Orbán holds talks with Putin

1 Comment

1. Sander Driessen says:

   17/07/2018 at 12:15

   Are they making Mr. {utin angry? For what? The old ennemy is no longer Russia, but the US and NATO! What did Ukrainian President Poroshenko do at the NATO summit despite Hungary’s veto? Undoubtedly you have watched the videos, including those of a dumb drunk chairman of the EU commission Jan-Kloot de Drinker, who had to be supported to stay afloat. In addition to the obligatory kiss ceremony with Mark Rutte, we also saw images of the Ukrainian president, Poroshenko, while his country is not a NATO member! It now appears that Poroshenko was personally invited by NATO chairman Jens Stoltenberg, as was also the Afghan president Ashraf Ghani, while NATO member Hungary warned by means of a letter from the Hungarian prime minister Victor Orbán, Stoltenberg that Hungary threatened to veto to serve against any kind of NATO final declaration if Ukraine were present during the last NATO Summit 11 and 12.07.2018. The result was ultimately that Orbán did not use his veto and Poroshenko was present. NATO said that it is a problem between Hungary and Ukraine and no comment could be made, as this is a national matter of both countries. (The betrayal of Trianon is unknown to them!) Due to a law signed in September 2017, Ukraine has drastically reduced the language use of the approximately 140,000 citizens living in the Ukraine with an ethnic Hungarian background, which according to Budapest is contrary to the rules of the law. Venice Convention. The US and hence NATO are very interested in Ukraine and also to keep Georgia a friend in order to maintain Western influence on Russia. The EU is also participating in this process, and in this way Ukraine receives € 12.8 billion in the current budget period, with which the preparations can be financed until accession to the EU. This is far from the highest amount the EU has ever earmarked for such a preparation!
   And finally what was actually agreed at the meeting?
   To give you an idea that when it comes to appointments NATO has not set it up better than with the EU or national Dutch agreements and how end communiqués are carefully written so that you can use it later in all directions, here is a sample: ‘ we agree with each other that we may disagree with each other ‘. In 2014, during the meeting in Wales, the following was ‘agreed’ with regard to the 2% regulation that has now emerged:
   Taking current commitments into account, we are guided by the following considerations: Al-lies currently meeting the NATO guideline to spend at least 2% of their Gross Domestic Product (GDP). Likewise, Allies spending more than 20% of their defense budgets on major equipment, including related Research & Development, will continue to do so. Allies whose current proportion of GDP is spent on defense is below this level will:
   halt any decline in defense expenditure; aim to increase defense expenditure in real terms as GDP grows; aim to move towards NATO Capability Targets and filling NATO Capability shortfalls.
   Note that it is not an agreement that is 2% but an attempt to achieve it. Now after the conclusion of the NATO meeting on 12.07.2018 the final communiqué is as follows:
   We welcome the progress made since the Summit with four consecutive years of real growth in non-US defense expenditure. All Allies have a total of 2% of their Gross Domestic Product on defense by 2024. More than half of Allies are spending more 20% of their defense expenditures on major equipment, including related research and development, and, according to their national plans, 24 Allies will meet the 20% guideline by 2024
   Need we say more?
   The final statements could come from the pen of Mark Rutte, vague, half-truths and facts, a sauce of lies, and we continue happily. Maybe Rutte goes to NATO, does he meet any of the requirements?
   Feel free to contact me because my maps with evidence is overflowing!