Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

WikiLeaks Cables Foreshadow Russian Instigation of Ukrainian Military Action

Posted by Soulskill on from the if-only-anybody-had-bothered-to-read-them dept.

Now that Russia has sent troops to seize the Crimean Peninsula, international politics are tense and frantic. An anonymous reader notes an article from Joshua Keating at Slate, which points out that some of the diplomatic cables on WikiLeaks illustrate how this situation is not at all unexpected. Quoting a cable from October, 2009: "... pro-Russian forces in Crimea, acting with funding and direction from Moscow, have systematically attempted to increase communal tensions in Crimea in the two years since the Orange Revolution. They have done so by cynically fanning ethnic Russian chauvinism towards Crimean Tatars and ethnic Ukrainians, through manipulation of issues like the status of the Russian language, NATO, and an alleged Tatar threat to 'Slavs,' in a deliberate effort to destabilize Crimea, weaken Ukraine, and prevent Ukraine's movement west into institutions like NATO and the EU." The article points out another cable from a few days later, which was titled, "Ukraine-Russia: Is Military Conflict No Longer Unthinkable?"

57 of 479 comments (clear)

  1. "pro-Russian forces in Crimea" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    and now let's talk about the leaked documents involving the "pro-western forces in the Ukraine""

    1. Re:"pro-Russian forces in Crimea" by Tablizer · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Just like the Cold War when half the world's nations were treated like nothing more than political footballs by both sides. It's partly why the Middle East is such a mess as both sides propped up dictators and fools and blowback fuel.

      --
      Table-ized A.I.
    2. Re:"pro-Russian forces in Crimea" by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 4, Funny

      And so what? If Ukrainians decide to go west, that's fine with me. Certainly more fine than when Russia decides that Ukrainians will go east. If Ukraine tried to do the same to Russia, they'd get invaded too. In fact, whenever X has problems with Russia or Russia has problems with X, the end result is always that Russia invades X. We've seen this.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    3. Re:"pro-Russian forces in Crimea" by arglebargle_xiv · · Score: 4, Insightful

      So wait: now EVERY country that has a Russian minority can expect to be invaded by Russia?

      It'd never happen. I mean, that'd be like every country that had a German minority being invaded by Germany.

    4. Re:"pro-Russian forces in Crimea" by ilguido · · Score: 4, Funny

      Well, it usually works. Don't fix it, if it ain't broken.

      More seriously, Ukraine is a failed state at the mercy of the shenanigans of both western and Russian shills. And, more importantly, neither party, Russia and West, act for the better of the Ukrainian people.

    5. Re:"pro-Russian forces in Crimea" by wheelbarrio · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I'm sorry but that is just the weakest moral equivalence BS. The fact that both parties to a dispute have tarnished reputations has no bearing on the rightness or wrongness of their current cause. Some details for you to think about, if you care to come off the fence:

      * Ukraine has been pretty badly run since independence but it's hardly a "failed state" - at 117 out of 178 countries it's not even in the bottom half of the index (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_Failed_States_Index) - the US is 159 if you want to know.
      * The overt and covert hands of Russia are MUCH more evident in Ukraine than the West's. US foreign policy been incredibly inward-looking of late and not much bothered with the complexities of post-Soviet states' politics (a mistake). EU is in play but mostly economically - this is the proximate cause of this whole recent mess.
      * The 'Ukrainian people' means different things to different people - if you're an ethnic Russian in Crimea you live in Ukraine but probably have much more allegiance to mother Russia than the government in Kiev. If you're a kid in Kiev born post-Soviet era to ethnic Ukrainian parents, different deal. Ethnic Tatar, different again.
      * People who live in Ukraine should decide how they are governed. If that means some regions split off and join Russia leaving a rump that is European-looking, fine.
      * The one certainty once Russia gets involved militarily is that people will needlessly die, many Ukrainians will lose the right to choose their destiny, and the West will look foolish for having dealt with Putin's Russia as anything except an nuclear-armed oligarchic petrostate, i.e. a bad actor. How European countries let themselves become dependent on Russian oil and gas supplies with no thought for exactly this kind of contingency is beyond me. What are they going to do now, threaten economic sanctions that involve turning off their own heating?

      So let's be careful before casting judgement but don't just throw the hands up and say "pot, kettle". I blame FOX (because I can) for having destroyed the critical thinking faculties of a generation of Americans with their discovery/invention of the "Fair and Balanced" trope, even amongst people that don't watch the damn channel.

    6. Re:"pro-Russian forces in Crimea" by ilguido · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The 'Ukrainian people' means different things to different people - if you're an ethnic Russian in Crimea you live in Ukraine but probably have much more allegiance to mother Russia than the government in Kiev. If you're a kid in Kiev born post-Soviet era to ethnic Ukrainian parents, different deal. Ethnic Tatar, different again.

      I don't want to start a heated debate, so I'll answer only this point: saying that "the 'Ukrainian people' means different things to different people" is the exact mistake that brought them at this point. The Ukrainian people is all the people that dwells Ukraine: Ukrainians, Russians, Hebrews, Romanians, Poles and Tatars. The opposition parties should have been more levelheaded: if they really wanted to keep Ukraine united, they should have tried to keep the people (all of them) united. Instead they let the nationalists take a big part in the whole process, including rejecting a reasonable deal mediated by the EU with a president that was actually democratically elected and had a lot of support in vast areas of the country, taking three seats in the government including ministry of defence, and removing the Russian language from the list of the official languages of the country.

      I'm not saying that Russia is right, but that the revolutionaries acted quite stupidly: they should have tried to wheedle ethnic minorities, not stir them up.

    7. Re:"pro-Russian forces in Crimea" by argStyopa · · Score: 3, Funny

      I have to admit, It's kinda cool that Putin posts on slashdot.

      --
      -Styopa
    8. Re:"pro-Russian forces in Crimea" by pellik · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Did you read the part in the summary which clearly states these actions were done at the behest of Moscow in order to destabilize the region and justify their eventual invasion?

    9. Re:"pro-Russian forces in Crimea" by ultranova · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Well, as a Russian citizen I don't consider the government to be in any way imperialist.

      That's probably safest. Wouldn't want to accidentally eat polonium.

      There was outright attempt of genocide in Ossetia.

      Of course there was. And Winter War was started by the shelling of Mainila.

      Some countries never change. But at least they act as efficient evangelists for Nato.

      Both Ukraine and Georgia issues are started by blatant cases of cultural imperialism.

      No, they were started by Putin trying to build a third Russian Empire on the ruins of Soviet Union. At this point the hope for Russia, the region and perhaps the world is that old age does its job before he can cause irreparable damage.

      The truly sad thing is that it's saber-rattling like this that keeps Russia from assuming the place its size, population and natural resources would otherwise entitle it to. No one wants to deal with people who renege on their deals and send in the military the second they get - or manufacture - an excuse. Why do you think Ukrainians hated the very thought of "closer ties" - also known as chains - with Russia enough to revolt?

      All former soviet republic countries are ruled by former soviet statesmen who want to justify their positions by encouraging local nationalism.

      And Russia is the worst of the lot.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    10. Re:"pro-Russian forces in Crimea" by Raenex · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Partition of Soviet Union was a joke, most of its people was against it.

      If you mean most Russians were against it, that wouldn't surprise me. If you mean the people in the countries being subjugated to rule from Russia, you're clearly biased.

  2. Sarah Palin by Vinegar+Joe · · Score: 3, Funny

    Predicted the same thing in 2008.

    --
    "The average reporter we talk to is 27 years old......They literally know nothing." - Ben Rhodes
    1. Re:Sarah Palin by amiga3D · · Score: 4, Funny

      Today Ukraine, tomorrow Alaska? They've been bitching about getting ripped off back in 1867 when they sold it to the US for 7.2 million dollars. After the discovery of Gold and Oil there it looks like they got fucked over. No wonder Palin is nervous.

    2. Re:Sarah Palin by sumdumass · · Score: 3, Funny

      I think you have Tina Fey and Sarah Palin confused.

      Unless you are thinking about the short run hit "Who's Nailin' Paylin?".

  3. Well ... what do you expect by giorgist · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If the US could invade Iraq without UN support and under the pretense of the moral high ground as defined by the US, then so can Russia invade Crimea. If the Kosovo can leave Serbia and become it's own country under the support of the US even though it is historically Serbian but by population Albanian so can Crimea which has a Russian majority. The US has made their bed and now it is sleeping in it. Precedence is a bitch, the US set the precedent and now they are winging about what is happening in Crimea !! Russia supplies 60% of Europe's energy and it will increase to 80% ... the US has nothing to stand on. If they apply sanctions, the Russians will increase the price of gas and oil and have Europe pay for them just for giggles.

    1. Re:Well ... what do you expect by phantomfive · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The US has made their bed and now it is sleeping in it.

      Wow, talk about ameri-centrism. This isn't about the US bro, this is about Ukraine and Russia. The US isn't suffering here, Ukrainians are. The US has nothing to do with it except the complaints of a whining president.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    2. Re:Well ... what do you expect by AHuxley · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Re This isn't about the US bro
      The US spent a lot on color revolution efforts over the years and really wants to see some payback
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O...
      US campaign behind the turmoil in Kiev (26 November 2004)
      http://www.theguardian.com/wor...
      The US really wants NATO up against Russia (encirclement, containment) - like the Soviet Union used Cuba.

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    3. Re:Well ... what do you expect by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      US invaded Iraq, tried to reform the government, and eventually left.

      Russia invaded Crimea, and may soon attempt to annex it.

      That's a big difference, legally and morally.

      Well, to be fair, Crimea was part of Russia until 1964 when Nikita Khrusjtsjov arbitrarily gave it away to Ukraine (according to some historians he did so while drunk). The majority of the people there identify with being Russian. Not saying Putin is right, but he is welcomed by many there.

    4. Re:Well ... what do you expect by drolli · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Now thats an unfair comparison. There were never that many interest or citizens of the US in Iraq as Russians in Crimea.

      Since the revolution i hoped that Ukraina and EU do the most reasonable thing: Declare that Russia can keep the military base there (in the best interest of everybody), declare that the crimea is automonous in many aspects, and make an agreement that Russian is the second official language in Ukraina, and the first in the East part and the Crimea. Make a trade agreement and offer Russia Ukraina as a marketplace to access EU. Give Russia the prospect of becoming associated (not member, but free trade) with the EU via this way.

      History has no rewind button. Russian speaking population is now living everywhere in the former Soviet union, and we have seen example of discrimination of Russians in other countries (Baltic states) before, where in some it was forbidden to speak russian.

      The nationalist political games which the west does not keep a safe distance from are not good.

    5. Re:Well ... what do you expect by TapeCutter · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You seem to have forgotten Bush's temper tantrum when the UNSC refused to endorse his invasion plans. The things you list were reasons to invade but they don't add up to a "right" to invade, to do that the US had to dump long held foreign policy, ignore existing treaties, and adopt something called the Bush doctrine.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    6. Re:Well ... what do you expect by Half-pint+HAL · · Score: 5, Informative

      Actually the US had every right to invade Iraq. After the first Gulf War the cease fire conditions called for UN inspection of Iraq for chemical weapons. Saddam impeded the inspectors at every turn. He continuously sent fighters into the no flight zone also. Violations of the cease fire agreement were so numerous as to make it a joke. Look at it as simply a continuance of the original conflict.

      As I recall it, Saddam said the UN inspectors were welcome, as long as there were no American inspectors there, because he was convinced they were CIA spies. Hans Blix felt this was reasonable, the Americans said "hell no" and used their permanent security council status to block any agreement to carry on without any US presence on the ground. In effect, it was the US that stopped the inspections.

      --
      Got them moderator blues I blieve I walk out the do', With these mod-points I been gettin', I 'most never post no mo'
    7. Re:Well ... what do you expect by CSMoran · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Precedence is a bitch, the US set the precedent and now they are winging about what is happening in Crimea !!

      Precedence only matters in law, in places that use common law. In other legal systems, precedence doesn't matter at all.

      It matters diplomatically and in propaganda.

      --
      Every end has half a stick.
    8. Re:Well ... what do you expect by shia84 · · Score: 5, Informative

      Please elaborate a bit more on your first sentence. I don't live there, so I have to rely on Wikipedia etc., but the population of Crimea is around 2 million, out of which 58% (1.16m) are Russians and 12% (0.24m) are Tatars, with 24% Ukraininans.
      If 100% of Sevastopol (population of 380'000) were Russian, that still leaves 780'000 Russians vs 240'000 Tatars for the rest of Crimea. I'd say if anything, Crimea on the whole is ethnically Russian.

      Maybe you're referring to the historical development. But I don't see how 3 centuries of Tatar rule take precedence over 4 centuries of Bulgarian rule, 2 centuries of Kievan Rus' rule (both slavic) and all the others (Greeks, Goths, Huns, ....) before the Tatars arrived in the 15th century. And for the Russian rule since the 18th century, afaict the whole pretext for the subjugation was that the Crimea was slavic lands.

    9. Re:Well ... what do you expect by Dachannien · · Score: 5, Interesting

      As I recall it, Saddam said the UN inspectors were welcome, as long as there were no American inspectors there, because he was convinced they were CIA spies.

      No, Saddam didn't want the inspectors there because he didn't want actual evidence to get out that he didn't have WMDs. He was more afraid of Iran than he was the US, and he said as much after he was captured and before he was executed.

    10. Re:Well ... what do you expect by cold+fjord · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The US spent a lot on color revolution efforts over the years and really wants to see some payback

      Russia has spent a lot on separatism efforts in many countries after the Soviet Union, centered in Russia, had previously shipped ethnic Russians to live in many occupied countries, often after engaging in various flavors of ethnic cleansing or other mass killings. We can expect more "protection" to be needed by those Russian in years to come, and Russian aggression and occupation of those countries will always be a danger under the current Russian government.

      US campaign behind the turmoil in Kiev (26 November 2004)
      http://www.theguardian.com/wor...

      There is a great deal that the account you reference leaves out, including government election fraud and thuggery. Lets add some more background.

      Ukraine's Orange Revolution

      The US really wants NATO up against Russia (encirclement, containment) - like the Soviet Union used Cuba.

      Having regained its independence after a long, bitter period of foreign rule, Ukraine really, really wants to remain independent with its territory intact. By itself against Russia it is unlikely to do so given Russia's history and power, as we are seeing demonstrated now, and previously in Georgia.

      You may recall that the Ukrainians have plenty of motivation to be free of Russia since a special word is used for the crime against humanity inflicted upon them by the Soviet Union, the heart of which was Russia: Holodomo. The Ukrainian terror famine killed perhaps as many as 10,000,000 people as the police, secret police, and army were used to confiscate food and prevent people from leaving.

      The Soviet Story - trailer
      The Great Famine

      The Soviet Union had to be contained, Russia didn't ..... or are we seeing now that it does?

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    11. Re:Well ... what do you expect by cold+fjord · · Score: 3, Informative

      The Soviet Union shipped ethnic Russians to live in many "Soviet Republics," including the conquered and annexed Baltic nations of Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia. They did that as a means to pacify the annexed territory. Those populations are now serving as an excuse for Russian intervention and occupation. Can we expect to see Russia annexing those territories again due to the presence of Russian minorities? Is this the Sudetenland all over again? Does the world learn?

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    12. Re:Well ... what do you expect by Megol · · Score: 3, Insightful
      If they want to live as Russians they can move to Russia.

      Unless Russian leaders want to have them as an excuse to pressurize the colonized countries instead and don't really care about them.

    13. Re:Well ... what do you expect by phantomfive · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If Russia stops trying to take territory from other countries, it won't need to be contained.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    14. Re:Well ... what do you expect by microbox · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Saddam impeded the inspectors at every turn.

      The actual inspectors on the ground disagree with this assessment.

      --

      Like all pain, suffering is a signal that something isn't right
    15. Re:Well ... what do you expect by Kharny · · Score: 4, Insightful

      yes, shocking, people who immigrated to a foreign nation finally had to learn the nations language, just like everyone else who does that.

      Only in their case, they got to wait a bit longer than most people.

      I'm sorry, but the fact is that the russians that lived in the former baltic states had the ability to learn the native languages for years, but refused in their imperialist pride.

      Furthermore, there is always the option to leave the country they illegally occupied for years and move back to their own nation of russia.

      --
      Make a man a fire and he will be warm for a day, set a man on fire and he will be warm for the rest of his life
  4. The only thing I care about. by Erikderzweite · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I don't care who is right or wrong in the Ukraine, I don't care who is more manipulative: EU, USA or Russia. I don't care who has stolen more: Yanukovych or Tymoshenko. I pity those who died in this conflict, but I don't even care who has started the bloodshed.

    There is one thing that I care about though. On one side of this conflict are Nazis. The "Right Wing", one of the main pushing forces in this uprising, are Nazis. They use Nazi symbols and slogans, they praise WWII Nazi collaborators as their heroes, their leader Yarosh (now the Deputy Secretary of the National Security and Defence Council of Ukraine) said that Russian people will never give up their ethnics and culture and therefore have to be eliminated.

    So, if the Nazis are on one side, I'm on the other. No corruption can justify aligning with Nazis. I don't give a fuck how decent the majority of the protester might be. They. Fought. Side-by-side. With. Nazis.

    1. Re:The only thing I care about. by mc6809e · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Well the Russians joined the Nazi invasion of Poland on September 17th, 1939, so there's that, too.

    2. Re:The only thing I care about. by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 4, Informative

      You say this as if the other side doesn't have its own Nazis. Here is what the synagogue in Simferopol looks like, a day after its takeover by the local pro-Russian "self-defense force". The text says "Death to Jews".

      Also, Crimean Tatars are not happy about Russian takeover for a good reason stemming from their own recent history. You might want to look it up on Wikipedia.

      Oh, and the guy they've put in charge of Crimea? He has statues of Stalin and Dzerzhinsky in his work cabinet.

    3. Re:The only thing I care about. by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I see. So it's fair to say that whenever some right-wing shit happens to come out in favour of something you also favour, you'll instantly disavow it?

      Oh, yes, that is very sensible.

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    4. Re:The only thing I care about. by jklovanc · · Score: 4, Interesting

      They. Fought. Side-by-side. With. Nazis.

      You need to go back a little further and read a little history. In 1932-1933 there was a famine caused by Russia which killed over 2 million Ukrainians. When the Germans invaded they were seen as liberators by many as they were kicking out the hated Russians. The enemy of my enemy is my friend. I also wonder if Russia is spinning WW2 ties with the German army to make their case look better.

    5. Re:The only thing I care about. by amiga3D · · Score: 3, Informative

      After Stalin caused the death of millions of Ukrainians I can see why they would prefer the Nazis. The lesser of two devils.

    6. Re:The only thing I care about. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

      They. Fought. Side-by-side. With. Nazis.

      Yarosh and his ilk are bad news. They are not representative of the majority of Ukrainians in the western half of the country. Given what Stalin did to the Ukrainian population, it's understandable that there are present-day extremists who have adopted their positions from those who welcomed the Nazis as liberators. (That was a really bad decision, by the way. After Stalin had starved millions of them to death, they got stomped on by the Nazis, and then got stomped on again by Stalin towards the end of the war. They were fucked either way, but the way things worked out, they got fucked three times.)

      There are lots of "they" in the movement to depose Yanukovych. There are hard-right elements within the Maidan, but they are not representative of the Maidan. (The closest American political analogies would be that the KKK is not representative of conservatism, let alone the GOP, and that Occupy Wall Street is not representative of the progressive movement, let alone the DNC.)

      For what little it's worth, I think the most reasonable solution is to divide the country. Most of the land mass of Ukraine leans towards Europe, but some of that land mass, specifically Crimea, leans towards Russia. (This is in large part due to Stalin-era resettlements, but WW2 is long over, and so is the Holodomor, so it ought to be a moot point.) If Putin wants is a port for his fleet (he does), and if the Crimean region wants to ally itself with Russia (it does, by as large a margin as Western Ukraine wants to ally with Europe), then they should probably be free to leave.

      The interesting question is how much more Ukranian territory Putin wants as a buffer zone between Europe and Russia. (Having a buffer zone is kind of a Russian thing. I can't say I blame them, given the history of invasions from Europe...) A partitioned Ukraine shrinks that buffer zone considerably. Taking all of Ukraine by force back into the Russian fold would, at the moment, imply a war whose costs could well exceed the worth of the natural gas reserves and the fleet. The question is -- how much territory is enough for Putin, and will the rest of Ukraine cede it?

      I think this all ends diplomatically. Neither Ukraine, nor Russia, nor the rest of Europe, has much to gain from a civil war. Maybe all that needs to happen is Ukraine extends the lease on the port for a decade or two on the cheap. Or something to do with gas royalties. This is the sort of problem that is best solved by bankers and ballots, not bullets.

    7. Re:The only thing I care about. by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Except the synagogue was not taken over by "pro-Russian self-defence forces". According to the Jewish association director someone climbed over the fence and made this "graffiti". I saw no claim that pro-Russian forces are behind this.

      The point is that the graffiti was not there the day before (when, presumably, those "Nazis" were in charge), and now it is.

      In any case, there's plenty of Nazi-like talk coming from Russia and easily seen in comments on YouTube and elsewhere on the Net. How about Sergei Lukyanenko: "There is no such country as Ukraine, and what's there is destined to be either a part of Russia or a Polish protectorate". And there's plenty of far cruder stuff out there if one cares to look.

      Don't kid yourself. The Russian tricolor and the orange-black striped ribbon are now as much Nazi symbols as swastika and SS runes.

      Crimean Tatars were known Nazi collaborators during WWII.

      What, every single one of them? You're trodding awfully close to nazism yourself.

      Nonetheless, they still live on the peninsula.

      Well yes, they were allowed to return there in 1989, shortly before Ukraine gained independence, which is the only reason why they're there now. To remind, Stalin - you know, the guy whom the new prime minister of Crimea is apparently a huge fan of - resettled all Crimean Tatars from Uzbekistan in 1944, with almost half perishing in the process.

    8. Re:The only thing I care about. by hydrofix · · Score: 4, Informative

      They. Fought. Side-by-side. With. Nazis.

      You would be surprised to hear that many democratic countries in present-day Europe apart from the Nazi-Germany itself fought alongside the Nazis in WWII, including Italians, Finns, Romanians, Bulgarians and Norwegians. And these were the real-deal WWII genociding, totalitarian, Führer-hailing Nazis – not some modern-day, nostalgic Neo-Nazis, who don't even know how to genocide. And apart from those countries that fought alongside them, in the 1930s Nazis had large amounts of supporters in every Western country, and their policies were widely regarded as progressive, modern and necessary. Nowadays we know that the Nazi policies led to ruin, but the masses of the 1930s did not and thought they were behaving rationally. Do you think human thinking has changed much in mere 80 years?

    9. Re:The only thing I care about. by Half-pint+HAL · · Score: 3, Insightful

      ... they praise WWII Nazi collaborators as their heroes,...

      So, if the Nazis are on one side, I'm on the other.

      Ergo you are on the side of Joseph Stalin. Death camps. Force labour. Expansionist military aggression. Civilian infrastructure retooled to produce a state-controlled war machine. Genocide of perceived "lesser races". Rejection of religious freedom. Restriction of travel. Secret police encouraging people to inform on their neighbours. Thought police enforcing the norm through "party membership" as a de facto prerequisite for employment.

      All the evils we see from the Nazis were evils that Soviet Union had been visiting on its population for a good decade before Hitler rose to power. Knowing what Stalin was doing to them already, and not knowing that the Nazis were equally dangerous as Stalin, it was perfectly logical for them to side with the Nazis.

      --
      Got them moderator blues I blieve I walk out the do', With these mod-points I been gettin', I 'most never post no mo'
    10. Re:The only thing I care about. by Erikderzweite · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The war would be bloodier and take more time, but keep in mind that the vast majority of Lend Lease shipments happened after 1943. Prior to 1943 the Allies delivered much less than promised, e.g. only about one fifth of arranged trucks. The western front also happened in 1944, way after Stalingrad and Kursk.

      The Soviets could successfully move their war production east to the Urals and defend the country till the production was running at full speed. The Germans simply didn't have enough resources to push further.

  5. Re:Still far from... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    Ha, jokes on him, You can't destroy mass.

  6. Why not just give up? by hydrofix · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Why shouldn't Ukraine just give up Crimea for the sake of national unity? Ukraine as a whole seems to be flying from one crisis to another, and it is seems to be torn between the pro-Russia and pro-West factions. Maybe Ukraine should just focus building its future as a Western country, and give up those territories where the population wants to live under Russian rule. Maybe later those areas can then join Ukraine if they so wish, like happened with the unification of West and East Germany.

    1. Re:Why not just give up? by ZarathustraDK · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Actually not a bad idea.

      If Ukraine ceded control of Crimea it would gain more unity, and have less trouble separating itself from Russia and foster its ties with the EU. Crimea is an autonomous region with its own government, so Ukraine stand to lose very little from there other than having a national minority there (they still have access to the Black Sea from the mainland). Russia OTOH gains very little: They already have a fleetbase there, and a national majority that'll follow their whim, that wont change with annexation. They will, however, have to contend with a large ukrainian minority that will be none too happy of their new overlords, and who can get reinforced from their homeland easily. Also, they'll obliterate any chance of moving at Ukraine as a whole, because this action will fan anti-russian sentiment.

      All in all, the move on Crimea is a provocation from Russia trying to destabilise Ukraine. They may end up getting Crimea, but if they fail to throw Ukraine into chaos, then they come out of this the loser.

      --
      If you quote this signature there'll be 72 copies of Windows ME waiting for you in Heaven.
    2. Re:Why not just give up? by AHuxley · · Score: 3, Interesting

      A split would work well. The pro Western faction can be happy under US protection. The EU can rush in with loans (banker bail in) and generations in the region return to having laws passed from EU vs Soviet Union.
      New pipeline deals with a new, split, weak Ukraine start to look amazing to the EU :)
      The US gets NATO very near Russia under the cover of a new, split, weak Ukraine "invite".
      Other parts go to Russia, Russians in the area feel safe, Russia keeps its mil happy with vital areas still been in Russian hands.
      Win win win win for bankers with new 'loan' energy contracts, the USA, Russia, EU .... Ukraine escapes the horror of the Soviet Union only to be occupied in parts by the USA, EU and Russia.
      Fun and years of extra funding for CIA, FSB and MI6 too.

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    3. Re:Why not just give up? by guacamole · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I wonder the same. Crimea is historically neither Russian nor Ukrainian. It was populated by Tatars who constantly launched attacks against everyone north of them. Once they burned Moscow to ground. It was conquered by Russian Empire in 18th century culminating a rivalry that lasted for centuries. Crimea was defended by Russian Empire in the Crimean War of the 19th century. A lot of Russian blood was spilled there, and nationalist politicians in both Russia and Ukraine constantly manipulate the popular sentiment. It's a big problem for Ukraine.

      However, I can see one reason why Ukraine may be reluctant to part with Crimea. It could only be a beginning of further partition of Ukraine. For example, once in control of Crimea Russia and its brethren in Ukraine could start a new campaign now to transfer the cities of Kharkiv and Donentsk to Russia, again both heavily dominated by Russians, and so on. The nationalist Russian politician Vladimir Zhirinovsky has said many times that he sees a division of Ukrain where the west Ukraine has capital in Lviv, surrounded by 4-5 west Ukrainian provinces. No matter what happens, this conflict will go on for a LONG time...

  7. Re:NATO expansion. It's all that simple by WoOS · · Score: 5, Interesting

    > Kremlin had no other choices left with Ukraine.
    Really? Like peaceful coexistance?

    Putin is wagering it all. If he does not get at least Crimea from this (or even the whole SE of the Ukraine) he has a major defeat on his hands: Confidence in Russia fulfilling its contracts (they guaranteed Ukraine's teritorial integrity for getting back USSR nuclear weapons) will be severly damaged (also damaging their natural gas trade), the Ukraine will make life a hell for the Russian fleet in Sewastopol by subtle sabotage and the Ukraine now will definitely want to get into NATO as soon as possible.

    With such high stakes he must be very sure, he can win this.

  8. Invasion of Grenada..Anyone..Anyone by msmonroe · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Isn't this what the U.S. did in Grenada?
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I...
    Thatcher sent a message to Reagan: This action will be seen as intervention by a Western country in the internal affairs of a small independent nation, however unattractive its regime. I ask you to consider this in the context of our wider East/West relations and of the fact that we will be having in the next few days to present to our Parliament and people the siting of Cruise missiles in this country. I must ask you to think most carefully about these points. I cannot conceal that I am deeply disturbed by your latest communication. You asked for my advice. I have set it out and hope that even at this late stage you will take it into account before events are irrevocable. (The full text remains classified.)

  9. Re:What does this mean? by AHuxley · · Score: 3

    Re 'not irredentist land grabbers"
    Covert United States foreign regime change actions
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C...
    The US basically swaps out a gov, installs a weak new gov, or supports a gov and then gets a "request" for a shared or join facility (base, covert listening station).
    No need to used the term land grabbers, when a term like research facility, partnership, joint military facilities, radar base, camps, air station, facilities, installations sound so much more normal.

    --
    Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
  10. Re:Soviet Union by guacamole · · Score: 3, Informative

    There was no need to bribe Ukraine. Ukraine was 100% under Soviet control. No one knows why exactly the transfer happened. I believe it was meant to represent a display of friendship between Ukraine and the Soviet leadership. Back then no one would have imagined that the republics could split some day. For example, Russian nationalists are crying crocodile tears because of some territories lost to Kazakhstan during the partition of USSR, though Crimea is the most hurtful thing for them.

  11. Re:Still far from... by sumdumass · · Score: 4, Informative

    Not really, This law defines a WMD for the purpose of domestic law enforcement as basically needing to expel something or cause damage by a projectile being expelled. A BB gun for instance can be a WMD but a rock alone couldn't. However, a rock in a slingshot might be.

    It's tricky narrowing down a definition because it relies on devices defined in section 921 also and that specifically mentioned a starter pistol as a firearm if it can_be modified to shoot a projectile propelled by an explosive device even though it hasn't_been.

    Originally, the term entered popular vocabulary by the use in the Safwan cease fire agreement with Iraq with the first gulf war. How it has changed to include a pencil sharpener or some silly irrelevant objects I don't know.

  12. Re:The primitive division of both sides is appalli by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Because Putin is a neo-Soviet gangster, perhaps? And he's pissed off because the Ukrainian people have tossed out their dictator-in-waiting after the latter's sudden volte-face revealed him to be Putin's creature, maybe?

    --
    Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
  13. They cannot stop with Crimea by Freultwah · · Score: 4, Informative

    Crimea's only freshwater source is the Dnieper River in Ukraine via the North Crimea Canal. The peninsula is not connected to mainland Russia in any way, only to Ukraine via the Isthmus of Perekop, a 5 to 7 km wide strip of land. Without the canal, there is no water on the peninsula if you discount bottled Evian. Desalination is too costly and only possible in coastal cities. Therefore, in order to secure water supply to the newly re-grabbed piece of land, Russia needs to secure the canal and the Kakhovka Reservoir in mainland Ukraine, which means occupying, well, more land.

    1. Re:They cannot stop with Crimea by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 3, Informative

      This is overstating things. Water rights are an old story in many places. People work out having other countries upstream of them, even unfriendly ones. Hell, even India and Pakistan manage. And the only *land* access to the Crimea is over the Isthmus of Perekop, but it is quite accessible across the Kerch Strait, which is very narrow (less than three miles wide), and is serviced by frequent and regular ferries. There are proposals to bridge it as well (it's been bridged in the past).

  14. Re:What does this mean? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I am european, not russian, and certainly not from an eastern block country, and I can say the same. If the US does at it pleases, why not Russia? The "mission" of the US was to invade a foreign country to take down a ruler they didnt fancy, and grab control of the oil supplies. Then about kosovo, nobody cared about two ethnic groups killing each other because there were no resources involved, and UN only intervened when the public outrage was already getting out of control.

  15. Re:Paul the Octopus for president! by ericloewe · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Well, the guy certainly is predictable. It was 100% obvious that he was going to invade as soon as the "local militiamen" (who managed to organize themselves and acquire somewhat modern military equipment and uniforms in two days!) started showing up.

  16. Who wouldn't have predicted this? by swb · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Anyone who has paid even slight attention would have predicted this.

    The Crimea is the home of the Russian Black Sea fleet, Putin is not going to walk away from that (in fact they have a lease, although it has a somewhat dubious approval).

    Putin would like to keep all of Ukraine in his orbit, but I think even he has doubts about his ability to seize Ukraine with force. The West will whine about the Crimea but has no leverage and will just hope they can bluff enough to maintain the rest of the existing Ukrainian borders without having Moscow annex the eastern part, too.

    The whole east/west struggle is something of a pyrrhic victory for no matter who "wins" -- Ukraine's economy is a trainwreck, and the "winner" will have to spend big bucks to keep it propped up, which nobody wants to do.