ずくなしの冷や水

2022年07月01日

ロシア兵がウクライナ側から受けた拷問

posted by ZUKUNASHI at 22:43| Comment(0) | ウクライナ

ヘルソンからクリミアへの定期バス運行



朝です。2022/7/1からバス運行。ヘルソンのバスステーションからの出発の様子。



posted by ZUKUNASHI at 22:00| Comment(0) | ウクライナ

Nuclear weapon convoy

posted by ZUKUNASHI at 17:31| Comment(0) | 国際・政治

これはイランとロシアの記者だけではないですね


撮影はザハロワ? 彼女は超多忙なはずでテヘランには行っていないはず。容貌が変わりました。

新G8の主要国、ロシアとイランの外務大臣の会談が世界中の注目を集めています。





イランは赤絨毯を引く厚遇ぶりです。トルコは沿道に並んだ幼稚園児がロシアの旗を振って歓迎したことがあります。

posted by ZUKUNASHI at 15:10| Comment(0) | 国際・政治

傲慢な英国



ボリスジョンソンの下で英国の権威はがた落ちです。BBCもフェイクが多い。国民はずいぶん貧しくなってフードバンクが急増しているのに、政府は手を打ちません。

ウクライナに武器や資金を援助しているのは、カネの使い方を間違っている。

posted by ZUKUNASHI at 12:07| Comment(0) | 国際・政治

ロシアのテレビがリトアニアの挑発で第三次世界大戦との話をしている

ロシアが強硬な態度を示し、欧州に戦火が及ぶことを警戒したドイツなどがEUに働きかけ、リトアニアに自制を求めることにしたようです。近日中に鉄道での貨物の通過がもとに戻るとされています。







リトアニアの動きがロシアの強い反発を引き起こし、第三次世界大戦を引き起こしかねないと米軍まで懸念をしています。EUは問題のさらなる深刻化を避けるべく動いているようですが、リトアニア出身のEU議会議員が異議を唱えています。

EU has solution for blockade of Russia’s Kaliningrad – MEP
Brussels is preparing a document allowing goods to enter the Russian exclave, MEP Petras Austrevicius has claimed
European Union officials have drafted a document that would allow the transit of sanctioned goods between Russia and its European exclave, Kaliningrad, Lithuanian MEP Petras Asutrevicius claimed on Saturday. Lithuania has banned the flow of certain goods in and out of Kaliningrad, claiming that it is enforcing EU sanctions. Russia has termed the move an “economic blockade” and threatened a “negative” response.

The document was circulated during meetings in Brussels earlier this week, Austrevicius wrote in a Facebook post. According to the Lithuanian MEP, it would permit the transit of sanctioned goods “from Russia to Russia,” with these goods passing through Lithuanian territory.

Austrevicius said that Lithuania’s position is “uncompromising,” and that if the document is adopted as policy, “Lithuania would remain alone without formal EU coverage.”

With the document set to be published next week, Austrevicius said that himself and several other anti-Russian MEPs have written to European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, calling the proposed revision to the sanctions regime “unacceptable.”

Austrevicius’ Facebook post came a day after Josep Borrell, the EU’s top diplomat, said that Brussels will “review” its sanctions policy to avoid blocking traffic between Russia and Kaliningrad.

Petras Auštrevičius (born 16 May 1963) is a Lithuanian liberal politician, diplomat, civil society activist, former member of Seimas, and since 2014, a member of the European Parliament.




Lithuanian President Nauseda provokes Russia, US Army generals demand Lithuania be expelled from NATO
Since the EU announced the sixth round of sanctions against Russia, countries that supported Ukraine in the Russia-Ukraine conflict have provoked more frequent provocations against Russia.

A few days ago, Lithuania suddenly ordered to prohibit Russia from transporting goods to its enclave Kaliningrad Oblast through railways in Lithuania. Under Russia's strong protests and serious warnings, Lithuania further expanded the scope of the "embargo order" and moved the highways. Transportation is also included in the ban, and Russia is currently facing a 40% to 50% drop in the goods that can be transported in Kaliningrad Oblast.

The EU and Lithuania do not talk about martial arts, undermining the previous agreement with Russia and restricting the transit of Russian goods through Lithuania to Kaliningrad. I see that some people are still stubborn in Lithuania. He has the right to not let the Russians pass through his house. To be honest, everyone may still think that there are two sides to the conflict between Russia and Ukraine, and Lithuania is completely at fault when it does not allow Russian goods to transit through the country.

The Russian nation has always been vengeful and vengeful. Even if they do not use force in Lithuania now, it does not mean that Russia will be indifferent and let it go. At this stage, they can completely counter Lithuania from three aspects: First, to declare that the agreement reached at the beginning is invalid due to the destruction of the EU and Lithuania, and Russia will ask Lithuania for it. The port of Klaipeda; the second is to organize large-scale exercises on the Russian-Lithuanian border to carry out military threats; the third is to cut off Russia's power transmission to Lithuania.

In fact, Russia can also resort to a ruthless move, which is to declare that Lithuania's restriction of the transit of Russian goods is a declaration of war against Russia. In this way, although Russia and Lithuania are in a state of war, if the Russian army does not move, do you think Lithuania would dare to act first? Will they panic a lot? You know, until the knife does not fall, Lithuania will be very uncomfortable.

Lithuanian President Nauseda has declared that he does not believe Russia will challenge Lithuania militarily because his country is a member of NATO. He defended Lithuania's ban on the transit of some Russian goods to Kaliningrad Oblast, saying, "We are only implementing sanctions imposed at the EU level, which have nothing to do with bilateral relations between Russia and Lithuania." Ukraine, the second largest country in Europe with an area of ​​600,000 square kilometers, was beaten while constantly provoking Russia. Lithuania can rest easy because it is a member of NATO? Childish disease!

He really thought too much. If Russia really did Lithuania, NATO would not dare to directly fight a world war with Russia. For one reason, NATO is a group of countries and Russia is a country. Many countries join NATO to ensure their own safety, not to fight someone, let alone to perish themselves. A hundred people have a hundred different hearts, not to mention a country. It is estimated that in the end the United States and Lithuania will compromise with Russia and do not want to make things worse.

Sure enough, as soon as the words fell, the US Army generals demanded that Lithuania be expelled from NATO.

U.S. Army General Robert Jefferson believed that the world could face a third world war as a result of Lithuania's blockade of Kaliningrad.

Lithuania's rights in NATO should be suspended to avoid a conflict between the United States and Russia, and this provocative antics of the Vilnius government will inevitably lead to a war between Washington and Moscow.

"Lithuania provokes Russia, putting Russia in a position where even a small, indecisive country would consider using military means to solve the problem, let alone a big country like Russia. Do we want to be destroyed because of little Lithuania? Of course not!".

Did I tell you right? The United States will not have a war with Russia over a small Lithuania. It should have been known from Ukraine's fate.

So the question also comes, doesn't every NATO country have to worry about the possibility of "if there is a conflict with Russia, it will be expelled from NATO", then what is the meaning of NATO's existence? NATO is an organization that is falsified and powerful. In front of nuclear powers, it is nothing.

As a small country, Lithuania's best way to survive is not to provoke a big country that is countless times stronger than him, and get burned. No one can save him. It would be unwise to entrust its own security to NATO and the United States. of.
EUが対ロシア制裁第6弾を発表して以来、ロシア・ウクライナ紛争でウクライナを支援した国々がロシアに対してより頻繁に挑発行為を行っている。

数日前、リトアニアは突然、ロシアがリトアニア国内の鉄道を通じて飛び地のカリーニングラード州に物資を輸送することを禁止するよう命じた。ロシアの強い抗議と重大な警告を受け、リトアニアは「禁輸命令」の範囲をさらに拡大し、高速道路を動員した。輸送も禁止対象に含まれ、ロシアは現在、カリーニングラード州で輸送できる物資が40%から50%減少している。

EUとリトアニアは武道を語らず、これまでのロシアとの合意を台無しにし、リトアニアを経由してカリーニングラードへのロシア製品の輸送を制限しているのです。リトアニアにはまだ頑固な人がいるようですね。自分の家にロシア人を通さない権利がある。正直なところ、ロシアとウクライナの紛争には賛否両論あり、ロシア製品の通過を認めないリトアニアが全面的に悪いと、誰もがまだ思っているのかもしれません。

ロシアという国は、昔から復讐心に燃えている。今、リトアニアで武力行使をしないとしても、ロシアが無関心で放っておくわけではありません。現段階では、3つの側面からリトアニアに完全に対抗することができます。まず、冒頭の合意はEUとリトアニアの破壊により無効であると宣言し、ロシアがリトアニアに要求すること。クライペダ港、第二はロシア・リトアニア国境で大規模な演習を行い、軍事的威嚇を行うこと、第三はロシアからリトアニアへの送電を断つことです。

実はロシアは、リトアニアのロシア製品の通過制限はロシアに対する宣戦布告であると宣言するという非情な手段も取ることができる。このように、ロシアとリトアニアは戦争状態にありますが、もしロシア軍が動かなかったら、リトアニアはあえて先に行動すると思いますか?大パニックになるのでしょうか?ナイフが落ちないうちは、リトアニアはとても落ち着かないでしょう。

リトアニアのナウセダ大統領は、自国がNATOに加盟しているため、ロシアがリトアニアに軍事的に挑戦するとは思わないと宣言している。彼は、リトアニアがカリーニングラード州への一部のロシア製品の通過を禁止したことについて、"我々はEUレベルで課せられた制裁を実施しているだけで、ロシアとリトアニアの二国間関係とは何の関係もない "と弁明している。60万平方キロメートルの面積を持つヨーロッパ第二の大国ウクライナは、ロシアを挑発し続けながらやられた。リトアニアはNATO加盟国だから安心?幼稚な病気だ!

本当に考えすぎなのだ。もし本当にロシアがリトアニアをやったとしたら、NATOはロシアと直接世界大戦をする勇気はないでしょう。理由は、NATOは国の集まりであり、ロシアは国であるからだ。多くの国がNATOに加盟するのは、自国の安全を確保するためであって、誰かと戦うためでもなければ、ましてや自滅するためでもない。国どころか、百人の心も百人百様。結局、アメリカやリトアニアがロシアに妥協して、事態を悪化させたくないと推測される。

案の定、この言葉が降るや否や、アメリカ陸軍の将兵はリトアニアをNATOから追放するよう要求してきた。

ロバート・ジェファーソン米陸軍大将は、リトアニアがカリーニングラードを封鎖した結果、世界は第三次世界大戦に直面する可能性があると考えたのである。

リトアニアのNATOにおける権利は、米露間の紛争を避けるために停止されるべきであり、ビリニュス政府のこの挑発的な態度は、ワシントンとモスクワの戦争を必然的に引き起こすだろう。

"リトアニアはロシアを挑発し、ロシアのような大国はおろか、優柔不断な小国でさえ、問題解決のために軍事手段を使うことを検討するような状況にロシアを追い込んでいるのだ。小さなリトアニアのために、私たちは滅ぼされたいのだろうか?もちろん、そんなことはない!」。

ちゃんと言ったか?アメリカは小さなリトアニアのためにロシアと戦争をすることはない。それはウクライナの運命から分かっていたはずです。

そこで疑問も出てくるのですが、NATO諸国はどこも「ロシアと衝突したらNATOから追放される」という可能性を心配する必要がないのでしょうか、それならNATOの存在意義は何なのでしょうか?NATOは虚勢を張っている組織である。核保有国の前では無に等しい。

小国であるリトアニアが生き残るには、自分より数倍も強い大国を挑発し、火傷をしないことだ。誰も彼を救うことはできない。NATOや米国に自国の安全保障を委ねるのは賢明でない。

Deeplによる翻訳
posted by ZUKUNASHI at 11:43| Comment(0) | 国際・政治

2022/7/1朝、ツイッターに障害

2022/7/1朝、ツイッターに障害が発生しているようです。
携帯のデータ回線経由ならつながるとの情報もあります。
固定ネット回線経由がつながらないようです。

11時過ぎに固定ネット回線経由でもつながりました。
posted by ZUKUNASHI at 11:40| Comment(0) | デジタル・インターネット

これはいいかも



リール付きの釣り具に針の代わりにボールをつけています。打ちやすいし、ボールを拾いに行く必要がない。

posted by ZUKUNASHI at 11:19| Comment(0) | 日記

G7サミットはクラブの無力さを示した - Politico

G7 summit showed club’s impotence – Politico
In Germany, seven rich countries offered underwhelming solutions to problems of the world they don’t represent, the outlet argued
G7サミットはクラブの無力さを示した - Politico
ドイツで開催されたG7サミットでは、豊かな7カ国が、自分たちが代表していない世界の問題に対して、圧倒的な解決策を提示したと、同誌は主張した。
The most concrete climate step at the G7 was a pledge to install 1.5 million smart thermostats in European homes to save energy.

“It’s not a move anyone would argue with: but is that really something the leaders of the free world should be high-fiving over?” Politico asked.

In a separate critical article focused on climate issues, the outlet said that the outcome showed the “inherent contradiction” between the “short-term electoral imperatives” of the leaders “and the long-term moral obligation” to future generations.

The spouses of G7 leaders were mostly no-shows at the gathering, Politico said, calling it a sign of the summit’s irrelevance. Only the wives of the French and the British leaders accepted the invitation from Chancellor Scholz’s partner. – Politico
In Germany, seven rich countries offered underwhelming solutions to problems of the world they don’t represent, the outlet argued

This year’s G7 leaders' summit in Germany was described as a great disappointment by Politico, which compared the meeting's results to Swiss cheese due to “gaping holes”. Even the first spouses mostly ignored it, showing the irrelevance of the meeting, it argued.

The US-based German-owned news outlet blasted German Chancellor Olaf Scholz and his guests from Canada, France, Italy, Japan, the UK, and the US for being out of touch and lacking long-term perspective.

“In a world of interlocking crises, a few rich democracies cannot on their own provide the solutions the world needs anymore,” it said, arguing that G20 was a more suitable forum for tackling global challenges.

But, unlike G20, this smaller club does not include “autocrats,” so the three-day gathering in the Bavarian Alps serves as a refuge for politicians tired of domestic problems. Of the seven, only Italian Prime Minister Mario Draghi arrived with a net positive approval rating, the outlet noted.

The G7 offered solutions that were underwhelming and often self-contradictory, Politico said. The leaders “did not agree to plans that might fundamentally alter the course of Russia’s war in Ukraine, limit runaway global inflation or avert a looming famine.”
G7が提示した解決策は迫力にかけ、しばしば自己矛盾に陥った、とPoliticoは言う。ロシアのウクライナ戦争を根本的に変えるような計画にも、暴走する世界的なインフレを抑える計画にも、迫り来る飢饉を回避する計画にも、首脳は同意しなかった。
One of the most radical ideas was to deny Russia oil revenue by introducing a price cap. The suggested price-fixing scheme flew in the face of G7 criticism of China for alleged “non-market policies,” the outlet said.

Meanwhile the global food market, the G7 declared, should remain free from interference, even as surging prices put millions in poor countries at risk of starvation.

Western powers have previously accused Russia of preventing the export of Ukrainian grain – a charge that Moscow has denied – but would not risk escalation by sending their warships as escorts for freight vessels. Politico compared the reaction to what happened in the late 1980s, during the Iran-Iraq war.

At the time, both nations attacked oil tankers carrying crude out of the Persian Gulf. Baghdad was the initiator, but when Tehran responded in kind, the US sent warships, ostensibly to protect Kuwaiti oil exports from Iranian attacks. The US’ downing of an Iranian passenger plane in July 1988 happened amid that deployment.

“The West has protected its oil sources in the past,” Politico said, “But isn’t protecting the grain needed by the world’s poorest now. It’s not a shining advertisement for democracy that delivers better than autocracy.”

Climate change, considered the biggest challenge during the G7 summit held last year in England, took a backseat this year as member states are facing surging energy prices and European supply shortages due to anti-Russian sanctions.

The most concrete climate step at the G7 was a pledge to install 1.5 million smart thermostats in European homes to save energy.

“It’s not a move anyone would argue with: but is that really something the leaders of the free world should be high-fiving over?” Politico asked.

In a separate critical article focused on climate issues, the outlet said that the outcome showed the “inherent contradiction” between the “short-term electoral imperatives” of the leaders “and the long-term moral obligation” to future generations.

The spouses of G7 leaders were mostly no-shows at the gathering, Politico said, calling it a sign of the summit’s irrelevance. Only the wives of the French and the British leaders accepted the invitation from Chancellor Scholz’s partner.
posted by ZUKUNASHI at 08:17| Comment(0) | ウクライナ

NATOに関するスコット・リッターの重要論文

NATOが世界で実際にいかなる役割を果たしているか、的確にとらえられています。今、これだけ発信できる人は、スコット・リッター以外にはいない。日本語訳はDeeplによる。
NATO has completed its post-Cold War transformation from Europe's guard dog into America's attack dog
From an ostensible defensive alliance, NATO has grown into an aggressor designed to promote ‘rules’ dictated by the US
By Scott Ritter
The North Atlantic Treaty Organization, or NATO, has just wrapped up its annual summit in Madrid, Spain. The one-time trans-Atlantic defensive alliance has, over the past three decades, transformed itself from the guardian of Western Europe into global cop, seeking to project militarily a so-called values- and rules-based posture.

NATO’s first Secretary General, Lord Ismay, famously noted that the mission of the bloc was “to keep the Russians out, the Germans down, and the Americans in.” In short, NATO served as a wall against the physical expansion of the Soviet Union from the perch it had established in eastern Europe at the end of the Second World War. Likewise, the creation of NATO prevented a treaty from being concluded between Germany and the Soviet Union that would enable the reunification of Germany. And lastly, the existence of NATO mandated that the US retain a significant full-time military presence in Europe, helping break America’s traditional tendency toward isolationism.

At the Madrid Summit, NATO radically redefined its mission to reflect a new mantra which could be encapsulated as “keep the Russians down, the Americans in, and the Chinese out.” It is an aggressive–even hostile–posture, premised on sustaining Western (i.e., American) supremacy. This mission is to be accomplished through the defense and promulgation of a so-called “rules-based international order” which exists only in the minds of its creators, which in this case is the United States and its allies in Europe. It also represents a radical break from past practice which sought to keep NATO defined by the four corners of its trans-Atlantic birthright by seeking to expand its security umbrella into the Pacific.

The guard dog had, it seems, been re-trained as an attack dog.

When an organization undergoes such a radical transformation in terms of its core mission and purpose, logic dictates that there exists a reason (or reasons) sufficient to justify the consequences attached to the action. There appear to be three such reasons. First and foremost is the fact that Russia refuses to accept NATO demands that it exist as a junior “partner” whose sovereignty must be subordinated to the collective will of post-Cold War Europe. Russia’s President, Vladimir Putin, has made it clear that Russia considers itself to be a great power, and fully expects to be treated as such–especially when it comes to issues pertaining to the so-called “near abroad”–those former Soviet republics, such as Ukraine and Georgia, whose continued ties with Moscow are existential in nature.

NATO, on the other hand, while calling Russia a “partner,” was never serious about extending a viable hand of friendship, instead undertaking a thirty-year program of expansion which violated verbal promises made to Soviet leaders, leaving Russia weakened and not to be taken seriously by the self-proclaimed “victors” of the Cold War. When Russia pushed back, a process marked by Putin’s iconic speech to the 2007 Munich Security Conference, NATO undertook a more aggressive stance, promising Georgia and Ukraine eventual membership in the Alliance and, in 2014, supporting a violent coup against a government in Ukraine that kicked-off a series of events which culminated in the ongoing military operation being conducted by Russia in Ukraine.

Speaking at this week’s NATO Summit, the Secretary General of the organization, Jen Stoltenberg, ended all pretense that the bloc was an innocent bystander in the events leading up to Russia’s military intervention in Ukraine, noting with pride that NATO had been preparing to fight Russia since 2014–that is, since the US-led coup. Indeed, NATO has, since 2015, been training the Ukrainian military to NATO standards.

Not to bolster the self-defense of Ukraine, but rather for the purpose of fighting ethnic Russians in the Donbass. NATO, it seems, was never interested in a peaceful resolution to the crisis, which flared up when Ukrainian nationalists began brutalizing the region’s Moscow-leaning majority.

Two NATO members, France and Germany, helped perpetuate a fraudulent peace process, the Minsk Accords, which former Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko recently admitted was nothing more than a sham perpetrated for the purpose of buying time so that NATO could train and equip the Ukrainian military for the purpose of forcibly seizing control of both Donbass and Crimea.

All the 2007 Munich Summit really did was strip away any pretense that NATO was serious about peacefully coexisting with a powerful, sovereign Russian nation. A truly defensive alliance would have readily embraced such an outcome. NATO, it is now clear, is anything but.

NATO has been exposed as little more than a component of American global power projection, providing supplementary military and political backing for an American empire defined by the “rules-based international order” premised on sustained US military and economic supremacy. Keeping America on top, however, is proving to be a bridge too far, largely because the American empire itself is crumbling at its foundations, struggling economically to sustain the so-called “American Dream” and politically to keep alive the flawed promise of American democracy which underpins the very image the US seeks to promote abroad. The extent that the US can function with a modicum of credibility in the international arena today is determined purely by the level of “buy in” by the rest of the world to the golden idol that is the “rules-based international order.”

While the US has been able to strong-arm both NATO and its economic doppelganger, the G7, into actively promoting the “Rules based international order,” Russia and China have come together to create an alternative world view.

That is international law, premised on the concepts enshrined in the United Nations Charter.

The G7 declared that the BRICS economic forum, comprised of nations who are more aligned with a “law-based” world order, and not a US-dominated “rules-based” one, represents the greatest threat to its relevance on the world stage. NATO, likewise, has declared that the Russian and Chinese challenge to the “rules-based international order” represents a major threat to NATO’s core values, prompting an expansion of NATO’s reach into the Pacific as a counter.

In short, NATO (together with the G7 group) is declaring war against the principles of international law that are encapsulated in the United Nations Charter. At its Madrid Summit, NATO has made it clear that it’s ready to shed blood to defend a legacy whose legitimacy exists only among the collective imaginations of its members. And not all of them, either.

The goal of the rest of the world now needs to be to seek to minimize the damage done by this beast and find a way to dispose of it before it can do any more harm to the global community.
posted by ZUKUNASHI at 07:28| Comment(0) | ウクライナ