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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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 ;-)
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.
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.
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'
The russian military spying agency is handing out ID cards to their agents?
Um, yes? Did you think they just know each other and it's all informal? Now, should the soldier have been carrying it with him at that time? Probably not.
I browse on +1 so AC's need not respond, I won't see it.
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
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.
If you think Putin is stopping at Crimea, you're a fucking moron.
"If you think Bush is stopping at Iraq, you're a fucking moron," said many a Russian citizen in 2003.
SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
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.
Yeah, we'll try to do a better job than when we stumbled into WW2 over Poland.
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
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"
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
Russian military operating on foreign soil out of uniform? Last time I checked, that was called a "spy". Treat them like what they are.
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.
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.
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
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
They have a direct interest in access to the black sea.
They already had access to the Black Sea.
Ezekiel 23:20
"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.
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
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.
"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.
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.'
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.
"If you think Bush is stopping at Iraq, you're a fucking moron," said many a Russian citizen in 2003.
And they turned out to be wrong, didn't they?
You do realize that the reason for the conflict does make a difference, right?
Russia is practically asserting the right to invade and annex lands with ethnic Russians in them. There are a lot of those in countries currently outside the borders of Russia. How do you think that is going to go? Does that meet your approval?
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 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'
| 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.
I've yet to see any evidence.
A phony referendum under Russian military occupation with blatant fraud does not count. No democratic vote results in 90+ percent.
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.
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.
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.
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
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
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.