Slashdot Mirror
Russian Army Spetsnaz Units Arrested Operating In Ukraine
An anonymous reader writes with this excerpt from The Examiner: "The Security Service of Ukraine (SBU) confirmed March 16 the arrest of a group of Russians in the Zaporizhzhia (Zaporozhye) region of Ukraine. The men were armed with firearms, explosives and unspecified 'special technical means'. This follows the March 14 arrest ... of several Russians dressed black uniforms with no insignia, armed with AKS-74 assault rifles and in possession of numerous ID cards under various names. One of which was an ID card of Military Intelligence Directorate of the Russian armed forces; commonly known as 'Spetsnaz'. ... Spetsnaz commandos operating in eastern Ukraine would have the missions encompassing general ground reconnaissance of Ukrainian army units ... missions they may perform preparatory to a Russian invasion would be planting explosives at key communications choke points to hinder movement of Ukrainian forces; seizing control of roads, rail heads, bridges and ports for use by arriving Russian combat troops; and possibly capturing or assassinating Ukrainian generals or politicians in key positions ... Spetsnaz also infiltrate themselves into local populations ... Once in place they begin 'stirring the pot' of ethnic and political strife with the goal of creating violent clashes usually involving firearms and destabilizing local authority."
The submitter adds links to more at Forbes, The Daily Beast, and The New Republic.
How about we stay the fuck out of things for once and fix some problems back home.
ah fuck, not worth it. Apparently sometimes like doesn't recognise like.
Don't complain about syntax, grammar, or spelling. There is no.hell like input on android.
These clearly are local volunteer defense units. Russia is only trying to protect its citizens in Crimea. It's not setting for a larger invasion and take over of Ukraine. And I, personally, think that $1700 is a very reasonable asking price for such a historic landmark as Brooklyn Bridge.
Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
Agreed
Yes. +5, Smartest thing I've ever read on Slashdot.
That's all that needs to be said, really. I've said it since this whole thing began: If you think Putin is stopping at Crimea, you're a fucking moron.
This being a propaganda war more of the first degree, among these guys' objectives was, likely, the staging of violent incidents to give Russian media more video clips of Ukraine's "nazis" persecuting "innocent civilians".
Russia keeps trying to portray Ukraine's new government as the sort of Serbs persecuting Albanians in Kosovo (or Bosniaks in Bosnia) — so as to give itself the same justification West used for intervention against Milosevic.
Because Ukraine, despite daily provocations, refuses to engage in ethnic cleansings, "convincing" spetznas operations may be in order...
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
Sorry, what? Are you comparing defending of a sovereign state to staging of an election within an all-of-a-sudden-separatist region in order to justify an invasion? Russia set up a puppet government in Crimea. The "president" who requested Russian troops' presence never got more than 4% of the vote in the local elections. And setting up a base is not the same as taking over a region.. unless you think that Russia was always in charge of Crimea... because it always had a base there.
Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
The summary is over-hyping this story, which is a day or two old, and not given anything like this much play in the mainstream media. The link to Forbes is actually just to a third-party renting space on the Forbes site, and the New Republic piece is opinion, not news coverage. Not that I am in any way denying or condoning Putin’s invasion, but overreacting doesn’t help.
Ukrainian people are seeking democracy. They ousted Yanukovich during Orange Revolution (2008) for rigging elections, they ousted Yanukovich (2014) during Maidan Protests for attempting to amend the constitution, sacking and stacking judicial branch, and pillaging treasury to build his palaces. Twice Ukrainian people rose, twice they succeed. It is very clear Ukrainian people are not interested going back to being Soviet Ukraine.
As a result of this struggle, Putin sees Ukrainian protests as a direct threat to his dictatorship, least Maidan escalate into 'Russian Spring'. As such, he is willing to risk sanctions, isolation from West, and a shooting war in order to destabilize Ukraine at all costs. That why Crimea annexation, that why Soviet-era propaganda trying to paint Ukrainian protesters as radicals/nazis, that why he is sending covert ops into the rest of Ukraine.
What is more interesting, is that Russian KGB learned a great deal how to use Internet to misdirect and confuse otherwise very clear issue. Reading the comments sections of all major new sources you can clearly see paid shills spewing Kremlin's talking points and/or trying to derail the conversation.
I think I read this story...
http://www.amazon.com/Command-Authority-Jack-Ryan-Clancy/dp/0399160477
When I read this headline, all I could think of was Moneypenny's quote in the N64 Goldeneye game.
"Grabbed by the Spetsnaz, James? Sounds painful!"
Clearly while these troops probably were or are active Russian units, I expect they were either AWOL and/or certainly acting without orders. ... ... or at least thats what I expect we'll hear pretty soon.
This space for rent. All reasonable inquiries will be entertained at proprietors discretion.
The US has a treaty with Ukraine and Russia that Russia is violating, so we need to step up. It would likely be best to send a small to medium detachment and put them temporarily under the control of the Ukraine government. Also plenty of intelligence officers. We don't need to direct them ourselves and generate more strife than needed.
On the subject of "always" - how long has Crimea been "Ukrainian"? My own lifetime, plus two years - not a very long time really. Crimea IS NOT Ukrainian!!
This set of international events has a small potential to turn our civilization into post-apocalyptic nuclear survival exercise. As such, it is appropriate /. topic of discussion.
If true, under the Geneva Convention these soldiers would be considered unlawful combatants and subject to Ukranian law.
the growth in cynicism and rebellion has not been without cause
Yes, eventually, this would help. Meanwhile, however, Ukraine needs military equipment — not just the drone-provided intelligence. The sort of massive airlift of military supplies, that helped Israel defend itself against the massive Arab armies back in the day...
Ukraine has soldiers, what it does not have is enough fuel for its tanks, airplanes, and other vehicles...
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
The russian military spying agency is handing out ID cards to their agents?
bickerdyke
"stop writing about technology"?
Such poor command of English is very revealing...
Anyway, this is news and potentially the first steps to WW III, as it follows the same path as Hitler took, while "the west" just sat on their asses and let it happen.
I think even nerds should be aware of something of that magnitude.
Sorry, what? Are you comparing defending of a sovereign state to staging of an election within an all-of-a-sudden-separatist region in order to justify an invasion?
Yes I'd nip it in the bud. Once the American colonies wanted to become separate and just look where that got us ;-)
Are you comparing defending of a sovereign state
Sorry, come again? I would point out that not a whole month ago, a group of armed insurgents committed a coup against the legitimate, democratically-elected Ukrainian government. So exactly what "sovereign state" do you refer to here? A group of terrorists acting contrary to the legitimate Ukrainian constitution and the will of its people???
And to add insult to injury, our own treasonous congress has approved an aid package for the insurgents, directly contravening US law that specifically bans such aid.
And we think we have any moral right to complain about a landslide popular election by Crimea to secede from Ukraine and join the Russian Federation? Wow. We should have elected Kerry, that bastard's got balls of solid Neutronium!
" Quit trying to get web clicks and stop writing about technology, which is what slashdot is supposed to be about"
says who?
I am assuming by stop you mean start, as if there hasn't been any technology post ...
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Strange, I don't see anything specific to technology in Slashdot's header/manifesto. I believe it's "News for Nerds" and "Stuff that Matters". I'm sure there are plenty of history nerds on here to whom this matters
Heck, this is even under the appropriate category (The Military).
Perhaps you should restrict the article categories to only include Hardware and a few other sections you like, rather than imposing what you think the site should be about on everyone else.
*News* for nerds. Stuff that *matters*.
PM Neville Chamberlain and the League of Nations said "Naughty naughty" to Putin.
How about we stay the fuck out of things for once and fix some problems back home.
1. A pity the Russians aren't saying that.
2. Ignoring problems seldom makes them go away. In fact we seem to be seeing that ignoring the Russians means they come to stay.
3. What "problems back home" do you think are going to turn out any different if the US and Western Europe turns a blind eye to Russian aggression?
4. On whose behalf are you speaking?
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
I'm guessing in the next edition of SOCOM I won't be able to play the role of a spetnaz operative.
It works fine as long as we are talking about tiny countries. But when major world powers start taking over countries just because, we found out what a moronic idea it was.
excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
You do realise Crimea has been autonomous within the Ukraine precisely because it is more ethnically Russian than Ukrainian, and that in the post-USSR history of the region the Ukranian government has gone back on agreements with the region whenever they display behaviour that is too pro-Russian (for example, Crimea appointing a pro-Russian local leader, which had the result of Crimea having their privileges to do so revoked).
Theres a fuck load of history surrounding the region which is being glossed over by the international media - that doesn't mean I support what Putin is doing, but it annoys me no end when all you see are details which definitely slant it one way in the publics eyes.
The same argument was used by US isolationists prior to World War II.
Oh, and what, may I ask, happened to these fine words?
But, if you must have a cold reason for helping this particular liberty, let me remind you, that Ukraine was a nuclear power — until it agreed to give up its nukes in exchange for guarantees given jointly by Russia, US, and UK... The guarantors promised to ensure Ukraine's sovereignty and territorial integrity.
No one ever believed Russia's word, but if US and UK fail to keep theirs too, what sort of message will that send to Iran and others developing their own nuclear weapons? A very clear one: you do need these weapons to be taken seriously, and no foreign guarantees are worth the paper they are soiling...
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
If they're Spetsnaz, and they allowed themselves to be arrested, they clearly had orders to not kill anybody, especially cops.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
How is this about technology Slashdot
Because nuclear explosions at altitude tend to cause computer-destroying EMPs.
That do it for ya?
Indeed. Remember Wargames? So clearly it's news for Nerds!
What is funny was back in highschool (1998) economics class we had a discussion about Russia and "communism" and how it worked economically. We spoke about the new Russia, how they were allies with the US and how hopefully they will stay that way. But the teacher basically flat out said "Mark my words, the old Soviet Russia will come back to haunt us in within 20 years."
Boy was he right.
In the real world, the difference between evil and good is not a bright line, but instead small details.
A prime example is that the difference between murder and self defense is just the state of mind of the shooter.
Setting up a new military base in the Ukraine is a measured, careful response to potential problems. It sends a clear message, does not cost any immediate lives, and makes it harder for Russia to continue on it's imperialistic course.
excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
Bad idea.
This isn't a problem of the U.S. since Ukraine isn't in any way, shape or form affiliated with NATO.
The EU on the other hand might be interested... But intervening with Ukraine at this stage would be enough to provoke Putin and the rest of Russia into World War 3 mode.
That would be a mistake on Putin's part, since barring a full nuclear war, he cannot realisticly win, and even with nukes he can only drag the rest of the world to the dark ages. EU + USA has enough troops to repel all of Russias advances, and then some.
The only thing Russia will accomplish with it's bullying is to make it's neighbours more determined to seek strong alliances; NATO in the west, and probably China/India will create a strong asian alliance in the east. I do not understand why Putin is that stupid.
systemd is not an init system. It's a GNU replacement.
"On the subject of "always" - how long has Crimea been "Ukrainian"? My own lifetime, plus two years - not a very long time really. Crimea IS NOT Ukrainian!!"
Really? For me it's Palestine that has been Israeli for my lifetime plus 2 years.
Nice to meet you.
Agree. These idiots screaming for the U.S. to once again be the world police in this are going to stumble us right into WWIII, over a tiny part of Ukraine that clearly doesn't even want our help.
SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
A brief introduction to the methods of our new Soviet overlords.
Circle the wagons and fire inward. Entropy increases without bounds.
2. Ignoring problems seldom makes them go away.
It's a venerable Russian tradition to distract people's attention from problems by trying to direct it somewhere else. For example, to Ukraine. ;-)
Ezekiel 23:20
Is Putin really trying to engineer a phony Hitleresque provocation? The sanctions need to get upped big time. I doubt Russia would mobilize for war behind that gluttonous kleptocrat.
Because your nation along with Russia signed a treaty to protect Ukraine when they gave up nuclear weapons. If Russia is there to "protect" Ukraine so should you be.
Also, we want a military base in that reason and are losing one.
excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
I don't care who's right, who started what, which goverment is a puppet for which superpower. Really, I don't. I just have one simple request of everyone involved:
Can we please not stumble into World War III over the goddamned Ukraine!?
I browse on +1 so AC's need not respond, I won't see it.
Well, if the National Aeronautics and Space Administration can engage in "Muslim Outreach" and research of "collapse of industrial civilization", then why can't Slashdot write about politics? It is "stuff that matters", at least...
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
I get it, I get it. Nuance is needed. Crimea's history as a pivot point for Russian military might. Ethnic Russian makeup of Crimea. All that being said, God doesn't garner 93% approval ratings in the Vatican.
Every post I make begins with the assumption P=~P.
So how long does it have to be "ours" before we stop squabbling about it? 100 years? 200? 500? 1000?
Good thing Europe has managed to more or less get over it. Apparently Russia hasn't.
Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
so we need to step up.
And by "we" you mean everyone else but you, right? Until YOU are ready to pick up a rifle and go fight in WWIII and pay high taxes to pay for the massive war you're proposing, then STFU. The rest of us "we" have no interest in starting a World War over some pissy little region in the Ukraine whose citizens clearly want to be part of Russia more than Ukraine anyway.
But please, don't let us stop you. A plane ticket and a Ukrainian Army recruitment office await you anytime, brave comrade!
SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
And we think we have any moral right to complain about a landslide popular election by Crimea to secede from Ukraine and join the Russian Federation? Wow. We should have elected Kerry, that bastard's got balls of solid Neutronium!
You mean the same landslide popular election that happened to have reports of districts with "yes" vote counts higher than the total number of residents in those districts? Landslides are easy when you engineer them to be so.
The situation in the Ukraine just proves Iran and NK right -- the only way to preserve your territory in this world is to be a nuclear power.
We should have a US base in EVERY country! But that wouldn't be imperialist now, would it?
For the hundredth time, please recall that the USA did not enter WW2 until the Axis powers declared war on it (or attacked it in the case of Japan). Hitler personally declared war on the USA while the latter was STILL mulling its options several days after Pearl Harbor.
The obvious moral of that particular period of history is that the USA is always willing to beat up weaker nations, but maintains a prudent neutrality in the face of anyone of its own size.
I am sure that there are many other solipsists out there.
Excuse me, this is Slashdot, not Reddit or News of the World. Would you please keep the most obvious propaganda bullshit out of Slashdot? Every time you want to post a topic like "A woman gave birth to a six headed horse", "Intelligent peanut butter consumed a cat" or "Russian spetsnaz is planting explosives in Ukraine", consider a more appropriate site.
Amen!
I think right now this situation is so complex and muddied that no-one is in the right, and no-one has all the information.
Accusations have gone back and forth like crazy but I still haven't seen any of them from either side backed up by evidence beyond "it's obvious", which, in this situation, I highly doubt.
As for these supposed Russian commandos... I really doubt they are what the report says they are. Whenever you send agents (either Spies or Commandos) into the field you strip them of anything that would identify them as spies/commandos, having ID cards for "Spetsnaz" sounds like a plant to me.
"We found the enemy's agents doing bad things so we have reason to attack!" when they are nothing more than your own agents planted to make them look like the enemy.
I also find it interesting that this bit of 'news' hasn't shown up on any even remotely neutral news sources. I frequent the BBC and have been watching their coverage of this Cluster F*** closely, and while they have agreed with USA in many of their stances and statements concerning this, they have no mention of this bit of news... makes me very suspicious of it's authenticity.
All that being said, I really think Russia is going to far and should back off, let things settle, allow the "newly independent Crimea" to exist for a while to prove it's not a Russian puppet but actually something it's people want.
DEMETRIUS: Villain, what hast thou done?
AARON: Villain, I have done thy mother.
Shakespeare invents 'your mom'
You're talking about the post-Cold War agreement to recognize their sovereignty and to not encroach on it, right? That agreement, which included the UK as well as the US and Russia, never stipulated that the other signatories had to defend Ukraine if one of them became an aggressor. It merely required that they not become aggressors themselves. If Russia is breaking that agreement, the US and UK are under no obligation to assist Ukraine, though it may be in their best interests, given that Ukraine has threatened to restart their nuclear weapons development, the abandonment of which was tied to that agreement.
Now, I'm not suggesting one way or the other about what the US or the rest of the world should do. I'm merely pointing out that the agreement you're talking about in no way obligates the US to defend Ukraine. It merely required that they leave it alone, and that in exchange Ukraine would give up their nukes.
You want to know what happened to these fine words:
They were lies spoken by a politician. What is new? They were lies then, they are lies now. The people in charge of the American regieme do not actually approve of liberty for anyone but themselves and seldom ever have.
How does alliance with Saudi Arabia assure the survival and the success of liberty? Is it in the way they stone women to death for being seen in public with men who are not their husbands that does it?
How does the drug war, which has justified raids on private homes, the militarization of police, and the erosion of fair trial rights through the use of "Parallell construction" assure the survival of liberty? (and what liberty? The liberty to do as you are told? The liberty to choose not to use drugs?)
Lies is all they ever were, why do you cling to such crap?
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
legitimate, democratically-elected Ukrainian government.
I would argue that a system where the Parliament can pass a bill wanting to join the EU and the president just vetoes it is not entirely democratic (while still legitimate). Checks and balances seem a bit out of whack when the elected representatives of the country decide to do something and then one guy says no and the whole thing dies.
The Constitutional Court overturning the 2010 reduction of presidential powers seems to make the issue a bit thornier. And just before all this blew up, it looks like Yanukovych was getting several laws pushed through to lock stuff down...so everything is more or less legitimate but not in the spirit of democracy, depending on how you look at it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C...
Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
Funny thing though, countries today don't go to war alone.
I'd say it just got real, except it's been real for weeks.
It's "stuff that matters", which is expressly the sort of thing that Slashdot covers. 99% of the time, I don't care about international politics (nor national politics, for that matter), but when they get this big and this tense, it matters. I'm glad that Slashdot has the sense to break in with stuff like this when it gets this important, since otherwise it's particularly easy for nerds to keep their heads down and not notice what's going on in the world.
He added links "to Forbes" you say? Why didn't he also add links to Fox, Huffington and MacDonalds and as well? Nothing at the link to Forbes says anything even remotely similar to what the post is alleging (I didn't even bother to check the other ones).
Quite right, Mr. Chamberlain.
1 is sort of a tu quoque argument. Additionally, Russia would argue they are fixing problems back home. They have a direct interest in access to the black sea. I'd hope most rational people would disagree with Russia's definition of home or fixing problems is, but our interest in the conflict is less direct than theirs is.
On 3: the national debt. If the military industrial complex decides our punch card is full and we've earned a free war, okay. A debt disaster is much scarier to me personally than Russia being allowed to continue having Ukraine basically in their pocket. If we have some extra money or want to raise taxes to pay for it... still no I'd much rather the money go to something useful like research.
Putin's neo-Stalinism aside, it may be sad to sit helplessly on the sidelines but the US has no territorial, economic, or security interest in Ukraine whatsoever. It's none of America's damn business.
Somewhere, sometime, the US has got to get over this notion of being the world's comic-book superhero.
Now is a good time to start. Picking a fight with a bully that has a huge nuclear arsenal is a bad idea.
Scruting the inscrutable for over 50 years.
Yeah, Russia just wants back all the land that they once owned. There is no us soil that Russia once owned is there?
I personally trust what commentors say here about world events more than the mainstream news. Although obviously you have to read *all* the comments on the issue.
Not that I disagree with your point per se...
Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
You mean to the one where the US sent in troops without any insignia with the goal of annexing Iraq as the 51st state?
Sure, we technically don't have to intervene. Unless we want the entire world to know that assurances of protection given in exchange for giving up their nuclear weapons are worth slightly less than the paper they're written on. Which means every country in the world will (and ought, if they intend to remain safe) seek nuclear weapons to prevent this kind of aggression in the future. You sure that humanity won't start using nuclear weapons if 90%+ of countries have them? Because I'm definitely not sure about that.
"None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license." --John Milton
It turns out that Russian airborne units were holding large exercises around the time of the Crimea vote.
Russian Paratroopers Hold Massive Drills as Crimea Vote Nears
MOSCOW, March 11 (RIA Novosti) – An airborne division based in central Russia began large-scale exercises Tuesday against the backdrop of an ongoing political and security crisis in Ukraine.
The Defense Ministry said units of the 98th Guards Airborne Division, based in Ivanovo, a city east of Moscow, were put on high alert and moved to unspecified locations to “check readiness” in simulated combat conditions.
Four thousand troops, 36 military transport aircraft and an unspecified number of combat vehicles are taking part in the exercises, which will run until March 14.
The drills will include a massive simultaneous paradrop involving 3,500 servicemen, the ministry said.
The drills come in the wake of a number of military exercises in Russia’s western regions in the past days, including air defense drills, combat readiness snap checks and a launch of an intercontinental ballistic missile.
A mass tactical drop of 3,500 paratroopers is pretty big.
It is also worth noting that Russian airborne units are mechanized with air droppable infantry fighting vehicles like the BMD 3. That makes them highly mobile after a drop, and they have significant additional firepower. It is a deadly combination. A World War 2 tank division would find them tough to chew on.
Russian airborne troops with BMD 2 armoured fighting vehicles
A video broadcast on Internet shows Russian airborne with BMD-2 armoured infantry fighting vehicle in Veselaya Lopan 20km from the Ukraine border.
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
Apparently they were 10 votes short of legally removing him from office, too.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V...
Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
And this is the endgame of all of the 'nuclear free' 'disarmament' talks. Ukraine relied on the treaty, signed by the US, UK and Russia to keep them safe and independent. Russia is violating it. The US and UK are doing nothing concrete to stop it. Do you think for one moment Russia would have invaded if Ukraine were still a nuclear power?
What was illegal about it? The invasion of Iraq in 1991 was sanctioned by the UN. Hostilities were suspended (not ended) on the condition that Saddam complied with a number of conditions. He violated some of those conditions. His violations included firing on UN sponsored forces - aircraft in the no-fly zone, obstructing weapons inspectors among other thing. So the US invaded. In my view the invasion was unnecessary and a waste of US resources and lives, but it wasn't illegal. The final verdict of the legality/illegality of this invasion was decided in what court? Did said court have jurisdiction?
Very often, people confuse simple with simplistic. The nuance is lost on most. - Clement Mok
But, if you must have a cold reason for helping this particular liberty, let me remind you, that Ukraine was a nuclear power — until it agreed to give up its nukes in exchange for guarantees given jointly by Russia, US, and UK... The guarantors promised to ensure Ukraine's sovereignty and territorial integrity.
It doesn't look like you actually read the information in the Wikipedia article you cited. There are no obligations of the signatories to "guarantee" Ukrainian territorial integrity.
The Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances does nothing more than obligate the signatories to respect Ukraine's sovereignty/borders/politics/economics, and to "Seek United Nations Security Council action if nuclear weapons are used against Ukraine ". (I would argue that the actual text of the memorandum could be interpreted in a way that would obligate the signatories to seek UNSC action even without the use/threat of nukes.)
In any case, the US and UK are in consultation with the UNSC, so the obligations of the US/UK to Ukraine under the agreement are fully met.
I take it you were (and would be now) perfectly happy with a Russian naval/air base in Cuba? Or Mexico?
You sir, should be a Politician.
I agree. The US should hold back and let someone else get involved / invested first and then jump in later when that fails to cover it.
Account -> Discussions -> Disable Sigs
Well said. Finally someone here that isn't blathering on about how the US has a "treaty" to help Ukraine if they are invaded. Wish I could mod you up.
Aaaand what "treaty" would that be? (hint: there isn't one).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B...
which is a memorandum contingent upon Ukraine signing http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T...
Although the memorandum is not a treaty, but a mere political agreement, "The memorandum bundled together a set of assurances that Ukraine already held from the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe (CSCE) Final Act, United Nations Charter and Non-Proliferation Treaty." So there are treaties in place that should prevent what Russia is doing. Russia just doesn't care.
Look up The Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum_on_Security_Assurances). Technically it is not a treaty, but that is splitting hairs.
Just because you are paranoid does not mean that no-one is out to get you.
You do know that a referendom with a 97% acceptance for one option is highly suspect ? I think it's almost statisticly impossible. I'm quite sure that a lot of people in crimea where not allowed to vote and / or the vote was rigged. Crimea might want to go back to Russia but at the moment where only seeing Russian propaganda at work and we have no proof of that.
yeah, that will fix things. wtf.
My God can beat up your God. Just kidding...don't take offense. I know there's no God.
Sure, we technically don't have to intervene. Unless we want the entire world to know that assurances of protection given in exchange for giving up their nuclear weapons are worth slightly less than the paper they're written on.
As I just said in my last comment, there were no assurances of protection. There were merely assurances that there wouldn't be encroachment, but no provisions for what would happen if those assurances were broken by one of the parties. This wasn't like post-occupation Japan, which received specific assurances that they would be defended by the US. This was simply a case of agreeing not to invade them and carve them up if they gave up their weapons. They were still responsible for their own defense.
Again, I'm not suggesting a course of action one way or the other (I'm honestly undecided on what I think is the best course for dealing with Russia), but I feel that it's important to get the facts of the situation right.
I'll see you, and raise you:
"Of all enemies to public liberty war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded because it comprises and develops the germs of every other. War is the parent of armies: from these proceed debt and taxes. And armies, and debts, and taxes are the known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few. In war, too, the discretionary power of the Executive is extended. Its influence in dealing out offices, honors, and emoluments is multiplied; and all the means of seducing the minds are added to those of subduing the force of the people No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare". - James Madison
"The most extravagant idea that can be born in the head of a political thinker is to believe that it suffices for people to enter, weapons in hand, among a foreign people and expect to have one's laws and constitution embraced. It is in the nature of things that the progress of Reason is slow and no one loves armed missionaries; the first lesson of nature and prudence is to repulse them as enemies.
"One can encourage freedom, never create it by an invading force". - Maximilien Robespierre
"War is an instrument entirely inefficient toward redressing wrong; and multiplies, instead of indemnifying losses". - Thomas Jefferson
"Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence (I conjure you to believe me, fellow-citizens,) the jealousy of a free people ought to be constantly awake; since history and experience prove, that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of Republican Government. But that jealousy, to be useful, must be impartial; else it becomes the instrument of the very influence to be avoided, instead of a defence against it. Excessive partiality for one foreign nation, and excessive dislike of another, cause those whom they actuate to see danger only on one side, and serve to veil and even second the arts of influence on the other. Real patriots, who may resist the intrigues of the favorite, are liable to become suspected and odious; while its tools and dupes usurp the applause and confidence of the people, to surrender their interests.
"The great rule of conduct for us, in regard to foreign nations, is, in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connexion as possible. So far as we have already formed engagements, let them be fulfilled with perfect good faith. Here let us stop". - George Washington
"No one nation has a right to sit in judgment over another". - Thomas Jefferson
"We wish not to meddle with the internal affairs of any country, nor with the general affairs of Europe". - Thomas Jefferson
I am sure that there are many other solipsists out there.
Your linked source says nothing about "promising to ensure Ukraine's sovereignity and territorial integrity". Did you link the wrong source? Did you just make it up?
From your link:
Russia, the U.S., and the UK confirmed that they would:
1. Respect Ukrainian independence and sovereignty within its existing borders.
2. Refrain from the threat or use of force against Ukraine.
3. Refrain from using economic pressure on Ukraine in order to influence its politics.
4. Seek United Nations Security Council action if nuclear weapons are used against Ukraine.
5. Refrain from the use of nuclear arms against Ukraine.
6. Consult with one another if questions arise regarding these commitments.
The US us respecting Ukrainian independence and sovereignty. The US is not threatening or using force against Ukraine. The US is not (that I've heard anyway) using economic pressure to influence Ukrainian politics. Nuclear weapons haven't been used against Ukraine so there's nothing to seek. The US hasn't used nuclear arms against Ukraine. And I'm sure the US doesn't have any questions about those commitments.
So the US is meeting all their obligations and keeping their word.
Anyone else notice this sounds suspiciously like the start of the plot of Command Authority happening in real life?
AJ Henderson
In short, "You damn Americans! You stay when we want you to come, and go when we want you to stay." I guess it's a question of whose ox is being gored, and something else.
When the Soviet Union moved SS-20 missiles into Eastern Europe there were few protests in Western Europe. When NATO agreed and the US deployed Pershing and cruise missiles to counter the Soviet missiles there were protests in Western Europe ... largely against the US. (Moscow was paying for the "peace movement." ) It was only after those weapons were deployed that the Soviets agreed to real negotiations to reduce nuclear weapons in Europe.
When Saddam's Iraq invaded and annexed Kuwait there weren't protests in Europe. When the US, UK, and other nations formed a coalition to remove Saddam's army from Kuwait there were large protests in Western Europe.
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
Did you completely miss the part where we are treaty-bound to be involved in this one? That the only reason the Ukrane gave up it's nukes was because we promised that Russia wouldn't do exactly what it just did?
If the Wikipedia description of presidential vetoes is accurate, the checks and balances are as reasonable as in most Western democracies, and in particular they parallel the USA in requiring a supermajority of the legislature to overturn the veto. (As a point of comparison, the last president of the USA not to veto a bill was Garfield, and the last full-term president not to use a veto was Fillmore).
A very clear one: you do need these weapons to be taken seriously, and no foreign guarantees are worth the paper they are soiling...
From the advent of the first spear, this has been known.
It is the reason why Israel will always keep their nukes, and why N Korea and Iran are aggressively trying to build them.
My God can beat up your God. Just kidding...don't take offense. I know there's no God.
If we don't enforce the treaty we are partner to then any hope of keeping Iran from getting nukes is out the window. Likewise the last few decades of keeping nukes out of the hands of those that would be more than happy to smuggle them into the US and use them on us is gone too. Would you still feel this way when Boston, DC or LA become a mushroom cloud because a suicide bomber upgraded from chemical to nuclear explosives?
You sound like the rest of the world as Germany took "some pissy little region" called Sudetenland. But that worked out well...
Russian military operating on foreign soil out of uniform? Last time I checked, that was called a "spy". Treat them like what they are.
I guess the idea of depending on a legislature to not go crazy and pass foolish legislation in the heat of the moment vs. trusting one guy to make a reasonable decision depends heavily on who the one guy is. Historically speaking, I know there are a number of instances of nationalistic fervor where Congress declared war on e.g. Mexico, too.
Government is hard :P
Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
So, we should just stand by and watch the Ukraine be forcibly taken by Russia -- just because? Of course, I think this will be the likely outcome with our Obama-in-Chief, who will content himself with letter writing while an entire nation is subjugated and cleansed by Putin and his fascist regime.
If Obama had any backbone, we'd have had troops on the ground to support and aid Ukraine the day after Putin made his power grab.
But he's already told them to go get fucked: http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304914904579437523037894270
So Ukrainian women better start on the birth control.
We have a weak coward of a President who will let Russia have their way.
Sure, at first appearance Russia isn't acting logically. Sure, east Ukraine has gas and oil which is good to have. But the naval station in Crimea doesn't really mean shit. All it takes is mine the narrow strait of Bosporus and no-one goes anywhere from or to the Black Sea. Why would you absolutely want to have a naval base in such a cul de sac... beats me.
Now, howevber...
If you look at the big picture all this really revolves around getting the Russians away from the Mediterranean thus cementing it into US/EU sphere of influence. Mediterranean is important because it's the soft underbelly of Europe and a possible long term solar energy source in the Northern Sahara regions. Of course a nation which has its economy in the shitter (Russia) and lives solely by exporting gas and oil cannot accept any form of alternative energy to reach Europe etc.
Anyway until the gas flow to Germany stops, this is all theatrical-political bullshit with friendly smiles taking place behind the scenes.
As they were more than likely CIA I agree.
How about a certain northern state?
Tell you what, why don't you look it up and then come back and tell everyone exactly what obligations the US has under the agreement. (hint: the US is in full compliance under the most liberal interpretation of the agreement)
BTW, under US law a "treaty" has a very specific meaning so "splitting hairs" doesn't apply in this case.
shill
You mean to the one where the US sent in troops without any insignia with the goal of annexing Iraq as the 51st state?
Snark-snipe all you want, but think how much easier things might have been if we did in fact annex Iraq. Big local buffer for Israel (which seems to be ultrahigh priority in DC), all the middle-Eastern military bases we want, a major OPEC player becomes part of the USA,... . And all we'd have to worry about is some minor (hah) backlash from a few other countries in the region. Heck, Putin might never have noticed Crimea if he were concentrating on the new US state of Texiraqas.
https://app.box.com/WitthoftResume Code: https://github.com/cellocgw
The rest of us "we" have no interest in starting a World War over some pissy little region in the Ukraine
That's almost exactly the same thought as expressed by most Britons when Germany invaded Poland. Ask any Londoner old enough to remember WWII where it got them.
I guess the problem is that there aren't too many of those around anymore.
Why the fuck not? The rest of the world bitches about how we're not the world's policemen. Let fucking France or Germany or fucking Poland deal with this. We contained the Soviet Union for over 40 years and guaranteed they wouldn't come west. You lot go pull your fucking weight already.
Well if he had been happy with that and had not added Poland, France and a few other countries to the list...
No I didn't miss that. Politicians lie about everything else, why can't they lie about that too. Or is it only acceptable for them to lie to their own people?
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
The vote was rigged.
Voters were given two options: yes, now or yes, later.
In short, "You damn Americans! You stay when we want you to come, and go when we want you to stay."
If you say so. But is it entirely unreasonable for nations that are to be invaded, and perhaps partially or wholly destroyed, to be allowed some say in the matter?
When the Soviet Union moved SS-20 missiles into Eastern Europe there were few protests in Western Europe. When NATO agreed and the US deployed Pershing and cruise missiles to counter the Soviet missiles there were protests in Western Europe ... largely against the US.
Perhaps because we felt the USSR was arming and defending its allies - just as the USA has always done and does today. Israel, anyone? UK, Saudi Arabia, any Gulf state of your choice... Ukraine? As for the US missiles in the UK and elsewhere, maybe we didn't want to become targets. Especially since many of us rather doubted whether the Soviets really had plans to conquer the universe. Anyone with a smattering of history could see that, having always been surrounded by enemies, and recently having lost one in seven of its people - all its people, not just its soldiers - to a foreign attack, Russia would be apt to err on the side of security.
(Moscow was paying for the "peace movement." )
Evidence? Thank goodness the US government, at least, has never paid troublemakers to foment agitation in any foreign country. You may be astonished to learn that there are people who prefer peace to war, just on general grounds, without having to be paid.
It was only after those weapons were deployed that the Soviets agreed to real negotiations to reduce nuclear weapons in Europe.
That is questionable. Both sides produced a lot of propaganda to show that they were the innocent victims of planned aggression. But the Russians had a far more convincing case that they felt threatened. When was the USA last invaded and one in seven of its population killed?
When Saddam's Iraq invaded and annexed Kuwait there weren't protests in Europe. When the US, UK, and other nations formed a coalition to remove Saddam's army from Kuwait there were large protests in Western Europe.
Perhaps because it was a long way off, and Kuwait had historically been a province of Iraq anyway. (Not that I'd expect you to know that: as Ambrose Bierce remarked, "War is God's way of teaching Americans geography"). Funny how nations like Iraq and Russia are expected to accept the loss of parts of their territory and population, while the USA fought a war that killed well over half a million people to prevent the Confederacy from seceding. (Not to mention the vast territory, including Texas, New Mexico, Nevada, Arizona, and Caifornia - did I leave any out?) stolen from Mexico.
I am sure that there are many other solipsists out there.
The rest of us "we" have no interest in starting a World War over some pissy little region in the Ukraine whose citizens clearly want to be part of Russia more than Ukraine anyway.
So you are an advocate of Peace for our time? Splendid. I'm sure it will work out just as well now as it did then, just like the pacifist movement in Europe helped .... to keep the various nations from rearmament and at the mercy of the fascist powers.
Did you know that a number of countries in Europe, some of which are NATO allies of the US, also have ethnically Russian populations? The echo of "Ein Volk, ein Reich, ein Führer" hasn't died out, and now seems to have a Russian accent.
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
In Soviet Russia, borders move to include you.
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
Did you completely miss the part where we are treaty-bound to be involved in this one? That the only reason the Ukrane gave up it's nukes was because we promised that Russia wouldn't do exactly what it just did?
Here, educate yourself.
Read the above and let us know what you think we are obligated to do under the "treaty".
"Once in place they begin 'stirring the pot' of ethnic and political strife with the goal of creating violent clashes usually involving firearms and destabilizing local authority."
Is that sort of like the Ukrainian ultra nationalists that just overthrew a democratically elected government through violence rather than elections?
I have relatives in Ukraine living in Odessa oblast, Novoukrainka, Kiev and in Lviv, and friends in Crimea. Those listening to Russian news, are saying that ultra-nationalists are shooting Russians in the street in Lviv. Panicked, we called our relatives, and found they are absolutely fine, and the streets are quiet. A percentage of the population believes whatever the Russian media tells them; a form of information bias. Unfortunately, Russian media has past Ukraine in a pretty negative light, and have now resorted to telling outright lies, in what looks like an attempt to soften up Russian sympathetic Ukrainians to invasion; dividing and conquering within with an information war..
Hitler once said -- if you're going to tell a lie, don't tell a little one, tell a big one. Ukraine is a poor country. They just had to deal with the most corrupt leader they had ever experienced. Russia has somehow convinced it's citizens that ultra-nationalists have taken over the country. In reality closer ties with the EU require tolerance for minorities.
The elections are due at the end of May. All Russia would have to do to insure that a Russian sympathetic government is elected is to continue with an information war. It was/is unnecessary to send in the army, other than to carve out pieces of Ukraine.
And many Americans want to think of the US as the hero of WWII. Really, it was Britain. They were fighting alone for almost 2 years until the US got off its ass an entered the war -- and only after Pearl Harbor.
Something like only 10% of Americans wanted to get involved and/or help Britain before Pearl Harbor, even though they were getting pounded during The Blitz, civilians killed, cities on fire, etc. (not to mention what was happening in the rest of mainland Europe) The US did nothing, sent some supplies after a while, but that was it until Pearl. And Britain lost 10x as many civilians alone during the blitz as the us lost military personnel in Pearl.
Sure, US industrial strength and involvement was critical as the war progressed, but the war would have been over before the US entered if it weren't for the pilots who fought in The Battle of Britain, the country enduring The Blitz, along with everything else they did.
'The unexamined life is not worth living' - Socrates
Snark-snipe all you want, but think how much easier things might have been if we did in fact annex Iraq.
Christians would never allow that. Interstate freedom of movement and all that. They'd be afraid of Iraqis moving to the Bible Belt and making it a Quran Belt. ;-)
Ezekiel 23:20
This is more like the US trying to take back Cuba.. Or Texas if they left. Ukraine was never really "free" from Russia considering it a "state"... Russia just didn't want to fight that bate with "mad dog " Bush running around starting wars.
Russia losing Ukraine was about like losing Texas or California... Far to important to economics of Russia to actually let go. Ukraine was leaning toward NATO and that was a MISTAKE. Russia will simply never let that happen after the Eastern Bloc flipped. The new "buffer states" have to at least fake loyalty to Russia.. Just like South American states get "fixed" when they don't toe the USA line.
Putin isn't Stalin, he's not going to "purge" them. The Ukraine crossed the line by courting NATO much like Cuba tried to do.. Russia is striking first and not letting that happen. The USA is too interested in putting missiles there pointed at Moscow... Like they did in Poland.
Nuclear Proliferation is not my pet issue. I don't personally give a fuck if America loses credibility in regards to this topic. It was an insincere promise made in the first place(based on the assumption we would never have to deliver), and any country stupid enough to disarm themselves in exchange for empty promises deserves everything they get.
Pissing contests with Russia are not in our interest.
And what's about the actual inhabitants of Crimea, the Crimean Tartars, whose right to autonomy and to their own language and culture were just removed by the new government of the Ukraine and only reinstated when they announced they would go for secession because of the ongoing threads of Ukrainian ultra-nationalists? The Crimea was part of Russia until 1954, until it was given to the Ukraine by Nikita Khrushchev, who grew up in the Ukraine himself. Native Ukrainians are an actual minority there, the majority is native Russian or Crimean Tartars.
They have a direct interest in access to the black sea.
They already had access to the Black Sea.
Ezekiel 23:20
Right because the US and UK establishment (i.e on the payrole of the one percent not by the American people) are deeply concerned about democracy and justice not unprincipled manipulatorive greed MOFOs that sacrifice nations when it suits their interests. I have a bridge for sale.
"In one of the most dramatic announcements of the Cold War, President Jimmy Carter states that as of January 1, 1979, the United States will formally recognize the communist People's Republic of China (PRC) and sever relations with Taiwan."
http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/united-states-announces-that-it-will-recognize-communist-china
"This (US) government considers talk of Macedonian "nation", Macedonian "Fatherland", or Macedonia "national consciousness" to be unjustified demagoguery representing no ethnic nor political reality, and sees in its present revival a possible cloak for aggressive intentions against Greece" - US State Department Dec, 1944 (Foreign Relations Vol. VIII Washington D.C. Circular Airgram - 868.014/26)
"British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain cheerfully greeted by Adolf Hitler at the beginning of a meeting on 24 September 1938, where Hitler demanded annexation of Czech border areas without delay"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeasement
Palin lied in 2008 and said Russia would invade the Ukraine. She's an idiot so that must be wrong. Now, the conservatives are looking for more reasons to be angry. Angry is what they love being. There is no way this is true. Russia knows Clinton gave his word and signed a treaty stating that the US would protect Ukraine if they gave-up their nuclear weapons. Considering there has been no action yet by the US, this is a bold-face lie. There is no incursion. The consequences are just too dire for this to be happening. Of course, those dire consequences are exactly what conservatives want to happen.
OK. Then how do you explain the attack on Serbia in 1999 which was not backed by the UN? And self-proclaimed independence of Kosovo which US and the allies recognized.
"What "problems back home" do you think are going to turn out any different if the US and Western Europe turns a blind eye to Russian aggression?"
How is a democratic referendum of Crimea, that used to be part Russia and mostly populated by Russians, "Russian Aggression" ? If anything the Ukrainian ultra nationalists that just violently overthrew a demcratically elected government friendly to Russia were the ones that triggered this situation. Had the US condemned those thugs and argued in support the democratically elected government the situation would not have arisen. Instead they selectively choose to support undemocratic thugs solely because they were anti-Russian.
I couldn't care less about the plight of Crimea i just want Russia to nuke the USA off the face of the planet.
"Russian Army Spetsnaz Units Arrested Operating In ... "
Wasn't this one of the plotlines in the first 1/4 or so of Red Storm Rising ?
It has a moral obligation to protect nations that it said it would protect. When you tell a country you'll defend it against aggressors if it gives up it's nuclear weapons, you had better follow through if ever need be. That is if you want to be taken seriously in the world and seen as a driving force for good.
Christians would never allow that. Interstate freedom of movement and all that. They'd be afraid of Iraqis moving to the Bible Belt and making it a Quran Belt. ;-)
Oh, you can sell it to them as an opportunity to expose those Iraqis to Christianity. Maybe the Iraqis won't slam the door on them like we do!
This whole post is exactly on point. If I were given the choice to be Chamberlain or Churchill, I'd pick Churchill every time.
Yeah you can cry that shit all day. You know what I hear from people in the MEA regions of the world? They want the Mericans to get the fuck out and mind their own business. Sure that leaves the Russians to do business their own way, like Syria and now Ukraine.
Ignorant American
Crimea has been autonomous within the Ukraine precisely because it is more ethnically Russian than Ukrainian,
How Russians Became Crimea's Largest Ethnic Group, In One Haunting Chart
Crimea may have a majority Russian population today, but it hasn't always been that way.
The peninsula's dark history of ethnic cleansing is visible in the following chart from Reuters.
The chart shows a collapse in the population of native Crimean Tatars from 34.1% in 1897 to zero in 1959, marking brutal harassment leading up to Soviet leader Joseph Stalin's forcible deportation of the entire population in 1944, with nearly half dying in the process. It took decades for the population to climb back to 12% by 2001.
While the population of Ukrainians and especially Russians rose, the percentage of the population falling into an unlisted category also fell from more than 20% in 1921 to around 5% in 1959. This was a consequence of the deportation of Armenians, Bulgarians, Greeks, and other groups.
Who are the Crimean Tatars, and why are they important?
Whatever the Tatar grievances against the Ukrainian state may be, when faced with the choice of being under either Russian or Ukrainian control, the Crimean Tatar leadership has consistently and unequivocally chosen Ukraine. Since the Soviet period, attempts to split the Crimean Tatar movement and persuade some of the Tatars to support a pro-Soviet, and later pro-Russian, agenda has not borne fruit.
Crimean Tatars fret over Russian domination again
Crimean Tatars living in Turkey said Monday they worry of a return to the terrible oppression they suffered in the Ukraine province the last time it belonged to Russia and the Soviet Union.
"We've seen this movie before and we don't want to see it again," said Celal Icten, 59, head of Crimean Tatar Association of Istanbul, whose parents were born in Istanbul and Romania but both draw direct lines to the ancient city of Bakhchisaray, the pre-Tsarist capital of Crimea.
Once Victims Of Stalin, Ukraine's Tatars Reassert Themselves
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
Let the purging of Russian citizens abroad begin.
Seriously? For real? Engaging in consultations constitutes full meeting of obligations, as far as you are concerned?
Well, in that case, how could anyone be seriously concerned for their security — the US will always enter into "consultations" for them...
This must be the 21st century — Obama's — America...
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
Unless we want the entire world to know that assurances of protection given in exchange for giving up their nuclear weapons are worth slightly less than the paper they're written on.
I thought that was made crystal clear after Gaddafi was ousted from power.
Both Jefferson and Washington were proved to be wrong about this particular point when Japan attacked the US in WW2. Isolationism does not work out. They were the founders of this country and made many mistakes due to naivety, just like anyone else. You'll also note, their first government failed spectacularly. They aren't deities except to the stupid and small minded.
Yeah but Russia ALSO signed that treaty.
Lawyer much? I see, that it was not just Bill Clinton, who would deny, that a blow job constitutes sex...
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
The war was expanded to include the US. Strong evidence that it would not have ended before the US opted enter, given that entry into the war was not the choice of the US.
For the US to enter a treaty, Senate concurrence is required. This was never run past the Senate, nor was it ever intended to be.
You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
The agreement only was to aid Ukraine if they were threatened with nuclear weapons. No one is threatening Ukraine with nuclear weapons at this moment in time.
Oolite: Elite-like game. For Mac, Linux and Windows
Seriously? For real? Engaging in consultations constitutes full meeting of obligations, as far as you are concerned?
OK...did you actually read the text of the agreement? It's all of one page, and the terms are pretty unambiguous. Beyond consulting with the UNSC, what else do you think the agreement obligates the US to do in this situation?
WW2 was fantastic for the US economy. Biggest government jobs program ever!
On the flip side, should Russia have just stood and watched as we forcibly took Iraq?
Oolite: Elite-like game. For Mac, Linux and Windows
"That's almost exactly the same thought as expressed by most Britons when Germany invaded Poland".
You have got this exactly the wrong way around. The UK and France declared war on Germany the moment Germany invaded Poland. They did so simply because they had signed a treaty promising to do so. It was much to their disadvantage, and didn't help Poland in the slightest - especially since the USSR joined Germany in conquering Poland.
Had the UK and France not declared war on Germany, it is unlikely that Germany would have attacked and conquered Denmark, Norway, the Netherlands, Belgium, and France. Instead, the Germans might have focused on the perceived threat from the USSR; or, as Hitler expected, they might just have settled down to enjoy a period of peace. (While, admittedly, arming themselves for later).
I am sure that there are many other solipsists out there.
There are Iraqi Christians, and Muslim extremists are targeting and killing them. Many are being forced to flee.
Dateline 2015: Sarah Palin can now see the US from her porch.
"Which means every country in the world will (and ought, if they intend to remain safe) seek nuclear weapons to prevent this kind of aggression in the future".
Yes, that certainly is the lesson of Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Iran, and Syria... in contrast to Pakistan and North Korea. The strong do as they will, the weak as they must. Iraq was invaded, and Iran has been threatened and harassed, precisely because they were known NOT to have "WMD". Don't be distracted or confused by the things politicians say: instead, watch what they do.
I am sure that there are many other solipsists out there.
Next you’re going to say that he if he had any backbone he would have sought approval for military action against a nation using chemical weapons on its own people.
I get the Obama hate. Really, he's not so great. He's mostly Bush 3. Realistically, there is no way to sell a military confrontation with Russia to the House of Representatives. He couldn't even get a single republican to pass their healthcare bill, ie the one Regan's people wrote. They will not authorize him to go to war, and he won't go to war without the constitutionally mandated declaration. I don't like the guy, but we need more of that.
It's not the separatism that makes this bs. It's the fact that the separatism all of a sudden sprung up after the Russian puppet was deposed in Kiev.
Russia would never invade. Unless you count Georgia, Crimea, and not quite so recently Finland, Czekeslovakia, Poland, Ukraine (all of it), Romania, Hungary, Kazikstan, Afghanistan, Germany... Too bad Ukraine doesn't have any of its old nukes left. I heard that they had pieces of an old SS-24 in a museum somewhere. Could be useful now.
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.'
Yes. Whoever lights off a nuke offensively is going to have a shitstorm of retribution from every one else on the planet no metter their reason.
Secondly the Russians built the Ukrainian nukes and would probably (one would hope) maintain control over them (you don't want just anyone to be able to point your own A-bombs at you).
---Saying gnome 3 is better than windows 8 not so much a compliment as it is damning with light praise.
It's "mostly populated by Russians" because the Soviets forcefully exiled much of the native Tatar, Greek, and other non-Russian ethnic populations in the 1930s and 1940s and replaced them with ethnic Russians. There was a Russian population before then, but it was a minority population.
You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
Please stop repeating that lie. There is no fucking treaty, there is no fucking treaty. No we are not treaty bound as the Budapest Memorandum is not a treaty. Also the Budapest Memorandum does not require us to protect the Ukraine.
So please before you keep spouting off nonsense about some non existent treaty please learn at least a little about what your are talking about.
This is what the BM is about
Respect Ukrainian independence and sovereignty within its existing borders.
Refrain from the threat or use of force against Ukraine.
Refrain from using economic pressure on Ukraine in order to influence its politics.
Seek United Nations Security Council action if nuclear weapons are used against Ukraine.
Refrain from the use of nuclear arms against Ukraine.
Consult with one another if questions arise regarding these commitments.
At no point does it require us to act as Ukraine's protector, and wtf why are you demanding the US do something but not the UK China or France? Why are we the only ones to uphold this fictitious treaty?
Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
Yes, I said that. What of it? The fact that Russia has broken it means that Ukraine need not abide by the terms of the agreement either, but, once again, it in no way obligates or requires that the UK or US act in defense of Ukraine, since contrary to what most people have been misled into believing, the agreement contained no provisions for the defense of Ukraine in case one of the signatories broke the agreement.
And, once again, I feel compelled to point out that I am not suggesting that we should stay out of this fight (nor that we should enter it), merely that if we do enter it, we'll be doing so for reasons other than that agreement, since that agreement in no way compels us to act.
"always" means for as long as the modern state of Ukraine has existed and for as long as the modern state of Russia has existed. Whatever larger governments controlled those territories before doesn't matter. Unless you want to start claiming that Iraq is really just Turkish territory or British territory. Crimea has been part of the current state of Ukraine since its inception. That's a full generation now.
Huh? Read the original post: "...SBU confirmed March 16 the arrest of a group of Russians...". Read the Forbes text: some guy allegedly made some baseless allegations, perfectly aligned with the established baseline propaganda level and thematics of the Ukraininan "internet warriors" and their handlers. This passage takes the cookie "Putin’s subversive forces will also gin up neo-Nazi incidents with Nazi regalia and Swastikas on full display." So, that was Putin's spetsnaz that threw Molotov cocktails at Berkut and exprlled Yanukovich from the country! LOL! But back to the topic. Arrest of a group of Russian spetsnaz. Where is it in the Forbes link? Please, elighten me.
And many Americans want to think of the US as the hero of WWII. Really, it was Britain. They were fighting alone for almost 2 years until the US got off its ass an entered the war -- and only after Pearl Harbor.
The British get good marks for determination and cheerful persistence, but the truth is that without help we would have been lucky to retain our own independence. We could never have staged an invasion of the Continent.
Like them or not - and personally, I have a lot of regard for their good qualities - the Soviets were the people who shouldered at least three-quarters of the load and broke the back of the Wehrmacht and the Waffen-SS. Operation Bagration alone - launched to coincide with the Normandy landings - was on a far bigger scale, destroying an entire German Army Group and inflicting half a million casualties. They deserve all the more credit in that at least ten Soviets died for every German killed on the Eastern Front; yet they never gave up.
I am sure that there are many other solipsists out there.
You can link to that all you want, the problem is that that's both historical fact and not going to change. The peninsula is what it is, what happened 50 years ago doesn't change what is happening today.
Bringing it up is like bringing up the depopulation of any American country, north or south, by the European colonists and later the naturalised governments.
Calling the Warsaw Pact "allies" is perhaps a bit of a misnomer. Even within the governments that nominally looked to Moscow for guidance and direction, there was often a great deal of quiet grumbling. When Czechoslovakia was invaded by Soviet troops, many of the Eastern European countries protested privately to Moscow but were either ignored or threatened into submission. They did so, knowing that the West wasn't about to get involved in their affairs because the risk of war was too high.
The same thing is happening now. As much as the West would like to see Ukraine become closer, it's not about to risk outright war with Russia over it. This is going to be played out over years or decades.
You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
ITS NOT A FUCKING TREATY.
Did you hear that, It is not a treaty, the senate did not vote on it, it has no force of law, and it does not require us to act a the Ukraine's protector. So please pray tell how are we failing to enforce anything?
Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
no we didn't
Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
mainstream media is full of shit but most comments I've read here have shown no research into the subject and are mostly regurgitating the same lies from warmongers and profiteers like McCain and Cheney.
What the peninsula is today is part of Ukraine, and Russia is going to annex it following military occupation and an "election" that had only two different "yes" options, and for which outside monitors were not allowed.
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
Sadly that may be the only thing that could fix the US's massive unemployment and economic downturn, WW2 ended the depression after all.
But getting into a land war with Russia would not be a fun.
---Saying gnome 3 is better than windows 8 not so much a compliment as it is damning with light praise.
About 150 years of subsidizing them, mostly. We even let them teach that it was Northern Agression, when they fired first. The lenghts that people will go to claim the right of ownership over other people.
[Sigh] The Budapest Memorandum says *nothing* about the US promising to defend Ukraine against aggressors. Quit making stuff up.
And if you think the US is seen by the world as a driving force for good, you haven't been paying attention for the last several decades.
You must not be listening closely since lots of them want help from America. Also, why wouldn't they want the Russians out too? Are you sure that you aren't simply hearing what you want to hear?
You don't need a base there. Obama can just peel off a dozen or so nukes and ship them over.
Since russia broke the agreement where Ukraine agreed to disarm if RUS agreed not to invade....clearly this is the most fair option.
There is no fucking treaty. Stop spreading that filth- PLEASE.
Is this ignorance, manipulative fear-mongering, or something I've not otherwise thought of?
But even if those allegations were true (which they were not for the slow ones reading this) it in no way gave the US the right to invade and replace the legal government of Iraq. Yes _legal_ according to international law.
The Spetsnaz like to think they are an elite on the same order as the British SAS, the German KSK, and the US Seals and Delta Force. I am not so sure they are even anywhere near comparable.
Sorry to correct but history tells that Hitler gave direct warning to every country that they will sink any ship on the ocean what they see.
USA sent two ships, full of civilians to London. And USA planned with GB that Royal Navy doesn't bring any convoy to protect those ships but withdraws its ships from area to open those ships to be easy targets for german U-Boats. And they sink them.
USA citizens were very pacific and they didn't want to have ANY part of the wart. But by Rockefeller family planning, they got USA citizens to turn war moaners. It turned from 70% pacifists to 90% war supporters in one day. And Rockefeller got his war as wanted (he sold goods to Nazi army).
And same thing was with Pearl Harbor. USA know what is going to happen, they had exact information about Japan military movements but they did not want to withdraw from Pearl Harmor but gave it on silver platter to Japan so they would get the support for the war what was needed.
mostly regurgitating the same lies from warmongers and profiteers like McCain and Cheney.
Which Slashdot have *you* been reading? o_O
Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
Again with the bullshit - the vote was to either join Russia, or be restored to the 1992 Crimean Constitution as part of the Ukraine, the latter being essentially the status quo minus all the power grabs the Ukraine carried out in the region since 1992. Ukraine hasn't exactly been a shining beacon of good toward Crimea in the past 20 years either, but that's somehow being forgotten.
And independent monitors were invited, they declined because to do so would legitimise the vote in defiance of US and UK stances.
Interesting how the west are vehemently against this vote, but enforced the same vote for self determination in South Sudan, East Timor, Montenegro and other countries in the recent past...
Since we're arbitrarily picking time frames in which a piece of land is determined as "someone's", I assert that Crimea is also not Russian.
It's Turkish.. I mean Mongolian... I mean Ukrainian (yep, Crimea was a holding of the Kievan-Rus long before Russian was considered separate from Ukrainian)... I mean Roman.. I mean Greek... I mean, shit.
But you know- you're right. We should choose just the last (voluntary) change of hands to undo.
Bravo, Sir.
So the fuck what? Get a gun and go over there if you don't like it!
Then let them get their weapons, we need another war like we need a bullet to the head!
So the God damn fuck what? Get a gun and go over there if you don't like it!
China and India may become friendlier and work together on more issues, but will probably not become allies in the short term. Their interests do not intersect well enough, the Himalayas prevent significant cross-training or war games to allow their militaries to interoperate, and both are interested in expanding their influence over fellow Asian states. China's belligerence over claimed oceanic territory and their growing navy threatens Indian trade. India's growing population seeks food supplies that China may need for its own population.
They're unlikely to become very close. Fortunately, the same Himalayas that help prevent them from becoming close also make a war between them unlikely because neither side could actually hold territory. There is a risk of nuclear exchange, but the rest of the world has strong reason to keep that from becoming likely.
You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
Russians are not usually know for waste, or excess in their military activities. They are provokers. Also, if the police shoots them, Russia have it's excuse to invade. They did something similar to my country in the WW2. Now were was my iodine pill storage again? Those air-tight canisters look a bit too small to hold a weeks water and food rations..bum baddam nuclear bum..
We sold those words to pay off our drug dealers awhile ago. Sorry. We're all fucking broke here now. And pretty tired of being the worlds police force AND being hated for doing it.
So someone else can step up this time. We're on break.
Can we have some aid?
In addition 123% voter turnout in Sevestopol. Mayor D. would be proud...
When an armed contingent of a foreign nation is in close attendance to your polling places, the outcome is predictable. I have friends in Ukraine, and while anecdotal none of them favor leaving the Ukraine. One of them wants a bit more local control. I also wonder if the Ukrainian troops held hostage on their bases voted. Who else besides the native Crimean Tartars didn't vote... It was hardly representative...
Had the UK and France not declared war on Germany, it is unlikely that Germany would have attacked and conquered Denmark, Norway, the Netherlands, Belgium, and France.
citation?
I don't know how bad they actually are. I bet they are badder then Ukrainian cops.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
We tried that in the late 1930's and early 1940's.
We called it isolationism
It works fine as long as we are talking about tiny countries. But when major world powers start taking over countries just because, we found out what a moronic idea it was.
I live in a tiny country with an isolationist government (Iceland) and trust me, isolationism doesn't work on a small scale either.
Realpolitik aside, after the breakup of the unlamented USSR, Ukraine is after all a sovereign nation. And in 1992, Russia, the US and the UK agreed that, in return for Ukraine handing over its nukes to Russia, the signatories would refrain from the threat or use of force against Ukraine.
Psst, there never were any missiles "pointed at Russia" installed in Poland. There was an extremely nominal force of DEFENSIVE missiles intended as a shield against the insane leaders of Iran threatening Europe and the US with nuclear missiles.
What treaty? There is a memorandum of understanding with no guarantees.
pretty sure the troops in iraq had insignias, and puerto rico is going to be the 51st state.
| Had the UK and France not declared war on Germany, it is unlikely that Germany would have attacked and conquered Denmark, Norway, the Netherlands, Belgium, and France. Instead, the Germans might have focused on the perceived threat from the USSR;
Had the UK and France not declared war on Germany, Germany would have conquered Poland and then smashed most of the USSR with impunity. And then conquer France, Netherlands, Norway and Belgium, and UK easily at its leisure with a one-front war instead of 2-front.
Then with no European base to which to reconquer, the USA would be fairly powerless to reverse it. This would last in equilibrium until about 1949, when Germany surprised the USA with a nuclear missile attack from Iceland or large submarines. Moscow was also vaporized for the hell of it. No defense against nuclear ICBM's, and the USA was reduced to near pre-industrial level without a German invasion.
Sorry, it's not splitting hairs. A treaty involves guarantees. The memorandum of security assurances does not involve security guarantees. From your own citation, it "... refers to assurances, not defined, but less than a military guarantee of intervention." The signatories simply declare they will "Refrain from the threat or use of force against Ukraine."
We don't have a moral obligation to get into a situation that most of us don't understand, and make things worse by escalating the conflict.
Soviets had the most casualties. They were also Hitler's ally in the invasion of Poland, it's not one sided.
They also did exactly _nothing_ in the war with the Japanese and the Italians.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Because lying to the public in a speech holds no one responsible, you can claim it was heard wrong, but a treaty that was ratified and deliberated over is a binding contract made by ambassadors not politicians and if violated would hold the US and the UK in a bad position with the rest of the world. Basically any treaties that the US or the UK had signed could become null and void. This would cause a lot of stability issues around the world.
Had the UK and France not declared war on Germany, it is unlikely that Germany would have attacked and conquered Denmark, Norway, the Netherlands, Belgium, and France.
citation?
Citation for a hypothesis? That's a pretty pointless request, nobody knows what Hitler would have done if the British and French had not honoured their alliances with Poland in 1939. What is a fact is that German forces did suffer heavier casualties during the Polish campaign than they expected and that had to be made good before hostilities in the west could be seriously considered. Any respite between the war in Poland and any hostilities with the Franco/British forces was thus very welcome and not just because of the losses in Poland. While the two sides were evenly matched in numbers, German army was severely outnumbered in terms of artillery during the battle of France and in terms of armour it was not just outnumbered, it was outclassed. The only major advantage the Germans had was the Luftwaffe and their superior tactics. All you have to do is Google "Battle of France ORBAT" to find that out. Provided his forces got the time to recover sufficiently, the situation post Poland was a win-win one from Hitler's point of view. If the Franco/British alliance chickened out like they did during the annexation of Czechoslovakia he'd get away with the conquest of Poland and get his 'lebensraum'. If the Franco/British alliance declared war, as they indeed did, he would get a chance to refight 1914-18 in his own way and force the French to surrender in the same railway car they had presented Germay with the Armistice of Compiègne. Not surprisingly that is precisely what he did in a successful bid to humiliate the French.
If I want stories that have NOTHING to do with tech I will visit other places. FU slashdot.
nosig today
Troll much? You can't seem to address any argument without a reference to Obama or another Democrat. Even your sig is a troll. It's a wonder anyone takes you seriously.
Hail United Ukraine! Hail to Heroes! One country for Ukrainians, whole and indivisible!
[Citation needed]
Russia is one of the top military forces of the world.
[Citation Needed]
The US did nothing, sent some supplies after a while, but that was it until Pearl.
Yeah, the Lend-Lease Act sure was just "some supplies after a while." Or, Britain alone got $34.1 billion 1941 dollars, equal to $656B today.
"some supplies" indeed.
Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
Why is it impossible? And why are you so sure that people were prevented from voting? The official turnout is 82%!
Lots of foreign media correspondents are in Crimea and they can't find anyone on the streets who doesn't support joining Russia. They see lots of jubilation on the streets, though.
Let's see:
Vote is held under an occupying force with a vested interest in a certain result? Check.
Vote was not subject to scrutiny by international observers? Check.
Vote was hastily organized? Check.
Vote has wildly implausible result typical of a rigged vote? Check. (Doesn't stand alone, but reinforces the rest)
Voting irregularities were observed despite the major restrictions? Check.
Reporters were scared away and even beaten? Check.
Major surge in propaganda, including the restriction of non-russian media by replacing it with russian media? Check.
Care to tell me why I should consider this referendum more credible than a North Korean election?
I've been to Crimea a few years back, and IMO 97% can be true in this case. A few reasons:
Crimea was russian territory until Chrushev gave it to Ukraine about 50 years ago. Everybody speaks russian there, most of crimeans think of themselves as russians.
In Crimean cities people get water from the tap couple of times a day, electricity is also unstable.
Pensions, salaries to public servants about twice higher in Russia.
Ukraine did not invest much, if at all, to local public services - public transport was still from USSR times, etc.
I believe the speaker of those words was shot through the face for his beliefs and direction he wanted to take the country.
Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
The reason the news on Ukraine is such a big deal is that it's largely been engineered by Russia.
But - what if the people in Crimea had agitated to secede from Ukraine and join Russia, without any provocation from Russia? This is not entirely far fetched, given the region's history and ethnic makeup.
Should the fact that Ukraine would not want this to happen be a reason for it not to happen?
Shouldn't the people who live in a locality be the main people who decide their destiny?
Deal with reality - the world as it is - rather than ideality - the world as you would like it to be.
Why would we have to pay more taxes? Taxes went down last time we went to war.
Is 1563649 a prime number?
... or the US can show principled leadership rather than self-righteous hypocrisy by getting rid of its own thousands of WMDs.
You might be a little young to remember, but there was an Iraq War I. I can understand the confusion, since a Bush and Hussein were both at the helm of the first one.
You also forget rule #1 of international Army: it's only as valid as the guns supporting it.
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
The US is not treaty-bound, because it's not a treaty. Congress ratifies treaties, and they never ratified this one, nor was a vote scheduled, nor was any document actually presented to the congress to deliberate on. What is being discussed here is a diplomatic agreement, which is not binding in any way other than future agreements being in jeopardy because the US blew this one off.
This is an issue of trust, rather than an issue of breaking a treaty.
Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
What's equally hilarious is consulting with the UN Security Council on anything regarding this situation, since it is quite clear that Russia will immediately veto anything concerning themselves.
The UN is completely powerless to act, just like usual.
Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
The only thing worse than an idiot is a loud idiot.
1) The pick-up-a-rifle-or-STFU is a complete non-argument. We all have roles to play in a coherent society, and not all of them involve toting weapons. That doesn't invalidate one's input on foreign policy. If it did, it would invalidate your opinion as well.
2) The regions of the Ukraine currently in play (Crimea (important to the Black Sea) and some eastern areas) are not "pissy little regions" any more than your hometown is. I won't waste more keystrokes trying to educate you on this. If you're inclined, start with: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukraine and spend a few weeks reading the related links. You should end up with a fairly different view of the importance of the Black Sea historically and militarily, and the history of the region and its role during several important conflicts over the past several centuries in forming in the shape of the world today.
3) It's not at all clear yet that Russia will stop with Crimea and Eastern Ukraine. Maybe you should read up on some of Putin's past public statements about these matters, or look at how he's handled other ex-USSR neighbors. His goal is to rebuild the USSR under a new name and dominate Europe politically and economically, if not militarily down the road. This isn't even the beginning, it's been going on for years.
4) The citizens of Crimea are the only ones to hold a referendum on being part of Russia (but other areas of the Ukraine are also under threat). The referendum was clearly a farce and has been denounced by basically everyone but Russia. Unbiased polling from a few months ago in Crimea put support for independence and/or tighter ties with Russia (up to and including joining them) at levels something like 50% in the region. After a black-hat invasion and heavy propaganda war, Russia now claims they held a fair referendum that gave 97% approval to joining Russia. If you're going to lie, Russia, at least lie convincingly. Nothing of this importance ever polls fairly at 97%.
5) Ignoring all of that, the truly key issue here is the nuclear arms issue. When the USSR broke up, Ukraine suddenly found itself in the position of being a brand-new country that also owned the 3rd-largest nuclear stockpile in the world: the ex-Russia nukes that were still station on their territory became Ukrainian. The US, UK, Russia, and the Ukraine penned a historically-important treaty where, in exchange for the Ukraine *destroying* all of their nukes and becoming a non-nuclear country, their territorial sovereignty was guaranteed from infringement by the Russians (well, and the rest of us, but the protection from Russia was the key reason for them to maintain a nuclear deterrent). If we (the US, and also the rest of the declared nuclear powers) allow Russia to now violate that treaty and capture part of the Ukraine, and the Ukraine can't stop them because it's both militarily inferior and possesses no nukes as a deterrent, this deals a huge blow to future nuclear agreements. In the future, when we approach a nuclear country and ask them to disarm in return for a peace treaty, they're going to say "No thanks, we see how that worked out for the Ukraine, we'll keep our nukes". So yeah, it *is* in your best interests (for long term geopolitical stability and lowering the risk of nuclear warfare in general) for someone to stop Russia from invading the Ukraine.
You can hold your own opinion, I'm not trying to convince people one way or another, just call out the bullshit.
Oh, and why are people repeating the "not under scrutiny by international observers"? Observers from 21 countries were there, including the US, and irregularities were lower than that in South Sudan, which the US accepted as a fair vote.
Several of your other points are just as debatable, and serve only to put a particular spin on things - of course it was hastily organised, and the fact that the vote went wildly one way doesn't actually surprise me knowing the demographic of the people there and the history of the region. Doesn't mean it is implausible however.
I should note about why my points about observers differ between posts - initially the UN declined to send observers, and my original view was based on that, but checking just now shows that in fact they relented and requested observers to be sent by member countries at the last minute.
All I see is one government trying to take control of a group of people from another government. What do the people want? I keep reading that the people who inhabit the part of Ukraine that Russia is invading are mostly cold-war era Russian transplants who would like to make their "new" home a part of Russia anyway.
Or, maybe this is all a lie. Maybe that area is still more Ukranian than Russian, or at least maybe they don't really want to be Russian. Or, maybe Russia is going to take all of Ukraine. Until someone makes these points we aren't talking about liberty. We are talking about two small groups of people (two governments) fighting over who gets to control a larger group. If you want to talk about liberty then let's hear what the people who live there want.
There must be some reason, you brought up his fate here... Did you mean, we — the United States — renounced the words he spoke? If not, what did you mean?
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
We all live on this planet; there are no foreign wars.
Invasion of France (by Germany), May 10, 1940
French Surrender, June 22, 1940
Operation Barbarossa, June 22, 1941
Britain fought "alone" for 1 year and even during that time the US was aiding her with supplies to keep fighting. That's also ignoring the significant contribution made by free Polish soldiers during the time that Britain was "standing alone" with about 150 fighter pilots helping defend against the Luftwaffe (one of the two Polish squadrons had the highest confirmed kills during the battle) and around 35,000 free Polish soldiers present in Britain.
"Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
Really? We had no idea, given all the vitriol you were spewing.
We have no interest in the Ukraine. This is true. We do, however, have interest the resurgence of Russia as an international antagonist. If we can stop Ukraine from entering into the Russian fold, we can put a kink in the establishment of the Eurasian Union (tentatively with Ukraine, Georgia, and Azerbaijan), which would otherwise negatively impact our economic clout.
Fact is, in an almost totally globalized economy, almost everyone has an interest (either direct or indirect) with every event in the world, whether you like or approve of it or not.
Nowhere does it say the persons were of Russian origin.
Which is why they will be treated as unlawful combatants. And probably shot following a court martial.
Have gnu, will travel.
I could have swore that self-determination is one of my country's (the United States) core values enshrined in many of the founding documents. You would think that they would respect such self-determining actions on behalf of other peoples too.
Now only if the vote that was taken wasn't a massive sham, then the whole thing could be solved. But why hold an election when you don't predetermine the outcome before the first vote is cast?
Mod this up, please
Once again, WTF are all you war-hawks wasting your time posting on /. for?? If you're so sure that you're fighting the next Hitler, than let me say it again: GO BUY A PLANE TICKET AND GO FIGHT! Absolutely no one is stopping you, and I'm pretty sure Ukraine will be happy to have you on board.
But you don't want to fight in this war or pay for it with your own money, right? You want THE REST OF US to fight and pay *for you*, while you sit back here at home and shoot off your fucking mouths, right?
Sorry, you want WWIII so fucking bad--go fight it yourselves, tough guys.
SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
Because, unlike some pissy regional war, the corps are never going to let you fight a World War just on your national credit card.
SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
1) The pick-up-a-rifle-or-STFU is a complete non-argument. We all have roles to play in a coherent society
And let me guess, your role is sitting back here and running your mouth at home while my son goes and dies in your noble war, right?
SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
Would you still feel this way when Boston, DC or LA become a mushroom cloud
Thanks George W., but I'm going to pass on this war. Maybe in 20-30 years we can have another fun romp and kill some more innocent people.
SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
Once again, WTF are all you war-hawks wasting your time posting on /. for??
Because they're really chickenhawks. Chickenhawkery is an American tradition, particularly among the well to do and the political class.
Given your id, I can hardly imagine you have ever known /. other than what it is today. cast your eyes up to the URL bar of your browser, you'll see that you're on politics.slashdot.org. If you don't want to see political stories, go into your account page and disable them. It's quite a simple process.
Is 1563649 a prime number?
Invasion of Poland was mostly the revenge for the 1920ies war.
And as for "did exactly nothing". I quote Wikipedia:
read more here
"It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
Why Britain and not the Soviet Union? Wasn't most of the war fought in their territory in terms of men and materiel?
Russia may have a strong military, but is it strong enough to take on the entirety of western civilization?
I agree that US has a vested interest - but it's not strong enough to warrant an intervention in a country literally on the other side of the world. Not yet, anyhow.
systemd is not an init system. It's a GNU replacement.
1938, right?
Having lived through WWI, all the nations that would eventually be called "the allies" were repelled by the idea of another big war and so they all did everything they could to deny the reality that was right before their eyes. They all, in effect, said "can we please not stumble into World War II over the damned Czechoslovakia!?"
Desperate to save their own skins and unwilling to stick-up-for a follow free country, the future "allies" all turned their backs as Hitler declared that the people of the "sudatenland" were really more German than Czech, his people stirred-up ethnic passions there, then they rolled-in to take control (claiming they were protecting the ethnic Germans there), then... well just replace "Russia","Putin","Crimea" with "Germany",Hitler","Sudatenland" and everything else is the same... including that probable ultimate outcome (probably worse the longer Putin as allowed to do this stuff, as it was made worse 80 years ago by allowing Hitler to do this stuff)
The funny thing about Putin is that the frequently-shirtless little goose-stepping autocratic creep isn't really an original-thinker.... right down to hosting the Olymipcs just before starting the international crisis... the ONLY reason he's able to re-enact Hitler (to the extent he is), is that there's no Churchill in England (currently lead by ,mealy-mouthed idoelogically-confused functionaries) and no FDR or Eisenhower in the U.S. (currently lead by a clueless punk who spent half his life stoned, and the other half as a rabble-rouser - no experience with principles, leadership or productivity)
That isn't really a suitable response to this particular foreign policy problem. If the problem was a loose moose eating up all of the flower beds in Crimea's capital it might work, but not for the actual problem we have.
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
You couldn't be more wrong about the war with the Japanese. Russo-Japanese war.
Although they took some time getting to it, the Russians invaded Manchuko routing some of the finest Japanese army units of the war. They pushed all the way into North Korea (the basis of the currently divided Korean peninsula). The loss to Japan was so devastating that many believe that it, along with the nuclear bombings, was what finally broke the Japanese and had them capitulate to complete surrender. The Japanese had their entire war machine set up to defend against the Americans from the Pacific, they had no real plan to stop the invading Soviets.
The US is not (that I've heard anyway) using economic pressure to influence Ukrainian politics.
I think you are wrong here. The US uses economic pressure on almost every country in the world.
Ukraine was the country in possession of the nukes, not Russia. They were former USSR nukes belonging to Ukraine and not controlled by the Russian Federation.
In fact, they had the third largest stockpile in the world for a short while.
Greylisting is to SMTP as NAT is to IPv4
I wouldn't expect them to be used, but it would serve their design purpose by deterring Russia.
"Technical means" is just "equipment".
spread throughout the free countries in the thirties while Hitler was on the march. "Not ME! I have no reason to fight for THOSE people! I am safe and comfortable, so screw the little people in those far-away lands... they mean nothing to ME and MY life is worth much more than any of THEIR lives!"
Disgusting, and short-sighted
YOUR life is not any more valuable than the life of a Ukranian. Your freedom is hollow if purchased by watching others lose theirs. And, since you seem to be only concerned with yourself, let me point out that the history of tyrants who go on the march gobbling-up other lands and then become content (who stop to become comfortable old rulers who die quietly in their sleep of old age) is remarkably thin.... goose-stepping tyrants who go on the march gobbling-up neighbors generally do not stop until they are stopped by external force.
Part of the whole point of the Cold War in the West was that if civilized nations are well-armed and stand together with firm resolve, problems like this need not arise in the first place... we're in this bad position now precisely because so many western nations disarmed in order to provide things like nationalized healthcare (fine if you want it AND can pay for it WITHOUT disarming), and made themselves vulnerable to blackmail by abandoning domestic energy in favor of "greener" natural gas fed to them by Putin (is ANY effect of "Global Warming" as bad as all the effects of being blackmailed by Putin?). These mindless acts of utopian thinking would not be so dangerous in a world where EVERY nation did them.... but here on planet Earth there are some nasty people like Putin who have every intention of taking advantage of short-sighted self-centered fools who do these things
And before you challenge me like you did the previous poster.... I'm too old to fight. I wore a U.S. uniform during the Cold War and was willing to put my life on the line so you and your friends could live happy childhood lives and grow-up with freedom. Sad to see that you assign so little value to that freedom.
I guess it depends on the meaning of the word "is"....
So an "assurance that there wouldn't be an encroachment" is different from an "assurance of protection".... hmmm.... yup .... I see that now..... this was clearly a document authored by Bill Clinton (probably under oath). Any assurance that nobody will encroach is worthless and completely meaningless if it is not an assurance of protection. THINK about it: If I assure you that nobody will break into your house, but then somebody DOES, and I then respond by saying "I never said I'd protect your house!", you'd be pretty outraged and probably nobody would ever trust me and my carpet-bagging "assurances" again.
At this point, the people of Poland, Estonia, etc should probably begin their own nuclear weapons programs, since apparently all the assurances of their freedom are just words to be re-interpreted by progressives in the West. Good luck getting the people of Israel to EVER trust western assurances relative to territorial encroachment as part of any peace deal... it's now patently obvious that no such treaty is worth anything if a "progressive" Democrat is in the White House... (they already knew they could not trust traditional Democrats, given the actions of FDR re the Holocaust...)
Your "facts" are only plausible inside Bill Clinton's personal "Bubba bubble" where words mean precisely what he means them to mean when he utters them (as opposed to meaning what the dictionary says they mean).
Hear Hear! And I find Slashdot commentary from the community sometimes a lot more insightful, detailed, and though provoking that commentary from any online newspaper site.
Why do I think the "we" cited in your post does not include "you?"
I am very small, utmostly microscopic.
We were already at de facto war with Germany before 1941, per FDR's aiding the Allies and fighting off u-boats in the Atlantic. The only things missing were an official declaration of war and broad American support, which came the day Japan forced the American public to finally fully support what FDR was already doing sub rosa.
And had we NOT taken on the German, had we kept to our isolation, Germany would have developed the atomic bomb abd the bombers necessary to deliver them to the US as per his plans.
If they're Spetsnaz, and they allowed themselves to be arrested, they clearly had orders to not kill anybody, especially cops.
Ukraine has its own Spetsnaz, army, and internal security units, not just traffic cops.
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
Ah, the ancient "shut up unless you join the war" argument, designed to disallow any argument contrary to your own. You are full of shit, and you know damn well he means the US has an obligation to step up per the Security Assurances, which the US, UK, and Russia all used to convince Ukraine to surrender their irreplaceable, top of the line nuclear deterrent. Keep your STFU to the playground; his argument gets a consideration in an adult conversation.
Hey genius, it wasn't Ukrainian for 70 years. It was Ukrainian for 23 years, as Ukraine and Russia was one country. One Soviet leader just transferred it to Ukrainian Republic without asking its people. It was just a symbolic move to celebrate some 300 year anniversary with Ukraine and Russia. At that time it didn't matter ... . Let me also remind you that before he transferred it, Crimea belonged to Russia for 100-200 years. But all this doesn't matter. What matters is the will of the people in Crimea.
Exactly, the USA is just as evil as Russia. USians think they're helping by spreading their shit around and preventing the commies from spreading their shit, but it really isn't. It's just your opinion of what's important, not the truth, so hopefully you guys get over it soon and stop being such assholes on the global stage..
Don't complain about syntax, grammar, or spelling. There is no.hell like input on android.
If you're so sure that you're fighting the next Hitler, than let me say it again: GO BUY A PLANE TICKET AND GO FIGHT!
The threat of the Axis powers was stopped by concerted action by nation states, not a few individuals that took a plane trip. The same thing goes for the Soviet Union and the Warsaw pact. If you think a few guys getting on a plane is the proper way to counter Russian aggression involving special forces brigades, airborne divisions, and 60,000 troops, you don't really have a useful perspective.
Absolutely no one is stopping you, and I'm pretty sure Ukraine will be happy to have you on board.
Many (most?) countries have prohibitions against joining foreign armies without permission, and that is seldom given. So yes, there is something stopping people, even if that was the appropriate response, which it isn't.
It also doesn't appear to occur to you that Ukraine would want people that spoke the language.
You want THE REST OF US to fight and pay *for you*, while you sit back here at home and shoot off your fucking mouths, right?
The method of payment is called "taxes." I'm sure you've both heard of them, and pay them. Besides that, I don't think I would count on you to do any fighting. Your heart doesn't seem to be in it.
If there is anyone shooting off their mouth it is you, with your repeated howling that amounts to acquiesce to aggression.
You seem to be pretty well conditioned to accept whatever new overlords come your way.
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
Well, let's hope your mouthing off somehow keeps Russia from invading anyone. It's worked for the past few decades right?
Especially when we'll just half ass it. If we go we'd better be ready for the shit to blow. If not then stay the hell out.
The US has a treaty with Ukraine and Russia that Russia is violating, so we need to step up. It would likely be best to send a small to medium detachment and put them temporarily under the control of the Ukraine government. Also plenty of intelligence officers. We don't need to direct them ourselves and generate more strife than needed.
Sending US troops to Ukraine is a bad idea. It probably deters an invasion, but if it doesn't you risk a US/Russia war which more or less how Europe stumbled into WWI.
And even if you deter an invasion you've pretty much cemented Putin's narrative of the Ukraine being manipulated by the West which damages relations and invites future Russian aggression.
My thought. Don't send US troops to East Ukraine, send Obama.
I think perception still matters which is one of the reasons why Putin waited till after the Olympics. Obama (with many secret service) visiting some cities in East Ukraine isn't an encroachment on Ukraine's sovereignty, it's just a friendly diplomatic visit. But I very much doubt that Putin wants to launch an invasion while Obama is wandering around in the crosshairs, and even if he does Obama can avoid escalating things further by simply leaving without losing much face (try doing that with troops).
The fact that Putin is playing this game with "self-defence forces" and a "fascist" government shows that he's still concerned about optics, other world leaders can play that game against him to protect East Ukraine.
I stole this Sig
If war happens the US will join, no amount of your internet tempertantrums will prevent that. Grow up, deal with it.
Same thing could be asked of Putin
How about for once the Europeans clean up the shit in their backyard? If Germany and France would stiffen up and give Putin hell he'd back down. I'm tired of the US always getting dragged into Europe's crap, let them handle it. If they don't mind Putin picking up the former USSR real estate then so be it. I wonder what Germany is going to do when he decides he wants the Eastern half back? I guess they'll whine and piss themselves and move out and if they do I don't really care.
So your "son" only joined the army in peace time? Never heard of that option. Maybe if your "son" wasn't completely worthless he could be a janitor instead.
Texiraqas. Heh! More like Texaco!
Putin is no Hitler and you sir are no Churchill.
I too have been to Crimea (and Odessa, and Kharkiv, and many other places in Ukraine) and this is absolute bullshit. Crimea used to be in Ukraine, before it was Chrushev's to give away. I spoke Ukrainian(-ish) to them, and they happily replied back. Russian is spoken in many other places in Ukraine, almost everybody is bilingual. The further you go east, the higher the proportion of people who choose to speak Russian. But I know people in L'viv (far west) who speak Russian (and have been doing so for 50 years).
As for the personal feelings and identity of 3M people, unless you have carried out actual interviews, shut the fuck up! Crimea gets money from the Ukrainian government. They get loads of public money. More than two thirds of their budget. CRIMEA has not invested that money in public transport? Too bad, their problem. They used it to pay corrupt politicians. Nobody is to blame but themselves.
Stop speading Russian lies. You are making a fool of yourself.
Too bad we can't just put Saddam back where he was. Actually I think the Iranians and Saudis not to mention the Kurds don't miss the bastard all that much. I think the gulf war was a bad idea but then Saddam practically insisted on it. He kept agitating and violating the cease fire until after 911 when Bush was looking for someone's ass to kick he volunteered. Right up until the attack kicked off they kept telling him to back off or else but he just kept at it. I don't know how I feel about it. Some days knowing that Saddam is burning in hell makes me feel like it was a good thing then some days thinking about all the wasted money and lives and the fact that the nutcases over there will probably end up putting another Saddam wannabe in power down the road makes me think it was a bad thing. I guess only time will tell.
Im pretty sure that a poll to stay british would easily get 97% in gibraltar or the falklands. Scotland not so much... it depends on the circumstances.
Yeah! Fuck the world economy! We don't care!
Since when did nonconformists become the subjugate of an overlord? Fighting wars is not a trivial matter no matter the stakes. What do you want to fight for really? Didn't a group of people assemble themselves and follow a democratic process to choose their own destiny? Most of you know nothing of the region and yet you're so quick to talk of war!
We should continue to monitor the situation and dial down the rhetoric. There is yet no reason for anyone to die.
My god... Please consult the sources first before you start talking about ultra-nationalists overthrowing the govt. There were some but there were also loads of Jews, Russians (yes, most Russians in Ukraine do not want Putin to "protect" them) and dozens of other minorities and groups. So please STFU about the radicals.
The US has to do no such thing. Someone has to be boss, and someone always will be. The US is a *lot* better than anyone else. By a mile. Perhaps you have not understood how human relations work.
The US definitely isn't seen as a force for good by most (unless they need help, then they blame us for not being there to begin with).
That said, when your friends and family look at you, do you know they see a huge coward with no spine and little benefit to the world? How do you feel about that?
Snap, you just got owned you lying bitch.
Yes it is.
Holy shit, you aren't even trolling. You're sincere.
Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
This is more like WWI than WWII.
In WWI you had a couple small local actions (triggered by ethnic minorities) that spawned larger conflicts. People kept escalating, in part due to treaty obligations, and the whole world was eventually fighting.
In WWII Hitler's plan was domination, he didn't care about Germans in Czechoslovakia, they were simply an excuse to get the ball rolling. The failure of appeasement was it gave Hitler additional power when he never had the intention of stopping.
In the current scenario many Russians legitimately believe that Crimea is properly part of Russia, a few years back I was a Russian action film where the main character kills some Ukrainian mafia and as he does so says “You bitches will answer to me for Sevastopol!”. So it isn't a purely cynical manoeuvre on his part.
So the big plan for Putin isn't to take over the world Hitler style, it's to take back the bits of territory that Russians think are supposed to be part of Russia. That's still really bad for the countries involved, but I don't know if it's something where we want to risk a world war involving nuclear powers.
I stole this Sig
Doesn't change their apparent rules of engagement. Not that I'm convinced they're Ruskies in the first place.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Since they are operating in a foreign country in what is almost certainly a covert manner they probably didn't have their weapons out and at the ready. Since the police / internal security / army probably did the advantage would be with the Ukrainians, not the Russians. Surrender or get shot. Simple.
As to who they are, there seems to be precedent for Russian troops in Ukraine lately, doesn't there?
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
Crimea belonged to Russia for 100-200 years
You probably for 150 years, but for 70 of those 150 years (as you pointed out) there was no Russia. There was the totalitarian dictatorship of the Soviet Union. The free countries which were formed when Russia succeeded from the Soviet Union had a new clean slate to chose their new path. They had a chance to built a new future for the sake of their peoples. We now know that Russia decided to give up that chance in order to entertain its maniacal blood-thirsty ambitions. This is just a beginning. Don't kid yourself if you think that you, as a Russian, have gained something. You are a property of the Putin regime. And the regime is hoping to gain more properties in Ukraine. Just because your master is getting new toys, doesn't mean you get to play, too.
Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
What Ukraine government? You mean that fascist gang that took over Kiev?
What the hell US needs in Ukraine, anyway? Putin stopped US from bombing Syria, so you 're dreaming about destroying yet another country? Not this time!
Don't forget that Russia is not Soviet Union. The modern state of Russia NEVER owned Crimea. It is only 23 years old. The modern state of Ukraine is also 23 years old. And the modern state of Ukraine has ALWAYS owned Crimea. Don't fall the whole "autonomous region" nomenclature, btw. It's an old Soviet denomination Russia is spattered with "autonomous" regions which are just administrative districts. They have no autonomy from the central government whatsoever. Every state in the US has more autonomy from the Federal government (much more, in fact) than the "autonomy" enjoyed by these "autonomous" regions.
Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
Sorry, come again? I would point out that not a whole month ago, a group of armed insurgents committed a coup against the legitimate, democratically-elected Ukrainian government. So exactly what "sovereign state" do you refer to here?
The one that will holding elections in May and which has had 2 revolutions so far to throw out a Russia-imposed puppet. The one which replaced the said puppet the legal next-in-line to power from his own party. It was a non-completely legal removal of a completely-illegally elected President. Russia can't even have honest elections itself. And it is trying to spread its corrupt influence to its neighbors. It is noble and honorable to defend Ukraine today. Defense of Ukraine is opposition to tyranny, to corruption, to everything worth opposing by anyone who cares to take stand even if they never care to take a stand otherwise. Russia, today, is on the wrong side of history.
Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
Sorry, come again? I would point out that not a whole month ago, a group of armed insurgents committed a coup against the legitimate, democratically-elected Ukrainian government. So exactly what "sovereign state" do you refer to here?
It's not and if you don't know that, then you have failed the shibboleth. The 2nd most important event in the history of The United States was a civil war denying half of the states the right to self-determination; self-determination which they intended to use for the purposes of continuing the practice of slavery, but self-determination nonetheless.
Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
This whole post is exactly on point. If I were given the choice to be Chamberlain or Churchill, I'd pick Churchill every time.
Check the co-signatories on that piece of paper.
Churchill was Chancellor of the Exchequer under Chamberlains government. Churchill was an advocate of peace, to quote him "jaw jaw is better than war war".
You may also want to check who signed that declaration of war. Churchill wasn't Prime Minister until 1940.
It amazes me how little some Americans know about how WWII actually started...
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
So you're an advocate of war over any other form of deterrence. Splendid, we saw how that turned out in 1914, which directly lead to the Treaty of Versailles and the rise of Fascism in Europe.
As the OP said, feel free to go join the Ukrainian army. I'm sure they'd welcome a keyboard warrior with no grasp on the real world (or even history for that matter).
There's plenty of more recent examples of how rushing off to war to effect change only made things worse, Vietnam, Iraq part 2...
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
Given the choice, I'd still pick Churchill every time.
They did say that about iraq, and afghanistan though. People in glass house and all.
No the one where they went in a killed women and children based on lie about weapons of mass destruction. Russia is looking a lot tamer than the US to me.
Good thing they found a lot of proof of the WMDs, that they invaded to find.
Sorry, what? Are you comparing defending of a sovereign state to staging of an election within an all-of-a-sudden-separatist region in order to justify an invasion?
Yes I'd nip it in the bud. Once the American colonies wanted to become separate and just look where that got us ;-)
To be fair it was the Irish and Scots who started it... Look how that ended up.
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
so we should give israel back to palestine.
Ok, I have checked the co-signatories. And? I am in total agreement that Churchill was a peace advocate. So am I. He also realized that Germany had no intention of honoring the Munich Agreement, and that it wasn't worth the paper it was written on.
A few guys on a plane led to the invasion of Iraq, just sayin...
Iraq's army invading Kuwait, Saddam's WMD programs which produced the weapons used against Iran, and Saddam's deviousness are what led to the invasion of Iraq.
"Peace in our time"
The no-fly zones were never authorised by the UN, and Iraq ceased to cooperate with US members of the arms inspection team when it became apparent that it had been compromised by the CIA. By then, they had already dealt with the weapons of mass destruction Iraq possessed.
Since the UN never authorised the second war and the US was not acting in self defence, the war had no legal jusitification. Kofi Annan said in September 2004 that: "From our point of view and the UN Charter point of view, it [the war] was illegal." Of course the UN Security Council could not officially declare the war illegal, since the US has veto power.
I'm sure these aren't actually Spetsnaz, but really just Chechens pretending to be Spetsnaz. Sending a detachment would be a disproportionate response. But, were the Ukrainians to request help with their problems stemming from these inexplicable Chechen incursions, perhaps the CIA could supply them with apropos satellite imaging data. After all, they have enough to deal with already, without their situation being taken advantage of by terrorists.
No the other time you invaded them, after 11/9 when the Saudis 'dun crashed ya towers'
don't underestimate the abilities of a few guys on a plane, or the powers that be reacting to it...
Although the Soviets didn't enter the war until 1941, let's not forget the Eastern Front.
Nuclear weapons do not prevent aggression unless one has large numbers of them and the means to deliver them against any potential adversary in a credible first or second strike. It's generally accepted that such deterrence requires what strategists call the Nuclear Triad. To date only two nations, The United States and Russia, have demonstrated all three necessary components on a continuous basis. Even then they only prevent full scale total war and not more limited engagements. Indeed, having a small number of nuclear weapons is arguably worse than having none at all since they make an attack by a great power more and not less likely. Some nations, notably South Africa and Libya, wisely recognized that having even one bomb was not actually in their political, military or economic best interests and so dismantled and abandoned their nuclear programs. The current Iranian regime, possessing neither wisdom nor good sense, continues theirs without meaningful pause. Time will tell where all of this leads, but history doesn't offer much to inspire confidence in a peaceful solution.
That is if you want to be taken seriously in the world and seen as a driving force for good.
The Obama Administration has already answered that question, loud and clear, to all of our enemies through inaction and failure to honor promises or enforce "red lines".
If Russia wanted they could have rolled their tanks into Kiev. This is just pro-Western NATO sponsored nazi propaganda at its best. Stay gullible people. You're amusing. I read that the West was planning some kind of false flag to destabilise the Ukraine and gain more control. This is how they're doing it - Russian "terrorists"...
They were lies spoken by a politician. What is new? They were lies then, they are lies now.
I disagree. The Soviets decided to put Kennedy to the test with the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962 and they backed down, in exchange for a "private assurance" from Kennedy that he would remove the Jupiter missiles from Turkey within six months, because the Russians were convinced that Kennedy would actually have ordered the attack on Cuba on Monday morning October 29th 1962 had they not agreed. We'll never know for sure because an agreement was reached to deescalate the situation in time, but I think that Kennedy would have gone through with the invasion, with disastrous consequences as we now know that Cuba had tactical nuclear rockets available for use against invasion forces by local commanders, had there been no agreement.
Who is this 'We' you speak of? Lets see... The Ukraine needs a US base in the Ukraine... no... /.ers need a US base in the Ukraine... help me out here.
sigo ergo sum
You honestly think that there were no navy seals on the ground before then invasion?
I meant that righteousness is not a guarantee of safety, and that even though leaders may fight for what is right, there will be opposition that may go to any length to oppose. Especially in the 1960s.
Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
Russia did not violate the memorandum, they were permitted up to twenty thousand troops in Crimea and they have not exceeded that. Also this is not a nuclear proliferation issue, that is a moot point.
Maybe if your "son" wasn't completely worthless he could be a janitor instead.
And put your mother out of work???
Well, let's hope your mouthing off somehow keeps Russia from invading anyone. It's worked for the past few decades right?
Yeah, it pretty much has. In the 21st century, the U.S. has invaded and overthrown the government in two major countries (so far). In that same time, Russia has invaded one little strongly pro-Russian *part* of one country and overthrown 0 governments. So, by your logic, maybe the rest of the world should be a *LOT* more worried about the U.S. than Russia. I bet Iran and North Korea are (you think they would be so desperate to get nukes if they weren't afraid of U.S. invasion).
So far in the 21st century, the real bullies in the world aren't wearing Russian flags or even swastikas. They're wearing the stars and stripes, and they're bringing "freedom" at gunpoint.
SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
The U.S. doesn't have an obligation to do jack or shit. Ukraine isn't part of NATO. And even if it were, the U.S. calls the shots. And no one TELLS us what to do. We TELL YOU WHAT THE FUCK TO DO. We're the U.S., we have the biggest dicks in the room, and we do whatever the fuck we want to. And you do whatever the fuck we tell you to do.
I bet you're some Brit faggot aren't you, or maybe some Frenchie queer? Come running to us to protect you, huh? Guess it's hard to fight a war on your own when you can't remember how to fire a weapon.
And this ladies and gentlemen is what the rest of the world believes most Americans are like. Arrogant, over the top and seemingly insecure. It's like they say, "the bigger they are, the harder they fall."
A casual rewrite of history. There was a German Russian treaty of arms that occurred about 36, that lead to the two pronged invasion of Poland. East and west were culpable for that tragedy. There was a large recuiting drive in Scotland to abet both sides of the conflict. Prior to the actual conflict. The Us is overextended right now,and you are calling for engagement with a trading partner. Bad idea.
By that I don't mean you are wrong (nor do I mean you are right).
It is just that I was not talking about morals or why the US entered World War II. I talked about the isolationism - which you admitted the US did when you said the that the Axis declared war on us. I also talked about how bad an idea it was. Which the tone of your argument seems to agree with me.
But again, your strange rant was not a contradiction of anything I said, nor did I say anything that denied what you wrote.
excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
The tea party calling for a new tax on the american people. Ha. I don't, see a draft or conscription restarting for remaning the military,so you propose sending contractors to their death? You know they would not have a chance against a real army. It would just a slaughter of the innocents. So patriot you are.
Allow me to point out, for the record, that the parent is factually correct and whoever modded it "Troll" is a fool, a knave, or both.
I am sure that there are many other solipsists out there.
"I could have swore that self-determination is one of my country's (the United States) core values..."
You would think so, wouldn't you? Three words for you:
"American Civil War"
I am sure that there are many other solipsists out there.
Yeah.
Please Hillary and Horseface both claimed there was a reset with Russia. And the Dark Doofus prevented missile defense being sent to Poland because he wanted to show Putin what a good guy he was.
And most of you fuckwits reading this voted for the idiot Obama. Maybe they should move the voting age up to 40. Only way to get the starry eyed assholes out of American politics.
Unfortunately, that doesn't matter. While being a very valid point of today in 2014; it won't be in the future. I was watching documentary on war, and even some world news debates. It didn't take long for someone to point out, that as time progresses, so do the weapons. Use a mental timeline to envision going from: sticks and stones > to projectiles (arrows, guns) > to chemical warfare (Agent Orange(Korea)) > nuclear > What's next? Cyber-terrorism?. The point is, you can verbally battle it out on who should be allowed to harbor nuclear power, but that won't stop the production of other means to basically commit global genocide. The best part is... there are people making money off these actions!
What WMD's? Do you mean the chemical weapons the US had provided Saddam with when he was their ally? Or the fictitious ones that supposedly led the US to invade the 2nd time?
WMD - nuff said
Curious, how different is this than the way US is reported to have acted in everything from Nicaragua to Libya?
Boots on the ground, helping insurgency..
I think we should go past this.. And the rhetoric is amazing.. the west is standing behind the results of an insurgency, while condemning a popular vote..(shake head)
(If anything, the west should be pushing to make sure the voting was fair.. IN both cases)
I thought we support 'recall' and 'voting' .. not insurrection in the streets.
Wonder if the CIA and Spetsnaz sit at a Ukrainian bar each night to see who is doing a better job?
Anyways, lets get past this, the people will decide, now just move on to how much Crimea (Russia Loans) should pay Ukraine for the federal property located in Crimea.. Treat it like we would if Quebec opted out of Canada ;)
So one (possibly stolen) ID (of many) "proves" something? Really?
You can hold your own opinion, I'm not trying to convince people one way or another, just call out the bullshit.
The official results were 97% in favor of Russia. Only places like North Korea has those numbers especially given that about 20% of the population are Crimean Tartars who are not in favor of joining Russia. These are basic facts. So if it walks like a duck, talks like a duck, it's a duck. The vote is a whitewashing trying to give Putin the veil of legitimacy.
Oh, and why are people repeating the "not under scrutiny by international observers"? Observers from 21 countries were there, including the US, and irregularities were lower than that in South Sudan, which the US accepted as a fair vote.
What are you talking about? There are foreigners there but there are not "election observers". Again, there were "observers" from 21 countries in North Korea too if you count journalists, diplomats, etc. Election observers, no.
Several of your other points are just as debatable, and serve only to put a particular spin on things - of course it was hastily organised, and the fact that the vote went wildly one way doesn't actually surprise me knowing the demographic of the people there and the history of the region. Doesn't mean it is implausible however.
You've been given the facts of one group opposed (Crimean Tartars). There are more groups there including Ukranians that oppose the move. It's a duck.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
lets do a poll and see the results, would you rather fight for Russia or America in world war 3, Russians polls come out at 100% Russia and American polls come out as 100% America. you don't say? :/
The IDs are very suspicious. There is disinformation coming from all sides.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Leasing a base in the Ukraine would have another effect besides tweaking Putin's nose: American servicemen and -women would see a part of the world that few Americans ever see. They would come home with an understanding few armchair theorists could match. It is a fundamental truth: travel damages bigotry and misunderstandings. Maybe one of you would step up...oh wait, this is Slashdot.
"*giggle* Good news... I figured out what the thing you just incinerated did..."
This question is intended in good faith: why is it the responsibility of the US to determine who has and does not have nukes? Nuclear proliferation is an international problem. While it is debatable -- let us say for the sake of argument that it is true (I certainly agree) -- whether or not nuclear proliferation really makes the world less safe, why is it the responsibility of the US to enforce such rules? It has historically -- say in WWII -- been international coalitions that stopped problems of this sort that dealt with these sorts of problems. But it seems very much like Ukraine is our friends. I see no great reason to prohibit them from pursuing a nuclear program to defend themselves against their international enemies. Or does the US really feel that it its responsibility to fight every war that might ensue in the world?
The Budapest memorandum. The USA has an obligation.
ITS NOT A FUCKING TREATY.
You can shout that till you are blue in the face it doesn't matter. The people you are arguing with probably wont even bother reading it they will just repeat what the MSM tells them. This is not the /. of yore.
The new right fascists are bilingual. They speak English and Bullshit.
The vote for German reunification got 90.8% in Saarland.
The new right fascists are bilingual. They speak English and Bullshit.
Your list of points shows that you have done absolutely no research into the matter.
The new right fascists are bilingual. They speak English and Bullshit.
It would be illogical to annex another area halfway around the globe. For one it's not defendable because of the proximity of other hostile countries (I.e. Russia). We'd be less successful than the Russians were when they invaded Afghanistan. Second, we'd be fighting the indigenous people as well. The reality of world politics is that (and the U.S. has proven) you can't project your power over the entire globe: it's just not practical.
"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities." - Voltaire
The treaty, or memo or or whatever it was, stated Ukraine was to give up nukes in return for promises the signatories would not attack. If Russia has broken that then there is no reason for the Ukrain to remain a none nuclear state. Obviously they are not going to flip a switch and immediately become a nuclear power again over night (baring a really big surprise). So, no one has to send troops to restore Ukraines previous defense against an aggressive Russia. We turn over some nukes to them with a legitimate capability to launch them while they rebuild their arsenal. We could make Ukrainian possession of nuclear arms contingent on Russian encroachment. IE Russia goes back into their borders, the world takes their nukes from them back and reinstates the previous arrangement. This could serve as the basis of blocking Putin in any of the previous WARSAW pact countries he may be fantasizing about adding back to the Russian fold. Suggest at least the UK and US provide some munitions... Along with any other signatories that possess nuclear arms that has not broken faith (ie invaded the Ukraine). This requires commitment ala Kennedy over the Cuba missile crisis. If we (and by we I mean the rest of the world) are not willing to accept Ukraine might actually use them in its own defense it is pointless. If you think its nuts, you do not appreciate MAD.... Then again, perhaps you do :-) This is the only known deterrent for Russia post WW II, Then again it is basically the only one that was tried. Sample of one and all that.
If we really do not want to turn the weapons over we or someone else could act as a proxy on Ukraine's behalf. Really hard to say if there would be any perceived difference in our role (ie possibility of retaliation from Russia against us instead of the Ukraine) between the two options. But I do know that handing them over to Ukraine would certainly change the perceived likelihood they would get used. Really good odds Putin backs the fuck off if this were done. Of course possibility of old school mushroom cloud based WW III Is also at play. But really... That is the bluff Putin is calling here. He is betting no one will step up on a nuclear front and that nobody has the nerve to get bloody. Factor in a lot of pent up frustration from a Russian population that has lagged behind the west but things are generally improving and you have a particularly ugly recipe for old school nation state boot stomping action. Putin has support. And he is thumbing his nose at NATO and the US daring them to do something.
I don't ask you to be me. I only ask you not expect me to be you.
Too many Russians posting on this page!
My karma is bad. Don't get too close!!!
No, we don't NEED to do shit. The US is obilgated to ITS OWN people, that is all.
How dare you or anyone else from either Party advocate more globalist involvement?
Being hawkish won't necessarily prove anything. Witness Afghanistan, Iraq, Nigeria, Yemen, Somalia, Argentina, etc. Armed conflict should always be a last resort because of the property and lives destroyed in the process.
"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities." - Voltaire
russian and ukrainian are very similar languages you can get by only knowing one. So your point is kind of useless that you talked to a russian speaker in Ukrainian(-ish) and they understood you.
You're kidding me, right? So you can totally believe that Russia moved thousands and thousands of troops into the province of Ukraine known as Crimea in an invasion to seize and annex that territory, but it is too much to believe that any of them were operating outside of Ukraine? Including special forces teams or Russian intelligence personnel that would customarily operate covertly? In areas where they could probably fit in as natives? While Russia "innocently" moved 60,000 troops adjacent to the border in a obvious show of force as threat of a wider invasion?
You may have moved into the region of "willing suspension of judgment."
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
Again, I said everyone. Unless you consider the Russians to not be part of everyone (You do concede they are human, yes?) then you grossly mis-interpreted my original post.
Also, you are talking about WWII, not WWI, which is funny since WWI is probably the closer analog to this situation.
I browse on +1 so AC's need not respond, I won't see it.
Are you talking about Bush 2001?
Pffft - a quarter of the population of Crimea, 500,000 people, are retired ex-Russians - they moved there before Ukraine was split off.
And the reason that they want to be part of Russia again, is because the Russian pension is 4 times the Ukraine pension.
And Crimea has long been a backwater of corruption and mafia, which is why things there won't change much either way to fix that it they remain Ukrainian.
Of course, upping the pension for them all is theoretically little fish for Russia, but will they do it or not ?
Having picked up the peninsula for pennies and some loosey-goosey sanctions, it's all a pretty good deal for Russia so far.
They'll rebuild the bridge across the straits properly this time, and they get their crown jewel back, keep the Naval base, and gain more leverage over the rest of Ukraine. If they do it "right", they gain currency for other Russophones looking for better pensions.
Does this treaty have a name? Does anyone know what provisions of this treaty Russia is violating?
There's no time like the present. Well, the past used to be.
Right because only a lawyer could possibly claim that "promising to ensure Ukraine's sovereignity and territorial integrity" isn't covered by any of those claims even though all of them are completely unrelated to it.
Or are you arguing the US nuked Ukraine last week and nobody noticed?
Exactly, whilst the likes of the SAS has been doing everything from breaking hostage situations in planes and embassies, to obliterating rebel forces in places like Sierra Leone to general combat against the Taliban for the last few years Spetnatz have relatively just basically been sat getting fat, nor have they had any worthwhile funding up until recent years.
Spetnatz at this point are probably no more effective than British Army or US Marine regulars given the contrast in funding for training, equipment, and real actual battle experience, and the likes of the British Ghurkas whilst not exactly at SAS standards would almost certainly eat Spetnatz for breakfast.
I don't believe special forces would be carrying all the ID claimed to be on these men. I don't believe they would be there without a specific mission and would be in and out with minimum exposure.
It is in range for the Russians to give McLovin type spetnatz IDs to a bunch of yahoos, just to create chaos and undermine the credibility of the Ukrainians.
The art of war, is the art of deception.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
They fired a few rounds after the war was effectively over. To support their future territorial claims.
They did fuck all. France did more to beat the Germans then Russia did to beat the Japanese and Italians.
Also note:FDR's aid at the Tehran conference (Algir Hiss) worked for Stalin, not FDR. Opening the KGB archives revealed many things. In this case the Burchers were right, FDR's staff sold us out, giving all of eastern Europe to the Ruskies.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
You might have heard that special operations don't always go as planned.
They no doubt had a specific mission, we just don't know what that is. We do know the types of mission they are doctrinally prepared to execute. They would only be "in and out" if that is what the mission called for. If their mission was keeps eyes on Ukrainian security forces and report they would be staying until no longer needed, wouldn't they? If their mission was to stir up civil unrest they probably wouldn't just be "in and out" since that take time. If their mission was to infiltrate and be prepared to commit sabotage, or capture or kill Ukrainian leaders they wouldn't be "in and out." It doesn't look like the Russian special forces in Crimea, Ukraine, have left yet. They are in but not out.
I'm puzzled why you think that multiple fake IDs would not be useful in a modern society for covert operations? You're willing to believe that fake IDs can be handed out by Russia to people in Ukraine, but not to Russians going to Ukraine?
At this point I'm not sure where we can go with the conversation. You seem committed to believing that Russian special forces can be found in one part of Ukraine, but not another. That doesn't really seem logical. Part of the art of war?
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
1991 was sanctioned. 2003 was not if I recall correctly. The head of the UN at the time stated that he believed the war was illegal.
Here's a clue: when there's a bunch of comments on an article you think is unsuitable for Slashdot, complaining about it to the people actively engaged in the discussion probably isn't going to win you any favour, nor is it likely to convince them that you're right.
Or the harder they troll.
Oh the joy of hearing more Americans planning on fighting another world war in Europe.
Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
Moral obligation only means acting if it serves the interest of the protector. Otherwise we would live in a world of peace already.
'Tacit repayment of Lend Lease by the British included several valuable technologies, including those related to radar, sonar, jet engines, nuclear weapons, antitank weaponry, rockets, superchargers, gyroscopic gunsights, submarine detection, selfsealing fuel tanks, and plastic explosives. Many of these were transferred by the Tizard Mission. The official historian of the Office of Scientific Research and Development, James Phinney Baxter III, wrote: "When the members of the Tizard Mission brought the cavity magnetron to America in 1940, they carried the most valuable cargo ever brought to our shores."'
The generous US government naturally wrote off the debt after WW2 ended - NOT. http://www.politics.co.uk/news...
I am sure that there are many other solipsists out there.
Perish the thought that I should be seen agreeing with coldfjord about anything, but... Fuck that.
He remembered a little history, and got it spot on, this time.
Spot. Fucking. On.
I would even mod this up, had I not already spent my points in another thread this morning.
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
The first 3 terms of the agreement are:
1. Respect Ukrainian independence and sovereignty within its existing borders.
2. Refrain from the threat or use of force against Ukraine.
3. Refrain from using economic pressure on Ukraine in order to influence its politics.
I don't see anything in there specifying *nuclear* force, do you?
Now it's true that Item 5 from the same list is "Refrain from use of nuclear arms against Ukraine" but I think it's pretty clear from the context that this is *not* intended to mean "Refrain from use of nuclear arms against Ukraine [but other forms of armament are fine]".
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
That's nothing new, nor do they limit their targets to Christians. I know this because I've heard about it from my dentist--an Iraqi Jew who fled the country ~30 years ago.
I guess somebody needs to go back to madrassa and review the bits about showing respect for the Peoples of the Book, eh.
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
(BTW, I am some AC with a huge and obvious chip on his shoulder who claims to be European)
TFTFY.
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.