Ukraine May Have To Rearm With Nuclear Weapons Says Ukrainian MP

An anonymous reader writes "USA Today reports, "Ukraine may have to arm itself with nuclear weapons if the United States and other world powers refuse to enforce a security pact that obligates them to reverse the Moscow-backed takeover of Crimea, a member of the Ukraine parliament told USA TODAY. The United States, Great Britain and Russia agreed in a pact 'to assure Ukraine's territorial integrity' in return for Ukraine giving up a nuclear arsenal it inherited from the Soviet Union after declaring independence in 1991, said Pavlo Rizanenko, a member of the Ukrainian parliament. ... Russian President Vladimir Putin said that the commitments in the agreement are not relevant to Crimea because a 'coup' in Kiev has created 'a new state with which we have signed no binding agreements.' The U.S. and U.K. have said that the agreement remains binding and that they expect it to be treated 'with utmost seriousness, and expect Russia to, as well.'"

Comments

Works for me!

[ColdWetDog]

Your friend in the Antichrist,

Kim Jong Il

Re:Works for me!

[Katatsumuri]

Yep. The nukes would not help Ukraine in the current crisis. You have to be a crazy dictator to get any of the benefits.

This is just one MP expressing his personal disappointment with the slow reaction of the West.

Re:Works for me!

[Anonymous Coward]

do they have many nuclear scientists, fissionable material, and enrichment facilities? because i don't think russia is going to give them many new ones.

Re:Works for me!

[Anonymous Coward]

Really? You are blind. This is the west. They're the ones told him to say it.

How are nuclear weapons going to help though?

[Anonymous Coward]

Would they actually launch a nuke at their neighbor? Surely not.

Quite frankly I agree with them, we stupidly signed up to be the policeman of the world and now we have an actual job to do if they request it.

Re:How are nuclear weapons going to help though?

[NotDrWho]

Never underestimate a bunch of fanatics. And even the *threat* of them having nukes could easily be enough to start WWIII.

I think we've all gotten complacent with the idea that another World War couldn't happen. They thought the same thing in the 20's (anyone remember the Kellogg–Briand Pact?). But it can not only still happen, but I think people would be surprised at how little it would take to actually set it off. That's why diplomats have to treat shit like this very carefully.

Re:How are nuclear weapons going to help though?

[roc97007]

> Would they actually launch a nuke at their neighbor?

As a last act before being completely overwhelmed by a superior force... what do you think?

Re:How are nuclear weapons going to help though?

[cold fjord]

Never underestimate a bunch of fanatics. And even the *threat* of them having nukes could easily be enough to start WWIII.

The "fanatics" in this case being in Moscow, which as repeatedly threatened its neighbors with attack, including Ukraine. And now it is back to seizing territory as has previously occurred to many of the neighbors of Russia (nee Soviet Union) in the last century: Finland, Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania, Poland, Romania. Now they try again with Ukraine.

Russia threatens nuclear attack on Ukraine - 12 Feb 2008
Russia threatens to aim missiles at Czech Republic, Poland if US installs defence shield - 20-02-2007

Re:How are nuclear weapons going to help though?

[MachineShedFred]

A large swath of Ukraine is already radioactive due to Russian carelessness, so why not?

Re:How are nuclear weapons going to help though?

[Lumpy]

World War I started over basically spilled milk. All Putin has to do is announce that the USA is here to spread gayness and he would have the popular vote to go to war.

Re:How are nuclear weapons going to help though?

[NotDrWho]

Fanatics are on both sides. Throwing more nukes into the mix is going to make an already bad situation 100x worse.

Re:How are nuclear weapons going to help though?

[Lumpy]

I would, I would also rig every single asset to be blown to hell if the nuke did not work. Oh you want me to surrender? sure, let me just push this button here while we sign the surrender papers.

Re:How are nuclear weapons going to help though?

[Katatsumuri]

No-one would do that except maybe some comic book villain.

Re:How are nuclear weapons going to help though?

[cold fjord]

You may recall it was the Russians that invaded.

Do you have any limits to the extent you would permit Russia to seize additional territory? Western Ukraine? Poland? Finland? Malta? Scotland?

Re: How are nuclear weapons going to help though?

[cold fjord]

Russia has never invaded another country without provocation and destroyed its leadership like the US did with Iraq.

You mean like Finland, Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania, and maybe a few others?

Re:How are nuclear weapons going to help though?

[Anonymous Coward]

Nobody wants to be known as the moron that got their country blew off the map not even Kim Dong Lil.

Re:How are nuclear weapons going to help though?

[Immerman]

>That's why diplomats have to treat shit like this very carefully.

Only if the complaintant has nuclear weapons, or strong pacts with nations that do have nuclear weapons and have pledged to threaten to use them on their behalf. There is much wisdom in the MAD strategy - we buy a measure of peace with the threat of making the results of war truly horrifying. If Russia believes they can easily annex part of Ukraine using conventional weapons without invoking a prohibitive response from the US or Great Britain, then why should they not? (I'm talking geopolitics here, not morality.) On the other hand if Ukraine had nukes there would be a very real threat that a retaliatory strike would poison choice parts of Russia, making Russia far less likely to invade in the first place.

The problem primarily arises when nukes find their way into the hands of unstable actors. Or alternately when two Powers misjudge each other's actual position in a game of nuclear brinksmanship, as happened during the Cuban Missile Crisis.

Russia has put the US and Great Britain in a very uncomfortable position - if we fail to convince them to back off we risk undermining decades of disarmament treaties around the world that depend on our promises of defense, and if politics alone can't solve the problem we may very well end up in another game of nuclear brinksmanship.

Re:How are nuclear weapons going to help though?

[NotDrWho]

I don't give a flying fuck who invaded. Starting a nuclear war over some local pissing contest is NOT an option.

Re:How are nuclear weapons going to help though?

[Anonymous Coward]

You know, we heard there are Russians on Brighton Beach that require Putin's protection. Is Vlad "Balls of Steel" Putin sending his "self-defense team" to New York?

Re:How are nuclear weapons going to help though?

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, he sold gayness + fascism to Russians, and just Neo Nazi's to the West.
In the reality, his own state is very nationalistic they failed to look at the mirror to find the enemy to fight.

Re:How are nuclear weapons going to help though?

[NotDrWho]

The problem primarily arises when nukes find their way into the hands of unstable actors

WTF do you think Ukraine is? Giving nukes to an unstable country with a openly hostile relationship with its nuclear neighbor is FUCKING INSANE.

Would you support Russia just handing over a shitload of nukes to Cuba? North Korea? Iran? You know, to protect them from U.S. invasion?

Re:How are nuclear weapons going to help though?

[Ralph Wiggam]

So where do you plan on living after blowing up all of the infrastructure in your own country?

Re:How are nuclear weapons going to help though?

[poetmatt]

What makes you think they would?

This is all posturing and nothing more. It's almost all brought upon by Russia.

Re: How are nuclear weapons going to help though?

[dmesg0]

I fully agree, Russia/USSR has always created a provocation first before invading.

Re: How are nuclear weapons going to help though?

[Anonymous Coward]

and maybe a few others?

Moldova, Georgia, Romania, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, East Germany.

Re:How are nuclear weapons going to help though?

[cold fjord]

Russia has had a treaty to use former Soviet military bases in Crimea, Ukraine, but Putin is now claiming that treaties with Ukraine are void. Russia doesn't have permission to occupy Crimea as it has, nor threaten to annex Crimea. Russia is also threatening a broader war on Ukraine having mobilized its army some time ago. It looks like you're the one that is out of touch. Sorry.

Re:How are nuclear weapons going to help though?

[shutdown -p now]

They have a prior agreement to be in Crimea to secure their naval base in Sevastopol. They certainly don't have any prior agreement to blockade and assault Ukrainian army bases and barracks and border posts.

This isn't even to mention the uniformed troops with no identification patches, which everybody knows are Russian (by their own numerous admissions when asked), but which Russia refuses to acknowledge outright. That alone is a war crime.

Re:How are nuclear weapons going to help though?

[cold fjord]

I don't give a flying fuck who invaded. Starting a nuclear war over some local pissing contest is NOT an option.

Russia clearly considers it an option for many policy issues, hence the threats, and now the invasion.

A discussion of a Cold War Soviet war plan found after the end of the Cold War:

This Is How the World Could Have Ended

Re: How are nuclear weapons going to help though?

[Anonymous Coward]

Adding Poland, Georgia, China, and Mongolia.

Re:How are nuclear weapons going to help though?

[Anonymous Coward]

I think he meant to make the whole region inhospitable if the Nukes didnt do that already.

Re:How are nuclear weapons going to help though?

[xfizik]

Your view is very simplistic.
1. To be fair, with the exception of Romania, all of those countries were part of the Russian Empire not too long (20 years) before they had military conflicts with the USSR.
2. In the end, Poland actually gained territory before and after WWII. Before, Poland got a chunk of Czech territory, after it got part of Germany. Ukraine got a chunk of Romania. Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania became independent countries, which had either never existed (in this case how do you assess what terrirtory is "theirs"?) before or had been absorbed by their neighbors (not just Russia) long time prior.
3. Romania was an ally (probably unwillingly, but still) of the Nazi Germany and there were many Romanian soldiers fighting on the Eastern front against the USSR.
Anyways, my point is that history is not black and white.

Re:How are nuclear weapons going to help though?

[JoeMerchant]

I suspect, having plenty of people who remember living behind the Iron Curtain, that residents of countries like Ukraine would rather emigrate than go back to Russian rule.

Communism wasn't evil, but the communists were - maybe they're not communists anymore, but why would anybody believe that things will be "better this time"?

Re:How are nuclear weapons going to help though?

[CrimsonAvenger]

So, you'd have no problems with Russia picking up bits and pieces of various countries, including, say, France, Germany, and the UK?

Personally, I doubt anyone will do anything this time. Or next time. We'll wait till the choice is "stop them or they're across the Rhine"...and then it'll get ugly. 1940-style ugly.

Re: How are nuclear weapons going to help though?

[CrimsonAvenger]

You forgot Poland in 1939.

Re:How are nuclear weapons going to help though?

[Xiver]

Maybe some state could send an ambassador to negotiate with the Putin and then declare "Peace for our time!" a reality.

Re: How are nuclear weapons going to help though?

[Anonymous Coward]

Dammit, George...

Re:How are nuclear weapons going to help though?

[aaaaaaargh!]

Contrary to what your propaganda sources claim there is not the slightest doubt that Putin has violated public international law and basically all existing treaties between Russia and the Ukraine. It also doesn't take much intelligence to see who's the bad guy here, namely the one who sends masked soldiers as thugs into a peaceful neighboring country claiming they are there for "protection", besieging army bases and threatening & beating up inhabitants who do not speak Russian. The act is particularly evil, because the Russian and the Ukrainian speaking people in the Ukraine never had any problems getting along with each other, and now Putin's thugs are creating unrest in order to destabilize the new government in Kiev.

It's a fucking disgrace and you know it.

Re:How are nuclear weapons going to help though?

[Ralph Wiggam]

The ethnic Russians in Crimea seem quite eager with going back to Russian rule.

Re:How are nuclear weapons going to help though?

[Ralph Wiggam]

Yeah. And where do you plan on living after that? Or do you think that western Europe is going to open its doors to millions of immigrants?

Re:How are nuclear weapons going to help though?

[qbast]

And what other chance Iran has to avoid US invasion? It is coming sooner or later.

Re:How are nuclear weapons going to help though?

[Immerman]

Not saying it's pretty, but I really only see two options. Either we accept that they will have nukes, or we honor the commitments under which we convinced them to give up their nukes. Every moment that we hem and haw and drag our feet about evicting Russia as out treaty demands makes it that much harder to keep nukes out of the hands of Ukraine and even less stable actors. If we can't be trusted to respond on a reasonable timescale, then why would any halfway sane government give up their ability to defend themselves?

Re:How are nuclear weapons going to help though?

[nickmalthus]

How do explain Russia taking over key pieces of infrastructure without violence? I would hazard to guess most Crimeans didn't resist because they didn't oppose it.

Re:How are nuclear weapons going to help though?

[JoeMerchant]

It's never simple...

Re:How are nuclear weapons going to help though?

[nospam007]

"You may recall it was the Russians that invaded."

How can they invade if their fleet is stationed there since forever.

"Do you have any limits to the extent you would permit Russia to seize additional territory? Western Ukraine? Poland? Finland? Malta? Scotland?"

Wrong example countries. The 2 countries were 'engaged' in sowjet times and while drunk, the 'groom' made a gift of the Crimea to the Ukraine, albeit his fleet was stationed there.
Since then the engagement was broken and the groom just wants his present back from the bride.

Re:How are nuclear weapons going to help though?

[Anonymous Coward]

Contrary to your propaganda I think there is actually significant doubt as to whether he has violated international laws. As it stands the Ukraine has experienced a coup/uprising/revolution. The agreements with the government there are at best hazy as to whether they are still legitimate. Secondly Russia has permission to be in the crimea through prior agreements and through invitation of the Crimean government. If there has been an uprising/revolution why is it only the revolution in Kiev that is able to be recognised while crimea must bow to the new natzi dictators?

Re:How are nuclear weapons going to help though?

[nickmalthus]

Amen to that. All those who have wargasms whenever conflict arises have the opportunity to ship out and become foreign fighters. The jihadist do that in Libya, Syria, and Afghanistan. However it much more expedient to be a chicken hawk and send kids barely out of high school to be killed and maimed in war and after the fact complain about high taxes.

Re:How are nuclear weapons going to help though?

[cold fjord]

How to explain it? There isn't much mystery I think.

Careful planning, speedy operations, overwhelming force, and generally achieving at least tactical surprise against a population with no viable means to either fight or defend itself. Even the Ukrainian military garrisons were greatly overmatched.

The Russians seem to have learned from their experiences in Georgia.

Re:How are nuclear weapons going to help though?

[qbast]

What a marvellous idea. You are about to lose and fate of country population is going to depend on victorious army goodwill (or at least basic decency). That's just PERFECT moment for last, monumental fuck you.

Re:How are nuclear weapons going to help though?

[cold fjord]

Greeting your invaders with flowers, salt, and bread doesn't always work out. Ukraine has been through that before.

Re:How are nuclear weapons going to help though?

[roc97007]

The difference here is that the Ukraine already knows what it's like to be under Russian rule. I could imagine that they'd be pretty desperate for that to not happen again.

Re:How are nuclear weapons going to help though?

[Intrepid imaginaut]

The results of war are already truly horrifying. The only thing that nukes bring to the table is the fact that they'll kill the politicians too. Which, unsurprisingly, is enough to prevent open war.

Re:How are nuclear weapons going to help though?

[Intrepid imaginaut]

Oh you mean like Pakistan?

Re:How are nuclear weapons going to help though?

[Intrepid imaginaut]

Communism certainly was and remains evil. It's funny how wherever Marxist theory and it's family members take root, enormous piles of dead bodies tend to accumulate very quickly. The best thing for the universe would be for the derivatives of that drunken deadbeat racist adulterer's work to be expunged from every social and academic body post haste.

Re:How are nuclear weapons going to help though?

[Anonymous Coward]

I have regular access to both Russian and American news sources. I am an American, and most people would consider me a rather hawkish conservative. But I do have a Russian wife, and many of my closest friends are Russian or Ukrainian.

I have no love for Putin.

But the situation in Ukraine is *not* what you think it is if you're following the US media. It may be that Russian influence is causing problems in Crimea, but you should also know that that portion of the country is hugely ethnic Russian, and strongly in favor of Russian rule.

Furthermore, the new Ukrainian "government" has really staged a revolution, and hardly can be said to have popular backing. The leaders of the new government are a bunch of thugs, with *strong* ties to neo-Nazi fascism and came to power through violent means.

The old government in Kiev was corrupt, and needed to go. The president had signed an agreement and a plan was in place for an orderly transition to a more democratic government. The "revolutionaries" couldn't wait for the indicated time, and basically jumped the gun with a coup. Putin is right in that regard.

While I wish Russia would stay out of it, and I am not really sure that Russian "sympathesizers" in Crimea don't have official backing from Russia, I can also see the point of wanting to inject some stability in a region where there are both cultural ties and geopolitical considerations for Russian security.

The best thing would be if everyone would back off a bit, and an formal vote -- with international observers from both the West and Russia -- were held. My guess is that there are actually a couple of votes needed. One to elect a new government (or possibly confirm the existing one, transforming it from an "illegal" government formed by forceful coup into one that is democratically elected), and possibly one for Crimea to determine its fate as either a part of Ukraine, a part of Russia, or possibly as an entirely new state.

I have never been more angry with US media than I have with their handling of this Ukrainian situation. Their handling is extremely biased, to the point of completely yellow journalism. I highly recommend paying attention to other sources. The Russian media is of course hardly objective -- it is state controlled after all, and you can't watch Russian news without seeing Putin on screen talking at least 30% of the time (I think Putin secretly wanted to be a TV star). But, I've found information made available via BBC to be far more objective, and trustworthy, at least in this matter, than our local American media.

Do the research, and try to get the facts. Do not trust US media to give it to you clearly. I don't understand the reasons for the bias, but I guess a combination of post-Soviet bias combined with the fact that "bad" news sells, and what could be worse news than a highly aggressive Russia threatening Europe?

Re:How are nuclear weapons going to help though?

[Anonymous Coward]

No problem; emigrate to Russia.

Re:How are nuclear weapons going to help though?

[Anonymous Coward]

I guess they could just do like the U.S., and illegally invade an entire country.

Hi, you're young and don't know how the world works. That's okay. In the 1990's, The United States went to war with Iraq to save US's pal Kuwait from an Iraqi invasion. That war _literally_ never ended. There was a cease fire (and repeated attacks from Iraq on American forces during the cease fire), but a cease fire is not a peace treaty. The US was well within its rights to go into Iraq at any time, with UN or NATO buddies or solo.

Re:How are nuclear weapons going to help though?

[JoeMerchant]

So, when the party leaders refute their politics and "turn over a new leaf" - it's all better, then?

Re:How are nuclear weapons going to help though?

[Anonymous Coward]

Uh oh.

A thing to consider, pal. Large parts of Americas belonged to various European countries. Can the Queen retake the land those pesky rebellious took away from the Crown?

Let's compare, say, Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, which collapsed and was absorbed by it's neighbors in 1795 with USA which was created in what, 1776? How does one country (or rather an union of two but it's semantics at this point) have any less right to it's land than a country that was ESTABLISHED around that time? By a coup, no less!

Most of the countries, with the exception of Romania, regained their independence from Russia at the end of WW1. Well, okay Finland, Estonia and Latvia weren't, strictly speaking, regaining independence but rather claiming it, but they lived in the various empires which occupied their lands as separate nations, with their own language and culture, and they lived there for quite a while, evident by names of places only in their language and their presence was also noted in neighboring countries' historical documents. If that's not a reason enough to acknowledge their claim to their land, I don't know what is.

Poland and Lithuania are countries with somewhat well-documented histories living in their lands for at least a thousand years. Kinda foolish to assume that they lost the right to their lands when numerically superior force occupied them.

And your last point is pure gold of Westerner/Russian thinking (I doubt using word Allies would sit well with any of the groups at this point). Really, Romania DARED to fight Russia? They DARED to try and take back the territory Russians have taken from them? Preposterous!

Same stands for a whole Eastern Front. Everyone remembers Germans invading, but while Germans were driven out, Russians, under the guise of 'liberation' essentially did the German thing but were not forced to leave. Cause, of course, West were fucking grateful that Russians kept throwing troops to the Jerrie meat grinder thus making life easier in the Western Front.

History is definitely not black and white. It seems though that you claim it's completely opposite.

Ask any of the people who were in semi-adult-and-above age during WW2 which did they prefer, knowing both - Russians, or Germans? I didn't remember anyone mentioning a whole lot of people fleeing to Soviet Union when Jerries struck... Must be yank propaganda though.

Oh and nuclear weaponry is not the answer. I'm not gonna go full armchair-general here, but one would think that in order for the nuclear weaponry to have it's effect of deterring any invaders, you actually need to have some on hand, not just a capability to build them, since I doubt Russians would just sit by and watch Ukrainians do the construct-a-nuke. Also add to that the uneasy possibilities of shitfest rivaling whole twentieth century if West would as much as step on Ukrainian soil to help them, and you have a nasty stuff brewing for the world. Or at least the region.

Re:How are nuclear weapons going to help though?

[turgid]

Scotland?

They wouldn't dare invade Scotland.

And we have these too.

Re:How are nuclear weapons going to help though?

[Lumpy]

Cayman islands.

Re:How are nuclear weapons going to help though?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, they seem to welcome with open arms the men carrying fully automatic rifles and grenades. Surrendering with a smile helps to pass your genes to the next generation. The cullings of the first Soviet Ukraine helped teach that lesson.

Re:How are nuclear weapons going to help though?

[Lumpy]

You seem to confuse Marxisim and Communism.

Communism means everyone helps everyone else, community ownership of the city and the infrastructure. Everyone is equal.
This is of course horrible, dastardly, and evil in the eyes of republicans, how DARE you take my riches and give them to someone who is poor, help help repression of the rich!

Marxisim is far closer to what we have here in the USA. It is class based, the RICH have different rules to live by than the workers do, and they also live differently than the poor. The poor must never have enough to be elevated out of their class, and the same goes for the working class, they must NOT be allowed into the ruling class, but Marx talks about how you pacify both classes by allowing one here and there to be elevated by the way of lottery. Thus it gives the image of hope to them where there really is none. Marx talks about how the rich and working should help the poor to keep them from revolting and rising up.

Re:How are nuclear weapons going to help though?

[Immerman]

Normal war is horrifying for the participants - nuclear war is potentially horrifying for many generations afterwards, and the fallout cannot be contained to your neatly demarcated battlefields.

Not that I disagree with your own assertion though - nothing like having to risk personally paying part of the price to cool off the aspirations of those arm-chair generals who get to call the shots. Not enough to stop them completely of course, but enough that they're slightly less likely to throw away millions of lives at something that may eventually claim their own children. Hey, now there's a thought - how about mandatory front-line service time for the children of any politician involved in approving a war of aggression (or military action - no loopholes), beginning as soon as they're of legal age to join.

Re: How are nuclear weapons going to help though?

[Anonymous Coward]

Another world war (and by world war I mean a conflict between 2 or more first world countries) is unlikely due to the changing effect of propaganda over the years. world wars require nationalism and nationalism requires propaganda. The ability to create effective propaganda today is greatly diminished with the spread of open communication and information.

Re:How are nuclear weapons going to help though?

[khallow]

Contrary to your propaganda I think there is actually significant doubt as to whether he has violated international laws.

Well, soldiers operating without proper identification is a war crime under the 1949 Geneva Conventions and its subsequent modifications(the "Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol I), 8 June 1977."). For example, from Article 37:

1. It is prohibited to kill, injure or capture an adversary by resort to perfidy. Acts inviting the confidence of an adversary to lead him to believe that he is entitled to, or is obliged to accord, protection under the rules of international law applicable in armed conflict, with intent to betray that confidence, shall constitute perfidy. The following acts are examples of perfidy:

[...]

(c) the feigning of civilian, non-combatant status;

Also the use of the Night Wolves violates article 43:

3. Whenever a Party to a conflict incorporates a paramilitary or armed law enforcement agency into its armed forces it shall so notify the other Parties to the conflict.

Re:How are nuclear weapons going to help though?

[Intrepid imaginaut]

By "individual" you mean no other person than the bourgeois, than the middle-class owner of property. This person must, indeed, be swept out of the way, and made impossible.
-Manifesto of the Communist Party

How about we sweep away the communists/marxists/stalinists/feminists/national socialists/maoists instead and save ourselves the effort of digging graves for another hundred million innocent people.

Re:How are nuclear weapons going to help though?

[budgenator]

After what the Russians did at Chernobyl?

Re:How are nuclear weapons going to help though?

[Gavagai80]

Russia is both wealthier and less corrupt than Ukraine today, though. Ukraine is no paradise, it's a mess.

Re:How are nuclear weapons going to help though?

[Anonymous Coward]

The "fanatics" in this case being in Moscow, which as repeatedly threatened its neighbors with attack

Right, put your Russophobic blinders on and ignore the neo-fascist coup in Kyev, and worse, encourage fascist to violate the NPT and arm themselves with nukes, lovely.

And Seizing territory... Calling what's happening in Crimea an occupation is like saying the US is occupying Japan, Jordan, Saudi and dozens of others due to Okinawa and its other military bases- the Black Sea Fleet has been stationed in Sevastopol even before there was a Ukraine. Further, Russia's military presence in Crimea is in line with the terms agree upon by Russia, Ukraine, The Autonomous Republic of Crimea and the Semi-Autonomous Special Region of Sevastopol.

Also, let's not forget that Crimea is a self-governed autonomous republic, asked for Russian assistance, and is holding a referendum to decide its own fate. This isn't a hostile Russian takeover, this is actually democracy, not that forced regime-chance puppet installation westerners insist is "democracy".

And your second link... No but really, reacting to neighbours putting up missile systems on your doorstep by pointing missiles at them is hostile? They're just giving the Poles and Czechs a reason to have those missile systems ex post facto. Plopping down missile systems on Russia's doorstep and trying to encircle it is an act of aggression. LEt's also speak nothing of NATO's eastward expansion in violation of previous agreements. You poke the Northern Bear with a sick, and get all uppity like an offended nun when it wakes up pissed and ready to bite your hand off.

Some of us remember who crushed the fascist when Europe turned a blind eye last time, and what it cost us.
Others would rather turns a blind eye or even encourage neo-fascists to nuclearize. Shameful.

Re:How are nuclear weapons going to help though?

[Anonymous Coward]

Russia isn't threatening to annex anything. Crimea is holding a referendum to decide its own fate, there's a huge difference. Russia's military presence in Crimea is well within the terms agreed upon by Russia, Ukraine and Crimea.

Everyone who knew anything about Ukrainian demographics knew this would happen if Maiden got its way.

Sorry, but you're in no position to question how in touch anyone else is.

Re:How are nuclear weapons going to help though?

[Anonymous Coward]

(by their own numerous admissions when asked)

Do you realize that something like 60% of Crimeans are ethnically Russian, and close to 80% identify as Russian by nationality/identity/birth and speak the language -- largely because it was Russia until 1954? They're even holding a vote to re-join Russia. Ovbiously they're going to identify as Russian when asked.

But who cares how little you know about the situation or how little sense what you're saying makes, as long as it jives with your agenda, right?

Re:How are nuclear weapons going to help though?

[Anonymous Coward]

I suspect, having plenty of people who remember living behind the Iron Curtain, that residents of countries like Ukraine would rather emigrate than go back to Russian rule.

You suspect wrong. That whole civil unrest debacle in the south and east Ukraine? It's because they want to rejoin Russia, or at least the Customs Unions. 52% of the population favors closer ties with Russia, while 48% prefer EU integration. The West of Ukraine hates Russia. Because the Soviets were nasty to Western Ukraine... Of course, this was because the Western Ukrainians collaborated with the Nazis, but you never hear about that.

The Crimea is voting on rejoining with Russia. The Donbas, Kharkhiv and Odessa regions are likely to follow suite.

Re:How are nuclear weapons going to help though?

[budgenator]

It's not posturing, Russia has legitimate interests in the Ukraine such as a warm Water naval base, several natural gas pipelines and I could easily see how Russia would use military force to protect those interests from outside interlopers. Unfortunately using military force to protect those interests from the host nation is going to require a level of brinkmanship that is likely to be beyond even a former KGB Colonel's.

Re: How are nuclear weapons going to help though?

[Anonymous Coward]

+1

Re:How are nuclear weapons going to help though?

[shutdown -p now]

Yes, I do realize that. The problem is that Russian has two distinct words denoting Russian ethnicity/self-identification ("russkiy") and citizenship ("rossiyanin") which does not exist in English. The soldiers in the videos use the word that denotes citizenship. Not to mention various other slip ups (some have even named the place of origin where their units are normally stationed; heck, there was one guy from Pskov VDV who was openly wearing a cap with it inscribed!).

Anyway, at this point, believing that tens of thousands of troops, all dressed in brand spanking new Russian digital camo (which was only adopted a few years before and not used by any other ex-Soviet republic), carrying the best gear that Russian army has at its disposal (Pecheneg, AS Val etc), and riding around on BTRs with Russian flag colors on the tips of their exhausts, are some kind of "spontaneously organized local self defense force" requires going so far beyond Occam's razor that it's not even funny. Anyone who seriously believes that there are no Russian troops in Crimea is either not familiar with the facts, or plainly retarded, or is intentionally misrepresenting the issue.

Re:How are nuclear weapons going to help though?

[ChunderDownunder]

Perhaps you can use those in the upcoming Scottish war of independence...

Re:How are nuclear weapons going to help though?

[brainscauseminds]

It may be that Russian influence is causing problems in Crimea, but you should also know that that portion of the country is hugely ethnic Russian, and strongly in favor of Russian rule.

This is kind-of-almost true, but the majority of the Crimean residents do not support it (yet). At least according to the following study.

In Ukraine, as well as in Russia majority of respondents wants both countries to be independent, but friendly - with open borders, without visas and customs houses (in Ukraine – 68%, in Russia – 59%). In Ukraine with numbers have decreased since November, 2013 by 5%, in Russia – increased by 4%. Integration with Russia into a single state is supported by 12% of respondents in Ukraine, and during recent years this number has decreased from 20% to 9%, but after Maidan – increased by 3%. The main part of supporters of this idea of unification with Russia is in the East (26%) and South (19%), while the smallest part is in the Center (5%) and West (1%) of Ukraine. By regions majority of integration with Russia in one state is in Crimea (41%), Donetsk district (33%), Lugansk district (24%), Odessa district (24%), Zaporizhzhya (17%) and Kharkiv (15%) districts, but even there support to the current status of relations with Russia - as two independent and friendly states – prevails.

Among Russians the desire to have Ukraine and Russia as two independent and friendly states (with open borders, without visas and customs houses) prevails as well as among Ukrainians (68% and 63% respectively). Integration into one state is supported by 9% of Ukrainians and 32% of Russians. There is direct dependence between desire to unite with Russia into a single state and age of respondents: among youth up to 30 years old 5% want this unification to be realized, among people of 30-54 years old – 11% support that, and among people older than 55 years – 17%.

It is obvious, that among supporters of joining the Custom Union, there is more people supporting unification with Russia (26,5%), than among those, oriented on joining the EU (1%). However, even among supporters of entering the Custom Union majority wants to preserve the status-quo in relations with Russia (69%). Among people, having negative attitude towards Maidan, only 21% wants to unite with Russia into a single state. Among supporters of political parties the highest percentage of people, who wants join Ukraine to join Russia, is among communists’ electorate (35,5%), but even in this case majority consider that Ukraine and Russia should be friendly independent states (63%). Among Party of Regions voters 28% support unification with Russia.

In Russia 16% of population support unification with Ukraine into one state.

Re:How are nuclear weapons going to help though?

[Darinbob]

Many of those countries broke away too, and were only subject nations for a relatively short period of time (ie, the passed back and forth over time as the history of European wars went on). At the time of WWI, Soviet control of those countries was relatively weak as they had their own internal problems to finish sorting through, and in WWII most of those countries had been considered independent. USSR took the opportunity to claim some of countries after the war as its own.

The Baltic nations (or the land under them) had been part of Swedish empire for as long as they were a part of the Czarist Russian empire, so they were never really Russian any more than they were Swedish. Whenever they got a chance to get away from Russia or USSR they did so.

And yes, many of those countries did some minor allying with Germany during WWII, often grudgingly, but this was because they feared Stalin more than Hitler, because they remembered their bad history with Russia but Germany was an unknown. But Russia used this as a context for taking over the countries and subsequently punishing them (ie, the Tatars were kicked out of Crimea as punishment for alleged collaboration with Nazis).

Re:How are nuclear weapons going to help though?

[Darinbob]

Russian foreign minister Lavrov has accused Ukraine of violating treatries by not allowing in Russian citizens. So it seems to ignore the treaties on one hand but complains when the other side isn't abiding by them...

(Sort of a silly argument by Lavrov, given that there's effectively an existing state of occupation by either Russian soldiers or pro-Russian separatist militants, so Ukraine would have to be really really stupid to let in even more Russian citizens to undermine the state.)

Re:How are nuclear weapons going to help though?

[budgenator]

What a marvellous idea. You are about to lose and fate of country population is going to depend on victorious army goodwill (or at least basic decency). That's just PERFECT moment for last, monumental fuck you.

I'm not sure victorious army goodwill is something the Russian Army is known for, I have a Polish friend who learned Russian sitting under the muzzle of a soviet tank and he didn't see any victorious army goodwill.

Re:How are nuclear weapons going to help though?

[Darinbob]

Putin has actually denied that they're Russian soldiers. So either he's outright lying, or he's confused, or they're technically not soldiers but still under effective control and budget of Russian military, or he's telling the truth. However the most far-fetched hypothesis seems to be that he's telling the truth, and that there was a highly organized and equipped set of separatists just waiting and ready to go.

Re:How are nuclear weapons going to help though?

[Anonymous Coward]

That would be a problem if they are invading, however they are operating in a country where they were invited. As such there is no convention that requires them to wear any uniform whatsoever.

Re:How are nuclear weapons going to help though?

[Anonymous Coward]

The ethnic Russians in Crimea seem quite eager with going back to Russian rule.

Put a Russian soldier's gun at my head and I'd be willing to try it too. I'm neither Russian, nor Ukrainian, nor on that continent.

Re:How are nuclear weapons going to help though?

[Darinbob]

Openly hostile? Ukraine has not been trying to aggravate Russia, it just happens that Russia is pissed because they're not best friends any more and that Russia's crony is no longer in power. Ukraine was not openly hostile; maybe some of the protesters were, but the protesters were formed from a broad cross section of people with various feelings. I think most Ukrainians before and after this crisis would vastly prefer to remain friends with both east and west instead of being forced to choose just one.

Re:How are nuclear weapons going to help though?

[Anonymous Coward]

Those surveys were BEFORE the change to a far more radical anti-russian government performed the recent coup (not saying it wasn't needed as ukraine government was corrupt), but if you honestly expect those numbers are in the least bit accurate now you are dreaming, their is a very large majority ethnic russian population in crimea that will be extremely uncomfortable with the new government whereas they were at least semi content with the old government. The numbers will have changed wildly from those you sited, especially in the Crimea.

Re:How are nuclear weapons going to help though?

[ericloewe]

Ever heard of MAD?

Re:How are nuclear weapons going to help though?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why should they have to abandon their homes because of some international treaty with a government that no longer exists. It seems the west is far more concerned with ensuring they have open access to ukrainian resources rather tha actually looking at what the people want. While I hardly trust Russia (I am of latvian origin), it seems the only country even addressing what the population actually want is Russia whereas the US and the rest of the west are thinking about is the billions they have invested in causing the uprising to gain access to the resources.

Re:How are nuclear weapons going to help though?

[ericloewe]

"far-fetched". Understatement of the year, and we're still in March.

He's lying.

Re:How are nuclear weapons going to help though?

[shutdown -p now]

He is outright lying (not the first time). Anyone who saw the available video material and who understands Russian well enough to follow the conversations can reach only one conclusion here, since the soldiers in question are readily admitting that they're from Russia on numerous occasions. This is without even getting into how they're equipped (forget the uniforms; if they're hastily organized self-defense units, where'd they get AS Val from?)

Re:How are nuclear weapons going to help though?

[ericloewe]

And it just so happens that you parrot the exact train of thought that Putin and co. keep repeating. I'm sure you formed your opinion through careful thought and research and are not a shill.

Re:How are nuclear weapons going to help though?

[ericloewe]

You'd be suprised just how cooperative people get when there are guns figuratively and literally pointed at their heads.

Re:How are nuclear weapons going to help though?

[cheesybagel]

I still remember the 'spontaneous' Libyan insurgents carrying H&K G36 rifles. That was a riot.

Re:How are nuclear weapons going to help though?

[cheesybagel]

Nah. Its totally bogus. They even had vehicles with Russian Army plates. A lot of them identified themselves as Russian and some units were even identified.

This is just Putin being heavy handed as usual. He did not even bother trying to actually make this an actual covert operation.

Re:How are nuclear weapons going to help though?

[shutdown -p now]

That one was actually explainable.

The equivalent of what we are seeing in Crimea, OTOH, is if Libyan insurgents were also sporting flecktarn camo, and carrying MG4 and G28 in addition to G36. Oh, and riding around on Boxers with black-red-yellow stripes painted on them.

Re:How are nuclear weapons going to help though?

[cheesybagel]

you should also know that that portion of the country is hugely ethnic Russian, and strongly in favor of Russian rule

Sudetenland redux. Perhaps parts of New York should secede from the US and join Israel. Or parts of Chechnya could split from... oh nevermind.

Crimea has a lot of Russians because it has a Russian military base in there.

The old government in Kiev was corrupt, and needed to go. The president had signed an agreement and a plan was in place for an orderly transition to a more democratic government. The "revolutionaries" couldn't wait for the indicated time, and basically jumped the gun with a coup.

Sure. Still it is no excuse for invading a country.

Furthermore, the new Ukrainian "government" has really staged a revolution, and hardly can be said to have popular backing. The leaders of the new government are a bunch of thugs, with *strong* ties to neo-Nazi fascism and came to power through violent means.

Allegedly the new Crimean Prime Minister put there by Putin isn't all roses either.

It is just an imperialist power grab pure and simple.

Re:How are nuclear weapons going to help though?

[khallow]

That would be a problem if they are invading, however they are operating in a country where they were invited.

The Russians weren't invited by the Ukraine. I know the Crimea Republic is autonomous, but they aren't considered sovereign and hence, can't just invite Russian military troops in. The Ukraine can however, but they didn't.

Also, the Night Wolves are apparently engaging in a bit of "supplies" smuggling through the Ukraine from the previous link I posted.

Re: How are nuclear weapons going to help though?

[cheesybagel]

This is called manufacturing a casus belli. It is done quite often.

Re:How are nuclear weapons going to help though?

[cheesybagel]

Who do you think provided the technical expertise for North Korea to design their missiles?

Re:How are nuclear weapons going to help though?

[Anonymous Coward]

our problem is they didn't lie about them having weapons of mass destruction before invading, also they havn't killed any where near enough people let alone women and children.

Re: How are nuclear weapons going to help though?

[Anonymous Coward]

Kind of hard to do elections with international observers when the Russians are refusing their entry into the disputed areas at gun point. Just saying... perhaps you are the one who is misinformed

Re:How are nuclear weapons going to help though?

[cold fjord]

There appears to be one or more gaps in your knowledge.

COLLABORATION, TERROR AND RESISTANCE

There are various reasons suggested for Vlasov’s sudden conversion. His brother was shot in the civil war for alleged anti-Bolshevik conspiracy; he had given his elderly parents a cow as a present, and they were punished for it as ‘rich peasants’; he is reported to have been shocked by the sight of Ukrainians greeting the Germans with flowers, bread and salt, which awoke in him a realization of how unpopular Stalin was.

As you can see what I wrote was history, nothing to do with the Bible. Now, if you want to address some likely additional gaps in your knowledge, try this link.

Re:How are nuclear weapons going to help though?

[Anonymous Coward]

yeah the riots in ukraine over the last month or so are very peacefull.

Re:How are nuclear weapons going to help though?

[Anonymous Coward]

ignorance is bliss right.

Re:How are nuclear weapons going to help though?

[Lumpy]

That sir is Stalinisim.... we will bury you....

Re:How are nuclear weapons going to help though?

[Anonymous Coward]

i vote for "they are not russian soldiers, but are equipped and trained by russia" (same as USA does when indirectly attacking countries (send equipment and training personnel in country to organize locals)

if that is a case Russians are 100% theoretically correct, it is not russian forces

Re:How are nuclear weapons going to help though?

[Anonymous Coward]

Its a good enough option for me. If I had my druthers, we would have sent a littlle package like 6 Ozs of anti-matter to Red Square about a week ago. Clean up Putin, his cold war KGB henchmen, the oligarchs, the whole lot. "Gangsta Government" is no way to run a country. Its bad enough he does it in Russia, but he wants to export crazy to Georgia, Ukraine, and where else... Eastonia, Lithuania, Latvia, Poland? He would export it to Alaska if he thought he could get away with it, but he knows it would be more than just 6 Ozs of anti-matter on Red Square, and there might not be anything left of Russia afterwards. The whole thing is this: give up land or die, and Russia is the one playing with guns. Bigger bombs just up the ante. Russia has an idea it can win if it just used guns. If we start including terms like critical mass, things can get ugly for Russia very fast. That's why Putin-Talking-Heads and sok puppets try and downplay the N game: once Russia starts getting kicked in the teeth, the other countries they have been pissing off for the last century (Hello Georgia, Ukraine, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Czech Republic, Romania, Slovakia, Belarus, Finland, Kazakhstan, Azerbaijan) just might want a little piece of Russia back (each).

Re:How are nuclear weapons going to help though?

[Anonymous Coward]

exactly. Those in glass houses and all.

Re:How are nuclear weapons going to help though?

[cheesybagel]

The 'spontaneous' rebellion also enjoyed NATO bombardment of Gaddafi's motorcade when he was attempting to flee to Egypt.

It was a propped up coup. Worse of all they used Al-Qaeda and the bozos who usually destabilize South Algeria in the coup and gave them weapons. That is going to bite Europe in the ass eventually. Especially because South Algeria is the *other* source of natural gas into Europe other than Russia via pipeline. Other than that the only option is ship from Niger by boat or some other less cost effective means like that.

Re:How are nuclear weapons going to help though?

[Anonymous Coward]

The idea isn't about 'Giving' Ukraine nuclear weapons, the entire Soviet SS-24 MIRV program was designed and built in Ukraine. They have the technology, the infrastructure. They were asked to give up their stockpile (larger in 1991, than China's, Britain's, and France's combined.. it was ranked #3 in the world behind US and Russia) in order that their borders be assured, and that there be no coercion. Russia clearly has violated their end of the treaty. What do you think they should expect?

Re:How are nuclear weapons going to help though?

[shutdown -p now]

The 'spontaneous' rebellion also enjoyed NATO bombardment of Gaddafi's motorcade when he was attempting to flee to Egypt. It was a propped up coup. Worse of all they used Al-Qaeda and the bozos who usually destabilize South Algeria in the coup and gave them weapons.

I do think that the rebellion was spontaneous enough. There's no denying that Western countries heavily backed the rebels, including aerial support and spec ops teams on the ground though. Or that many rebel factions were hardline Islamist, and some aligned with al-Qaeda.

That is going to bite Europe in the ass eventually. Especially because South Algeria is the *other* source of natural gas into Europe other than Russia via pipeline.

Well, they're building a pipeline to Azerbaijan (which doesn't go through Russia) for a reason. And then there's also Turkmenistan. And then there's shale gas, of which, ironically, Ukraine of all countries is likely to have a boatload of (and shale formations are in western parts of the country).

Also, Iran, which would be quite willing to export gas to Europe, except for that whole sanctions thing. It will be interesting how the perspective on Iran might suddenly change now, though.

Re:How are nuclear weapons going to help though?

[Intrepid imaginaut]

No, that's communism: chapter 2, proletarians and communists, of the communist manifesto. There's plenty of other good stuff in there too if you take a look, equal liability of all to work (slavery), confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels (wow), centralisation of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State (delightful), and so on and so forth. Stalin may have been the one to most prominently implement it but he was just playing it by the book.

The communist book.

Re:How are nuclear weapons going to help though?

[phantomfive]

Honestly, I don't think nukes are enough to stop a US invasion of Iran.

Re:How are nuclear weapons going to help though?

[Anonymous Coward]

The Ukraine government is defunct though, their was a coup/revolution as such all such treaties are null and void and the Crimean Government if anything is currently the only legitimate government within the Ukraine (yes the ousted government was evil and corrupt, that doesn't make the new one automatically legitimate), Why is the revolution is recognised in Kiev but one in Crimea isn't? Just because the West wants them to come towards Europe rather than Russia. If it was the other way around you would bet your arse the US and the west would be supporting Crimea instead.

Re:How are nuclear weapons going to help though?

[xfizik]

... they lived there for quite a while, evident by names of places only in their language and their presence was also noted in neighboring countries' historical documents. If that's not a reason enough to acknowledge their claim to their land, I don't know what is.

Does any of that apply to the Ukrainian claim to Crimea? Ukraine never fought for it, Ukrainians never lived there, nobody speaks Ukrainian in Crimea.

Ask any of the people who were in semi-adult-and-above age during WW2 which did they prefer, knowing both - Russians, or Germans? I didn't remember anyone mentioning a whole lot of people fleeing to Soviet Union when Jerries struck... Must be yank propaganda though.

Yup yup. Ask any of the jews which they prefered...

Re:How are nuclear weapons going to help though?

[xfizik]

And yes, many of those countries did some minor allying with Germany during WWII, often grudgingly, but this was because they feared Stalin more than Hitler, because they remembered their bad history with Russia but Germany was an unknown.

Define "minor allying". Czechoslovakia was an industry powerhouse for the Nazis manufacturing a big chunk of German weaponry. Bulgaria, Romania, Hungary and others were supplying troops by the hundreds of thousands. I don't think they did so grudgingly, more like they had no other choice having been in the German zone of control.

(ie, the Tatars were kicked out of Crimea as punishment for alleged collaboration with Nazis)

One may argue whether such large scale deportation was an adequate response to that (adequate by the 1944 standards, not modern day standards. USSR was still at war then) , but the Tatar collaboration is well documented and is not alleged in any way.

Re:How are nuclear weapons going to help though?

[Anonymous Coward]

Hitler did so well because when he started gaining territory no one wanted to step up and stop him.

Re:How are nuclear weapons going to help though?

[Boronx]

That's revisionist bullshit. You don't need a treaty between two nations to make the act of war illegal. US forces that were shot at were violating Iraqi air space and were firing on Iraqi forces. That's an act of war, alright, but not on the part of the Iraqis.

Not only was the invasion illegal under international law, but under U.S. law as well, since the congressional authorization was conditional, and the conditions were never met.

You must be an old one indeed to have learned to dissemble so smoothly.

Re:How are nuclear weapons going to help though?

[Anonymous Coward]

The Crimea has been pro Russian since before the Ukraine existed, it has a large Russian population as well as a large Ukrainian population that identifies with Russia closer than the rest of Ukraine. Add in the anti Russian government that has seized power in Kiev and it is hardly surprising that the Crimea is running with open arms to Russia, I imagine much of the population there is extremely concerned about their future under an anti-Russian regime.

Re:How are nuclear weapons going to help though?

[Anonymous Coward]

manipulatively slanted. go play games somewhere else. its ashame, cause ive liked some of your previous posts. perhaps i should read closer, unless its just this issue youre shilling for fag points on.

Re:How are nuclear weapons going to help though?

[vague regret]

No, it's not 'Putin's thugs', it were the ultra-right-wing (read: nazis) among the current Ukraine's rulers who started the mess. The first thing they did was dismissal of the language law. Do you really believe this fact as well as pro-fashist parties in the government should get applause in Crimea or in Eastern Ukraine?

Re:How are nuclear weapons going to help though?

[JimSadler]

If the former Soviet segments blast each other into oblivion should we care? The Arab nations are a similar issue. If they happily continue murdering each other, as has been there norm for many centuries, just why should the US give a fig?

Re:How are nuclear weapons going to help though?

[khallow]

their was a coup/revolution as such all such treaties are null and void

No, that need not be the case, especially if most of the signatories to the treaty weren't involved in the revolution such as is the case with the so-called "Budapest Memorandum".

Why is the revolution is recognised in Kiev but one in Crimea isn't?

For me, because the first one isn't being controlled by a former KGB officer. Russia can elect whoever they want to higher office. But I still think they're a bit crazy to have elected Putin. And his fingerprints (as well as his motley army of henchmen) are all over the second "revolution".

Re:How are nuclear weapons going to help though?

[Anonymous Coward]

This is a way too simple analysis of what is considered perfidy.

The question of analysis that one should be asking is whether the current Ukrainian government is legitimate and whether President Yanukovych invite the troops to Ukraine legitimately?

Also who said that not wearing any insignia is considered perfidy? There are many legal scholars who have stated that simply wearing a UNIFORM is enough, and one doesn't necesarily need to wear one's country's flag e.g. Special forces often hide their identity per mission, and there's no war crime there.

Re:How are nuclear weapons going to help though?

[Anonymous Coward]

Every day Ukrainians in the Crimea are resisting; violence between pro-Ukraine and pro-Russia groups is becoming a daily occurrence, for example.

The Ukrainian troops in Crimea aren't responding with force because a) they're not batshit insane and b) they know full well that Russia wants them to start shooting so that it can respond.

The longer the Ukrainians just sit there, the bigger a fool Putin looks and the lie about "protecting Russians in Crimea" becomes thinner and harder to maintain.

Re:How are nuclear weapons going to help though?

[Hognoxious]

The West of Ukraine hates Russia. Because the Soviets were nasty to Western Ukraine...

Holodomor: 1932.

Of course, this was because the Western Ukrainians collaborated with the Nazis

Operation Barbarossa: 1941.

Are you claiming that Stalin had a tardis?

Re:How are nuclear weapons going to help though?

[Anonymous Coward]

you missed his point entirely.

the war was legal because we were still at war with Iraq from Gulf War 1.

GW1 stopped with a cease fire not a peace treaty. The terms of the cease fire meant Iraq had to co-operate with the UN weapon inspectors, failure to do so meant the cease fire was off and the war was back on. No one has ever argued that Saddam was co-operating with the inspectors. No one. Not the Russians, French or the UN argued that point.

Therefore the war was legal. Q.E.D.

Re:How are nuclear weapons going to help though?

[Kasar]

Crimea also has no electrical generation capabilities of it's own, it relies on Ukraine for 100% of it's power and 82% of it's fresh water.
We'll see how this plays out though, the Crimean Tatars won't accept the Russians without a fight.

Re:How are nuclear weapons going to help though?

[ibwolf]

I don't give a flying fuck who invaded. Starting a nuclear war over some local pissing contest is NOT an option.

What is to you a "local pissing contest" is to the Ukrainians a foreign invasion.

How would you feel if Putin had decided that Alaska should really go back to Russia and sent troops there? That is exactly what has happened in the Ukraine.

Re:How are nuclear weapons going to help though?

[Anonymous Coward]

dismissal of the language law

... and, thus, enacting back language law from 1989 (from late Soviet times), which was actually better for Russian-speaking minority.

This was stupid move, as it stirred up a lot of uneducated fools that believe Russian TV propaganda, and never bothered to read actual law, but still there are nothing "nazi" in that.

(Besides, this dismissal was vetoed by Ukrainian President.)

Re:How are nuclear weapons going to help though?

[Alioth]

The thing is it will get ugly whatever you do. Let's imagine a scenario.

Russia decides that since the rest of the world hasn't done an awful lot, it will invade eastern Ukraine on the pretext that there are ethnic Russians being threatened. It turns out that the Ukrainian army isn't quite as crap as Russia imagined, in reality the Ukrainian army is mostly professional whereas the Russian army is mostly conscript. Additionally, the Ukrainians are defending their territory so their army is more "committed" to the cause. The Polish, being friends of Ukraine and still never having forgiven Russia over what went on with the Soviet Union start providing some support, too. Inevitably, just through sheer force of numbers and the bullheadedness of Putin, the Russians begin to overrun the Ukrainians, and their posture is that Ukraine is fighting back so they have the right to keep going until Ukraine stops. As the Russians move west, Poland starts providing actual troops who are now in combat with Russian troops.

Russia manages to push this back though, and decides to give Poland a bloody nose under the justification that they sent troops. Since the west imposed more sanctions, seizing assets of Russian oligarchs, the Russian economy is starting to falter and Putin thinks that the west won't do anything militarily despite Poland being a NATO member, and he feels he doesn't have an awful lot to lose but a lot to gain if he can make Poland fear Russia, so he continues with the intent of crippling the Polish military but not actually permanently invading Poland. However, he's miscalculated, and NATO lives up to its treaty obligations. The US, UK, France, Germany and various other countries mobilize to defend the Polish. The Russian army at the Polish border is rather war-weary by now and is facing well equipped NATO troops and gets pushed back into Ukraine. NATO intends to finish the job and reset the borders to their pre-war conditions, with Ukraine no longer under occupation. They don't have any intent of pushing into Russia. However, Putin is now facing the ignominy of his miscalculation, and decides that defeat isn't acceptable and attacks NATO forces with tactical battlefield nuclear weapons. Many NATO troops are lost, and there are serious civilian casualties in areas caught by the blast on the Polish/Ukrainian border. Now the nuclear taboo has been broken, NATO needs to make sure the Russians can't come back, so destroys a few key strategic targets in the supply chain for Russian troops with tactical nuclear weapons. Russia now feels very vulnerable, and Putin in an effort to scare NATO from fighting further attacks a few strategic targets in the west with strategic nuclear weapons...and NATO replies in kind.

Fortunately a cease fire is hastily brokered before it gets completely out of control, and only a few strategic nuclear weapons are used. But in the meantime, the United States has lost most of its Gulf Coast refining capacity to nuclear strikes (amongst other strategic targets), there are millions dead and a humanitarian crisis in the United States and Europe of catastrophic proportions. Just the injured in the Gulf Coast alone are more than all the resources of the entire healthcare system in the United States can deal with, so the injured are left to fend for themselves. To make matters worse, the Russians detonated a high altitude burst destroying all electronics and communications over a large proportion of North America and Europe meaning just keeping the uninjured supplied with food becomes a challenge due to the loss of working vehicles of all types and the destruction of the electricity grid and communication systems. On top of that, the soot injected into the stratosphere causes a "decade without a summer", leading to poor crop yields to add to the problems of food distribution. Progress of industrial society in Europe, the US and Russia is set back by decades.

Re:How are nuclear weapons going to help though?

[NotDrWho]

Yes, it's a synonym for crazy.

Re:How are nuclear weapons going to help though?

[NotDrWho]

And if we had adopted that view when the USSR invaded Afghanistan in 1979, we'd likely be living in a nuclear wasteland today. Not every invasion warrants a world war, and not every aggressive leader is the next Hitler.

I shudder to think what the world would look like today if Putin had decided that the U.S. invasion of Iraq was a sign that President Bush was the next Hitler.

Re:How are nuclear weapons going to help though?

[NotDrWho]

It's a local pissing contest. It's been going on for decades now, and this is just the latest round. If you think the Ukrainians are just a bunch of innocent noble heroes, then you obviously don't know the first thing about that country. There are no heroes in this story, and attempting to create them through willful delusion will only make things worse.

Re:How are nuclear weapons going to help though?

[Anonymous Coward]

I can't recognize - is it fat trolling or butthurt?

Re:How are nuclear weapons going to help though?

[Anonymous Coward]

Being Irish and having Ukrainian wife, I wouldn't agree with you more. Please, mod the parent up.

Re:How are nuclear weapons going to help though?

[unixisc]

The Crimean Tatars were all deported, and the ones who've returned are nowhere near enough demographically to mean squat

Re:How are nuclear weapons going to help though?

[painandgreed]

I'll agree with all that but part of it is also that Crimea seems to be siding with Russia. I was reading an old thread on militaryphotos.net (they're really good at collecting photos of military actions and giving commentary on what exactly is being shown) dealing with the Kiev riots, and from months ago, the Crimea parliament said that Kiev better quell the rioters because it would come or go with Russia. This shouldn't have been a surprise to anybody watching the situation.

Re:How are nuclear weapons going to help though?

[Anonymous Coward]

Devils advocate here, but the Russian paramilitaries are wearing fatigues and carrying their guns openly. They aren't wearing insignia, but it's a bit of a stretch to say that they're impersonating civilians while wearing fatigues and carrying military rifles over their shoulders.

Re:How are nuclear weapons going to help though?

[Cederic]

I think your scenario fails around the Polish factors.

The rest is plausible.

Re:How are nuclear weapons going to help though?

[erikkemperman]

Yeah, uh-huh. And to really throw people off, this was never mentioned. In stead they sent the only slightly credible they could find among their little junta and had him lie to the UN.

And actually, just before the invasion, Blix et al were reporting that compliance was materializing. But you know, "too little too late" because the generals already had their battle hardons on.

Re:How are nuclear weapons going to help though?

[Cederic]

Astroturfing.

ignore the neo-fascist coup in Kyev, and worse, encourage fascist to violate the NPT and arm themselves with nukes, lovely

You don't have to invade the Crimea to query the validity of the government in Kiev. The easiest way to avoid the "neo-fascists" arming themselves with nukes is to withdraw from the Crimea.

Calling what's happening in Crimea an occupation is like saying the US is occupying Japan, Jordan, Saudi and dozens of others due to Okinawa and its other military bases- the Black Sea Fleet has been stationed in Sevastopol even before there was a Ukraine. Further, Russia's military presence in Crimea is in line with the terms agree upon by Russia, Ukraine, The Autonomous Republic of Crimea and the Semi-Autonomous Special Region of Sevastopol.

Bullshit. The terms agreed by Russia and Ukraine do not include laying siege and threatening assault on Ukrainian military bases, which is what Russian troops are doing.

Incidentally, what the fuck is this mythical 'Autonomous Republic of Crimea'?

Plopping down missile systems on Russia's doorstep and trying to encircle it is an act of aggression.

Building strong defences is an act of aggression only to the paranoid.

Some of us remember who crushed the fascist when Europe turned a blind eye last time, and what it cost us.

Who the fuck turned a blind eye last time? And yes, it cost us the world's largest and greatest Empire.

Now, fuck off with your blatant propaganda. Maybe this works in Russia but the rest of us have the advantage of an education.

Re: How are nuclear weapons going to help though?

[Cederic]

Given the attitude of Russians to gay people, I'd say propaganda is alive and kicking there.

You don't need propaganda everywhere for a world war, just enough success within the aggressors. Or do you expect the rest of the world to lie down and roll over?

Re:How are nuclear weapons going to help though?

[Cederic]

I haven't seen evidence that the population wants to be part of Russia.

Why should they have to abandon their homes because of some international treaty with a government that no longer exists.

Who is making them abandon homes? Must be something the UK media isn't reporting. I hadn't heard of any ethnic (or nationalistic) cleansing taking place.

Incidentally, the treaty still exists - it's with the nation, not the government of the time.

Re:How are nuclear weapons going to help though?

[Cederic]

it is hardly surprising that the Crimea is running with open arms to Russia

You say 'running with open arms', I say 'prodded with bayonet equipped guns'. Funny how things can look differently depending who you believe.

Re:How are nuclear weapons going to help though?

[ericloewe]

Crazy is hard to fight without craziness.

Re:How are nuclear weapons going to help though?

[budgenator]

The Taliban was probably demographically significant in Afganistan, but they gave our next-door neighbors, Russians all kinds of hell on earth in Afganistan; never underestimate a motivated minority.

Re:How are nuclear weapons going to help though?

[Patch86]

"Local pissing contest" is an easy title to give something very far away. If you're Ukrainian, that "local pissing contest" is "a invasion by a huge, hostile power that used to have dominion over your country in order to seize a large and important piece of your country". If you're Russian, it's "the fascist take over of an allied neighbour with the implied threat to life and livelihood to millions of your ethnic brothers and former countrymen".

If you're American, how would you feel if Mexico invaded Puerto Rico? British- Argentina invading The Falklands? Australian- erm...Indonesia and Christmas Island? (I may need to learn more about Australian geopolitics...)

My point is, if your country was the one being invaded you might be reaching for the nukes too.

Re:How are nuclear weapons going to help though?

[rotovator]

What about western backed snipers shooting during the riots and demosntrations? Aren't they violating any law?

"Propaganda" is a thing western does better, many comments here are the proof. Whay would USA do if Russia prompted for violent demonstrations in Puerto Rico? or any 90% americans populated land? What If Russia faked spring revolutions in Canada, Mexico, Japan and any other USA allies??

Why are Crimea elections out of law? While violent coup d'etat in Ukraine is not?

Re:How are nuclear weapons going to help though?

[rotovator]

You say : "Crimea has a lot of Russians because it has a Russian military base in there." That's plain false, misleading and truthless. Crimea Was russian until mid XX century, when it was given to Ukraine under the soviet union era.

Re:How are nuclear weapons going to help though?

[rotovator]

Building strong defences is an act of aggression only to the paranoid.

Except if it is done by nations not aligned with USA, like Iran, Korea, etc.

Re:How are nuclear weapons going to help though?

[turgid]

I hope they don't. I currently live and work in England! :-)

Re:How are nuclear weapons going to help though?

[Anonymous Coward]

Crimea is holding a referendum to decide its own fate

...while Russian troops occupy the area and throw their weight around, blockading roads, etc. That's like hostages voting whether to go along with the hostage takers.

Re:How are nuclear weapons going to help though?

[Boronx]

You don't get it. Mass murderers always have a pretext. Hitler had some justification or other, but we still hanged his generals for invading Poland. Starting an offensive war is a crime against the peace, even if you can find a piece of paper that says you were already at war.

"No one has ever argued that Saddam was co-operating with the inspectors."

The inspectors themselves argued this. You have been lied to. You should look into it and find out who lied to you and why. A lot of people died because of this.

Re: How are nuclear weapons going to help though?

[Anonymous Coward]

And you suck moohamuds cock.

Re:How are nuclear weapons going to help though?

[Anonymous Coward]

Just looking at your comments, whenever Russia is mentioned, I really hope they pay You good for your efforts.
Anyway, on topic look at the following pictures:
http://cs614923.vk.me/v614923159/7b77/azV4D2p51ts.jpg
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BhuLR_yCUAEKY3q.jpg:large
OH NO's, THE EVIL RUSSIAN INVADERZ!!!
Of course, a picture or two is far from evidence but I urge all to dig better rather than rely just on the s**t presented on BBC, CNN, Reuters or RT for that matter, as well as 'opinions' or 'statements' like the one I am replying to.
An invasion would imply resistance among the people being occupied which barely if at all is present in Crimea. Majority of the population is Russian and they do not see the Russian army as an invading force rather than that they see it as a protection force. Protection from whom? Well, the ultra-right nationalists that illegaly seized the government in Kiev, whose first step was to remove Russian as an official language of the state. Granted, Yanukovich is an oligarchic scum and both Ukrainians and Russians did not like him at all, the Russians in Ukraine were put in a position to choose/support between the lesser of two evils, that is between pro-western and pro-russian oligarchs and of course they chose the latter just because of the pro-russian thing. Yanukovich with the deal reached on 21 Feb. AGREED to hold elections and return to the 2004 constitution, but since the opposition very well knew that they could not win in a rightful manner they chose to use force and seize the government when they saw the chance.
Next, do I need to show the reports on how the Maidan protesters were supported with western funding (USAID, NED etc.) through various NGOs? It is completely logical that they are going to support the Maidan since they invested in them. Invested you say? What do they get in return for that investment? LOANS. Yatsenyuk has publicly declared that he will take loans from the IMF, EU, USA etc in many many billions with doing all the necessary "structural adjustments" that come as conditions for those loans. The difference between those loans and the one offered by Russia (or Putin if you will) was "here is your money just don't sign the EU agreement". So Yanukovich chose the one that appeared more favorable to Ukraine which came without the need to do the "necessary" unpopular measures of an IMF loan (austerity if you will), which would threaten his position and yet he will be able to fill his pockets as well.

Now, since all that is history, but still relevant to the topic, moving on to the Russian troops in Crimea. Now, since going the legal way (i.e. buying Ukraine) with the loan failed to keep it in Russia's sphere of influence and since the pro-western crowd took over the government in Kiev, Putin decides to send troops to Crimea with the intention to "protect" it's majority of Russians residents and the anti-Russian Maidan protesters gave him the perfect excuse for it. The real reason of course is he sent them to secure the Black Fleet in Sevastopol and keep NATO as far as possible from the Russian border and minimize it's encirclement policy. Why would he, You say, when Russia has a deal with Ukraine to lease the base up to 2042? And isn't NATO already on the Russian border with the Baltics? Well, we very well saw how much the opposition respects deals with the one on 21 Feb. In addition I wouldn't trust NATO to respect international law when it comes to the integrity and sovereignty of a country, the bombing of Yugoslavia in 1999 being the PERFECT example of that. And now that it pops in my head, I wonder where were the likes of @cold fjord when that happened? As well as in 2008 when Kosovo declared independence? Did they scream then about the integrity and sovereignty of Yugoslavia/Serbia? Doubt it. And it is a very good analogy. Kosovo Albanians which were barely a majority THEN screamed "Help! Evil Serb invaders killing us all!" except they couldn't rely on Albania, because well it's Albania, not a very powerful or developed country, so NATO/U

Re:How are nuclear weapons going to help though?

[airdweller]

Spot on. Any person with half a brain can see that the situation is not all black (Russia) and white (Ukraine). Don't even start me on the US mass media.

Riiiight

[slashmydots]

"The United States, Great Britain and Russia agreed in a pact 'to assure Ukraine's territorial integrity' in return for Ukraine giving up a nuclear arsenal it inherited from the Soviet Union after declaring independence"

So they can get the nukes back from either the US and its allies or Russia. Hmmm...so basically if they start building the uranium enrichment plants now, they might have a working nuke in 10-20 years. They are seriously talking out their ass right now because that's ridiculous. Where would they get the nukes, ebay?

Re:Riiiight

[Eric Smith]

so basically if they start building the uranium enrichment plants now, they might have a working nuke in 10-20 years.

There's an existence proof that it can be done in four years, if someone is willing to devote sufficient resources to it.

Re:Riiiight

[cold fjord]

Half of Ukraine's electricity is from nuclear power. That have 13 reactors now, and plan to add 11 more.

Ukraine's strange love for nuclear power

Missile

Ukraine is capable of producing advanced intercontinental range ballistic missiles, and its missile industry is second only to Russia's among the former Soviet republics. The linchpin of this industry is the former Yuzhnoye Scientific Production Association, arguably the preeminent intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) design and production facility in the Former Soviet Union, whose capabilities are matched only by a handful of U.S. and Russian missile enterprises.

Re:Riiiight

[Anonymous Coward]

You do understand that Ukraine has enough expertize and know-how to make nukes within a few months? You do realize that Ukraine power supply is 50% nuclear?

There are nations in this world that can build nuclear weapons within months, if they wanted to. They simply choose not to. I would name Ukraine as one of these nations.

http://www.world-nuclear.org/i...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N...

Re:Riiiight

[Sponge Bath]

It does seem a silly statement, and a gift to Putin. He can use that as a replacement for the equally silly current justification for the invasion.

Re:Riiiight

[roc97007]

Or... maybe they didn't give them all up?

Re:Riiiight

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, they won't have any problem getting the weapons grade material, what with all the Soviet-era nuclear generating stations still operating there, which were built dual-purpose.

That's the hard part. The rest is just math, and I'll bet they have a few guys left that can crunch the numbers.

Re: Riiiight

[Anonymous Coward]

You do know that Plutonium is way easier to build a bomb with than heu, right? Also it is present in spent nuclear fuel and can be extracted chemicaly, not physically. And Ukraine has lots of reactors..

Re:Riiiight

[aliquis]

Relevant in that discussion would be how much of that is in Crimea and possibly eastern Ukraine and how much of it are Russians / willing to leave so to say.

Re:Riiiight

[Lumpy]

That means they dont need a nuke. they just need a very large explosion and some spent fuel. The big boom is not as effective as heavy radiation poisoning of the enemy forces. load it all in a plane and blow it up upwind from the enemy... the wind will spread it the rest of the way.

Re:Riiiight

[Anonymous Coward]

Four years is a long time. Russia would have reacted to even a whiff of anything in a swift and brutal fashion well before the Ukraine could do much with it.

Re:Riiiight

[jafac]

They can surely make Nuclear Devices fairly rapidly. I doubt they will be able to weaponize them within a reasonable time-frame. (reasonable being: the time it takes Russia to steamroller the whole country and seize any facilities).

Re:Riiiight

[LifesABeach]

I don't ebay has an option for that.

Re:Riiiight

[Ralph Wiggam]

The old President and his cronies stole a big chunk of Ukraine's cash on hand. They're in the process of applying to the IMF for emergency loans. They will be lucky to keep the lights on in their government offices. Spending billions on a nuclear program is not feasible.

Re:Riiiight

[HornWumpus]

Because there is no chance they already have a few cores sitting in storage like Japan?

Re:Riiiight

[HornWumpus]

All nukes are theoretically 'dual purpose'. But you run them differently to produce Plutonium for weapons. Full tilt for a short time, then reprocess the fuel extracting plutonium.

Re:Riiiight

[Purpleslog]

If only there was a nations, with atomic weapon capability (even a crude capability), in need of money, disdainful of the international community, and without much in the way of scruples. The Ukraine could get a nuke weapons capability sooner. They don't have to build their own first generation of nuke.

Re:Riiiight

[CrimsonAvenger]

Hmmm...so basically if they start building the uranium enrichment plants now, they might have a working nuke in 10-20 years.

Can you say "Manhattan Engineer District"?

Sure you can.

If noone ever explained this to you before, it took the Manhattan Engineer District (AKA Manhattan Project) took about 3.5 years to go from committee meetings to the facilities that produced the first three nuclear weapons.

Re:Riiiight

[residents_parking]

Clearly they're asking US & UK (both nuclear powers) for help.

Re:Riiiight

[JoeMerchant]

A nuclear device in the back of a truck is one hell of an effective weapon.

Re:Riiiight

[Hognoxious]

Weaponizing a bomb is largely about making it robust enough to be delivered by a fast moving single-trip aircraft that doesn't land very gently.

If you're designing a kamikaze weapon to take the invaders with you that's not so important. In fact, put it in a fancy gilded case and they'll probably truck it right to Moscow for you, the thieving untermensch fucks.

Re:Riiiight

[bigpat]

They can surely make Nuclear Devices fairly rapidly. I doubt they will be able to weaponize them within a reasonable time-frame. (reasonable being: the time it takes Russia to steamroller the whole country and seize any facilities).

Assuming (hopefully) that the current situation on the ground is going to be static for a while and doesn't become a shooting war, then yes the Ukrainians can and probably should build a few dozen nukes with some delivery capability as a deterrent.

Re:Riiiight

[Lehk228]

N. Korea shares a border with russia, and have far too much to lose selling a warhead to Ukraine, while Ukraine is not short on nuclear engineering ability and would gain little from having the warhead earlier because they certainly cannot trust a N.Korean design to be at all reliable

Re:Riiiight

[qbast]

The moment Russians think that Ukraine is seriously trying to build a nuke, it WILL become shooting war. And not just to capture Crimea and (maybe) eastern part of Ukraine, but to unconditional surrender of whole country.

Re:Riiiight

[unixisc]

North Korea hardly has a border w/ Russia - their entire border is w/ China

Re:Riiiight

[Hentes]

True, but there's a third ingredient Ukraine doesn't have: money.

Re:Riiiight

[Culture20]

They could order from anyone who has ICBMs. 32 minute delivery or it's free.

Re:Riiiight

[K. S. Kyosuke]

Dirty bombs are not military weapons. The effect is too slow. Even if you managed to poison advancing infantry divisions, they'd still kill you before they died.

Re:Riiiight

[K. S. Kyosuke]

You do understand that Ukraine has enough expertize and know-how to make nukes within a few months?

They sure do. Now, where's their stash of weapons-grade fissile material?

Re: Riiiight

[K. S. Kyosuke]

Yes, but as some others observed, you'd first have to switch a to much shorter refueling cycle (two months or so?). It's difficult to pull that off in a "public" reactor without someone noticing.

Re:Riiiight

[Blaskowicz]

a quick check on the web :

Russia and North Korea share a 17 km border along the Tumen River. The border was created when Russia gained the territory of Outer Manchuria from China in the treaties of Aigun and Beijing in 1858 and 1860. The border area was regarded as peripheral within Russia for much of its history, regaining some importance during the Korean War as a transport route of weapons and aid from the Soviet Union. According to a Wikileaks cable from 2009, the border appears to be lightly militarized. No Chinese or North Korean troops are visible from the Russian side. There is an unobtrusive Russian outpost off to the side of the border, with a fairly large radar array.[1]

Re:Riiiight

[Anonymous Coward]

But America has broken agreements by pursuing a missile shield.

Re:Riiiight

[cheesybagel]

They mine the plutonium out of Chernobyl and separate it with PUREX then they make the nukes. Or just make a 'dirty bomb' with chunks of Chernobyl radioactive waste. They have rockets to launch the material if they want to. Ukraine still manufactures Tsyklon aka R-36.

Re:Riiiight

[rubycodez]

no, they get the nuclear fuel from Russia to put in their made-in-Russia reactors. that they mine natural uranium is of no import, they have not the facilities nor expertise to enrich uranium or extract plutonium

Re:Riiiight

[slashmydots]

Oh good. Let's name a ship the Lusitania and ship some nukes over. That'll go well.

Re:Riiiight

[Xest]

Neither did Iran, Syria, and North Korea due to years of crippling sanctions but they all managed to pursue nuclear weapons programs.

Re:Riiiight

[Richard_at_work]

Yes, 3.5 years while under no international scrutiny or interference, with a near to unlimited budget as you can get, and without the threat of your infrastructure being destroyed at any moment in time.

No country in the world enjoys those advantages today.

Re:Riiiight

[hairykrishna]

Expertise and know-how counts for little. Essentially every country in the world either has that or could acquire it in short order. What matters in reality is stocks of highly enriched uranium or separated plutonium. Ukraine (probably) has neither and does not have the infrastructure to produce either on a short timescale.

Re:Riiiight

[Cederic]

They are effective deterrents. "Withdraw or lose Moscow, St Petersburg, Sochi and all of your naval bases"

Re:Riiiight

[sg_oneill]

Well the Americans in WW-II pretty much pulled off the whole thing, plus the whole "invent nuclear weapons" things in about that amount of time.

Being that the whole "invent nuclear weapons" bit is already done, and the Ukraine has the physicists to fill in the middle bits, yeah 4 years is probably a good bet.

Problem of course is that they have about 4 weeks, not 4 years to pull this off so....

Re:Riiiight

[aliquis]

Oh.. Sochi..

Such loss.

Also politically uncorrect "Fine, only paraolympics is still running."

Putin - Rusputin

[cold fjord]

Russian President Vladimir Putin said that the commitments in the agreement are not relevant to Crimea because a 'coup' in Kiev has created 'a new state with which we have signed no binding agreements.'

Pay no attention to that signature on the dotted line.

Re:Putin - Rusputin

[bkmoore]

Russian President Vladimir Putin said that the commitments in the agreement are not relevant to Crimea because a 'coup' in Kiev has created 'a new state with which we have signed no binding agreements.'

Pay no attention to that signature on the dotted line.

It's almost as good as Putin's quote about "local security forces" buying Russian uniforms at any local military surplus store. So in order to protect law and order in my own country, I'm supposed to don the uniform of a foreign country? Now where did I put that old French Foreign Legion ensemble?

Re:Putin - Rusputin

[shutdown -p now]

The irony about that statement is that, if uniformly applied, it would invalidate a great many other things. For example, the lease agreement that Russia signed with Ukraine which permits the former to have a naval base in Sevastopol, and troops to defend it (the same ones that effectively took over the entire peninsula).

Re:Putin - Rusputin

[bradrum]

Wow, I agree with Cold Fjord, who would of thought I would see the day.

Yes Putin is just inventing bullshit here to justify his invasion of Ukraine sovereign land. He is expressly violating the 1994 agreement and in the process you can pretty much flush any idea of nuclear non-proliferation down the toilet. In fact I think this short sighted illegal reactionary move Putin probably moves us significantly towards the prospect of nuclear war.

   

Re:Putin - Rusputin

[Anonymous Coward]

It's probably right next to your French Foreign Maid outfit. You very naughty (boy|girl|other).

Re:Putin - Rusputin

[HeckRuler]

Yeah, I know, right? I thought we had to instantly rage at anything he said.

But he/she/they are very much pro-america. The nationalistic sort that think their government can do no wrong and is fighting a vailant struggle against foreign devils. So... pretty the exact sort of thinking that gives Putin the political capital to unilaterally invade a nation and bullshit out both sides of his head. But hey, since Cold Fjord is talking about Russia being dicks, you can be assured that their own bias isn't getting in the way too badly.

Even Fox News can report that it's been a cold winter. They're not automatically wrong.

It's really disappointing that Putin is doing a land-grab in the midst of this upheval in Ukraine. I mean, they helped stoke the idea that the government has to be brutal and fascist to beat down any rioters which was where all this hubbub started. But it really sends the message to everyone in the former USSR states that if they have ANY instability, then Russia is going to invade their ass.

And the USA can't really say jack shit. Because we unilaterally invaded Iraq. So any reaction is going to have to come out of the UN. Which sure as shit ain't gonna happen soon. I mean, is that even possible? Can't Russia just block whatever they want? And Ukraine isn't part of NATO. And Russia has most of the EU by their gas-fueled balls. So yeah, Ukraine is looking damn lonely and probably wishes they had nukes a few months ago.

Re:Putin - Rusputin

[Darinbob]

Vlad Vald Vlad-Putin
Successor of the Russian queen
This was a guy whose shirt was gone
Vlad Vlad Vlad-Putin
Russia's macho love machine
It was a shame how he showed that brawn

Re:Putin - Rusputin

[Anonymous Coward]

actually it is 100% true that you CAN buy both Russia and USA uniform (itself without markings) EASY from surplus stores, heck you can even buy a russian tank (without ammo) from surplus stores,

USA/Russia markings are harder to buy but even those can be easily gotten on black market

it is completely separate question if it actually was bought in surplus store or given by russia itself of course, and we can only guess on that

Re:Putin - Rusputin

[Anonymous Coward]

actually Russia is doing to Ukraine exactly what USA and EU did to Serbia and Kosovo, Russia is bad here, true, but its not worse than USA/EU, also Russia at least has its own citizens in Ukraine USA did not have its citizens on Kosovo

Re:Putin - Rusputin

[cheesybagel]

Two wrongs does not make a right. Kosovo is still not recognized as an independent nation by most of the world. Including countries in the EU. Plus the Ukraine is a *lot* bigger than Kosovo.

Re:Putin - Rusputin

[cheesybagel]

Plus Putin had already been carving up pieces of Georgia before this happened.

Re:Putin - Rusputin

[Anonymous Coward]

Russian President Vladimir Putin said that the commitments in the agreement are not relevant to Crimea because a 'coup' in Kiev has created 'a new state with which we have signed no binding agreements.'

Pay no attention to that signature on the dotted line.

“Chamberlain seemed such a nice old gentleman that I thought I would give him my autograph.” ---Adolf Hitler.

Re:Putin - Rusputin

[HeckRuler]

Oh, yes, sure. Russia is keeping those damn Keiv rioters from genociding the poor poor Crimeans. Just like the UN, NATO, and OSCE kept the peace.
"This expressed 'grave concern' at reports reaching the Secretary General that over 230,000 persons had been displaced from their homes by 'the excessive and indiscriminate use of force by Serbian security forces and the Yugoslav Army'"

Fun fact, Russia is part of the UN and was part of that decision. (China abstained)

Now, if case that sarcasm passes over your head, civilians were being targeted by military in Kosovo. Racial violence. Cleansing. Meanwhile, just because the riots threw out a president that was trying to institute a totalitarian regime doesn't mean they're sending tanks to conquore part of their own land. That said, the non-russian side was certainly shaking that saber against the ethnic russians of the Ukraine and the proposed bill to outlaw the russian language was certainly a slap in the face. But is it exactly like what happened in Kosovo? No. Not even close.

Re:Putin - Rusputin

[Anonymous Coward]

hmm most EU and USA recognized Kosovo, source:
http://www.kosovothanksyou.com/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_recognition_of_Kosovo

and i don't see what size has to do with precedent's (once rules are broken they can easily be broken again), but Crimea is only twice the area of Kosovo, and they are practically same size population-wise (Crimea 1.97Mil Kosovo 1.73Mil)

Re:Putin - Rusputin

[Anonymous Coward]

Kosovo: USA and EU carved part of sovereign nation in which they did NOT have any of their own people
Crimes RUS carved part of sovereign nation in which they DID have MAJORITY of their own people.

Sure...

[tgv]

Sure, give 'm nukes. What could possibly go wrong?

OTOH, why is this on Slashdot? It's only a Ukranian MP with a wacko idea, probably meant to show his supporters that he's the strong man they seek. Wikipedia sums up his party, Udar, as "UDAR tends to avoid sensitive and polarising subjects and focuses instead on popular topics".

Re:Sure...

[Katatsumuri]

Exactly. This is just one MP talking out of stress. It only shows how hot the situation is in the internal discussions. Most likely, he will be disciplined, and if the news catches on, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs might release a rebuttal to the effect of "misinterpreted / not our official position". Non-story.

Re:Sure...

[cbraescu1]

just one MP talking out of stress

This is truly the crux of the issue from the perspective of Ukraine, since now they see a lack of nuclear deterrent made them unable to resist Russia.

In all such cases the discussion is opened by someone of a second rank, acting as a battering ram. Once the discussion is open and the shock is gone, the leaders can step in. For example in the USA during the presidential campaigns the VP candidates are the ones doing the aggressive talks, allowing the POTUS candidates to look, well, "presidential".

Re:Sure...

[guacamole]

Another funny observation is that UDAR is the party of the world famous former Ukrainian boxer Vitali Klitschko. Also, UDAR means "a punch".

Re:Sure...

[tgv]

I knew it was (one of) his parties, or a party in his platform, but I didn't know it meant that. Thanks.

A bit late

[Hognoxious]

Don't think they could do it in time. Sad though it is, the sensible thing would probably have been not to get rid of them in the first place.

Re:A bit late

[NotDrWho]

No, the sensible thing would have been to have gotten rid of them ALL on BOTH SIDES in the heady years right after the Wall fell. Now a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity has passed, all because some people refused to let go of the Cold War. Now we're stuck with the fucking things, and more and more countries are desperate to get them because they see them as their only defense against a U.S. or Russian attack.

Re:A bit late

[Stormy Dragon]

Even if everyone had completely eliminated nuclear weapons in the 90s, how would that have stopped Russia from invading Crimea with its conventional forces?

Re:A bit late

[NotDrWho]

It wouldn't have. But it might have stopped a nuclear holocaust one day when WWIII begins.

Re:A bit late

[Hognoxious]

No, the sensible thing would have been to have gotten rid of them ALL on BOTH SIDES in the heady years right after the Wall fell.

It was, in fact, planned to do exactly that.

It fell through because they couldn't find Santa Claus, the tooth fairy was on holiday and neither could ride a unicorn.

Re:A bit late

[Sardaukar86]

No, the sensible thing would have been to have gotten rid of them ALL on BOTH SIDES in the heady years right after the Wall fell.

A halcyon ideal but I'm not sure how much better off we'd actually be. There are plenty of nations besides the US and Russia who desire nuclear weapons so it seems rather a lot safer to be 'in the club' than out.

Israel was always going to want to arm itself regardless - who wouldn't in their situation? Pakistan had no choice but to follow suit after India repaid Canada's kindness by double-crossing them to kick-start its own weapons programme in a deeply destabilising move for the region. China would definitely be in on the party and France wasn't about to be left out.

Nope, I really don't think US/Russian disarmament would have made the blindest bit of difference. The world wanted nukes and by God it was going to have them.

Re:A bit late

[Stormy Dragon]

PRO-TIP: You may not want to mention holocausts when discussing Russian military involvement in the Ukraine. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H...

Re:A bit late

[TrekkieGod]

No, the sensible thing would have been to have gotten rid of them ALL on BOTH SIDES in the heady years right after the Wall fell. Now a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity has passed, all because some people refused to let go of the Cold War. Now we're stuck with the fucking things, and more and more countries are desperate to get them because they see them as their only defense against a U.S. or Russian attack.

Oh, please. It shouldn't really be possible for someone to be that idealistic.

The once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to be rid of all nuclear weapons everywhere was gone the moment physicists realized that maybe such a thing would be possible. From that point forward, somebody was going to figure out how to make one and invest the money, because it's too good of an advantage to have. After the cold war ended, if everyone had agreed to get rid of all their nuclear weapons, the game would be to either figure out how to hide a few without the other side knowing, or how to build new ones in secret. It's simply not feasible to prevent this from happening, the policing power isn't there. it's the equivalent to software piracy in the torrent age. You can make it illegal all you want, you can have several people who either agree with the law or want to avoid punishment, but you really can't ensure that NOBODY will do it. Because you can't monitor everything and everyone all the time.

Another thing to consider is that nuclear weapons have probably brought more peace and stability than they've done damage. MAD actually works, and if it weren't for nuclear weapons being invented the cold war wouldn't have been just a bunch of proxy wars everywhere. It would have turned into World War III in the middle of Europe. The existence of nukes made the cost far too high, which actually promotes peace. The last time nukes were used where in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, when there was no threat of retaliation. Get over it, it will never be used again, and the only reason it will never be used again is because multiple people still have them, so it's not just a question of who can rebuild their arsenal quicker.

Re:A bit late

[cheesybagel]

I keep hearing about that. AFAIK it was a Soviet Union planning disaster which was not targeted specifically at the Ukraine. Parts of Russia had the same sort of food shortages. The Soviet Union funded its rapid industrialization drive in the 1930s by confiscating farm output and sending it to the cities.

Re:A bit late

[Mashiki]

AFAIK it was a Soviet Union planning disaster which was not targeted specifically at the Ukraine.

No, it was the Soviet Union rolling in and taking *everything* and it didn't happen just once, but at least three times. My mother's side of the family is from the Ukraine, and her father spent 25 years in a gulag because he refused to turn over everything. He was one of the lucky ones, their neighbor was simply shot.

Re:A bit late

[cold fjord]

That isn't correct. The Ukraine terror famine created by the Soviet government is well known, and was deliberate. I recommend watching this trailer, and the whole film when you can. (PPV, disks, or check a library.) Very informative.

The Harvest of Sorrow: Soviet Collectivization and the Terror-Famine

Re:A bit late

[guacamole]

Ukraine can't afford to maintain even conventional military. Old soviet nukes in their hands would have been a scary thought. Who knows where those could have possibly ended up, considering the level of corruption and lack of oversight in Ukraine's government (and probably military)

Re:A bit late

[Anonymous Coward]

Not really- The US and UK could deploy nuclear weapons there to honour their agreement to protect Ukrainian soverignty. Watch Putin have kittens when US missiles are minutes from Moscow!!! They wouldn't need to be ballistic- cruise would be just fine and much harder to intercept.

Re:A bit late

[Anonymous Coward]

I can't believe you all are falling for this line. When was the last time Russia invaded anywhere? This isn't a Russian invasion. It's a US plot, and it failed, and now Nazis are in charge. The only reason any country needs nukes is to keep the US banks from destroying their economy. And, every country needs them, or they will face US aggression.

Re:A bit late

[Cederic]

Georgia? Come on, at least pretend to be credible.

Just start the war already!

[gman003]

I think the main reason other countries aren't intervening is that right now, Ukraine isn't defending itself. Military outposts in Crimea are surrendering without a fight to the Russians. It's hard to justify sending our troops over there when Ukrainian troops aren't willing to fight.

I can understand it on a personal level - I wouldn't want to start a gunfight with Russian soldiers when I'm outnumbered and cut off from reinforcements. And even at a higher level, I can see why just giving Crimea to Russia might hurt less in the short term, because Ukraine cannot fight off Russia alone, particularly when it's been politically divided as it has been.

But fuck, even Poland at least tried to fight back when the German blitzkrieg rolled in. If Ukraine actually fights this war (which it has every right to - Russia is blatantly trying to conquer territory in contravention of every principle of peace), it will be a hell of a lot harder for other countries to just wait on the sideline.

Re:Just start the war already!

[Darth Snowshoe]

We should all be thankful that people in the relevant positions in Ukraine have shown much restraint so far and trusted or hoped that diplomatic and economic means would be brought to bear. Once a shooting war starts in the Ukraine, the casualties will quickly accumulate. There's a large civilian population there, several large cities. The population is very polarized. Oh and Russia is pushing more soldiers, armor, mines, etc into the Crimea by the hour.

"Just start the war already?" Because you are bored? What a horrendous sentiment.

Re:Just start the war already!

[EverlastingPhelps]

Not because we are bored. Because the war has already started on the Russian side, and all the Ukraine is doing now is losing. There is no way to avoid the war any longer. The invasion has happened. The only question is when Ukraine is going to fight -- when it can be confined to Crimea and the east, or when they are fighting an existential fight in the west?

Re:Just start the war already!

[Princeofcups]

But fuck, even Poland at least tried to fight back when the German blitzkrieg rolled in.

"Even Poland?" What does that mean? Poland had a huge military, which is why Germany had to take them out before tackling France. They fought back very well. They were just not of the same caliber as the German officer corps, and were slightly behind in the tech race. The "horses verses tanks" scenario is highly overblown. Poland's infantry and artillery were adequate for the time, but no one really expected Blitzkrieg to work as well as it did. If Poland had a Guderian, it could have turned out very different.

Re:Just start the war already!

[Anonymous Coward]

You are giving much older example of WWII before nuclear powers, and forgetting much more relevant ones.

Afganistan was willing to fight in the 80s and all they got was weapons from US which created a taliban...
Chechnia was willing to fight (twice, in the 90s) and didn't receive any help from western world.
George was willing to fight as recently as 2008 and look how that turned out.
If Ukraine would roll the army into the Crimea, Russia would turn to intervene "officially" and might as well cut of part of the eastern Ukraine... so it's a loose loose situation for Ukraine, and good learning excercise for the rest of the world (N. Korea, Iran). Once you have nukes, the only way you're getting them from me is in missile form. Never, never give up your nuclear weapons kids, nevermind what are the promises.

Re:Just start the war already!

[kabaju42]

Actually some Ukrainian posts have fought back. There's not much more they can do since they largely disarmed themselves at the urging of the US (and a guarantee that we would defend them). The US has broken its side of the agreement, why would Ukraine keep it's side?

Also, was Poland disarmed like this before Germany invaded?

Re:Just start the war already!

[maccodemonkey]

I think the main reason other countries aren't intervening is that right now, Ukraine isn't defending itself. Military outposts in Crimea are surrendering without a fight to the Russians. It's hard to justify sending our troops over there when Ukrainian troops aren't willing to fight.

The other more fundamental issue is that sending troops into the Ukraine will basically be the start of WWIII, and this war would be between powers that are nuclear states. The literal and figurative fallout could be on a scale yet unseen.

That doesn't mean we always let Russia get away with whatever they want to do. If they continue to seize territory from other nations we have to put our foot down at some point. But is Crimea important enough to risk what could devolve into a nuclear war? No, probably not. But we also have to watch and make sure that they don't continue grabbing small territories.

Re:Just start the war already!

[MouseTheLuckyDog]

Don't forget Poland was fighting a two front war. Germans on one side, Russians on the other.

Re:Just start the war already!

[Anonymous Coward]

I was not aware that the Republican party is in command of the Ukrainian military.

Re:Just start the war already!

[gman003]

I have not listened to a single report from American media on Ukraine - I use local sources, primarily the Euromaidan groups, but also Ukrainian newspapers/sites and even Russian ones (RT is horribly, horribly biased, but by looking at what propaganda they're spreading you can figure out what Russia is trying to do). The Maidan sources are biased as well, but you would think "our troops are fighting to the death against the Stalinist invaders!" would make better agitprop than "our troops are surrendering their weapons uncontested".

So if I'm somehow reproducing Republican propaganda, well, a broken clock is right twice a day. I also have a very hard time believing that the Republican Party has any measure of control over a foreign country's military, particularly at an outpost level. And I think there's some serious flaws with assuming the Republicans want more Russians in the country to kill - with the way things are currently going, it seems most likely to end with strong diplomatic sanctions and jack shit else, which is at odds with your supposed Republican desire to kill a bunch of Russians.

If we attack *now*, while Russia is still claiming that they have not sent troops and that the forces in play are merely "pro-Russian activists", there's at least a chance to resolve this without starting a war directly with Russia, and without just letting them take land just because they want it. But we cannot justify military action while Ukraine does not defend themselves - and to be honest, Ukraine may not be able to justify fighting unless they have allies willing to join in the fight.

Re:Just start the war already!

[Cigarra]

...Poland had a huge military, which is why Germany had to take them out before tackling France.

This statement doesn't make any sense, and unfortunately nullifies your entire argument. Invading Poland was the plan all along (to reach the USSR eventually). Why would Hitler start by invading France if the lebensraum was on the East?

Re:Just start the war already!

[Anonymous Coward]

People say "Ukraine" as if it was a unified country. It isn't. Half the population welcomes Russia and half the population hates them. Most of Crimea wants Russia to come in and calm things down.

The Ukrainians have been fighting amounst themselves and the country is split 50-50 and they can't solve their own problem. As soon as one side gets political power they start hurting the other side. Probably the only way out of this is to create two separate countries.

Re:Just start the war already!

[Anonymous Coward]

Poland fought back because there was no reason not to - Germany was going to take it all.
Russia only want Crimea, a region predominately inhabited by Russians that actually want to become part of Russia, the rest of Ukraine has much more to lose by fighting than by surrendering.

Re:Just start the war already!

[ThatsDrDangerToYou]

Not because we are bored. Because the war has already started on the Russian side, and all the Ukraine is doing now is losing. There is no way to avoid the war any longer. The invasion has happened. The only question is when Ukraine is going to fight -- when it can be confined to Crimea and the east, or when they are fighting an existential fight in the west?

I'm guessing you are not in the military. This isn't CoD. No sanctions have even been enacted yet. You can bet military planners are planning and war gaming as always, but who is going to fight this war? Are you signing up?

Re:Just start the war already!

[radarskiy]

The Soviet Union invaded Poland on September 17, 1939: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S...

Re:Just start the war already!

[gman003]

Is it going to be bloody? Absolutely, and that's terrible.

But, as has often been said, all that it takes for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing. Russia, under Putin, is a threat to the fragile world near-peace we currently have, as demonstrated by their words and by their actions. Their aggression cannot go unchecked, because otherwise we're looking at a full-blown world war in a decade's time or so. And Russia still has enough nuclear weapons to do some absolutely massive damage.

So which is better? A shooting war in Ukraine, or a global nuclear war? Peace would be far preferable to both, but I do not see a diplomatic solution working. Even an independent (non-Ukrainian, non-Russian) Crimea doesn't seem a possibility, with the way Russia is preparing to fake the votes.

And once Crimea flies the Russian flag, what do you think will happen next? Will Putin be satisfied with one conquest? Or will he keep waiting for the next opportunity to seize a bigger empire for himself?

I'm not saying this because I'm bored, but because I can see where things are headed. The path before us is littered with bodies no matter which path we take. I just want us to look at the long game - a war now would be violent but short, while waiting just makes the near-inevitable war bigger.

I hate to Godwin these things, but there are far too many similarities to 1938 to avoid at least bringing it up.

Re:Just start the war already!

[EverlastingPhelps]

America, the UN, and the EU are not going to sanction Russia. They simply aren't. They are no more sanctionable than America is.

Not only can they easily get around pretty much any sanction, the act of sanctioning them is still an Act of War under international law, which would give Putin a casus belli to invade even more countries, which he is obviously itching for.

The troops are on the field. The question is simply how well dug-in does Russia get to be in Crimea before they launch their attack.

Re:Just start the war already!

[Anonymous Coward]

> If we attack *now*
Does the "we" include you?

Re:Just start the war already!

[Mr. Slippery]

There is no way to avoid the war any longer. The invasion has happened.

You are oversimplifying to a dangerous degree.

There is at the moment no legitimate Ukrainian government. Putin is a vile authoritarian asshole, but he is right about one thing: Yanukovych's de facto removal from office was a coup.

Yanukovych can still make a claim of legitimate legal authority to invite Russian troops in.

And some part of the population in Crimea wants them there.

So, an "invasion"? Not clear.

As for "an existential fight in the west", it's doubtful that Putin wants to absorb all of Ukraine. Keep in mind that Ukraine is a synthetic state, based on the "Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic" set up by the USSR...which was created with a bunch of ethnic Russians exactly to keep Ukrainian nationalism in check. All in all, letting Crimea go back to Russia might be in everyone's best interest...but only if it's handled in a legitimate way. Right now, nothing happening over there has any legitimacy.

Re:Just start the war already!

[Lumpy]

"I wouldn't want to start a gunfight with Russian soldiers when I'm outnumbered and cut off from reinforcements. "

Why? it worked out so well for Napoleon and Hitler.... oh wait....

Re:Just start the war already!

[gman003]

They were never going to win the war. They were outnumbered, outclassed, outmanuevered even before the USSR got involved. It wasn't a Civilization-style cavalry-versus-tanks thing, but it was still not a war that they could reasonably expect to win.

They fought anyways. And even once the standing army had fallen, they fought a resistance.

Yes, if Germany had ignored them, they would have been a threat on their flanks. And given some time, they could be a pretty tough opponent. But Germany was geared up for war, and Poland was not.

Re:Just start the war already!

[Anonymous Coward]

Germans planed blitzkrieg on Poland and then wanted move on France. It didn't go as fast as planned. Poland surrender after 27 days fighting Germans on one front and Russians on the other. France for comparison give up after 44 days (10 May - 22 June) . Poland before WWII had a pact with UK and France to support Poland in case of invasion. They did not do a thing except to declare war on Germans and a couple naval blockades. "United States, Great Britain and Russia agreed in a pact 'to assure Ukraine's territorial integrity'" - I hope I am wrong but there are similarities. Now it is up to US and UK to act.

Re:Just start the war already!

[cold fjord]

You're missing some history.

Invasion of Poland, Fall 1939

In September 1938, after signing away the Czech border regions, known as the Sudetenland, to Germany at the Munich conference, British and French leaders pressured France's ally, Czechoslovakia, to yield to Germany's demand for the incorporation of those regions. Despite Anglo-French guarantees of the integrity of rump Czechoslovakia, the Germans dismembered the Czechoslovak state in March 1939 in violation of the Munich agreement. Britain and France responded by guaranteeing the integrity of the Polish state.

German forces moving into Poland was an act of war to France and Britain so France had to be neutralized before German forces moved into Russia.

The Crimea is the new Sudetenland, and it is Russia that is accumulating territory.

Re:Just start the war already!

[Anonymous Coward]

I think the main reason other countries aren't intervening is that right now, Ukraine isn't defending itself. Military outposts in Crimea are surrendering without a fight to the Russians. It's hard to justify sending our troops over there when Ukrainian troops aren't willing to fight.

The other more fundamental issue is that sending troops into the Ukraine will basically be the start of WWIII, and this war would be between powers that are nuclear states. The literal and figurative fallout could be on a scale yet unseen.

That doesn't mean we always let Russia get away with whatever they want to do. If they continue to seize territory from other nations we have to put our foot down at some point. But is Crimea important enough to risk what could devolve into a nuclear war? No, probably not. But we also have to watch and make sure that they don't continue grabbing small territories.

Russia will not start a shooting war with the U.S. (there's no winning that war, your best case scenario is to take the U.S. down with you).

If the U.S. took the stand that failure to withdraw would be considered an act of war against the United States. Russia would back down.

The problem is taking that stand would probably start a new Cold War and the U.S. doesn't care enough about the Ukraine to risk that so chances are the U.S. will not give the ultimatum.

Re:Just start the war already!

[Lumpy]

If someone throws nukes I can tell you what will happen.

Iran will nuke the shit out of Israel and Iraq. N korea will nuke S korea. China will nuke N korea and a few areas that have been bothing them some even in their own country. Israel being nuked will also start a couple of other countries to decide that throwing something at europe is a good idea. Putin will wipe the Ukrane off the map, as well as afganastan just for good measure, and maybe even throw one at japan because of that old "we hate japan about those tiny islands they claim" disagreement.

Obama will go on TV stating that everything is ok, and he will talk to Putin. within 30 days we will be living in caves, eating our neighbors, and fighting in thunderdome for gasoline.

Re:Just start the war already!

[Lumpy]

I suggest you also read history books, as it seems you know absolutely nothing about WW-II... let me guess, American public education?

Re:Just start the war already!

[Anonymous Coward]

Military outposts in Crimea are surrendering without a fight to the Russians.

Where do you find this crap? The day the government was thrown out in Kiev, Crimea turn over their local Government to a Russian Citizen and requested Russian protection. The same day! They also started building up civilian militias because they were worried about the protestors coming down and taking over Crimea after overthrowing Kiev.

The majority of Russians don't see Russia as evil you realize, in fact many of the old Easter countries see them as the lesser of the two evils between the US/EU and Russia. The majority of Russians realize Russia has corruption, but don't see themselves as more corrupt than the west. The US keeps trying to prove that correct to boot.

This is why the hypocrisy of the US is biting them in the ass! Or did you get about Syria and the US arming rebels there, the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan, no criminal punishment for bankers or politicians, the whole NSA thing, etc...

It's good to be patriotic, but it's not good to be an ignorant patriot.

Re:Just start the war already!

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh wonderful, civilian uprisings are coups now.

Re:Just start the war already!

[Anonymous Coward]

You admit to reading bias which is good, but I'll question how history is being revised right in front of your eyes and you are espousing the revision and not the history.

The same day the Euromaidens took over Kiev the local Government in Crimea put a Russian Citizen in charge and requested Russian protection. They started patrolling the streets because they were worried about the Euromaidens heading into Crimea to overthrow their leadership also. Since Crimea was already moving toward being independent from the Ukraine you can see their concern. They make a good chunk of money from Russian bases and would have lost that at a minimum, in addition to being mostly Russians.

Revisionist history != History, but people espouse everything they hear today as fact without even looking back a couple friggin days! Sheesh!

Re:Just start the war already!

[michael021689]

Although drawing comparisons to the thirties is overdone, this is a rare case where it makes sense. It is coincidence that I have been rereading "The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich" in the past few weeks, but it is impossible not to draw parallels between the history of the Sudetenland and the current situation in the Crimea.

Re:Just start the war already!

[Anonymous Coward]

Yanukovych can still make a claim of legitimate legal authority to invite Russian troops in.

No, he cannot. Only parliament (Rada) have authority to invite them (and they are, obviously, on the opposite side).

Re:Just start the war already!

[gman003]

Okay, you just lost me there. None of that makes sense.

Iran does not yet have nuclear weapons, and even if they did, they'd have only a handful of fission weapons. They probably wouldn't use them immediately - Iraq is not a threat, and Israel is enough of a threat to not want to start a war with unless they have an advantage.

China will not nuke North Korea - that's like saying the US will nuke Canada. They'll probably also stay uninvolved at first, making a move on Taiwan and the Senkaku Islands (or whatever you want to call them, that's just the only name I remember) once the US is sufficiently occupied elsewhere. Japan might get nuked over the islands, but not likely.

North Korea is probably smart enough to hunker down and sit this war out as well. If they're dumb, they'll wait until the US moves troops out of South Korea before invading and promptly getting their asses kicked. They'll do some heavy damage, but they'd end up dead. China might then retaliate, but with the US out of Korea that's not a sure bet.

Israel will also do little - maybe take care of Syria, or if they get invaded they'll murder whoever tried, but they've got no horse in this race.

In your "everybody with nukes must use them" spree, you forgot Pakistan and India. I don't know how that one would turn out, but they don't seem to really want to conquer the other, just threaten them.

And in any case, even if every nuclear country except US and Russia got together, they still wouldn't match our arsenal. If you want a good metaphor, imagine nukes as guns. India and Pakistan are in a Mexican standoff with handguns. Israel has a PPK up its sleeves. China's eying everyone with an old SKS. North Korea's got a starting pistol they slapped a cheap round into that will probably hurt them more than whoever they shoot it at, and Iran has a kit of parts they haven't assembled yet. Meanwhile, America and Russia have .50-caliber machine guns ready to sweep the room. That's basically the worlds' nuclear powers right now.

Re:Just start the war already!

[x0]

Lumpy

Obama will go on TV stating that everything is ok, and he will talk to Putin. within 30 days we will be living in caves, eating our neighbors, and fighting in thunderdome for gasoline.

Don't forget the strongly worded letter! He'll firmly community organize their asses.

m

Re:Just start the war already!

[CrimsonAvenger]

That doesn't mean we always let Russia get away with whatever they want to do. If they continue to seize territory from other nations we have to put our foot down at some point. But is Crimea important enough to risk what could devolve into a nuclear war? No, probably not. But we also have to watch and make sure that they don't continue grabbing small territories.

Hmm...South Ossetia sound familiar? That would be the last time Russia decided it wanted part of its neighbors' territory.

Last I checked, the Russians pretty much got their way that time.

And it's looking like they're going to get their way this time too.

So, when does someone stop them from "grabbing small territories"?

Because we can ALWAYS say "well, it's just a small bit of territory. We can't go to war over every small bit of territory..."

Re:Just start the war already!

[Ralph Wiggam]

I wouldn't want to start a gunfight with Russian soldiers when I'm outnumbered and cut off from reinforcements.

There is another explanation for the Crimean's lack of resistance. Most of them are ethnic Russians, who speak Russian, and are perfectly happy to be under Russian control.

Re:Just start the war already!

[Attila Dimedici]

Well the large reason for that is that Ukraine BELIEVED the rest of the world when they promised to defend the territorial integrity of Ukraine in order to convince Ukraine to give up the nuclear weapons they inherited from the Soviet Union. As a result of that belief, the Ukrainians don't have much of an army.

Re:Just start the war already!

[poetmatt]

"Some part of Crimea wants them there"?

You mean the part that is 100% false and this has been shown via evidence?

http://news.slashdot.org/story...

Re:Just start the war already!

[Anonymous Coward]

According to polls, less than 26% of East Ukraine & Crimea and less than 41% of Crimea (alone) wanted to join Russia. Sure, that's still a lot of people, but not quite 50-to-50.

Re:Just start the war already!

[shutdown -p now]

Soviets didn't attack right away. They basically sat and waited for Germans to steamroll over the most efficient Polish units in the west, and only went in in two weeks, after it was mostly all over (indeed, the official pretext for Soviet occupation was that Polish government "ran away, abandoning the country"). Consequently, Soviet units didn't see much resistance when they entered - Polish military was already disorganized and demoralized, lacking orders from the central government, and being unclear over whether Soviet troops are there to help them fight off the Germans.

Re:Just start the war already!

[crunchygranola]

There is no way to avoid the war any longer. The invasion has happened.

You are oversimplifying to a dangerous degree.

There is at the moment no legitimate Ukrainian government. Putin is a vile authoritarian asshole, but he is right about one thing: Yanukovych's de facto removal from office was a coup.

The illegitimate government of the United States I suppose should dissolve itself and place itself under its rightful leadership of the Queen, until such as time she and the British Parliament deign to grant independence?

What can we say about gross abuse of office (theft of $35 billion?) and the use of security forces as assassins of Yanukovich's opponents? How could Yanukovich have been removed "legitimately" under such conditions?

...

As for "an existential fight in the west", it's doubtful that Putin wants to absorb all of Ukraine. Keep in mind that Ukraine is a synthetic state, based on the "Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic" set up by the USSR...which was created with a bunch of ethnic Russians exactly to keep Ukrainian nationalism in check. All in all, letting Crimea go back to Russia might be in everyone's best interest...but only if it's handled in a legitimate way. Right now, nothing happening over there has any legitimacy.

Ah, but the letter of the law does not count with Crimea, eh? Where is Russia's right of armed intervention enshrined in law? If Crimea wants to join Russia the let it hold a referendum under conditions of peace, and without Russian coercion. Where is the logic that disorder from Yanukovych's misrule should award Russia with Crimea?

Re:Just start the war already!

[JoeMerchant]

Didn't Russia beat Napolean with this kind of strategy?

Re:Just start the war already!

[EverlastingPhelps]

No, because Ukraine didn't burn Crimea before the Russians moved in.

Re:Just start the war already!

[maccodemonkey]

Because we can ALWAYS say "well, it's just a small bit of territory. We can't go to war over every small bit of territory..."

Sure, but have they grabbed enough territory total to make the cost in millions or billions of lives that would be ended in going to war with Russia worth it? I'm not sure they have.

At the same time, they're starting to run into countries that are NATO allies. When they look at annexing a NATO ally, now the question ls theirs to answer. Is the possibility of nuclear war worth annexing a slice of Poland?

Not only that, but economic sanctions are actually a good response to Crimea. The Russian economy isn't terribly strong, and the Russians are doing a fair amount of damage themselves by threatening foreign investments. If a lot of foreign money pulls out of Russia, you could see a situation in which the Russian people themselves throw Putin out of office in 5-10 years. There are some comparing to Nazi Germany, but Russia isn't exactly the economic machine that Germany was. Russia can still be thrown off balance pretty easily.

It's easy to say we should make a stand on principle, but we'd be talked about a very expensive stand on principle, one that itself might destroy the US economy and end the United States as a super power. But hey, if you think dragging Russia down with us is worth it...

Re:Just start the war already!

[Uberbah]

You mean an irrelevant red herring. Wikileaks cables have nothing to do with polling the population of Crimea, which is 60% ethnic Russian. As for Putin's meddling, that's a perfectly valid subject, so long as you aren't throwing stones in a glass house. That's the U.S. Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland, wife of PNAC neocon Robert Kagan, openly bragging about how the U.S. has spent $5 billion supporting "pro-west" capitalists to give Ukraine "the future it deserves".

In front of banners for fucking Chevron and ExxonMobile. A scene that you would have laughed out of the room if you were Tom Clancy's editor for one of his ghostwritten books.

Re:Just start the war already!

[bigpat]

Not because we are bored. Because the war has already started on the Russian side, and all the Ukraine is doing now is losing. There is no way to avoid the war any longer. The invasion has happened. The only question is when Ukraine is going to fight -- when it can be confined to Crimea and the east, or when they are fighting an existential fight in the west?

If Ukrainian forces attack Crimea it will likely bring the Russians in force and they will probably take over half the country unless the whole of NATO goes to war with Russia at which point yes we are talking about at the very least a world wide economic disaster the likes of which we haven't seen since the Great Depression and World War II.

A few weeks ago the Ukrainians were ruled by a Russian puppet president. Putin's reaction to the overthrow of that Kiev government has been fairly limited to just Crimea. If the price of freedom from Russian domination in the rest of Ukraine is giving the people of Crimea a referendum on Independence or joining the Russian Federation, then the West should focus on making sure that it is a free and fair election and keeping the peace in the rest of Ukraine.

Oh and then the US should just go after Assad hard in Syria with a tenfold increase in arming all rebels that can be vetted. Because if Putin wants to keep Crimea, ain't now way he should be allowed to keep his man in Syria.

Re:Just start the war already!

[Hognoxious]

Yanukovych can still make a claim of legitimate legal authority to invite Russian troops in.

And the Duke of Edinburgh has a claim to be Czar of Russia.

Re:Just start the war already!

[poetmatt]

Them being ethnically russian has absolutely zero bearing on intentionally driving up tensions between people in a single region, as you note yourself in the second sentence. This isn't an "ethnic cleansing" like Armenia. Just as there are peaceful middle eastern folk who live freely in Israel, there are peaceful Russians who live freely in Ukraine.

I don't know how someone in such a position can't even pronounce Kiev properly though, that's pretty fucking sad from a cultural perspective. That part of things (and US involvement in general) is indeed a fucking insult/joke. However, I certainly wouldn't be able to tell you what the right answer/response is here.

Re:Just start the war already!

[Anonymous Coward]

1) Only 41% of Crimea population wants to be part of Russia. "Russian origin" is not quite same as "loves Putin". Leaving majority of Crimea population to bandits and terrorists is not an option. 2) Crimea is heavily tied by water/electricity/etc supply to mainland Ukraine. If they are going to join Russia, they will end up with occupying quite a part of mainland too. Accepting that is not an option too.

Re:Just start the war already!

[Hognoxious]

[bookmarked]

Re:Just start the war already!

[bloodhawk]

Oh wonderful, civilian uprisings are coups now.

Yes they are. Perhaps you need to learn the definition of coup, a military coup is only one type, what has happened in Ukraine fits the definition of a coup to a T.

Re:Just start the war already!

[Anonymous Coward]

You should remember that in America we view coups as legit ways to get out of treaties.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Alliance_(1778)

Re:Just start the war already!

[qbast]

They knew damn well that they are not going to win alone. They were pinning down and bleeding majority of German army waiting for French and British forces to roll in from west. Maybe WW2 would be over in several months if only supposed allies had guts and basic decency to honour their obligations.

Re:Just start the war already!

[EzInKy]

True, it was the USSR's hunger for land that contributed to the fall of Poland. In the end that hunger led to the deaths of tens of millions of Russian's, but the USSR felt at the time the lives of tens of millions of Russian's was a fair price to pay.

Re:Just start the war already!

[Anonymous Coward]

Dear Leader has been peddling his version of diplomacy, but it doesn't help when you've been Carterized by Putin!

Re:Just start the war already!

[Darinbob]

I'm not so sure about the coup. Because it really is not clear. First off, you can not trust one word that Yanukovych says, period. He basically engineered his own election by many accounts; of course whether that is true or not is debatable as well. Second, he was losing badly in negotiations when many of his MP allies were deserting. Third, he left quickly which surprised many in government. Yes things didn't follow all the rules (the rules were written to give president most of the power and to make sure parliament couldn't mess this up).

My theory is that he knew the end was coming. If he lost the elections later in the year (almost certain to happen) he'd have been exposed to a lot of recrimination and prosecution for various misdeeds (all that missing money). So he cut and ran. He wasn't going to stick around for an impeachment.

The constitution is a piece of paper. There is theory versus practice: the theory is the constitution, and the practice is what actually happens on the ground. The parliament reverted to an earlier constitution from last decade. Which is more legitimate than the other? The one he got rid of in order to consolidate more power or the one he replaced it with? Yes at one point there were enough parliamentary votes to bring in the new constitution that is true.

Yanukovych was not the entirety of the government. He has no authority to ask Russians to invade on his behalf. Even if he was still in office he did not have that power as a single person, even with the greatly expanded presidential powers that were added to the constitution while he was there. What he says now is irrelevant. You either assume the current government is legitimate or illegitimate, Yanukovych is out of the picture.

So maybe it was a coup. So what? It gives no extra power to Putin, except an excuse to use his military (I say "his" purposely, most people in his government appear to be his assistants rather than his limits to power). A coup gives no extra legitimacy to Yanukovych either.

Some part of the Crimea wants the Russians out of there too. There is no basis in any treaties for Russia to put troops outside their bases and surrounding zones in Crimea, the treaties are clear where the boundaries are. Going all the way up to the gates of Ukrainian military bases are most certainly not allowed in the treaties. It's clear that this will end badly. Tatar houses are being marked with the same symbol that Stalin used before deporting them, as an attempt by some people there to intimidate the minorities. No way are these pro-Russian fascists going to be singing kumbaya with their former neighbors (yes, people on both sides can be fascist), there are signs this could play out like the breakup of Yugoslavia.

Re:Just start the war already!

[Darinbob]

Yes, but it is enough to have Poland reserve some troops for the east instead of committing them all to the west. You can't just ignore Russia leaving its armies on your borders. Both sides were anxious to grab at least some part of Poland.

Re:Just start the war already!

[Darinbob]

Many in Crimea, especially in cities, are closely allied to Russian military personnel there. Families, girlfriends, etc. They get most of their business from Russian military, etc. In other parts of Ukraine the ethnic Russians aren't as fervently pro-Russia.

Re:Just start the war already!

[Anonymous Coward]

I think the main reason other countries aren't intervening is that right now, Ukraine isn't defending itself. Military outposts in Crimea are surrendering without a fight to the Russians. It's hard to justify sending our troops over there when Ukrainian troops aren't willing to fight.

As far as I understand, they are not surrendering, but try not to provoke a Georgian-like scenario.Since no one is willing to send their troops to help, what would be the odds of winning in an open conflict?

But fuck, even Poland at least tried to fight back when the German blitzkrieg rolled in.

I'm wondering if you meant that they fought against all odds or is it just some form of xenophobia. Polish troops did actually pretty well, given the overwhelming German war machine that subsequently crushed Western neighbors, not to mention Russian attack from the East.

Anyhow, Poland might have fought in a belief that France and UK might fulfill their military obligations. Now we know beyond a shadow of a doubt, that such treaties and guarantees of allies are worth shit. Ukraine might be doing the right thing.

Re:Just start the war already!

[Anonymous Coward]

Well the large reason for that is that Ukraine BELIEVED the rest of the world when they promised to defend the territorial integrity of Ukraine

You nor Ukraine should think the "rest of the world" going to war with Russia is the best option here. Good lord man, you're not talking about some men fighting over a lady's honor while she watches from the sidelines, you're talking about a bunch of men fighting over a dead man.

Re: Just start the war already!

[Anonymous Coward]

The US can go back to good old cold war methods: money and weapons to terrorists in Kaukasia, instigating the government in Georgia to support terrorists, supporting the Crimea Tartars in their threats to fight violently etc.
It's likely that Russia would very quickly regret having so much hard to defend and semi-hostile territory.
It's just the question whether anyone cares more about Ukraina than about the world economy and the US and European countries in Russia...
Actually, nobody cares about Ukraina, rather the question is how much they care about giving Russia the finger...

Re:Just start the war already!

[Xest]

You don't have to start a war when you send troops in. We should've put a stop to this in Georgia, we should've deployed vast amounts of equipment and troops and rolled them right up to Russia's border with Georgia to make a point way back in 2008. We should do the same now.

We should be matching their deployment in Crimea with our own in Ukraine along Russia's borders and give them a far more simple option - we'll back off and withdraw, if you back off and withdraw. Right now just letting them take Crimea without question means they'll keep on doing it, just as they saw they got away with it in Georgia.

Even if not the Ukraine, we should be bordering troops around the Russian enclave of Kaliningrad Oblast with an explicit threat that annexation of Crimea will be met by Western annexation of Kaliningrad Oblast.

Right now Putin has nothing to love because our counter-threats are pathetic. Make it clear that for every bit of territory he gains through annexation he will lose some somewhere else and it's a much more clear cut choice for him.

We don't have to start a shooting war, we just have to match his non-shooting tactics in kind such that in the same way nuclear weapons and the MAD principle make nuclear war meaningless, threatening to match each Russian annexation with a Western annexation would make annexation pointless.

It doesn't take long before all those small territories we just let him have start to stack up as much larger land masses. Let him take Crimea and Eastern Ukraine will be next.

Re:Just start the war already!

[Anonymous Coward]

We should all be thankful that people in the relevant positions in Ukraine have shown much restraint so far and trusted or hoped that diplomatic and economic means would be brought to bear.

It's not like they have much of a choice. The Russian military outnumbers them 20 to 1 easily and could roll up the entire country in short order if Putin ordered an all out attack. They're trying not to provoke him because they don't want a repeat of Poland vs Germany ala 1939.

Re:Just start the war already!

[Anonymous Coward]

If Poland had a Guderian, it could have turned out very different.

Unlikely. The Luftwaffe was substantially superior to the Polish air force at the time which fielded less than 100 WWI era biplanes against the Luftwaffe which had hundreds of the excellent BF-109 monoplane fighters and Stuka dive bombers. There was zero chance that the Polish air force of 1939 could have prevented the Luftwaffe from achieving complete air superiority and thus the inevitable Stuka dive bomber attacks which were used to such great effect by the Germans in the blitzkrieg style of warfare. This use of the divebomber in the close air support role was a tactical innovation at the time and one for which Poland and others were initially ill-prepared.

Re:Just start the war already!

[Anonymous Coward]

Could you please make that a car metaphor?

Thanks!

Re:Just start the war already!

[mosiadh]

Okay, you just lost me there. None of that makes sense.

Iran does not yet have nuclear weapons, and even if they did, they'd have only a handful of fission weapons. They probably wouldn't use them immediately - Iraq is not a threat, and Israel is enough of a threat to not want to start a war with unless they have an advantage.

China will not nuke North Korea - that's like saying the US will nuke Canada. They'll probably also stay uninvolved at first, making a move on Taiwan and the Senkaku Islands (or whatever you want to call them, that's just the only name I remember) once the US is sufficiently occupied elsewhere. Japan might get nuked over the islands, but not likely.

North Korea is probably smart enough to hunker down and sit this war out as well. If they're dumb, they'll wait until the US moves troops out of South Korea before invading and promptly getting their asses kicked. They'll do some heavy damage, but they'd end up dead. China might then retaliate, but with the US out of Korea that's not a sure bet.

Israel will also do little - maybe take care of Syria, or if they get invaded they'll murder whoever tried, but they've got no horse in this race.

In your "everybody with nukes must use them" spree, you forgot Pakistan and India. I don't know how that one would turn out, but they don't seem to really want to conquer the other, just threaten them.

And in any case, even if every nuclear country except US and Russia got together, they still wouldn't match our arsenal. If you want a good metaphor, imagine nukes as guns. India and Pakistan are in a Mexican standoff with handguns. Israel has a PPK up its sleeves. China's eying everyone with an old SKS. North Korea's got a starting pistol they slapped a cheap round into that will probably hurt them more than whoever they shoot it at, and Iran has a kit of parts they haven't assembled yet. Meanwhile, America and Russia have .50-caliber machine guns ready to sweep the room. That's basically the worlds' nuclear powers right now.

Meanwhile Britain and France still have enough nukes to destroy most major cities of either Russia or the US, at least an M16 or AK74 in terms on anologies!

Re:Just start the war already!

[airdweller]

Please take your pills :)

Nuke Store

[Anonymous Coward]

I guess he's just going to walk down to the corner nuke store, then? Maybe while he's out he can pick up an aircraft carrier or two.

The best bet for Ukraine at this point is to cut its losses and relinquish Crimea. Otherwise, there'll just be decades upon decades of ambiguity and bickering which will effect trade and traffic and complicate international agreements--new and old. For example, Ukraine could never join NATO (not that it should) if it claimed Crimea, because NATO requires member states to be in complete control of their territory.

Re:Nuke Store

[michael021689]

Yeah, if the Ukrainians just cut their losses like the Czechs did under the guidance of France and the UK, things could work out even better this time.

Re:Nuke Store

[tgv]

First, I don't think Putin is going to go all over Asia and Europe after this. Second, it's pretty dangerous to try to take away the Crimea from Russia, access to the Mediterranean, and all. Third, a majority does seem to want to go with Russia, unlike in the rest of Ukraine.

Now, we threaten with sanctions, the Russians withdraw after OVSE organizes a referendum, Crimea gets a "special status" in Ukraine, Russia keeps its fleet, no-one loses face.

Re:Nuke Store

[Anonymous Coward]

"Third, a majority does seem to want to go with Russia, unlike in the rest of Ukraine."
seems is the right word here.
There is no shadow of a doubt my mind that a referendum will produce exactly the results needed: organized in two weeks, conducted by russians and at a gunpoint, with two choices on the ballot - "return to 1992 status" and "join russia".

Re:Nuke Store

[guacamole]

The nationalist Ukrainian forces are quite strong in Ukraine, so it's possible that Ukrainian politicians will probably continue defending Ukraine's sovereignty over Crimea. In reality, that probably won't amount to much and they're probably happy that they lost those million plus Russian voters who live in Crimea.

Re:Nuke Store

[guacamole]

People who constantly draw the obvious analogies between Hitler's annexation of Sudetenland and all territorial conflicts that ever followed after WWII are so smart. Can we nominate you for Nobel Peace prize or at least offer you a lectureship in history and political science at some university?

Re:Nuke Store

[Anonymous Coward]

>First, I don't think Putin is going to go all over Asia and Europe after this.
Did you think so after Georgia also, a couple years back? Just put a watch on Moldova(already split by Russia), Armenia. Central Asia?

Of course they do

[Anonymous Coward]

The Ukraine is weak, it's feeble.

Boring

[Anonymous Coward]

You're tired, stale, and repetitive. Continue wasting your time... not sure what this has to do at all with Obama, but continue nonetheless retard!

Re:Liberals will call this another Obama victory

[Anonymous Coward]

And what is one of the foundational beliefs of neo realism you ask?

No. No one asked that. What everyone is asking is "did you forget to take your meds?"

The importance of a strong military

[mysidia]

It seems Ukraine's people are powerless to restore order to their country and expunge the Russians.

If they had a stronger military, they could have defended their sovereignty.

As is, they will probably lose their independence.

Re:The importance of a strong military

[EverlastingPhelps]

You fucked up, Flounder -- you trusted us!

Re:The importance of a strong military

[Runaway1956]

I already posted this above:

Something else to keep in mind, is the area under dispute. The Autonomous Republic of Crimea. See, it's not exactly "Ukrainian" at all. It is an autonomous republic. The demographics? 50% Russian, 25% Ukrainian, and the balance are mostly Tatars. How and when did Crimea become "Ukrainian" anyway? Oh - that was an administrative move, made by the old Soviet, which stuck Crimea in with the Ukraine. Administrative. Crimea never has been "Ukrainian". So, if an AUTONOMOUS Republic wishes to remove itself from association with a nation that only has administrative ties to it - why not?

I stand with Crimea and Russia on this issue. The current regime in the Ukraine are a bunch of racist assholes. Among their first actions upon assuming power, was to outlaw the Russian language in any formal or official documents. Crimeans speak Russian, not Ukrainian. Screw the president, and screw the capital - Crimeans decided that they don't want to be "Ukrainian" any longer.

Not very many nations are willing to assist another nation in the suppression of an AUTONOMOUS REPUBLIC.

Re:The importance of a strong military

[radarskiy]

" So, if an AUTONOMOUS Republic wishes to remove itself from association with a nation that only has administrative ties to it - why not?"
Theoretically interesting, but not entirely representative of the current situation, since:
a) In the past, the Crimean Tatars had been forcibly deported and Russians moved in, and
b) The presence of foreign Russian military has a non-zero effect on what the autonomous republic "wishes", in particular the scuttling of a ship to block a port and military personnel removing identification from their uniforms.

"The current regime in the Ukraine are a bunch of racist assholes."
The Crimean Tatars are familiar with the concept.

Re:The importance of a strong military

[Anonymous Coward]

No. States do not have the right to succeed. That argument was settle internationally when Lincoln sent Sherman to South Carolina to burn down their houses,kill their livestock, and rape their women. What Crimea is doing is wrong. Just as it is wrong when slave owners tried it before. The secessionists are the racists. Are you really going to argue in favor of people that want to own slaves?

> Ukraine are a bunch of racist assholes

No, historically the secessionists are the racists. You are siding with slave holders. You, and your Republican kind, are disgusting. Your time has passed. Just give-up already on the right to own other humans.

Re:The importance of a strong military

[Anonymous Coward]

Watching RT much?

Re:The importance of a strong military

[borcharc]

Ukraine has a strong military, for reasons I can not explain the media has been representing them as not being a match for Russia. Raw equipment and manpower does not win a conflict. There are far more factors to consider. Russia has a total military strength of ~775k. Of that 57% of them are 1 year conscripts (publicly pledged not to be used in combat last year).The other 334k professional soldiers and officers (how many do you think are required to keep the conscripts under control), what percentage do you really think they can commit to Ukraine's 129k+ personal force plus their 1 million reserves (who all had 18-24 months service). Do you think Russia will abandon the defense of the entire country to invade Ukraine? Because thats what it would take. Do you really think Russia can call up their reserves when draft dodging and desertion have them 225k men under their legally required minimum strength? Perhaps thats the plan spread Russia thin, militarily and politically.

Re:The importance of a strong military

[Runaway1956]

But - you don't advance any argument that Ukrainians have any right to dictate what the current population should do. Your points are worthy of notice, but they have no bearing on the current situation.

Re:The importance of a strong military

[Runaway1956]

Preposterous. Our American Civil War doesn't have diddly to do with international law.

Re:The importance of a strong military

[Runaway1956]

As a matter of fact, yes, I do look to RT among other sources for my news. I positively HATE to get all my propaganda from one source, exclusively. But, I have a suggestion for you. You might browse the wikipedia, to learn something of the history of Crimea. Crimea has never been Ukrainian. France, or Spain, or Italy have about as much claim on Crimea as the Ukraine has. Or, maybe Brazil. I didn't go to RT to learn the history of Crimea - it's available through a number of sources.

Re:The importance of a strong military

[HeckRuler]

Now, you see, this is the sort of shit which makes me REALLY wary of any Russian actions.

It's the sort of post that's drenched in pro-Russian propoganda that I draw parrallels to something that would come out of Rush Limbagh or Glenn Beck.
1) Except they didn't outlaw the Russian language. Someone proposed the bill and it got vetoed. But hey, you could twist that to be a major slight against the ethnic Russians.
2) You "side with Crimea and Russia?" Whoa dude. Whoa. While I'd LOVE to see a real actual vote by the people (or even their representative) about what they want to do, I'm not really sure I can trust the Crimean parliment because of all the armed foreign troops deciding who gets to go in and vote.
3) You are desperately trying to spin it that the Russians are helping the suppressed Crimean people. No dude. Just no.

Yeah, this is the sort of nationalistic bullshit which scares me. It's not so bad when the bad guy spews bullshit. But when he gets true believers that eat it up, you've got a bad situation where people get stupid and start launching things at each other.

Hey, if they really want to be Russian again, good for them. But the Russians troops would have to stop holding a gun to their head before I trusted anything come out of the region.

Re:The importance of a strong military

[Runaway1956]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D...

Re:The importance of a strong military

[radarskiy]

My claim is that not that the Ukrainian state has an overt right to dictate, but that the Russian state does not have a not-quite-covert right to dictate.

Two to three weeks ago it was plausible that a majority of those living in Crimea would vote to join Russia.Today, it would be hard to prove that the result would not be because of the Russian state's thumb on the scales.

Re:The importance of a strong military

[mysidia]

So, if an AUTONOMOUS Republic wishes to remove itself from association with a nation that only has administrative ties to it - why not?

I don't see it as much different... as France deciding to invade Quebec, if Canada chooses to ban use of the French language on any signage or official documents, and refuses to allow Quebec independence and such.

Associations that are ORIGINALLY administrative become more complicated over time.

A lot of the US states only had administrative ties with the federal government. Seceding was still not permitted.

Re:The importance of a strong military

[Darinbob]

Wait, how and when did Crimea become "Russian" anyway? Oh yea, when Stalin kicked the Tatars out and moved the Russians in.

It's SEMI-autonomous which reflects the fact that historically it hasn't been either Russian or Ukrainian for long periods of time.

As for racist assholes, I think you're believing too much of Putin's propaganda about nazis and fascists, which were only a small part of the protests and government. As for removing Russian as an official language (hardly "outlawing" it) that was indeed provocative, and intended to poke a finger, but is it really racist? Given that Tymoschenko herself is a native Russian speaker from a Russian speaking town in eastern Ukraine who is a very prominent figure in the anti-Yanukovych camp, so is she racist or a Russian traitor or...?

If Crimea wants to leave, then a legal referendum could help with that. However the current one is not. You may argue that the "coup" wasn't legal but that doesn't mean Russia gets to pick and choose with breaking of laws is allowed (those in its favor) and which can not (those opposed to Russia). Having only 10 days to set up and hold and election by itself is a ridiculous farce. Given the presence of foreign troops, with citizens being blockaded within their barracks, hospitals being overrun by troops, journalists being hassled, houses of Tatars being marked specially with paint, there is no possible way this will be a free and fair election.

Re:The importance of a strong military

[Anonymous Coward]

actually they do as proven by USA and EU removing Kosovo from Serbia

Re:The importance of a strong military

[Rakarra]

No. States do not have the right to succeed. That argument was settle internationally when Lincoln sent Sherman to South Carolina to burn down their houses,kill their livestock, and rape their women. What Crimea is doing is wrong.

States have the "Right" to seceed. And the parent country has the right to invade and bring them back. Who wins? Whomever is able to fight off the other, that's who wins. There's no morality here in either situation.

> Ukraine are a bunch of racist assholes

No, historically the secessionists are the racists. You are siding with slave holders. You, and your Republican kind, are disgusting. Your time has passed. Just give-up already on the right to own other humans.

I think this topic is a little too important for the same old stupid trolling. Save that for the Microsoft story.

Re:The importance of a strong military

[Anonymous Coward]

only big percent of Ukrainian military are native Russians, and they would probably switch sides, it would change percent a lot, also Russia military/technology budget is much higher

Re:The importance of a strong military

[Anonymous Coward]

No, historically the secessionists are the racists. You are siding with slave holders. You, and your Republican kind, are disgusting. Your time has passed. Just give-up already on the right to own other humans.

FYI, the slave holders were DEMOCRATS. Lincoln & the GOP were the anti-slavery party

Re:The importance of a strong military

[guacamole]

An all out military conflict between Russians and Ukrainians is unlikely. They're like Uruguay and Paraguay, culturally speaking. So it's almost pointless to discuss in an all out war. In my opinion Russia would win but would have to deal with counter-insurgency for years. Ukrainians have experience with guerrilla warfare going way back to WWII.

Russia's armed forces have improved a lot in the last 10 years or so. They're a lot more modern and better equipped now. Looking at the TV images of Russians and their equipment in Crimea right now and compared the badly trained, poorly dressed and trained Russian troops from TV images of the Chechen Wars, the difference is huge. Russians are getting modern communications equipment, better fighting vehicles, new tanks and aircraft. Ukraine hasn't upgraded almost anything since the fall of USSR. One funny (or sad?) story about Ukraine's military is how they were trying to fix their only submarine. At some point the submarine had to be welded to a bridge in the port, or it would sink. Eventually, they repaired the sub, but with the help of Russians because a pro-Russian president was in power back then.

Re:The importance of a strong military

[guacamole]

As is, they will probably lose their independence.

There is no basis to say that. Russia does not claim the territory of the "mainland" Ukraine. Worst case scenario is if Russians instigate another revolt, this time in Ukraine's eastern province where pro-Russian forces are strong.

Re:The importance of a strong military

[guacamole]

Strong military is important, but you can't have a strong military without a strong economy. The Ukrainian economy has been doing pretty badly, and Ukrainian military has been suffering from underfunding. They haven't received any new equipment for decades, so all they use now is Soviet built tanks, ships, aircraft (most of which don't fly by now), etc.

Re:The importance of a strong military

[Anonymous Coward]

That's nice. Pennsylvania is mostly German, but you don't see them voting to join Germany. Just because someone is ethnically X doesn't mean X gets to invade the country and force a vote to join X.

Ukrainian AA defense rockets went missing a while

[Still beliving I am]

Timoshenko is from Lviv Mafia. Yanukovich was from Donetsk mafia. In the current Ukrainian government there are 2 mafia Oligarchs. Couple of years ago Ukraine sold Kiev AA defense rockets to Georgia, leaving Kiev without AA defenses. Ukrainian military thought they just went missing. I am sure nothing like that will happen to their Nukes - right?

Ask a Native American about US "agreements"...

[Anonymous Coward]

That is, if you can find one. I've no idea why any nation thinks an agreement with the US is binding beyond how it benefits the US.

Re:Ask a Native American about US "agreements"...

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe you missed the news flash, but it was RUSSIA that invaded Ukraine, not the US.

Why would you think that countries would sign an agreement that wasn't to their benefit in some way??

Re:Ask a Native American about US "agreements"...

[Anonymous Coward]

As in- why would Ukraine think the US would help? It doesn't benefit the US to help, and that's how agreements/treaties are routinely regarded by the US.

Re:Ask a Native American about US "agreements"...

[Anonymous Coward]

It isn't a defence treaty. There is nothing in that agreement that obligates any country to come to the military aid of Ukraine. Ukraine isn't part of NATO.

Question - why are you harping on the US when it is Russia that invaded and is preparing to annex the territory? Do you have any hard feelings for them?

Re:Ask a Native American about US "agreements"...

[colinrichardday]

Because the next time the US requests a country to surrender its nukes, that country will remember this example?

Re:Ask a Native American about US "agreements"...

[Anonymous Coward]

If the "Native Americans" didn't endlessly go back on their word and double deal with the west maybe it would be better for them. they were rightly defeated and should be truly grateful we did not just execute them all.

They won't

[Anonymous Coward]

If they try to even think about it seriously they will be invaded. I am just not sure if the East or West will do it first...

All in all, this will probably go one of two ways.

[bwcbwc]

1) Rollback Ukraine to previous "territorial integrity", possibly with some bargaining over the structure of a new government.
2) Russia annexes Crimea after their puppets declare independence and the remainder of Ukraine joins EU (and possibly NATO), starting a new cold war. Ukraine gets screwed over in this case because they don't really have any guarantee that NATO would back them up any more than the current coalition fails to.

Well then...

[Anonymous Coward]

If that is the case we would be under no obligation to defend their sovereignty and Putin can have at them.

Nuclear weapons don't actually work better

[WillAffleckUW]

A more sane alternative would be millions of armed drones - cheaper, faster, mobile, able to strike fear anywhere in nearby Russia and destroy their entire fleet by wave skipping (you lose about half of those, but they still hit at the waterline and sink the ship).

Nuclear weapons are so last century.

Re:Nuclear weapons don't actually work better

[Anonymous Coward]

The most effective way to get the point across is to stop purchasing Russian Vodka. Their economy would start to crash and the ones drinking Vodka would sober-up and actually get to work to solve the problem.

Re:Nuclear weapons don't actually work better

[WillAffleckUW]

Most of the vodka you think is Russian is actually from Finland and Poland and the Ukraine.

Be very careful about country of origin.

Stop buying Russian oil and gas and replace them with passive solar and wind power instead.

Reminds me of Star Wars: Eposide I

[Anonymous Coward]

This whole thing reminds me of reminds me of Star Wars: Episode I.

Nute Gunray: [on view screen] Yes, of course. As you know, our blockade is perfectly legal and we'd be happy to receive the ambassadors. ...
Darth Sidious: This turn of events is unfortunate. We must accelerate our plans. Begin landing your troops.
Nute Gunray: My lord, is that... legal?
Darth Sidious: I will make it legal.
Nute Gunray: And the Jedi?
Darth Sidious: The Chancellor should never have brought them into this. Kill them immediately!

Good.

[Anonymous Coward]

It's about time. They have been pushed around and abused for so long and just taking it. They are like saints compared to other 'nations' that never let anyone forget.

Why a war?

[Runaway1956]

Something else to keep in mind, is the area under dispute. The Autonomous Republic of Crimea. See, it's not exactly "Ukrainian" at all. It is an autonomous republic. The demographics? 50% Russian, 25% Ukrainian, and the balance are mostly Tatars. How and when did Crimea become "Ukrainian" anyway? Oh - that was an administrative move, made by the old Soviet, which stuck Crimea in with the Ukraine. Administrative. Crimea never has been "Ukrainian". So, if an AUTONOMOUS Republic wishes to remove itself from association with a nation that only has administrative ties to it - why not?

I stand with Crimea and Russia on this issue. The current regime in the Ukraine are a bunch of racist assholes. Among their first actions upon assuming power, was to outlaw the Russian language in any formal or official documents. Crimeans speak Russian, not Ukrainian. Screw the president, and screw the capital - Crimeans decided that they don't want to be "Ukrainian" any longer.

Not very many nations are willing to assist another nation in the suppression of an AUTONOMOUS REPUBLIC.

Re:Why a war?

[Anonymous Coward]

Idiot, Russians are there because Stalin put them there and moved Tatars away. I hope that one day you get treated same way.

Re:Why a war?

[daem0n1x]

You mean, like in Kosovo? Wasn't the West's main excuse to steal Kosovo from Serbia that most of the population was of Albanian origin? I fail to see how the West, having set such a precedent, can justify that Crimea is such an integral part of Ukraine, when most of its inhabitants are Russian.

But this is not about justice, fairness or anything. This is just hardcore geopolitics. Done in the same childish and short-sighted way as always. Putting fanatics in power in a Russia-satellite country to piss off the Russians... when have you last heard of such a move? Let me give you a hint, it usually blows right back in your face.

Re:Why a war?

[Anonymous Coward]

> You mean, like in Kosovo?
That's a close enough analogy.

> But this is not about justice, fairness or anything. This is just hardcore geopolitics.
Precisely. The Russian elites don't really give a toss about the Russian majority in Crimea or taking over the rest of Ukraine. Putin simply doesn't want to pay any more rent for the Black Sea fleet to the ridiculous non-government that has installed itself in Ukraine. He'd rather it was Russian territory, and he has no shortage of plausible justifications.

Re:Why a war?

[Anonymous Coward]

I have no idea what actually is going on in there except that it is a huge mess. I haven't heard of the outlawing of Russian language thing, which sounds bad but looking at it now maybe it makes sense and more eastern European countries should follow with similar actions if having any Russians around leads to this.

In any case, the whole Ukrainian system seems corrupt. The president was a criminal out to loot his country and people and absolutely needed to go. And when he got out of country he supposedly "requested" another country to attack his own people. Nice.

Then the Ukrainians get the former PM from jail and she says she wants to run for president. Yet she is listed as one of the people also having taken billions out of the country to her own foreign accounts. When she goes abroad she openly asks for countries to attack Russia. Is this the new way to go then? Does not sound good. Klitshko seems to have some reason in him but will he get anywhere..

And no, I don't think the Russians should be taking over parts of other countries, autonomous or not. Maybe even they realize that, which is why all the crazy shows about "these guys are not Russians". They just come over from Russia, wear Russian military uniforms, use Russian arms, Russian trucks, etc. etc. Yeah sure.

Again, what a crazy mess. I just hope it stays there and does not escalate further.

Re:Why a war?

[loonycyborg]

Then it must with Tatarstan and not Ukraine :P

Re:Why a war?

[shutdown -p now]

Among their first actions upon assuming power, was to outlaw the Russian language in any formal or official documents.

You're deliberately distorting the issue. One of the first actions of the new government was to repeal a law about regional languages signed by Yanukovich that is widely believed to be flawed both inherently and procedurally - this was repealed among several other such laws. This reverted the country to the language laws that were in place since 1989 (back when it was still the Ukrainian SSR). A committee was immediately formed to author a new law to replace the repealed one, and in the meantime the acting president has vetoed the repeal of the old law, citing concern about the interim period.

The whole diatribe about racist assholes is just verbatim Russian propaganda. If they are so racist, why did Lviv hold a "Russian language appreciation day"? Why did the Right Sector troops participated in the burial of several observant Jews who died on the barricades of Maidan (presided by a rabbi, no less)? Why do the majority of Russian speakers in Kiev say that they want Putin to fuck off?

For that matter, why is that the new government in Crimea is led by outright criminals? The new prime minister, Aksenov, had criminal record for assault and extortion back in 90s. Why are the pro-Russian figures in Eastern Ukraine outright Nazis, like Gubarev, the wannabe "people's mayor" of Kharkov, who turned out to be an ex-member of Russian National Unity, a neo-Nazi organization with swastika as an emblem?

Re:Why a war?

[shutdown -p now]

Tatars were already a minority there when they were deported, actually. They used to be about 20-25% compared to today's 10-15%.

The reason why Russians are a majority in Crimea is because it was steadily settled by Russians ever since Russia took it away from the Ottoman Empire under Catherine.

Re:Why a war?

[Anonymous Coward]

"Putting fanatics in power"*
*citation needed

Re:Why a war?

[NuclearCat]

Exactly. With all this ecstasy from revolution, people should look a bit which statements Praviy Sector and Svoboda made before.
Before revolution they said several times, that Russia, Poland and several other countries own their territory, plus their hymn include "russians on knifes" and "ukraine for ukrainians". Now guess, what will happen when they have nukes.
I was shocked, when i so how their "activists" attacked veterans of WWII, 80+ year old people, in 2011, Lviv. Check youtube for that.

Re:Why a war?

[Anonymous Coward]

Mmm... Let me see. a) no NATO country did anex Kosovo, b) by far there are no reports of Russians being abused in Crimea in any way, c) there really is no issue (Russians and Ukrainians are technically closer mentally and otherwise than any other two nations), d) NATO did not pretend to be a local milita, e) Russians are actually not ethnic there (Tatars are), f) NATO did not have a military base in Kosovo they felt threatened to invade.

Should I really continue? Mr. Putin is a bloody ex-KGB apparatchik(no Russian military on ground in Crimea - really?). Now he had to either explain Sochi Olympics failure due to massive corruption or slowdown in Russia economy and massive dependency on energy exports or to go to a war somewhere.

The choice seems to be quite obvious.

Re:Why a war?

[Runaway1956]

"Why do the majority of Russian speakers in Kiev say that they want Putin to fuck off?" Interesting - citations?

Criminal past? Again, citations? I find this kinda interesting, http://www.lasvegassun.com/new...

Whatever - you can't negate the fact that half the population of the Autonomous republic are Russian, and that they have had their fill of Ukrainian politics. The majority wants their independence - and maybe the overwhelming majority. It's supposed to go up for a vote in just a few more days, right?

Re:Why a war?

[quantaman]

You're getting a very distorted picture of the facts.

Something else to keep in mind, is the area under dispute. The Autonomous Republic of Crimea. See, it's not exactly "Ukrainian" at all. It is an autonomous republic. The demographics? 50% Russian, 25% Ukrainian, and the balance are mostly Tatars. How and when did Crimea become "Ukrainian" anyway? Oh - that was an administrative move, made by the old Soviet, which stuck Crimea in with the Ukraine. Administrative. Crimea never has been "Ukrainian". So, if an AUTONOMOUS Republic wishes to remove itself from association with a nation that only has administrative ties to it - why not?

There are lots of ethnically diverse countries, and you're making a lot of unwarranted assumptions about the population. A good portion of the Russians (who are actually 58%) may wish to join Russia, but the Ukrainians and Tatars certainly do not.

I stand with Crimea and Russia on this issue. The current regime in the Ukraine are a bunch of racist assholes. Among their first actions upon assuming power, was to outlaw the Russian language in any formal or official documents. Crimeans speak Russian, not Ukrainian. Screw the president, and screw the capital - Crimeans decided that they don't want to be "Ukrainian" any longer.

Ukraine is in the same boat as Quebec in this regard, their native language is being swapped by the major language around them so they take measures to protect it.

Ukrainian was the official language but population re-distribution made Russian speakers dominant in the east and south. In August 2012 Yakukovych signed a law making Russian an officially acceptable language in regions with a large Russian speaking population. This was understandable but also controversial because it means that Russian speaking Ukrainians in those regions lose a reason to learn Ukrainian, thus the Ukrainian language becomes more marginalized and the two halves of the country become less unified.

Either way it was this less than 2 year old law that the parliament voted to repeal, a proposal that the new president vetoed.

There are certainly some parties in the new coalition that are extremist but that's pretty common across Europe. There's no reason to think they'll have strong influence over the government.

Not very many nations are willing to assist another nation in the suppression of an AUTONOMOUS REPUBLIC.

So Russian troops take over the territory, install a president from a party with 4% of the vote, and announce a referendum on joining Russian to happen on March 30th... or rather March 16th. Russian suppression of an autonomous republic is exactly what's happening right now. And don't think for a minute Russia is going to occupy the Crimea, install a puppet government, announce a snap referendum on joining Russia, and then allow a result that keeps Crimea in Ukraine.

I'd actually be surprised if a free an open vote in Crimea resulted in them joining Russia, but I'll be absolutely shocked if that's not how the referendum goes.

Re:Why a war?

[shutdown -p now]

Criminal past? Again, citations? I find this kinda interesting.

If you know Russian, you may find this of interest. In general, searching for aksenov+goblin+seylem will yield more info.

Re:Why a war?

[avgapon]

Except that you do not decide such matters in a hasty referendum during an invasion under a false pretext. The autonomous republic is a part of Ukraine and that was confirmed in many treaties between Ukraine and Russia.

Re:Why a war?

[avgapon]

Kosovo was under U.N. administration for eight years before it was allowed to formally break away from Serbia. Crimea is about to have a "referendum" eight days after Russian invasion.

Re:Why a war?

[Gavagai80]

The very recent history of ethnic cleansing in the balkans made a better case for Kosovo. Though I do think Russia has a reasonable case which should be discussed without all the silly extremist rhetoric, it's much weaker than the Kosovo case.

Re:Why a war?

[avgapon]

Exactly. With all this ecstasy from revolution, people should look a bit which statements Praviy Sector and Svoboda made before. Before revolution they said several times, that Russia, Poland and several other countries own their territory, plus their hymn include "russians on knifes" and "ukraine for ukrainians". Now guess, what will happen when they have nukes. I was shocked, when i so how their "activists" attacked veterans of WWII, 80+ year old people, in 2011, Lviv. Check youtube for that.

Care to back your accusations with facts / links?

Re:Why a war?

[gman003]

Screw the president, and screw the capital - Crimeans decided that they don't want to be "Ukrainian" any longer.

No - Russia decided that Crimea shouldn't be Ukrainian any longer.

If it is the will of Crimea that they be independent, or that they be part of Russia, so be it. I'm fine with a peaceful secession, and honestly, given the history and demographics of Crimea, it makes sense for it to separate. Instead Russia orchestrated an occupation followed by a coup d'etat in Crimea, and any election at this point is going to be invalid simply because there's an armed and mobilized occupation force - who in their right minds would cast a vote against them? It's not even that it's Russians doing it (although it certainly doesn't help with their history of electoral fraud) - the presence of *any* occupying force would severely distort elections.

Re:Why a war?

[Anonymous Coward]

> The demographics? 50% Russian, 25% Ukrainian, and the balance are mostly Tatars. How and when did Crimea become "Ukrainian" anyway?

You are asking the wrong question. I help you, don't thank me : how did russian langague became the first language of Crimea ?

Hint:
Deportation of the Tatars

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crimea#Demographics
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Crimea#History

>The upheavals and ethnic cleansing of the 20th century vastly changed Crimea's ethnic situation. In 1944, 70,000 Greeks and 14,000 Bulgarians from Crimea
> were deported to Central Asia and Siberia, along with 200,000 Crimean Tatars and other nationalities. By the latter 20th century, Russians and Ukrainians made
>up almost the entire population. However, with the fall of the Soviet Union, exiled Crimean Tatars began returning to their homeland and would become 10% of the
>population by the beginning of the 21st century.

Why is Putin in an hurry to "save" the crimea ? Because Tatars are coming back and soon Russian speaker will be under 50% of the population.

The green on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:%D0%9D%D0%B0%D1%81%D0%B5%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%BD%D1%8F_%D0%9A%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%BC%D1%83_%D1%83_18-21_%D1%81%D1%82.jpg

Re:Why a war?

[Anonymous Coward]

Let's see 25% Ukrainians and 25% Tartars would add up to 50% of the population. Why would their rights matter less?

"The Autonomous Republic of Crimea" is that an internationally recognized entity? Don't think so.. it's just like nothing

Re:Why a war?

[Runaway1956]

Ahhh, difficulties, dammit. I'm not a Russian speaker. I ran your link through Google Translate, it seems that something is lost in translation. It would seem that the Goblin was a nationalist activist in the 1990's, and Moscow basically told him to simmer down, and stop stirring the pot. He's back today, moving forward with the activism again.

The search terms you offer aren't worth much more than my own choices of search terms in English. I'm sure they are much more useful in other languages, but English gave me a grand total of 6 hits, only 4 in English. I'll grant that there is a "murky past", but I'm not able to see into it.

Thanks for the link, all the same!

Re:Why a war?

[Runaway1956]

Good post - and yes, I'm very much aware of the deportation of the Tatars, and the consequences of that.

You seem to believe that the Tatars are returning, in significant numbers? I've not seen that. A majority of the deportees from Crimea didn't survive their first year. Greeks, Tatars, and all the rest - they had to survive the insanity of Russia's many purges in order to have any descendants left alive today. Given that Tatars were returning in significant numbers, I could be persuaded that maybe Crimea shouldn't BE Russian, but instead should become an independent entity. But, I just don't see that happening.

Even if Tatars ARE returning, they have a long way to go before they displace Russians as the majority.

Re:Why a war?

[Anonymous Coward]

Not very many nations are willing to assist another nation in the suppression of an AUTONOMOUS REPUBLIC.
Oh the weed you have been smoking! On Russian TV, the Crimea is the same color as the rest of Russia. Autonomous? Get sober! And most 'Real Crimeans, from Crimea' don't want anything to do with Putin or the 'Gangsta Government' very similar to the old USSR. They brought in lackies and Cossaks from Russia by the busload, there are pictures of the busses. The people who live there don't know any of the people in the crowds ...because they don't live there and aren't from there. Its political theatre, and bad political theatre. The Tatars would rather die than live under Russian rule, likewise the Ukrainians, and (this one always informs me a lot) most of the ethnic Russians also don't want to live under Putin: they like Ukraine, and even more the new Ukraine (without the Putin lapdog Yanikovich stealing $70 Billion). Why do you thing when things got dicey he ran home to Moscow "Putin, Putin, the bad Ukrainians are beating up on me, they took my lunch money and (sob) they told me I was bad (waaaaah)." "Putin to Yankovicha: Its ok, I'll go over there and teach those bad Ukrainians a lesson and get your lunch money back. I stole this NFL Superbowl ring, just like I'm going to steal Crimea. Take it, run off and play".

Re:Why a war?

[Anonymous Coward]

The whole diatribe about racist assholes is just verbatim Russian propaganda.

Let me relay some of that propaganda directly from Russia's official propaganda mouthpiece.

  Key players
Search for the following fine people in the article:
Oleh Tyahnybok
Dmytro Yarosh
Oleh Makhnitskyy

Will the Russian population of Crimea be in danger if the far right government succeeds? I'm inclined to believe so. Is Russia doing what's doing for the sole purpose of "protecting the Russian population of Crimea"?, I doubt it. Does Crimea have a right to self-determination?, a worthy discussion when taking into account Crimea's particular history and ethnic composition. Don't be quick to dismiss that discussion because there are numerous examples of regions breaking away from a nation because of the factors above *cough* Texas *cough*

Re:Why a war?

[phantomfive]

You mean, like in Kosovo? Wasn't the West's main excuse to steal Kosovo from Serbia that most of the population was of Albanian origin?

As I recall, the excuse was that the Serbs were trying to kill the Albanians (the Albanians were arguably trying the same thing).

Although you are right, that does seem to be the justification Putin is trying to use.

Re:Why a war?

[shutdown -p now]

So, which of those key players are in the newly formed government?

Let's see. Out of 19 ministers, 3 are from Tyahnybok's "Svoboda". scoring such important spheres as agriculture and ecology. Really, the only serious position that they have is that of vice prime minister. The majority of the rest are from "Batkivshchyna", which is a mainstream European-oriented liberal party, and then there are a few independents straight from Maidan. Yarosh's "Right Sector" didn't get any spots at all (and they said that they aren't seeking them), and the only way they are involved in the new government is by having a representative on the country's National Security and Defense Council.

So, which "far right government" are we talking about, again?

Oh, and while we are at it, speaking of "Right Sector" and Yarosh. Are you aware of the fact that they have explicitly came out in support of Russians and Russian-speaking Ukrainians who supported Maidan? Do you know that on the website of Tryzub (the organization that Yarosh leads, and one of the members of the Right Sector coalition), they list fascism and Nazism alongside with communism in the list of their "ideologies harmful to Ukrainian nation"?

Here is an official interview that one of the Right Sector's high-ranked members gave to BBC (in Russian) - does he sound like a crazy far right extremist to you there when he speaks about human rights and democratic freedoms, broadening freedom of speech and of gathering, or about their plan for Crimea which includes proportional representation of languages in accordance with the demographics (i.e. 60% Russian, 20% Ukrainian, 20% Tatar and others), or about nationality being primarily and ethnicity being of no importance?

Re:Why a war?

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow. just 'wow', if the 'Autonomous Republic of Crimea' wants to secede than sure, let them, but do it without guns from another nation pointing at 1/2 the population (the non-Russian part). And yeah, the 'new Ukrainian government' passed a bill to outlaw non-Ukrainian languages in official documents, the new PRESIDENT veto'd it...see those silly Ukrainians they aren't ALL 'racist assholes', perhaps the bill passing was a 'knee-jerk reaction' nothing more?

I'm Ukrainian by descent, Canadian by birth. Canada has an example of how to peacefully deal with such a thing. Quebec has a party that continually tries to inflame French 'nationalist' passions & passing referendums to hold votes to 'secede from Canada' (oddly they want to try to keep the Canadian currency as the 'official currency' and of course expect 'TROC' to pay for their secession...but little details seem to escape such 'nationalist' furvor). It never passes muster but it's 'allowed to go to vote', with no threatened military intervention (politics of course is always leveraged, with promises of more Federal funding mysteriously make its way to Quebec). In any case, the situation in Crimea would be equivalent to the US sending troops to Quebec claiming the Canadian government is 'illegitimate' after the PM being booted out of town when its discovered he's embezzled billions of dollars, then immediately pressing for a French referendum on sovereignty. Neither the US invasion nor any subsequent French referendum could be considered 'legitimate'.

I doubt any actual citizen within Crimea currently likes the situation going on (as opposed to the 'leaders' of the upper hand right now), certainly the Ukraine doesn't but from the point where an 'independent Ukraine' was established ex-USSR the people in the Crimea had peaceful means of pressing their cause either to the Ukrainian government or to the UN. Russia however has 0 legitimate status to send in troops except as a 'land grab' for Russia & that has 0 to do with the desires of the 'Autonomous Republic of Crimea'.

Re:Why a war?

[Anonymous Coward]

lol retard, i didnt even read your crap post

Re: Why a war?

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem with the voting and ethnicity thing is that nobody sane can take it seriously out of Russia's mouth. And I don't only mean the fact that it's almost certain they won't allow observers and thus a couple of naive Russians are the only ones who will trust the result.
More importantly, it is the fact that if Russia was in any way serious about it all of Kaukasia would have voted and left Russia long ago.
What is so infuriating about this is that Russia doesn't even bother to come up with a story that is even halfway believeable. That means no western government has any excuse to give in, but instead they only have to option of "fighting" or effectively saying "we can't do anything, Russia is free to annex whatever country it wants".
Of course it's a question if even Russia really wants this, because what they are saying is "either you join NATO or you'll always be Russia's plaything".

Re:Why a war?

[Anonymous Coward]

Thanks, your clarified the case loud and clear.

Re:Why a war?

[Xest]

Hate to break it to you but just because a majority of Crimea are ethnic Russian still doesn't mean they want to be part of Russia. 58% are ethnic Russians but many of those still identify themselves as being of Ukrainian nationality despite their ethnic origin.

If the referendum was free and fair it's almost certainly the case that Crimea would not vote to be part of Russia, in fact, a poll was done on exactly this before this shit even kicked off as it has now:

http://www.cityam.com/blog/139...

Even in Crimea, the most Russian leaning part of Ukraine support for joining Russia was at only 41% - not enough to win a referendum.

If you can't see why Russia has shut down movement in and out of Crimea, if you can't see why it's denying access to international observers, if you can't see why it has plastered billboards in pro-Russian propaganda and seized radio and TV transmitters, and if you can't see why it installed a pro-Russian administration in Crimea kicking out the previously democratically elected one then I probably can't help you understand what's going on here, but I figure it's worth trying. Russia is annexing Crimea, not because the people there want it but because Putin both wants it and wants to send a message to any other nation considering breaking away from his control that it wont be painless.

If the people of Crimea genuinely wanted to break away from the Ukraine do you not think a referendum with international observers would be sufficient? Why the propaganda campaign? why the hijacking of TV and radio to shut out information from the rest of the country? why the presence of Russian troops and the isolation of Ukrainian military to their bases so they can't communicate with the populace? Why is all this necessary if Crimeans would vote yes for independence anyway?

Russia has been playing a game in Ukraine for some time that would make even the CIA look like amateurs - even during the protests we had protesters being dragged off by kidnappings that could only be the work of state-sponsored organisation and beaten and left in the forest to die with one or two surviving against the odds to state that the people who did it spoke with actual Russian accents (yes, you've got it, Russia had death squads in the Ukraine during the protests). You had eyewitness accounts from both protesters and the police that snipers were shooting at both police AND protesters to try and provoke a bigger confrontation between the two.

So wake up and smell the coffee, Russia has been playing games for years in the Ukraine, those games are finally just coming to the light and there's no way the referendum on joining Russia can be considered the slightest bit free and fair whilst Russian troops and propaganda are controlling every bit of information in and out of the territory right now. Even if the people made up their own mind, how would you possibly prove the Russian troops aren't just changing the ballots? with no international observers confirming the fairness and legitimacy of the vote you might as well just make up the results right now and have done with it - it'll be no more or no less legitimate.

If the Democrats sent the military into Texas and blocked all communication and access in and out, took over the TV and radio transmitters there and plastered Democrat propaganda on every billboard whilst making up things about the Republicans, beat up pro-Republican journalists and so forth and then went on to win Texas with a landslide would you really, genuinely call that an acceptable outcome? a fair election? a legitimate election? That's exactly what's happening in Crimea.

Re:Why a war?

[Anonymous Coward]

I live in Serbia and
a.) both NATO and EU annexed Kosovo, it is their territory, they even provide military services, electricity, money needed, and most other support needed to run "country" and "government", and they repel any request for return of territory
b.) thanks to russian troops protecting russian civilians, but aggression towards pro-russian citizens could be seen during Kiev war just few days before that
c.) well it is for Russians in Crimes otherwise they would not ask for independence in such majority
d.) actually NATO/USA both armed and trained "local militia" and was providing air support/bombings and supplies
e.) but Russians are majority like on Kosovo (on Kosovo Serbs were ethnic and Albanians majority)
f.) but by attacking they sure built one (shared between USA and NATO/EU) actually more than one, biggest one:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camp_Bondsteel

Re:Why a war?

[Anonymous Coward]

Even if Tatars ARE returning, they have a long way to go before they displace Russians as the majority.

They don't have to displace Russians as the majority. Tatars are 10% to 15% now (sources vary), while Russians are a little below 60%. Tatars are returning, though slowly. However, Russia's current lease on the Sevastopol base expires in 2042, and they only just barely got that extension through even with Yanukovich in power. There will certainly be more Tatars then. Furthermore, the young (under 30 years) portion of the Crimean Russian demographic is not nearly so pro-Russian as the older demographics, and they will be the ones holding local government power in another decade or two.

Given those facts, demographically, Crimea would surely slip out of Russia's grasp forever if Ukraine were left to determine its own future. It's even possible that the 2042 lease might be renegotiated prematurely in the early 2030s by a potentially much stronger, less corrupt (it could hardly get more corrupt), more western-aligned Ukraine with a less Russian-friendly and more integrated Crimea. If Putin were to let this situation continue, he must face the possibility that his historical legacy might be as the leader who let Russia's only warm water naval port (the Syrian base doesn't count) slip away.

- T

Ukraine is right

[cowwoc2001]

This isn't the first time that international bodies have promised to protect a country's borders in return for it withdrawing from some territory, or giving up arms... but when it is time for those same international bodies to act they do not.

Another recent example is when Israel withdrew from Lebanon in 2000 to UN sanctioned, internationally-recognized borders. A short while later, Hezbollah started threatening Israel again, claiming it was occupying some fictitious piece of land that was never part of Lebanon. Instead of the UN and international bodies backing Israel's claim that it had fully withdrawn from all of Lebanon, they publicly referred to this piece of land as "disputed territory". This taught us two things:

1. All it takes is one idiot to claim ownership of some land, and regardless of the facts that land becomes "disputed".
2. International guarantees are utterly meaningless.

Countries are better off retaining their weapons and enforcing the peace themselves. Regardless of how much political pressure you're under, ignore it, because at the end of the day you cannot outsource your citizens security.

And on the flip side: the international community should shut the !#@ up until they gain a record of walking the walk instead of talking the talk. It's criminal to play with other people's lives in this way.

Re:Ukraine is right

[NoImNotNineVolt]

Another recent example is when Israel withdrew from Lebanon in 2000 to UN sanctioned, internationally-recognized borders.

Israel hasn't been limited to its UN sanctioned, internationally-recognized borders since 1948. The pre-1967 borders include territory annexed in previous military conquests. Not just Shebaa farms, but also a little town called Jerusalem. The UN certified in 2000 that Israel had complied with Resolution 425, which did not have the explicit requirement of a withdrawal to its original legal borders, but merely from newly-annexed territory. Of course, all these "details" just don't agree with your "facts on the ground", so it's best that we leave them swept under the rug. That Shebaa farms was "never part of lebanon", as you say, shouldn't have anything to do with this, since it was a part of Syria, and sure as shit not a part of Israel. But I guess it should be okay for Israel to annex Syrian territory, because it's not Lebanese? I suppose it wouldn't have been a problem if the US just annexed Iran after we went into Iraq, since we'd still be withdrawn from Iraq, right?

Re:Ukraine is right

[LetterRip]

This isn't the first time that international bodies have promised to protect a country's borders in return for it withdrawing from some territory, or giving up arms... but when it is time for those same international bodies to act they do not.

That isn't what was promised. What was promised is that the countries would make an appeal to the UN. Russia sits on the UN security council and has a veto, and thus the appeal to the UN has no effect.

Re:Ukraine is right

[cowwoc2001]

Another recent example is when Israel withdrew from Lebanon in 2000 to UN sanctioned, internationally-recognized borders.

Israel hasn't been limited to its UN sanctioned, internationally-recognized borders since 1948. The pre-1967 borders include territory annexed in previous military conquests. Not just Shebaa farms, but also a little town called Jerusalem. The UN certified in 2000 that Israel had complied with Resolution 425, which did not have the explicit requirement of a withdrawal to its original legal borders, but merely from newly-annexed territory. Of course, all these "details" just don't agree with your "facts on the ground", so it's best that we leave them swept under the rug. That Shebaa farms was "never part of lebanon", as you say, shouldn't have anything to do with this, since it was a part of Syria, and sure as shit not a part of Israel. But I guess it should be okay for Israel to annex Syrian territory, because it's not Lebanese? I suppose it wouldn't have been a problem if the US just annexed Iran after we went into Iraq, since we'd still be withdrawn from Iraq, right?

The agreement in question dealt exclusively with Lebanese territory. Not Syrian, Jordanian, Egyptian or any other country. There are plenty of countries in the Middle-East that make up conflicts on a monthly basis that have no grounding in fact. So long as Arabs are slaughtering Arabs in the Middle-East, even within their own countries, I think it is safe to say the probability of an Muslim-Jewish peace is very low (if they can't even get along with themselves, how can we expect them to play nice with others?)

Hezbollah is a Lebanese organization, not Syrian. As such, they have no legitimacy in demanding the return of the Sheba Farms region to Lebanon. This territory was never part of Lebanon and Israel is fully in the right according to international law in that it withdrew 100% from Lebanon. Syria is more than welcome to restart peace negotiations with Israel if it so wishes. Please don't open up this discussion to other conflicts, as this is a separate discussion.

The fact of the matter is: the International Community made political and military guarantees with respect to Israel's withdrawal from Lebanon, and it failed to adhere to them. The same is true in the case of Ukraine. Had Ukraine kept their nuclear weapons you can be sure Russia would not have invaded.

Re:Ukraine is right

[cowwoc2001]

This isn't the first time that international bodies have promised to protect a country's borders in return for it withdrawing from some territory, or giving up arms... but when it is time for those same international bodies to act they do not.

That isn't what was promised. What was promised is that the countries would make an appeal to the UN. Russia sits on the UN security council and has a veto, and thus the appeal to the UN has no effect.

They should make the appeal nonetheless and at worse shame Russia. The fact that they failed to live up to their end of the bargain is shameful.

Re:Ukraine is right

[Anonymous Coward]

I suppose it wouldn't have been a problem if the US just annexed Iran after we went into Iraq, since we'd still be withdrawn from Iraq, right?

I don't think you know what the word annex means.

Re:Ukraine is right

[Anonymous Coward]

If Syria didn't want to lose land to Israel, they shouldn't have attacked Israel. Syria used that land to fire mortars and rockets at Israeli civilians. Israel now denies Syria use of that land for attacking Israel, or any other purpose. Note that Syria still allows terrorist groups to operate in its territory to attack Israel. Seems like the OP isn't the one who is ignoring inconvenient details. And your comparison with the US/Iran is ridiculous and completely irrelevant. Seems like your attitude is if the details and facts don't agree with your worldview, just ignore them and try to distract with BS.

Re:Ukraine is right

[NoImNotNineVolt]

The agreement in question dealt exclusively with Lebanese territory. Not Syrian, Jordanian, Egyptian or any other country.

Agreed. But don't try to play that off as having withdrawn to "UN sanctioned, internationally-recognized borders". The agreement in question dealt exclusively with Lebanese territory, as you yourself pointed out. Lebanon isn't the only state in the area to have some of its land annexed by Israel.

I think it is safe to say the probability of an Muslim-Jewish peace is very low (if they can't even get along with themselves, how can we expect them to play nice with others?)

Agreed. I don't see a Muslim-Jewish peace happening during my lifetime either. Perhaps this is because Israel's neighbors don't shy away from military conflict, as you suggest. Perhaps it's because Israel will either strip Muslims of voting rights or democratically become a Muslim state (I don't believe there is a third option) due to undeniable demographic trends.

Please don't open up this discussion to other conflicts, as this is a separate discussion.

Fair enough. That's a reasonable request, since discussions on this subject often turn into flamewars. But similarly, please don't claim that Israel ever withdrew to UN sanctioned, internationally-recognized borders.

Re:Ukraine is right

[NoImNotNineVolt]

I don't think you understood my analogy.

Re:Ukraine is right

[NoImNotNineVolt]

You're talking about the Golan Heights, not Shebaa farms. Your confusion makes you come across as ignorant of this area's history, so I'm likely to assume that you're just an asshat with an agenda and not someone with an actual interest in the region. Anyway, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and offer a measured response.

You allege that Syria committed acts of war, which justified a military response on the part of Israel. That's fine. But then there's this little thing called the Fourth Geneva Convention, which addresses the issue of annexation. You might want to read about it.

In a nutshell, Israel is in violation of international law, and having been attacked by a hostile state doesn't give them any sort of free pass on this.

Re:Ukraine is right

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly. Look what happened to Gaddafi.

The guy runs Libya for years as a pariah, building up nuclear weapons and chemical weapons, but starts backing down in the late 90's. Then in 2003, he agrees to disarm all his chemical weapons and nuclear weapons and gives up all of Libya's suppliers, leading to a crackdown on nuclear proliferation.

Then, the Arab Spring foments a rebellion against him; as he's winning the West turns the tables on him and decides to support the rebels. He asks them to withdraw, siting his compliance and openness with WMD disarmament, but no dice; 1 year later he's overthrown and dead.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disarmament_of_Libya

I am an American and pro-western, but seriously the reputation of Western "democracies" in maintaining their promises and rewarding improving behavior from bad governments is pretty damned poor. If I was Ukraine I wouldn't trust the West at all, and plant nuclear weapons all over the Steppe.

Re:Ukraine is right

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, if you actually read the 1990's pact you'll see that the US offered to 'conditionally' support their territorial integrity. The US made a big deal about how they weren't obliged to intervene if Ukraine was invaded. The Ukranians know that, but they want to scare people into helping them (since, really, why not at this point).

Before you go telling off big countries for not abiding by their agreements, you should probably know what the agreements were. The US is abiding perfectly with it's agreement.

Re:Ukraine is right

[Anonymous Coward]

Wash rinse and repeat.

Re:Ukraine is right

[Anonymous Coward]

Problem is, if the UN goes in and enforces the peace with force, suddenly they're the bad guys "interfering in internal affairs" or somesuch.

Damned if you do, damned if you don't. When faced with that kind of conundrum, do what any modern man would: pick the cheaper option. Then at least you can count the lives and currency you saved while the debate rages with posts like yours.

Re:Ukraine is right

[Anonymous Coward]

omfg. I can't believe you are using Israel as an example of recognizing borders. That's the most ridiculous thing I've heard in weeks.

Why would anyone sign a treaty...

[bluegutang]

with security guarantees from a Western power, when those guarantees are broken so easily?

This has implications for many other conflicts. For example Israel/Palestine - the US offered Israel security guarantees due to the vulnerable borders it would have after a withdrawal, and I'd expect the Palestinian leaders want some protection from extremists who reject peace with Israel and would assassinate any leader who agreed to it (as happened in Egypt after it signed a treaty with Israel). Now, I can't imagine either side respecting such a guarantee, which makes a peace agreement that much further away.

The same is true with regard to India/Pakistan (another nuclear weapons situation), Bosnia, Kosovo, and many other areas of crisis.

The lesson is, don't make promises if you (and all your successors in office) don't plan on keeping them.

Ah, ha

[LifesABeach]

Isn't it about time everybody throttle back? The Crimea was going independent after the May elections anyway. All Captain Putt-putt had to do was sit and wait. Captain Putt-putt offered 15 billion for Ukraines' 37 billion dollar need. Why not have the Ukraine go the EU and ask for the rest? As for Captain Putt-putt, ya, he's a hard ass. But can Russia really afford anymore of his antics? And I guess if Kiev wants to turn Moscow into a glass lined lake, China is going to care?

Pot, kettle

[Anonymous Coward]

I in no way condone Putin's actions. However, he was trampled over by the US, the EU and the Ukranian rebels, and he is determined to demonstrate that Russia takes care of its interests just as the US does. He is not letting a ragtag rebel gang annex the Ukraine to the Western sphere of interests. He has ceded Serbia, Bulgaria, the Baltics, Georgia, and now he has put a stop to it.

The rebels don't represent the "Ukranian people" any more than Yanukovych did. Nobody elected them. They just chased away their loathed, elected president. And the moment they took "power," they cried for the West to come and help them.

Putin isn't interested in Crimea. He wants a non-Western Ukraine. If he can't get it, he'll make the government in Kiev suffer by stirring all kinds of unrest around the country. Putin is still preferring the option where Russia's dominance over Ukraine is recognized.

Yes, it's bullying but the EU and the US have been behaving at least equally badly in this farce.

Re:Pot, kettle

[Anonymous Coward]

How are you doing comrade?

Re:Pot, kettle

[loonycyborg]

There's no way Putin could want non-Western Ukraine because term West lost its past meaning as countries opposed to Soviet Union. Russia has re-aligned with cold war West now and can arguably be considered part of it. Besides, Ukrainian and Russian are off-shoot of same original people. There's no way Europe and US wouldn't treat them as another kind of Russian since it's kinda true. There would be no point for them to take a side here other than to troll Soviet Union, which doesn't exist anymore.

As a Brit who lives in Kyiv (Ukraine)

[creslinux]

Im quite stunned, that I can still be stunned, by the general american disconnect from the world.

Uranium is mined in Ukraine, space rockets are made and launched in Ukraine.
When you think Soviet Union and Nuclear missiles, think that this was tech from the Ukraine arm of the Soviet Union.

Yellow Waters - never used to be listed on the map - you may find it now.
The comments it'll take 15-20 years to re-arm is a nonsense.

The Ukrainian people are hugely ingenious engineers --- those rockets that took apollo to the moon. You think that rocket motor was an American design?

That the Ukrainians managed to stand in peace to pull parliament out the clutches of nigh on dictatorship, their old, young, couples got out of bed in the dead of night and cold to stand before armed police is testament to their resolve calm and control.

Only a fool would consider their capacity to not pick up a gun as a lack of commitment.

Re:As a Brit who lives in Kyiv (Ukraine)

[iggymanz]

nope, making nuclear fuel from Ukraine's uranium was and is done by TVEL in Russia. The reactors are TVEL's also.

Re:As a Brit who lives in Kyiv (Ukraine)

[iggymanz]

and let's hear about those foreign designers of the Rocketdyne F-1 engine, let's see if it matches my list of americans who managed, designed, built and refined the design of that engine

Re:As a Brit who lives in Kyiv (Ukraine)

[guacamole]

The difficulties are not just technical but also financial. The Ukrainian military industrial complex used to be strong, but I highly doubt that Ukraine could afford to develop its own nukes or any other new complex military systems without heavy cooperation with Russia.

For example, the Ukrainian shipyards used to build some of the most amazing military ships in the entire world world, but they haven't built anything within the last 20 years. The Ukrainian Navy is now equipped with a collection of floating antiques inherited from USSR. After the USSR fell apart, Ukraine's fleet of TU-160 was bigger than Russia's. TU-160 are some of the most advanced heavy long range supersonic bomber jets. Where are they now? My understanding Ukraine simply cut them for scrap or let them rust away (Russia did received one or two Ukrainian TU-160s in exchange for forgiving some debts). Most of Ukraine's fighter jets are rusting away and the pilots don't get to clock enough training hours. Some of the old gear is simply sold to places like Azerbaijan and African countries, and nothing is going to replace it.

bloody idiots

[Anonymous Coward]

I doubt they have necessary materials let alone engineers for that.
On other hand, they have 4 operating nuclear plants and infamous Chernobyl plant under their full control.
Using nuclear plant burn-outs, they're 100% ready to produce "dirty bombs". They're far faster to produce and far nastier than "usual" atomic bombs.

I'm living in Belarus - neighbour country. News like this urge me to ask politicians I know about steps we're going to take.

Where words fail, blows must follow

[jd.schmidt]

-Aesop Russia has been far too ham fisted and has massively overreacted, however valid their concerns.

Rock Paper Nuke

[jayveekay]

Assume "Paper" is a treaty guaranteeing "Territorial Integrity". Then:

Rock beats Paper
Nuke beats Paper
Nuke beats Rock
Nuke loses to Nuke (MAD)

Who would ever play Paper?

Re:Rock Paper Nuke

[Anonymous Coward]

Paper costs $1,000,000.
Rock costs $100,000,000,000, and when you play Rock, everyone is allowed to switch their play to Rock if they want.
Nuke costs $100,000,000, unless someone else plays Nuke also, in which case you die. Also, when you play Nuke, everyone is allowed to switch their play to Nuke.

It all depends on how much you value territorial integrity.

Re:Rock Paper Nuke

[Anonymous Coward]

you play paper to try and get the other guy to give up nuke......aka UN crap.

USA is obligated to...well, not much

[SpankiMonki]

"Ukraine may have to arm itself with nuclear weapons if the United States and other world powers refuse to enforce a security pact that obligates them to reverse the Moscow-backed takeover of Crimea"

I don't know much about international law, but the Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances (the "security pact" referred to by the Ukrainian Parliament member) doesn't appear to obligate the US to do anything in this situation, other than "seek immediate United Nations Security Council action...if Ukraine should become a victim of an act of aggression or an object of a threat of aggression in which nuclear weapons are used."

Additionally, the Budapest Memorandum is more of a diplomatic "gentleman's agreement"; it is not a treaty confirmed by the Senate. When it comes right down to it, it doesn't seem to me that the US is obligated to do squat. Sorry Ukraine!

Re:USA is obligated to...well, not much

[Anonymous Coward]

In the "Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances" the only important word is Budapest, which is the capital of Hungary. That's where the Holy Crown of Hungary is preserved, who was personally present at the signing of that Memorandum. The USA didn't want to return that powerful relic, more or less a second Ark, to Hungary. They kept it at Fort Knox, but the 4000+ tons of buillion gold bars stored alongside there, started to become radioactive. Eventually they returned it to Hungary in 1978, where it remains on public display. I think Putin is pretty worried now: the glory of the Holy Crown reportedly knocked out Yanukovich already , for ashaming the Memorandum he personally guaranteed. Yet, Putin cannot retreat, because his military-espionage apparatchik regime would put him in past tense if showing weakness.

Re:USA is obligated to...well, not much

[rastos1]

Additionally, the Budapest Memorandum is more of a diplomatic "gentleman's agreement"; it is not a treaty confirmed by the Senate. When it comes right down to it, it doesn't seem to me that the US is obligated to do squat. Sorry Ukraine!

Now if they happened to have oil or gas ... that would put things in completely different light.

But I'm glad to have it black on white how much is gentleman's agreement worth to USA.

Re:USA is obligated to...well, not much

[SpankiMonki]

But I'm glad to have it black on white how much is gentleman's agreement worth to USA.

Unless I'm missing something, the US appears to have met it's obligations under the Budapest Memorandum. The UN Security Council is informed, and the US is pursuing possible responses in concert with the UN. So the terms of the agreement are in fact being honored.

Russia, on the other hand...

Re:USA is obligated to...well, not much

[BZ]

Uh... They do have gas. In Crimea. See http://www.reuters.com/article...

Re:USA is obligated to...well, not much

[bloodhawk]

yep, Hence the US being pissed that their investment in turning the Ukraine has been nullified if they lose the Crimea.

Ukraine, Crimea & Russia

[unixisc]

I too agree w/ the Russkies on this. Crimea had always been Russian, and was turned over to Ukraine by Nikita Krushchyev. Under the Soviet regime, it didn't matter, since there weren't really independent republics, but once the Soviet Union came unravelled in 1991, that was the time for the Crimea to become a part of Russia.

Sevastopol has already declared itself a federal subject of Russia. Good idea would be to merge Sevastopol into Crimea, and declare the entire area a part of Russia. Similarly, a good idea for Russians still in the rest of Ukraine would be to move either to Crimea or back to Russia, while Ukrainians in Crimea, or Russia could move back to Ukraine. While this may sound draconian, fact is that since 1991, ex-Soviet peoples have been gravitating towards their native republics. For instance, Kazakhstan was 47% Russian in 1991, today, it's only 23% Russian, and 65% Kazakh. Why? Russians have been returning to Russia, Kazakhs to Kazakhstan and so on.

Similarly, Ukraine would be in a much better situation if they gave up all claims to the Crimea, in return for a population exchange. Let Ukraine be a 100% Ukrainian country, and let the Crimea be another republic within Russia, including Sevastopol. Russia can also stop subsidizing Ukraine's economy at all, and just guarantee Ukrainian ships in the Sea of Azov rights of passage into the Black Sea. Although if global warming happens, shouldn't that be good news fro Russia's Arctic Sea ports, such as Murmansk, Archangelsk and so on?

Re:Ukraine, Crimea & Russia

[CrimsonAvenger]

Crimea had always been Russian

I think the Ottoman Empire would like a word or two with you (the Ottoman Empire ruled the Crimea for four centuries, which is a bit longer than the Russians managed).

Likewise Venice and Genoa might have something to say, since both of them owned the Crimea at one time or another.

Re:Ukraine, Crimea & Russia

[xfizik]

There is no reason to have a population exchange. Russians and Ukrainians have lived together in peace for many centuries and only now (thanks to "the West") these ethnic tensions are rising. Ukrainians can and are welcome to stay where they prefer, be it Russia proper or Crimea. Unlike the people behind the Maidan telling Russian Ukrainians to "go back to Russia", Crimea is home to Russians, Ukrainians, Tatars and almost 80 ethnic groups and nobody has to leave.

Re:Ukraine, Crimea & Russia

[xfizik]

If they (Turkey, Venice or Genoa) had something to say about this, don't you think they would have done so by now?

Re:Ukraine, Crimea & Russia

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, because of course things that happened hundreds of years ago are still fucking relevant.

Re:Ukraine, Crimea & Russia

[Runaway1956]

The events of 1954 seem to be relevant. That is the first year in which the Ukraine had any influence in Crimean administration, and that only under the authority of the Soviet. Not hundreds of years, but mere decades. And, during those decades, the Ukraine has only achieved an occupation amounting to 25% of the population.

Re:Ukraine, Crimea & Russia

[climb_no_fear]

AIt doesn't just sound draconian, it is. A friend of mine was an ethnic Russian child living in Kazakhstan at the time. Her father lost his job simply because he was Russian so they HAD to leave. The majority of these people (in either direction) are not moving of their own free will.

Re:Ukraine, Crimea & Russia

[unixisc]

To be fair, Ukraine wasn't an independent entity - it was still reporting to the CPSU. So there was no way that the Ukrainian Communist Party could have decided to replace the Russian population w/ Ukrainians, the way Stalin did w/ the Crimean Taters, w/o the CPSU acquiescing, and there is no way that the CPSU was going to acquiesce. So to make it look like Ukraine could have even tried to become a majority of Crimea's population is a stretch: heck, even in the rest of Ukraine, they've not managed to become homogeneously Ukrainian

Re:Ukraine, Crimea & Russia

[Darinbob]

Yes but this upsets the nice back story Russia has invented. It's sort of like trying to convince the Chinese that Tibet isn't really Chinese.

Re:Ukraine, Crimea & Russia

[Anonymous Coward]

So you're saying, because nationalist fascism is raising it's ugly head again, everyone should become nationalist fascists.

How about letting people live where they want to live? If we go down this path of creating racial islands, the end result will be more racial tension, and more genocide.

And if you apply the same logic to America, you would have to send most of the Canadians back to Britain and France, most of the Americans back to Britain, France, Germany, Africa, etc. I think the influx of nearly 300 million Americans to Europe would cause quite some instability.

And of course the Jews, we have to send the Jews back to Israel, which means displacing even more Palestinians.

And let's send all the Arabs back to Arabia, I'm sure the Arab countries will do just fine taking on another 500 million people.

Or, we could realise that your racist, nationalist ideas are fucked and leave them buried in the 20th century.

Re:Ukraine, Crimea & Russia

[Rakarra]

Yes, because of course things that happened hundreds of years ago are still fucking relevant.

I agree, but just about anyone involved with the politics of Israel, on either side, seem to attach great importance to who had the land in their great-great-(etc)-grandfather's time and get very butt-hurt when others disagree.

Re:Ukraine, Crimea & Russia

[Anonymous Coward]

The Ottoman Empire basically lost the Crimea to the Russians, except for the intervention of the British and French...

Ukraine demographics

[unixisc]

Ukraine is 77% Ukrainian and 17% Russian. If one removes Crimea from Ukraine, that Russian % figure goes even lower

Re:Ukraine demographics

[guacamole]

This is a good observation. Note that before the current crisis, the pro-Russian forces in Ukraine were still able to influence the politics enough to elect a pro-Russian president in Ukraine. However, if Crimea with its 2million population is removed (and most of them are Russian), then the politics in Kiev will certainly tilt towards a more nationalist and pro-western orientation. In some sense it's a good thing for Ukraine's nationalists.

Personally though, I was always dismayed by the observation that Ukrainian politics have been recently built upon who gets to subjugate whom (east vs west Ukraine). If Ukraine was organized as a federation with strong local rule, I bet the ethnic politics would have been secondary to more important issues. Right now they have more centralized organization where Kiev appoints local governors.

Broad political implications

[Immerman]

What I think isn't getting talked about is that this is a much broader political threat. Ukraine gave up it's nukes under the assurance that the interested parties would protect it from each other. Russia has now reneged on that treaty, and the MP is reminding the US, Great Britain, and the world that we have an obligation to intervene.

It might be tempting to simply let Russia get away with this and avoid the threat of renewed nuclear war (cold or otherwise), but if we do that we also tell every other nation that has disarmed, or is considering disarming, that we cannot be trusted to honor our obligations under those treaties, severely undermining decades of work on disarmament.

Re:Broad political implications

[KingOfBLASH]

OTOH bilateral agreements forcing countries to come to each others aid in the event they decided they wanted a war was what started WWI.

It's a very delicate situation. If America DOES go in either we open up yet another front in our war, and this time against someone a little more sophisticated then the Taliban. It'll mean a lot of loss of life if Putin doesn't back down.

On top of that we may pull our allies, e.g. NATO, into the whole bloody mess.

Yet failing to act is not necessarily an option either. Just look how appeasement worked out in the second world war.

Re:Broad political implications

[Xest]

"If America DOES go in either we open up yet another front in our war, and this time against someone a little more sophisticated then the Taliban."

How much more sophisticated? Russia got it's ass handed to them by them in the late 80s, and collapsed shortly after. Their military then went through over 15 years of disrepair and lack of training until they invaded Georgia in 2008 and got their ass handed to them more badly than expected by an inferior opponent (they lost 40 armoured vehicles and 70 soldiers against the Georgians in 9 days), whilst Georgia suffered more that was largely because of air strikes which they didn't have such effective defence against - the Russians were completely outplayed in ground to ground fighting.

They've undergone some modernisation since then but it's a long slow process and still have an extremely long way to go.

Their strength of numbers alone makes them a dangerous threat, but Russia's military is not the toe-to-toe competitor it could've been at the height of the USSR. It's second rate at best, and whilst the US would suffer sizeable losses, Russia would still come off far far worse. Even relatively small Britain and France were spending more each per year on their military than Russia up until about 2008 and both have had consistently more active and effective training programs in place especially with international partners.

Even China's military is better funded, better equipped, and better trained nowadays. The residual threat of the USSR is almost entirely from nukes nowadays rather than anything else. In conventional warfare they'd suffer a slaughter - one that'd most definitely come at a heavy cost to the West, but a slaughter all the same.

I'm not convinced Russia would try it though, China would love nothing more than a Russia distracted fighting the West to annex parts of Eastern Russia for itself - especially where Russian-Chinese border disputes already exist. Even China's leaders are now calling on Russia not to annex Crimea suggesting that if push came to shove, even China would now probably be more likely to ally with the West than Russia. Worse, even Russia's closest allies like Belarus are showing signs they're uneasy with Putin's actions and if a puppet dictatorship like Belarus shows concerns you know Putin is pretty fucking isolated. About the only backing Putin has is from Assad as a thank you for preventing Western bombs toppling his regime there.

stupid of them to give up the weapons at all

[Anonymous Coward]

They know they are right next door to russia who considered Ukraine their door mat.

Nuclear weapons are the only effective deterrent in modern times. Those who have them are effectively safe from everyone.

You know what the Ukraine is?

[Anonymous Coward]

The Ukraine is weak. It's feeble. I think it's time to put the hurt on the Ukraine.

US troops through Gitmo == invasion of Cuba?

[Uberbah]

How about Germany? Japan?

USA Today reports, "Ukraine may have to arm itself with nuclear weapons if the United States and other world powers refuse to enforce a security pact that obligates them to reverse the Moscow-backed takeover of Crimea, a member of the Ukraine parliament told USA TODAY.

Slashdot, just because the rest of the media refused to lean any lessons from the invasion of Iraq doesn't mean you have to follow along with crap like "here's what some officials say but we wont say how they're full of shit". Russia has an existing treaty with Ukraine for a military base in the Crimea. They have no more "invaded" than the U.S. has invaded more than half the countries on the planet, since most if not all of our 900+ military bases were established with the same sort of diplomatic agreements that Russia has for it's base in Sevastopol.

Furthermore, I'd like to see American Exceptionalist coup supporters say with a straight face that the "interm" government of Ukraine has legitimacy based on popular will, but that the Russian supporting, ethnic Russian majority of Crimea has no right to self-determination. Based on popular will.

Re:US troops through Gitmo == invasion of Cuba?

[nickmalthus]

Certainly Crimea is an import port for Russia and they don't wish it to fall under control of an oppositional government. For the past decade China has been courting many Latin American countries. When political change comes to Cuba and the US were to sense Chinese influence there is no question America would militarily intervene due to the significant geopolitical consequences. I think the best policy is to deescalate the situation and let the people of Ukraine and Crimea vote for their futures and let the world respect their choices.

Re:US troops through Gitmo == invasion of Cuba?

[Darinbob]

Russia has a treaty regarding its military bases, not the entire province. Any family living outside those bases enjoy some smaller protections in some regions according to the treaty, but outside those regions they are just visitors. Right now though there are people who seem very obviously to be Russian soldiers w/o insignia who are occupying many places which are clearly not a part of the treaty. Of course Putin denies these are Russian soldiers. If they aren't Russian soldiers then the only alternative is that these are illegal militants and Russia theoretically should be opposed to them and instead supporting rule of law.

Similarly the US has a base in Guantanamo, but it does not have any rights whatsoever outside the borders of that base.

Re:US troops through Gitmo == invasion of Cuba?

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you freakin' nuts? The US wouldn't 'militarily intervene' in Cuba just because some Cuban dictator courted ties with China! Now, if China started to act like they were going to put Nukes in Cuba than you have a 'second Cuban missile crises' but China isn't about to do that either. The economies of China & the US are far too intertwined now for China to consider this a 'smart thing to do'.

Putin on the other hand requires subservience to Russia from the countries in his immediate sphere of influence. He's a 'demagogue' in the true sense of the word, compared to him Chinese leaders are angels.

Re:US troops through Gitmo == invasion of Cuba?

[Uberbah]

Right now though there are people who seem very obviously to be Russian soldiers w/o insignia who are occupying many places which are clearly not a part of the treaty.

Right. Just like how the United States has been invading Japan and Germany for the last 70 odd years, because people who are obvious U.S. personell are seen outside of U.S. military bases.

Re:US troops through Gitmo == invasion of Cuba?

[Darinbob]

There are treaties that say where those soldiers can go freely, which does not cover all of Crimea.

I come from Ukraine

[Anonymous Coward]

You not say Ukraine weak!

So, for the sake of equality

[Bananenrepublik]

Putin should allow Czechnia, Dagestan and Inguchechia to vote about their independence of Russia. After all, neither of these parts of Russia has more than 4% ethnic Russians (whatever that means, they don't print ethnicities in passports like they did in the Soviet Union, right?).

Crimean Taters

[unixisc]

Idiot, Russians are there because Stalin put them there and moved Tatars away. I hope that one day you get treated same way.

Well, if you want Taters back in Crimea, where does it end? Would you be willing to return Turkey to the Greeks, and send all Turks back to Turkestan, or the ex Soviet 'stans'? Or send all Arabs throughout North Africa back to Arabia, since Arabs weren't the native people anywhere from Egypt to Dakar before the Islamic conquests. Or return Spain & Tunisia to the Phoenicians? Or the Jews ran Medina before Mohammed: how about asking Saudi Arabia to hand that over to Israel?

Yeah, Stalin deported the Taters to Uzbekistan, and that's their home: there is no reason for them to go back to the Crimea. The Crimean Khanate is dead: get over it! Uzbekistan is a pretty underpopulated country, and can easily keep them. Or else, send them a little north to Kazakhstan, where they'd have more space

Which is more racist?

[unixisc]

It's interesting how both Russians and Ukrainians, who were famous for anti-Jewish pogroms, are now competing for being more philo-Semitic.

Serious question

[shentino]

Who gets to decide if the new government in Kiev is legitimate or not?

Re:Serious question

[Sycraft-fu]

Ideally the people of Ukraine. It really should be for foreign powers to say. I mean you realize many government have provisions to handle ousting members and reforming, right? Particularly many parliamentary systems, but others as well. Even the US has something via the 25th amendment. The vice president and either a majority of the cabinet or congress can declare the president unable to discharge his duties and oust him (go read it if you want more specifics). It isn't a situation of "Well they were elected, now they are there and there's nothing you can do until the next election!" There are processes for removal/recall in pretty much all political systems.

I don't know anything about Ukrainian law, but really, it is for them to decide internally. Their courts need to rule on their law. It is really up to the US or Russia to come and say "No we don't think you should have done it that way, you do it our way instead."

Re:Serious question

[avgapon]

380 out of 450 members of parliament voted for it. The current parliament was elected in 2012. Decide for yourself.

Re:Serious question

[Anonymous Coward]

Ahhh yes a vote instigated with an angry mob ready to impale the government should it have gone the other way, definitely sounds like a completely unbiased way to establish a legitimate government. Kim Jong un uses similar method to ensure he is a legitimate democratically elected leader too.

Ukrainian nukes

[unixisc]

If we are talking ex Soviet, then their controls are all in the Kremlin. I recall that President Kravchuk in 2000 had wanted Ukraine to get rid of all its weapons: in fact, AFAIK, all the nukes in Ukraine & Kazakhstan had been relocated to Russia. Which makes sense - it would be inane for one country to host missiles whose controls are based in another, particularly when they are no longer even allies.

Re:Ukrainian nukes

[Chrisq]

- it would be inane for one country to host missiles whose controls are based in another,

... It has been done before.

Crimean War - Ukraine

[wasteoid]

Russia occupies Romania/Crimea to protect their citizens - May 1853
Russia occupies Crimea to protect their citizens - Feb 2014

Old tactics that didn't work back then may work now, especially since USA is neutered by an ineffectual leader.

Re:Crimean War - Ukraine

[Anonymous Coward]

or smart one, Russia has nukes pointed to major USA cities unlike Iran/Irak,
i am not nowhere near Ukraine, Russia or USA, but i say give Ukraine (whole not just that small island) to Russia so we don't endanger ourselves, and so that Russia and USA don't destroy world including me by shooting at each other.

yes i know i am selfish, but i want to live more than i care about USA, Russia or Ukraine

That's fine...

[Sycraft-fu]

But then you can't really complain about their goal to have more powerful weapons.

The thing is we come back to the question of what really is a country, what makes a nation a nation? Well there can be two situations:

The first and oldest is just the ability to act as one, the strength such that nobody can realistically question your status. This is what you see with something like the US. Even if another nation doesn't like the US, or doesn't think it should be valid, they can't question that it is because they can't do anything about it. They can't attack or threaten the US's status in any way, the US is in control of its territory because nobody can say otherwise. Obviously this is the kind of thing that changes sometimes, and countries have indeed been conquered, reformed, etc, etc.

The other is international recognition and protection. There are a number of countries with little to no military, they couldn't hold off an attack from even a fairly small force, yet they are secure as countries. The reason is that they are recognized by international treaties, and thus the big boys, as being countries. They agree they are sovereign and won't interfere, and further often agree to defend them if someone does. Iceland is like that. They have no real military, but they are a NATO member, due to their strategic location. So they have some NATO bases, and the commitment of all NATO members to defend them if they are attacked.

Now, as this applies to Ukraine. They've been invaded by Russia. Russia has sent in troops, who are not wearing any identification, to take over Ukrainian military bases in Crimea. They really can't do much about it. If they fire on the Russian soldiers. Russia will just use that as an excuse to go all out on an invasion (Russian soldiers have been trying to provoke them in to firing) and Ukraine lacks the troops to push that back.

So they have two choices for independence: Either the international community steps in and helps, or they get more powerful weapons, the kind Russia doesn't want to fuck with.

Thus regardless of if you think the US or other countries have any specific obligation to them, that is the general state of things.

Last Heroic Act

[wasteoid]

If you are about to die (or your country is about to dissolve), what would stop you from trying to get a parting shot off at the enemy who is destroying you?

Re:Last Heroic Act

[Katatsumuri]

The fact that people are different, and the ones attacking you are not the ones who will suffer most from your bombing.

Re:Last Heroic Act

[TrekkieGod]

If you are about to die (or your country is about to dissolve), what would stop you from trying to get a parting shot off at the enemy who is destroying you?

The knowledge that there's a difference between a government and a people. That even if your government is about to be dissolved, and your territory taken by a foreign enemy, the people living there will largely survive...unless you do a dumbass thing like an attack which won't actually win the war for you, but will cause retaliation which will kill those people who would have survived the invasion otherwise. Those people include your family and friends.

You don't use a nuclear weapon if you're not assured that you'll destroy their retaliation capabilities. It doesn't make any sense, it doesn't win you anything. It doesn't even win you the satisfaction of making them suffer, because you're going to be responsible for the suffering of your own people in that mix.

autonomous

[wasteoid]

So, by the same logic, the Republic of Texas should be allowed to secede, since they never agreed to be annexed by the USA.

Re:autonomous

[Anonymous Coward]

they should, after all Kosovo did

Do you?

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you understand that they are bankrupt and would be obliterated by Russia and maybe even by the West if they tried? Nobody wants an unstable country with nukes.

Presuming you are just uneducated

[Sycraft-fu]

And not shilling, go educate yourself. Vice News has some good coverage, split in 5 pieces, on it:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

The most important things to note:

1) The Russian forces are not wearing insignias, or identifying themselves as Russian military. They either refuse to identify themselves at all, or identify themselves as being from the non-existent "Ukrainian Self Defense Force."

2) They Russian units are surrounding and/or capturing Ukrainian military installations. They are not moving to their bases, they are taking over Ukrainian bases. The Ukrainian commanders have been keeping things very cool, to avoid Russia being able to say they were provoked, so there hasn't been any violence, but it is a military attack on military targets, make no mistake.

3) Speaking of provocation, the Russian military has been trying it. They've been moving in and taking over Ukrainian bases, then withdrawing, only to do it again later. They are trying to goad the Ukrainian military in to firing on them.

4) Russia has been importing other non-governmental groups like Serbian Paramilitary forces to do, well who knows, but it isn't likely anything good.

So no, it is nothing like the US in Japan. Now if suddenly troops showed up in Maizuru and blocked off the military port there, troops wearing American uniforms, speaking English, armed with American weapons but wearing no insignias, no identifiers, and refusing to answer questions. If they blockaded the base, and then later went in and took it over, well ya, I'd be saying that the US was invading Japan and that it was clearly underhanded and illegit.

Having bases in a country doesn't mean free run to do as you please.

Re:Presuming you are just uneducated

[Anonymous Coward]

For someone supposedly "not shilling" you have presented a very one sided view and somewhat uneducated view of the whole thing, you need to watch/read more than just US media sources.

Probably a mistake by Putin

[quantaman]

It looks pretty certain now that Russia is going to get Crimea and not have to fire a shot doing so. But I'm betting the price is going to be the rest of Ukraine. I don't care if they speak Russian, even in Russia-friendly Eastern Ukraine the idea of Russia stealing part of their country is not going to sit well with them.

I don't think nukes are necessary, Putin isn't really prepared for a shooting war with Ukraine's substantial army. In 10-20 years I'd be surprised if Ukraine hadn't mostly left Russia's sphere of influence and was reasonably integrated with Europe. And at that point I don't think nukes are relevant as any war would be WWIII nukes or not.

If I remember correctly

[Anonymous Coward]

From Wikipedia
When the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991, the newly independent Ukraine had on its territory what was the third largest strategic nuclear weapons arsenal in the world. It was larger than those of Britain, France, and China combined. On June 1, 1996 Ukraine became a non-nuclear nation when it sent the last of its 1,900 strategic nuclear warheads to Russia for dismantling.[1] The first shipment of nuclear weapons from Ukraine to Russia (by train) was in March 1994.[2] In return for giving up its nuclear weapons, Ukraine, the United States of America, Russia, and the United Kingdom signed the 1994 Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances, pledging to respect Ukraine territorial integrity, a pledge that was arguably broken by Russia's 2014 invasion of Crimea.
Further
Ukraine had 220 strategic weapon carriers on its territory, including:
130 SS-19
46 sophisticated SS-24 missiles
25 Tu-95MS heavy strategic bombers carriers
19 Tu-160 supersonic strategic bombers carriers
1,080 long-range cruise missiles
several hundred units of a tactical nuclear weapon
and further
Before voting on accession, Ukraine demanded from Russia, the USA, France and the United Kingdom a written statement that these powers undertook to extend the security guarantees to Ukraine. Instead security assurances to Ukraine (Ukraine published the documents as guarantees given to Ukraine),[6] given on 5 December 1994 at a formal ceremony in Budapest (known as the Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances[7]), may be summarized as follows: Russia, the UK and the USA undertake to respect Ukraine's borders in accordance with the principles of the 1975 CSCE Final Act, to abstain from the use or threat of force against Ukraine, to support Ukraine where an attempt is made to place pressure on it by economic coercion, and to bring any incident of aggression by a nuclear power before the UN Security Council.
And further reading from RT-23 Molodets (about the SS-24 missile)
The missile was tested through the 1980s and began to be deployed in 1987. Its production facilities were located in Ukraine. ..so the SS-24 ICBM was developed/produced in Ukraine, and all copies were given to Russia because, yeah, Ukraine is the crazy one, in exchange for no coercion and no violation of its borders. And Russia cheerfully broke that agreement two weeks ago, and Putin doesn't care one bit. He wants to grab Crimea just like he grabbed 20% of Georgia 12 years ago.

it takes is one idiot

[Anonymous Coward]

1. All it takes is one idiot to claim ownership of some land, and regardless of the facts that land becomes "disputed".

just as with wikipedia, it takes one idiot who questions eg gravity and an alternative views are presented.

Fuck all polaks

[Anonymous Coward]

Just a bunch of neo-nazi polaks in western ukraine - eg polish city of Lvov etc.

Fuck those cunts.

Re:All in all, this will probably go one of two wa

[Darinbob]

It'll be a Realpolitik country, like Finland was during cold war. Western leaning, but ever cautious about never saying the wrong thing to annoy it's neighbor, and making sure the neighbor gets the good trade bargains, and so forth.

Pot, kettle

[Anonymous Coward]

Greetings from Finland!

"Putin isn't interested in Crimea"

In fact he is. Crimea has been a target for consolidation by Russia ever since the Sovjet Union fell apart and has been a hot topic between Russia an Ukraine ever since. After all Crimea was a strategial navy base for the Sovjet Union in controlling the Black Sea. Also, Russia has allways had an expansionistic foreign policy which means that land-grabbing is still part of their agenda. For the Russians the Ukranian situation is business as usual.

The whole episode with the puppet president Yanukowich, giving russian passports to the Crimean population etc. was a buildup by the russians for exactly to this situation. So far everything is going exactly as planned by Moscow. In fact, if Yanukowich had not been overthorwn, Putins plan would have failed. He was allways supposed to be an expendable puppet doll. Crimea is now in Putins hands but wheter he kan keep it remains to be seen.

If the west backs-out, Russia will be able to keep Crimea long enough to eventually get it recognized as Russian territory. If however the west puts economic sanctions in place, Putins plans could fall apart. After all, the Russian economy is very dependent on energy export and too many oligarks shady businesses will get screwed up if assets are freezed. That would make Putin very wulnerable to a coup or even assassination.

A big long term problem arises if Russia is allowed to keep Crimea. That would encourage Russia to try the same strategy in the Baltics and Finland, all of which have major russian populations inside their borders that Putin might decide to "protect". The Baltics are Nato- countries but Finland is not.
The balts should get protection from Nato but Russia might still be able to negotiate som land areas in order not to have these small countries wiped out in a war that from a Russien perspective is a faraway border skirmish.

The situation for Finland is worse. Finland does not have any military alliances in place but relies on an army that does not have the capability to defend the country agains Russia. Russia could easily repeat the Crimean trick all over again and dictate which parts of eastern Finland should be handed over.

Are the Ukraine bombs made of ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Ukrainium?

Re:Are the Ukraine bombs made of ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Probably. Polandium isn't useful for nuclear explosives.

Ukraine can't afford it

[guacamole]

I don't think Kiev is serious about developing nuke weapons again. Ukrainian government is broke and the military is in pretty sad shape. There were pretty much no new aircraft, tanks, or ships for the last 20 years. They just keep using the old rusting USSR equipment.

Contradiction

[manu0601]

They throw away the elected government (yes, it was corrupted, but elected) through a revolution, which means the former constitution does not apply anymore. And that constitution tied Ukraine together. Once it is no more, there is no more legal grounds to retain a part of the territory that want to separate.

I hope ukrainians will manage to sort this mess, but it does not smells good.

Obama Rihanna

[Anonymous Coward]

Back at u.

It's probably US and UK sponsored meddling in Ukraine that got that far right Nazi group into power in Ukraine. They couldn't get close enough to China through Iran or Russia through Syria so now they're focusing on Ukraine. It's not binding as far as I can see. And now, rather than allow them to have a neighboring country on Russia's doorstep, they have no choice but to occupy Crimea before America does with its new Ukrainian puppet government. It's all a last sad and desperate act as America will fall anyway with or without war. It's rotten to the core now. Needs Libertarians to take her back from the Fascists.

Re:Ukrainian AA defense rockets went missing a whi

[guacamole]

Ukraine will not afford to develop own nukes on its own, so it's all empty posturing IMO.

And of course the Russians will sit by and not res

[Anonymous Coward]

Headline Ukraine leadership in a head long plunge in attempted assisted suicide.

None of that is Crimea

[Kartu]

And it is apparent if you simply take a look at the map.

Quite a bit of it is in eastern Ukraine, where Russians are a minority.

Re:None of that is Crimea

[slew]

Yes and no. AFAICT, much of the Ukrainian missile tech development is apparently in Kiev, Dniepropetrovsk and Pavlograd.

Although Kiev is certainly quite a distance away from Donetsk area (probably the most "Russian" part of Ukraine), the other two location(s) are very nearby and under quite a bit of influence from Russia.

One big problem for Ukraine with this move by Russia is that it tends to promote a situation where the core of Ukraine (around Kiev) morphs into a land-locked state that needs to negotiate with Russia for access Black sea. This is trending to be a sequel of the "russia-wants-a-warm-water-port" meme from the pre-cold-war times...

Bullshit, the parliament was elected in 2012

[Kartu]

And is as legitimate as it gets.

Yanukovych's de facto removal from office was a coup.

His own party has voted against him after he tried to sell Ukraine to Mr Putin.
A coup is something of much smaller scale, not result of a massive nation wide protest.

And some part of the population in Crimea wants them there.

Some population in Kaliningrad wants Germans there.
Some population in Kuril islands wants Japanese there.
Some population in Siberia wants Chinese there.

And oh, some population in USA wants Russian there too. Shall they?

So, an "invasion"? Not clear.

That's what illegally sending troops into foreign country is.

As for "an existential fight in the west", it's doubtful that Putin wants to absorb all of Ukraine.

There is no doubt he wants as much of it, as he can grasp. He claimed USSR collapse to be a "big tragedy" and from time to time whines about territories lost by collapse of russian Empire back in 1918.

Keep in mind that Ukraine is a synthetic state, based on the "Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic" set up by the USSR...which was created with a bunch of ethnic Russians exactly to keep Ukrainian nationalism in check.

The biggest country in Europe with 44 million citizens (about 80% of them Ukrainians and "whopping" 17% Russians) is "synthetic" eh?
Are you Russian, my friend? Because I've only heard BS like that coming from pro-Putin Russians.

But they all provoked it

[Kartu]

If you check Russian history books, they only fought defensive wars yet somehow kept rapidly expanding their territory.
Being provoked is a new trend from 2008.

Lot's of generals are watching

[Britz]

I think a lot of nations are watching very closely. We have the conflict in the Mideast, where Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Iran are often cited to be nuclear hopefuls. Israel is/was expected to give up their bomb if/when a proper security structure is in place.

Then there is the potential conflict in the South China Sea, where China just unveiled a military budget that it's neighbors can't even hope to match conventionally some day. So we have Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Vietnam and possibly Indonesia eyeing "other alternatives".

And we have the standoff between India and Pakistan, both of which were hopefuls for a nuclear disarmarment, should a peace deal be reached at some point. I don't need to mention that China, just like Russia, being nuclear capable and having had a war with India and still some territorial disputes, will make it impossible for India to give up it's nukes. Especially when treaties like the Budapest Memorandum are not worth the paper they are written on.

We also have some very old rivalries in South America. Brazil is expected to have enough material and the scientific resources to make a bomb. There are also rumours. Putting regional rivals such as Argentina and Venezuela on edge. And even though Venezuela is nowhere near nuclear capability, the mere chance is probabely making the Colombians uneasy.

Have I missed anything?

You are all missing the point

[Anonymous Coward]

The point is Ukraine under the current leadership is not technically recognized as "Ukraine" by the Russian Federation anymore and therefore the Russians moved in to protect their interests and their Russian citizens in Ukraine,

This situation would be somewhat similar to lets say there was a huge and extremely violent revolt in Canada, due to something the U.S. did to piss everyone off, and the people there replaced their government and leaders basically overnight. Now lets say a small area within Canada was once part of the U.S. and the area is populated strictly by Americans. After the violent overthrowing of the government and leaders of Canada the U.S. no longer recognizes the current government and therefore it doesn't recognize Canada. The U.S. fears for its citizens now... what do you think would happen next?

a) Peaceful negotiation (while U.S. citizens in Canada are being threatened in some way or another (you have to picture the Canadians as pissed off Slavic folks))
b) Move in the military to secure their citizens and their interests

I'm no expert but if past history has anything to say it be B hands-down.

You are quite wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

Your understanding of the situation is TERRIBLY and MATERIALLY incorrect and betrays an UTTERLY baffling lack of understanding of world political systems.

There is in fact a legitimate government in the Ukraine...the same one in power before removing Yanukovych from power. Ukraine is a parliamentary system, in which a President and a Prime Minister are elected by Parliament; they can both be dismissed by Parliament as well.

Yanukovych's party got tired of his high-handed approach to internal dissent and joined with the opposition to dismiss him from governance. This is not a coup, but a proper exercise of their authority under color of law, and is not uncommon in most of the world. The representatives of the people have not changed, and these representatives have elected a new President, prime minister, and cabinet, who are all experienced, qualified, and a mixture of ethnic Rrussians and Ukranians.

Your assertion of a "coup" is an ignorant restatement of propaganda disseminated by the Russians. Try learning something sometime.

Obtaining Nukes is a long standing aim of the Ukra

[Anonymous Coward]

Svoboda (formerly the National Socialist Party) has long had obtaining nuclear weapons as a goal. This is alongside making an ethnically "pure" Ukraine the geopolitical and military centre of Europe.

Bullshit

[aaaaaaargh!]

None of what you say is news to me and I'm also not basing any of my assessments on any US media, because they total shit. (Well, I do sometimes take a glimpse at the NY times web pages which are not too bad.) I'm also not from the US.

It is an undeniable fact that Putin is about to annex Crimea in violation all treaties with Ukraine and international public law. It is also a fact that Russia has no track record of protecting minorities in their own country, in fact they suppress them brutally and Moscow's streets are roaming with all kinds of thugs and Neo-Nazis. Putins alleged "reasons" for protecting the Russian speaking population of Ukraine are ridiculous and entirely made up. Moreover, it is a fact that Crimea was occupied by foreign enemy forces and you must be a complete moron if you think that about 16000 to 30000 "pro-Russian self-defense forces" suddenly emerged from the Crimean population, incuding Russian military trucks, Russian combat fatigues, Russian arms and specialized Spetznaz equipment.

The way you depict the political situation is also not quite right. You've fallen prey to propaganda in Russian media, which works even if you think it doesn't (like advertisement). Everybody knows that about 60% of the population on Crimea speaks Russian, but doesn't mean that they want to join Russia. In any case a referendum is staged and meaningless, even the decisions of the Crimean parliament are not worth the paper they are printed on as long as it is occupied and controlled by Russian troops. It's not as if Russia had free elections, it is essentially a dictatorship run by cleptocrats and former KGB officers.

You also seriously underestimate Putins efforts if you think all those "pro Russia" cheers are honest expression of feelings. He can literally spend billions of dollars on the Crim to assure the right outcome and will still make a bargain. Perhaps there is a slight real majority for becoming a part of Russia there. We will never know because the whole situation and the referendum has has "FSB" written all over in huge letters. Until now the situation was halfway decent but it's getting uglier each day. The Ukrainean minority on the Crimean peninsula is already starting to suffer and it's also not so easy to flee.

You are right if you think that Putin has no partical interest in the Crimea per se, though. All he wants is to keep the Black Sea Fleet were it is, access to the ports and consequently keep Ukraine out of Nato, and he will do anything to ensure that, even if it means that he has to invade Ukraine as a whole and install another puppet regime there. The people in Kiev know that, of course, and that they would loose any direct confrontation, hence the restrained reaction. That being said, he is right in one thing: The Svoboda party is a bunch of Nazi thugs. But as mentioned before, it's not as if there weren't any Nazis in the Duma ...

Treaty Peaty

[DarthVain]

It would have made zero difference, and in fact would have probably made things worse.

Russia backed a pro-Russian Ukraine government, and are now throwing a tantrum when they were deposed.

Had the Ukraine nuclear weapons, Russia would have come in harder and faster than it already did, using the excuse of safe guarding the nuclear weapons. Saying you are going to develop them, only asks Russia to please come invade the rest of our country, as we are giving you a convenient excuse you can use with the rest of the world.

paul.king5@ge.com

[Anonymous Coward]

You conveniently forget that the Serbs had begun to ethnically cleanse Kosovo which was the basis for the West to support Kosovo independence.

So did Yannischenkov leave, or chased away?

[Anonymous Coward]

If he just left, he resigned his post, if he was forcibly removed to another location, it was a coup.

What idiot would give up a nuke? "Put down the wea

[Anonymous Coward]

What I miss about the cold war: Back in the day, nations were fighting nations: "We want your resources and we hate your guts..." and "We are afraid of your aggression..." defense was booming (still is) and the justice dept had more to worry about than snooping citizens (Well since Hoover at least, lol.)

Like it or not, the Russians now occupy Crimea

[Anonymous Coward]

and they're not leaving. But they've got real trouble there, and it's not from Ukraine, it's from the 280,000 Crimean Tatars, who are 1. Wahhabi Muslims and 2. on the verge of declaring jihad against the Russians:

""We have Islamists, Wahhabites, Salafists... groups which were at war (on the opposition party) in Syria, - Jemilev declared. - They speak: "On our earth the enemy entered, and we are ready"."Annexation of the Crimea will deepen ethnic and religious distinctions in to the Crimea, increasing risk of intercommunal discord and even armed conflict. The most powerful opposition of Russia is observed among the Crimean Tatars which the numbering about 280 thousand people make about 12% of inhabitants of [Crimea]", - spoken in article. "Also there is a danger of internationalization of crisis: foreign jihadist can arrive to the Crimea to be at war with Russia, as at the beginning of 2000 - to Chechnya. Communications between the Crimean Tatars and the international network of Islamists are already adjusted. Local Muslims were at war in the ranks of the Syrian opposition against Bashar Assad's armies in Syria. One of them committed last year suicide bombing in Aleppo" https://news.pn/en/politics/98937