with a situation where international law is not front and centre. Instead, we see the application of those so-called “rules” again – the ones the West has never formally written down but seems to invent whenever it needs to justify an action, or condemn the very same action if its interests change. This will not work anymore."