Vojna v Ukrajini 2

mirsi

Predator
4. jun 2014
8.190
-2.072
113
Ne drži, obe državi imata mednarodno priznane meje. Ali si butast ali lažeš (nagibam se k obojem). :zavijazocmi:



Quote me, bi-joć. :evil:



Ne drži. Arbitražni sporazum je zavezujoč in meje določene. Ne vem, če res lažeš, sedaj se bolj nagibam k temu, da si resnično butast in sploh ne veš, o čem se gre. :zavijazocmi:



Ti to malo napamet, a? Ribariš z njimi? :fredi: Ker serješ gluposti. Mednarodna pomorska meja je določena, na njej se je izvajal šengen. Kontaktiraj ministrstvo za notranje in zunanje zadeve okoli podrobnosti; https://www.gov.si/drzavni-organi/ministrstva/

Drugač pa, Mirsade, ... za Slo - Hr odnose imaš drugo temo. Zato me izjemno veseli, da si nazaj na topiku;


Ne, Mirsade? :valjamse::bonk:Kaj pa je predstavljala, ... mejo med Čadom in Sudanom? :zmaga:

Daj ti to malo bolj podrobno razloži zdaj nam vsem, kaj je po tvoje ta rdeča črta. Evo mapica: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipe...g/903px-Map_of_Ukraine_border_with_Russia.png

The Russia–Ukraine border is the de jure international boundary between Russia and Ukraine. Over land, the border spans five Russian oblasts and five Ukrainian oblasts.

Na zgornjo definicijo se seveda ne boš oziral, čakamo tvoj umotvor. :fredi:

Btw, če greš čez rdečo (mejno) črto z vojsko z namenom zemljo krast, terorizirat in ubijat folk, si agresor. PIKA. Argumentiraj to, budala jedna.
1. Še enkrat. Slovenija nima mednarodno priznane meje. Če meniš drugače pa prilimaj kak članek z naslovom: Hrvaška (ali vstavi državo po želji) priznala mejo s slovenijo po črti, ki jo predvideva arbitražni sporazum. ali kaj podobnega...

2. prvič si napisal: tam, kjer jo je izvajala pomorska policija, ko smo bili južna meja šengena.
drugič si napisal: Tudi v piranskem zalivu. Arbitraža 2017
To sta pač dve čisto različni črti. Južna meja šengeni smo bili že mnogo prej, preden se je arbitraža sploh začela. Slovenija je v šengensko območje vstopila 2007, in praviš da je že tedaj upoštevala meje iz arbitražnega sporazuma iz leta 2017, ki nam določa tričetrt piranskega zaliva HAHA.

3. Arbitražni sporazum je mrtva črka na papirju - Hrvaška je iz sporazuma izstopila l. 2015 in ga ne priznava in ne spoštuje. Hrvaška zaseda območje do sredine zaliva. po arbitraži je njihova samo tretina. Slovenska policija čez sredino zaliva ne upa in ne ščiti slovenskih ribičev. Slovenski ribiči redno dobivajo kazni hrvaške policije in inšpekcije zaradi ribolova v delu Piranskega zaliva, ki je po arbitražni razsodbi pripadel Sloveniji, Hrvaška pa ga ima za svojega.
Da bi arbitražni sporazum veljal, bi ga morali priznati tako Slovenija, kot Hrvaška. Če ga priznava ali nepriznava tudi katera od ostalih držav pa ni prav nič važno, to se njih ne tiče.
Arbitražni sporazum so pa minirali naši prijatelji prek luže, ki so nam prisluškovali in prisluhe posredovali hrvatom.

4. Tista rdeča črta, je takrat, ko so jo Rusi prestopili predstavljala mejo med RF in LPR ter RF in DPR.
LPR in DPR sta se namreč od Ukrajine z referendumom odcepili (tako kot slovenija iz YU) že par let pred tem in sta bili febr 2022 samostojni državi.

Kje pa slovenija priznava mejo med Čadom in Sudanom, ko že omenjaš te države, pa tamkajšnjim prebivalcem gladko dol visi. Saj res, ali obstaja kak dokument, da slovenija priznava mejo med čadom in sudanom po priloženem zemljevidu? In kdaj smo to priznali?
 

Floki

Guru
6. sep 2007
10.076
3.160
113
1. Še enkrat. Slovenija nima mednarodno priznane meje. Če meniš drugače pa prilimaj kak članek z naslovom: Hrvaška (ali vstavi državo po želji) priznala mejo s slovenijo po črti, ki jo predvideva arbitražni sporazum. ali kaj podobnega...

2. prvič si napisal: tam, kjer jo je izvajala pomorska policija, ko smo bili južna meja šengena.
drugič si napisal: Tudi v piranskem zalivu. Arbitraža 2017
To sta pač dve čisto različni črti. Južna meja šengeni smo bili že mnogo prej, preden se je arbitraža sploh začela. Slovenija je v šengensko območje vstopila 2007, in praviš da je že tedaj upoštevala meje iz arbitražnega sporazuma iz leta 2017, ki nam določa tričetrt piranskega zaliva HAHA.

3. Arbitražni sporazum je mrtva črka na papirju - Hrvaška je iz sporazuma izstopila l. 2015 in ga ne priznava in ne spoštuje. Hrvaška zaseda območje do sredine zaliva. po arbitraži je njihova samo tretina. Slovenska policija čez sredino zaliva ne upa in ne ščiti slovenskih ribičev. Slovenski ribiči redno dobivajo kazni hrvaške policije in inšpekcije zaradi ribolova v delu Piranskega zaliva, ki je po arbitražni razsodbi pripadel Sloveniji, Hrvaška pa ga ima za svojega.
Da bi arbitražni sporazum veljal, bi ga morali priznati tako Slovenija, kot Hrvaška. Če ga priznava ali nepriznava tudi katera od ostalih držav pa ni prav nič važno, to se njih ne tiče.
Arbitražni sporazum so pa minirali naši prijatelji prek luže, ki so nam prisluškovali in prisluhe posredovali hrvatom.

Lahko bi tudi direktno poslušali kaj je mnenje hrvaške vlade, da ne bo vsak po svoje pisal. Hrvaška sporazuma uradno ne priznava.

 
  • Objave ne odobravam
  • Všeč mi je
Reactions: damirj in mirsi

ferdo

Guru
3. sep 2007
10.403
3.844
113
Ljubljana
hmpg.net
hrvati so posebneži in niso merodajni za nič.
Prazaprav so. In vsi ostali pravijo, da je potreben dogovor, da trenutno NI dokončno določene meje:
Austrian President Alexander Van der Bellen said during his visit to Slovenia in May 2017, that he believed that Slovenia and Croatia should accept the verdict. In July 2017, during official visits of Croatian and Slovene Presidents in Salzburg, he stated that countries should accept the verdict as a crucial step in finding a permanent solution to the border dispute, that his country would stay neutral in the matter and has offered help in resolving dispute. Austrian Foreign Minister Karin Kneissl supported Slovenian position about implementation of Final Award after meeting with Foreign Minister Erjavec on 20 March 2018.

Benelux - Prime Ministers Xavier Bettel, Mark Rutte and Charles Michel issued a joint statement in which they supported the verdict and called on "both parties to adhere to an arbitrary decision-making structure.

European Union - On 4 July 2017, European Commission issued an official statement in which it expressed its support for the arbitration procedure and final award, adding that Slovenia and Croatia should accept and implement it.[143] Vice-President of the European Commission Frans Timmermans stated that both Croatia and Slovenia should respect the verdict, adding that EC will help in verdict's implementation but that EC would not order implementation since it's a bilateral issue which is not within the scope of the EU.[144] In the Minutes of the Meeting from 4 July 2017 EC once more said that Slovenia did act in violation of Arbitration Agreement, however, PCA stated in the Partial Award, that the violation was not of such nature, that it would influence the Final Award of the tribunal and that the judge involved in the violation of the agreement was replaced by another judge. Vice-President Timmermans said that EC unequivocally supported the process. The Legal Service of the EC stated during the meeting that the EU has a jurisdiction in respect of this matter and that it is obligation of the EU and Member States to implement public international law (Final Award by the PCA).[145] High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy Federica Mogherini stressed the importance of respecting international treaties.

Manfred Weber, leader of the European People's Party Group, said that "Croatia and Slovenia should continue the dialogue about the border dispute", while Guy Verhofstadt, leader of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe Group, called on implementation of the verdict.

In January 2020, following Slovenia's action against Croatia before the European Court of Justice, the Court ruled that it had no jurisdiction to rule on the dispute and merely urged both sides to resolve their differences. The decision was final and there was no appeal.

France - French Ministry of Foreign Affairs and International Development didn't issue an official statement on the matter, but wrote on its web site in a section in which it responds to journalists' questions that France "hopes that territorial controversy will soon be resolved in a constructive spirit, a spirit of reconciliation and dialogue, that would be in favor of the European Union and regional stability of the Western Balkans". During 2017 Bled Strategic Forum, French Minister for European Affairs Nathalie Loiseau expressed her support for the "principle of respect for international law and decisions of international courts".

Germany - German Embassy in Croatia issued a statement in which it praised International Arbitration Tribunal as a "valuable instrument of international law" and has called on implementation of the verdict, adding that "member states of the European union must make a good example for others." German Foreign Minister Sigmar Gabriel stated, during the press conference in Berlin in June 2017, that Germany "calls upon both countries to accept the verdict and implement it". According to the Slovenian Prime Minister Miro Cerar, German Chancellor Angela Merkel confirmed to him during their meeting at a 2017 Western Balkans Summit that her government believes that verdict should be implemented

Italy - Prime Minister Paolo Gentiloni stated during the state visit to Slovenia that Italy supported the position of the European Commission.

Russia - Russian Minister of Communications and Mass Media Nikolay Nikiforov stated during his visit to Slovenia that the verdict should be implemented, but that Slovenia shouldn't interrupt bilateral dialogue on resolving other opened disputes between the countries

United States - United States embassy in Croatia confirmed to the Večernji List that the official stance of the United States is that "two countries, both EU members and allies in NATO, need to resolve this bilateral issue" and that they "encourage both countries to agree on the best path to its solution".
 

delter333

Guru
21. maj 2010
1.823
1.523
113
Notranjska
Prazaprav so. In vsi ostali pravijo, da je potreben dogovor, da trenutno NI dokončno določene meje:
Austrian President Alexander Van der Bellen said during his visit to Slovenia in May 2017, that he believed that Slovenia and Croatia should accept the verdict. In July 2017, during official visits of Croatian and Slovene Presidents in Salzburg, he stated that countries should accept the verdict as a crucial step in finding a permanent solution to the border dispute, that his country would stay neutral in the matter and has offered help in resolving dispute. Austrian Foreign Minister Karin Kneissl supported Slovenian position about implementation of Final Award after meeting with Foreign Minister Erjavec on 20 March 2018.

Benelux - Prime Ministers Xavier Bettel, Mark Rutte and Charles Michel issued a joint statement in which they supported the verdict and called on "both parties to adhere to an arbitrary decision-making structure.

European Union - On 4 July 2017, European Commission issued an official statement in which it expressed its support for the arbitration procedure and final award, adding that Slovenia and Croatia should accept and implement it.[143] Vice-President of the European Commission Frans Timmermans stated that both Croatia and Slovenia should respect the verdict, adding that EC will help in verdict's implementation but that EC would not order implementation since it's a bilateral issue which is not within the scope of the EU.[144] In the Minutes of the Meeting from 4 July 2017 EC once more said that Slovenia did act in violation of Arbitration Agreement, however, PCA stated in the Partial Award, that the violation was not of such nature, that it would influence the Final Award of the tribunal and that the judge involved in the violation of the agreement was replaced by another judge. Vice-President Timmermans said that EC unequivocally supported the process. The Legal Service of the EC stated during the meeting that the EU has a jurisdiction in respect of this matter and that it is obligation of the EU and Member States to implement public international law (Final Award by the PCA).[145] High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy Federica Mogherini stressed the importance of respecting international treaties.

Manfred Weber, leader of the European People's Party Group, said that "Croatia and Slovenia should continue the dialogue about the border dispute", while Guy Verhofstadt, leader of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe Group, called on implementation of the verdict.

In January 2020, following Slovenia's action against Croatia before the European Court of Justice, the Court ruled that it had no jurisdiction to rule on the dispute and merely urged both sides to resolve their differences. The decision was final and there was no appeal.

France - French Ministry of Foreign Affairs and International Development didn't issue an official statement on the matter, but wrote on its web site in a section in which it responds to journalists' questions that France "hopes that territorial controversy will soon be resolved in a constructive spirit, a spirit of reconciliation and dialogue, that would be in favor of the European Union and regional stability of the Western Balkans". During 2017 Bled Strategic Forum, French Minister for European Affairs Nathalie Loiseau expressed her support for the "principle of respect for international law and decisions of international courts".

Germany - German Embassy in Croatia issued a statement in which it praised International Arbitration Tribunal as a "valuable instrument of international law" and has called on implementation of the verdict, adding that "member states of the European union must make a good example for others." German Foreign Minister Sigmar Gabriel stated, during the press conference in Berlin in June 2017, that Germany "calls upon both countries to accept the verdict and implement it". According to the Slovenian Prime Minister Miro Cerar, German Chancellor Angela Merkel confirmed to him during their meeting at a 2017 Western Balkans Summit that her government believes that verdict should be implemented

Italy - Prime Minister Paolo Gentiloni stated during the state visit to Slovenia that Italy supported the position of the European Commission.

Russia - Russian Minister of Communications and Mass Media Nikolay Nikiforov stated during his visit to Slovenia that the verdict should be implemented, but that Slovenia shouldn't interrupt bilateral dialogue on resolving other opened disputes between the countries

United States - United States embassy in Croatia confirmed to the Večernji List that the official stance of the United States is that "two countries, both EU members and allies in NATO, need to resolve this bilateral issue" and that they "encourage both countries to agree on the best path to its solution".
Če se naši politiki nebi pajdaši z Rusi oziroma kar s Putinom bi arbitraža obveljala, ampak naši vrli politiki še sedaj ne morejo iz svoje kože in nastavljajo lonček Putinu.
 

mirsi

Predator
4. jun 2014
8.190
-2.072
113
Če se naši politiki nebi pajdaši z Rusi oziroma kar s Putinom bi arbitraža obveljala, ampak naši vrli politiki še sedaj ne morejo iz svoje kože in nastavljajo lonček Putinu.
Če naši politiki 1945-ga nebi pajdašili z Rusi, bi bila Slovenija brez morja, piranski zaliv, obalna mesta in dobršen del Istre pa Italijanski.
Malo se izobrazi, kateri štirje so po vojni risali mejo med Italijo in Jugoslavijo in kašni so bili predlogi razmejitve od ZDA, Francije, Velike Britanije in Sovjetske zveze.
 

mirsi

Predator
4. jun 2014
8.190
-2.072
113
Predstavnik Nata: Naj se Ukrajina odreče delu ozemlja za članstvo v Natu? Kijev idejo zavrača.

Prav škoda, da Kijev to idejo (zarnkrat še) zavrača.
Ker očitno da ukrajinci sami niso sposobni nagnati Ruse iz Ukrajine, in bi s sprejemom v Nato avtomatsko bili v vojni tudi mi in ves nato. Saj veste tisto, če je napadena ena članica - potem so vse.
Potem bi imeli podporniki ukrajincev priliko, da se priko slovenske vojske ali mobilizirancev sami aktivno vključijo v spopade v Ukrajini, in pokažejo svojo ljubezen Ukrajini in jo z orožjem odbranijo. Mislim, da jih bodo ukrajinci z veseljem ponucali za kanonfutr. :evil:

Kaj pa vi mislite o tem predlogu?
 
Predstavnik Nata: Naj se Ukrajina odreče delu ozemlja za članstvo v Natu? Kijev idejo zavrača.

Prav škoda, da Kijev to idejo (zarnkrat še) zavrača.
Ker očitno da ukrajinci sami niso sposobni nagnati Ruse iz Ukrajine, in bi s sprejemom v Nato avtomatsko bili v vojni tudi mi in ves nato. Saj veste tisto, če je napadena ena članica - potem so vse.
Potem bi imeli podporniki ukrajincev priliko, da se priko slovenske vojske ali mobilizirancev sami aktivno vključijo v spopade v Ukrajini, in pokažejo svojo ljubezen Ukrajini in jo z orožjem odbranijo. Mislim, da jih bodo ukrajinci z veseljem ponucali za kanonfutr. :evil:

Kaj pa vi mislite o tem predlogu?

se strinjamo z UA...Bi bil pa čas da ZDA, malo bolj konkretno poseže v tole zadevo. Majo orožje, vojake, pa na juriš, pa naj malo poka tud pr vladotu.
 
  • Všeč mi je
Reactions: sad in damirj
Če naši politiki 1945-ga nebi pajdašili z Rusi, bi bila Slovenija brez morja, piranski zaliv, obalna mesta in dobršen del Istre pa Italijanski.
Malo se izobrazi, kateri štirje so po vojni risali mejo med Italijo in Jugoslavijo in kašni so bili predlogi razmejitve od ZDA, Francije, Velike Britanije in Sovjetske zveze.
zdaj se dogaja (no že neki časa) točno to kar si napisal....samo v obratni smeri....o razlogih pa ne bi
 

Janez40

Guru
12. jul 2016
3.508
4.620
113
Predstavnik Nata: Naj se Ukrajina odreče delu ozemlja za članstvo v Natu? Kijev idejo zavrača.

Prav škoda, da Kijev to idejo (zarnkrat še) zavrača.
Ker očitno da ukrajinci sami niso sposobni nagnati Ruse iz Ukrajine, in bi s sprejemom v Nato avtomatsko bili v vojni tudi mi in ves nato. Saj veste tisto, če je napadena ena članica - potem so vse.
Potem bi imeli podporniki ukrajincev priliko, da se priko slovenske vojske ali mobilizirancev sami aktivno vključijo v spopade v Ukrajini, in pokažejo svojo ljubezen Ukrajini in jo z orožjem odbranijo. Mislim, da jih bodo ukrajinci z veseljem ponucali za kanonfutr. :evil:

Kaj pa vi mislite o tem predlogu?
Če bi kdaj prišlo do tega bi najprej popucali domače simpatizerje z rusi. Me zanima hitrost tvoje spreobrnitve. Kaj pa ti misliš o tem predlogu?
 
  • Všeč mi je
Reactions: damirj

Slovenet

Guru
21. jul 2007
4.418
536
113
43
Še vedno Rdeči revirji
Predstavnik Nata: Naj se Ukrajina odreče delu ozemlja za članstvo v Natu? Kijev idejo zavrača.

Prav škoda, da Kijev to idejo (zarnkrat še) zavrača.
Ker očitno da ukrajinci sami niso sposobni nagnati Ruse iz Ukrajine, in bi s sprejemom v Nato avtomatsko bili v vojni tudi mi in ves nato. Saj veste tisto, če je napadena ena članica - potem so vse.
Potem bi imeli podporniki ukrajincev priliko, da se priko slovenske vojske ali mobilizirancev sami aktivno vključijo v spopade v Ukrajini, in pokažejo svojo ljubezen Ukrajini in jo z orožjem odbranijo. Mislim, da jih bodo ukrajinci z veseljem ponucali za kanonfutr. :evil:

Kaj pa vi mislite o tem predlogu?
Upoštevanje tea predloga bi ustvarilo pri Putinu vtis, da gre lahko do Lizbone in Aten, pa mu bodo vsi kimali. Torej nekaj podobnega kot Chamberlainov Münchenski sporazum s Hitlerjem. Kao ne bo vojne, potem pa je sledil napad na Poljsko. Tega res ne rabimo. Edina rešitev za tole je Ukrajincem vse orožje, da sterajo okupatorje iz države. Edini pogoj mora biti, da se ustavijo na mednarodno priznanih mejah Ukrajine. Če uničujejo vojaške cilje v Rusiji ne vidim težav, dokler ni osvobojena celotna Ukrajina.
 

delter333

Guru
21. maj 2010
1.823
1.523
113
Notranjska
se strinjamo z UA...Bi bil pa čas da ZDA, malo bolj konkretno poseže v tole zadevo. Majo orožje, vojake, pa na juriš, pa naj malo poka tud pr vladotu.
Na žalost to vojno vodi AI. Američani natanko vedo koliko lahko Ukrajincem dajo da ne potamanijo Rusov prehitro. Tudi vso to zahodno tehniko kar so jo dobili se učijo pravilno uporabljati na žalost je bojišče najboljša šola. Ukrajinci pa imajo sedaj tako ali tako več izkušenj kakor vsi inštruktorji na zahodu.
Kot sem nekje zasledil so Rusi pod vtisom lanske Ukrajinske ofenzive, zato je bila naloga da ne predajajo ozemlja, zato so bili na začetku kar "trigger happy"
zdaj jim zmanjkuje rezerv za pokrivanje Ukrajinskih upadov.
 

Floki

Guru
6. sep 2007
10.076
3.160
113
Upoštevanje tea predloga bi ustvarilo pri Putinu vtis, da gre lahko do Lizbone in Aten, pa mu bodo vsi kimali. Torej nekaj podobnega kot Chamberlainov Münchenski sporazum s Hitlerjem. Kao ne bo vojne, potem pa je sledil napad na Poljsko. Tega res ne rabimo. Edina rešitev za tole je Ukrajincem vse orožje, da sterajo okupatorje iz države. Edini pogoj mora biti, da se ustavijo na mednarodno priznanih mejah Ukrajine. Če uničujejo vojaške cilje v Rusiji ne vidim težav, dokler ni osvobojena celotna Ukrajina.

Dolgo smo poslušali o tistih 72 urah kolikor naj bi rabili za osvoboditev Kieva pa po enih 100 objavah jih sedaj vsaj večina ve da to ni prišlo iz ust Putina. A imaš ti kakšno izjavo o pohodu do Aten in Lizbone ali je to spet ena tistih 72 ur....zelo rad bi jo kje videl je do sedaj je nisem zasledil, link bo dovolj a ne do kakega reddit uporabnika ali pa 123.
Saj lahko z dejstvi operirate ni treba pravljic govorit.
 
  • Objave ne odobravam
Reactions: damirj