bohnensack schrieb am 01.09.2024 09:16:
Wo sind die Demos in Moskau gegen Tyrannei und den Massenvernichtungswaffen Russlands? Gibt es dort Menschen mit Anstand?
Die UN Charta macht ihren Mitgliedsländern keinerlei Vorgaben, welche Regierungsform sie haben sollten - im Gegenteil definiert sie, dass jedes Land das Recht hat, seine Regierungsform selbst und ohne irgendeine Beeinflussung von außen frei zu wählen.
Auch das Recht auf Sicherheit und Selbstverteidigung ist von der Regierungsform komplett unabhängig.
Jegliche Form der "Demokratisierung" durch den Westen ist damit ein Angriff auf die Souveränität des betroffenen Staates und völkerrechtswidrig.
Im Fall von Russland wäre da z.B. der "Russian Democracy Act" der USA von 2002.
Dort steht:
Since 1992, United States Government democratic
reform programs and public diplomacy programs, including
training, and small grants have provided access to and training
in the use of the Internet, brought nearly 40,000 Russian citizens to the United States, and have led to the establishment
of more than 65,000 nongovernmental organizations, thousands of independent local media outlets, despite governmental
opposition, and numerous political parties.
(...)
Of the amounts made available to carry out the provision of chapter
11 of part I of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2295 et
seq.) and the FREEDOM Support Act for fiscal year 2003, $50,000,000 is authorized to be available for the activities authorized by paragraphs (2) and (3) of section 498 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as
amended by section 4(a) of this Act.
https://www.congress.gov/107/plaws/publ246/PLAW-107publ246.htm
Als Russland danach begann diese völkerrechtswidrigen Angriffe auf seine Souveränität immer mehr zu blockieren, wurde Russland kurzer Hand zum autoritären Regime erklärt und die NATO erklärte Russland auf einmal zum Feind, obwohl in der NATO-Russland Grundakte - zu dieser Zeit (2004) immer noch In Kraft - festgeschrieben steht, dass "die NATO und Russland sich nicht als Feinde betrachten."
So begann man 2004, direkt nach dem NATO Beitritt der baltischen Staaten, von Seiten der NATO auf Konfrontationskurs zu gehen. Dazu die NYT im April 2004:
The fighter jets that landed this week at the airfield northwest of here do not pose much of a threat, but their arrival at what was once one of the Soviet Union's largest bases underlined in bold the new borders being drawn between Europe and Russia.
The jets -- four Belgian F-16's supported by 100 Belgian, Danish and Norwegian troops -- have come to police the skies over the Baltic states of Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia, former Soviet republics that officially joined NATO on Monday along with Bulgaria, Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia.
The operation is purely defensive, NATO officials and military commanders here say, but the territory being patrolled abuts some 500 miles of Russia's western frontier, including the isolated enclave of Kaliningrad.
To Russia, at least, the meaning is clear: the alliance still views it as a potential enemy rather than a partner.
While Russia has resigned itself to NATO's expansion, albeit grudgingly, the reality of NATO forces being deployed in the Baltics -- on short notice -- has deeply unsettled and angered its politicians and commanders, prompting some of the sharpest criticism of the alliance since its war against Serbia in 1999.
Russia's lower house of Parliament overwhelmingly adopted a resolution on Wednesday denouncing NATO's expansion generally and the deployment of the F-16's specifically.
Echoing warnings in Russia's new military doctrine set forth last fall, the resolution called on President Vladimir V. Putin to reconsider Russia's international agreements with NATO and its own defense strategies, including its nuclear posture.
Few expect a new cold war to erupt in Europe, but NATO's expansion has further chilled a not very warm peace, especially between Russia and the Baltic states.
(...)
When NATO sent an AWACS reconnaissance aircraft to Rumbula Airfield in Latvia on Feb. 23 and then to Siauliai two days later on what NATO called a demonstration flight, Russian officials angrily protested that the plane's sophisticated radar equipment could peer deep into European Russia.
NATO's expansion may not amount to a new containment of Russia, as many in Russia fear, but it has nonetheless created an armed divide from the Baltic Sea to the Black Sea that has left Russia on the other side.
Although Russia has a seat at NATO's headquarters in Brussels, allowing it to discuss areas of cooperation and concern, it remains outside the alliance's decision-making process.
While NATO has significantly reduced its forces in Europe and shifted its focus to new threats like terrorism and weapons proliferation, Russian officials have said deployments like the one here betray a sense of mistrust.
''In admitting the Baltic states and arranging guarantees for their security, many in NATO apparently proceeded from previous perceptions that a war is possible in Europe,'' the spokesman for Russia's Foreign Ministry, Aleksandr V. Yakovenko, said on Monday.
He and other officials have complained in particular that Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia and Slovenia are not covered by the Conventional Forces in Europe Treaty, a cold-war-era agreement that imposed limits on tanks, aircraft and other military equipment.
https://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/03/world/as-nato-finally-arrives-on-its-border-russia-grumbles.html
Leider hat Steven Lee Myers von der NYT unrecht behalten, denn genau dieser Zeitpunkt markiert den Beginn des neuen kalten Krieges und die Errichtung eines neuen eisernen Vorhangs an der neuen Ostgrenze der NATO.