Ukraine's IT Brigade Supports the Troops

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Ukraine's IT Brigade Supports the Troops

Posted by Soulskill on Saturday November 22, 2014 @05:50AM from the revenge-of-the-nerds dept.

An anonymous reader sends this story from BusinessWeek: Eight months ago, David Arakhamiya was running a small IT company in the southern Ukrainian city of Mykolayiv. Today, as an adviser to Ukraine’s defense minister, he oversees a massive crowdfunding effort that since March has raised about $300 million from ordinary citizens. The money is being used to equip Ukraine’s army with everything from uniforms, water, and other basic supplies to high-tech gear such as reconnaissance drones. Yaroslav Markevich, another IT entrepreneur with a small company in Kharkiv, once a Soviet hub for aviation technology, presented a plan to the commander of one Ukrainian battalion to create a drone unit after hearing stories about the efficiency of Russian drones. The commander said yes, and by the time his battalion was deployed early this summer, it was the only one in the army equipped with a fleet of short- and long-range drones. ... IT experts across Ukraine have been an important part of the volunteer effort to supply the army with equipment.

140 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Yah, sure by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-22 05:56 · Score: 1

That would be the most successful Kickstarter ever. How much of this comes from "ordinary NGOs", noooot paid for by the west I wonder..
1. Re:Yah, sure by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-22 07:09 · Score: 0, Insightful
  
  I like how this is the best you can come up with. I hate putin so I MUST love obama(?). Just another reason why russians are so stupid.
  Russian behavior regarding Ukraine has been absolutely the WORST thing I've seen in recent times. It's expected from backwards primates like muslims in the ME, but from russia? Disappointing doesn't even begin to cover it. It's unforgivable.
  Russia is completely in the wrong here, everything they say is fabricated to make them look like the good guy. Everything. If it's people were not helping to spread all the lies and hate from the state, I could maybe forgive that but that's not what I see.
  I see and hear russians from all over the world spewing the same garbage. Fuck all of you, ww3 can't come fast enough. Sure lots will die, but I guarantee there will NO SUCH THING as russians after that war.
2. Re:Yah, sure by fustakrakich · 2014-11-22 07:22 · Score: 1
  
  Kick starting a war is bound to be successful. It appeals to the most basic of nationalist, territorial instincts.
  
  --
  “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
3. Re: Yah, sure by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-22 09:37 · Score: 0
  
  In russia many different ethnicities and nations live together. In ukraine you want to ethnically cleanse russians. Rot in hell ! All good people support russia, please.
4. Re: Yah, sure by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-22 10:18 · Score: 0
  
  Chechens wanted a bit of independence. Their separatism was drowned in blood. Now, the same Russian president who did that, is promoting separatism in Ukraine. Yay double standards!
  Re: different ethnicities living together: sure, as long as they all start speaking Russian or keep their mouth shut. Exempli gratis: Crimean Tatars (related to the topic of Ukraine too!).
  As for hell: don't go, it's an ambush. That's where Czar Saviour Volodja the First and his druzhina will regroup. ;P
5. Re: Yah, sure by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-22 11:39 · Score: 0
  
  Chechens wanted total independence from an already federated country, so that they could commit genocide against all non-chechens (which they did). America was more than happy to help them. In return, you got the Boston Bombing and lots of Chechen jihadists fighting against american soldiers. Now the Ukraine crisis, stirred up by the USA, is going to create god knows what. America never learns.
6. Re:Yah, sure by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-22 11:47 · Score: 0
  
  If you only watch FOX and CNN, of course Russia is going to be painted as an absolute bad guy. Perhaps if you listen to more reasonable voices, the situation is not as black and white.
7. Re: Yah, sure by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-22 12:45 · Score: 0
  
  All the sources are Russian? No independent sources?
8. Re:Yah, sure by edis · 2014-11-22 13:08 · Score: 2
  
  Situation is pretty bad for Russia, because it took wild turn with enormous lie, cheating and aggression campaign. No happy ending in exchange for these. I am very sorry for all those frank folks, there are, that are doomed by bravado of one KGB tsar and his fool believers. Pity.
  
  --
  Servant of karma
9. Re: Yah, sure by edis · 2014-11-22 13:18 · Score: 1
  
  Even then, extent of corruption and theft of resources in Russia itself remains unsurpassed, while not anybody else has been role model for Ukraine's oligarchy in modern times. Finally, people of Ukraine started looking at other neighbors, and understood that they can do in very similar ways. This is precisely when Russia started poorly hidden war on Ukraine, openly annexing Crimea. It is going to be extremely expensive adventure for Russia.
  
  --
  Servant of karma
Still they are underpowered by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-22 05:58 · Score: 1

It won't help them against the Russian military, the numbers speak against them. And the poison murderer Putin won't give up Eastern Ukraine easily. He'll continue to destabilize the country until he's found and installed a new Janukovych to wipe his ass.
1. Re:Still they are underpowered by rmdingler · 2014-11-22 06:36 · Score: 2
  
  Entrenched resistance will make this costly venture into the Ukraine more and more expensive just as the falling price of petroleum products hits Putin's budget. They could hold out long enough to make a difference.
  
  --
  Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.
  Ernest Hemingway
2. Re:Still they are underpowered by dunkelfalke · 2014-11-22 06:39 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  It is not just the numbers. Ukrainian army is a mess because Ukraine sold almost everything they have inherited from USSR during the last 20 years, the army is not trained, not equipped and the soldiers are often unwilling willing to die for corrupt politicians. The only reason why Ukraine is not overrun yet is that Putin is unwilling to use Russian army in this conflict because it might pull the deeply divided Ukrainian state together - policing a hateful, conquered population would be way too difficult.
  Right now it is enough to fund the separatists and occasionally help them out. Ukrainian government will help to do the rest by shelling civilians and generally behaving like a bunch of idiots.
  You see, that country is, in a way, similar to Pakistan in 1971. Has been a sovereign country for just about 20 years in its recent history, has artificially drawn borders by the former colonial power, is corrupt, piss-poor, divided inside and their neighbor tries to destabilise it even further. In 1971 these circumstances have lead to a bloody war and creation of Bangladesh. I just hope it won't end up as bloody this time.
  
  --
  "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
3. Re:Still they are underpowered by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-22 06:52 · Score: 0
  
  Ukraina is now much less divided since now it is clear who the enemy is.
  And so far it is separatists who shell more civilians - just mention the Malaysian airplane - there is nothing nearly as idiotic as this shot y separatists.
  Also it is no longer occasional help for separatists - you have thousands of regular Russian soldiers in east Ukraina.
  And Putin is not afraid of uniting Ukraina as he already did much of it - he is more afraid of West reaction - so far he pretends he is not involved.
4. Re: Still they are underpowered by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-22 07:11 · Score: 0
  
  The world can see through the lies of kiev and we also know by now how thoroughly corrupt and rotten people you "ukrainians" are. You have enemies all over the globe.
5. Re: Still they are underpowered by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-22 07:37 · Score: 1
  
  They don't appear to have any enemies over here.
  Local history doesn't contain any episodes of invasion by Ukraine.
  Invasions by Russia? Let me start counting...
6. Re:Still they are underpowered by SuricouRaven · 2014-11-22 07:57 · Score: 1
  
  "The only reason why Ukraine is not overrun yet is that Putin is unwilling to use Russian army in this conflict"
  That, and the threat of international action. Putin is willing to accept sanctions as the cost of conquest - or as he sees it, claiming back what is rightfully Russia's. But he would be foolish to invite sanctions if there is a way to achieve his goals without them. That's why he hasn't just outright invaded: Even a thin layer of deniability is enough to stay the hand of the EU, who are just as dependant upon Russian gas as Russia is upon their trade.
7. Re: Still they are underpowered by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-22 08:10 · Score: 0
  
  Yes, please start counting!
  I am really looking forward how you are going to objectively differentiate between pre-USSR Russia (invaded by Napoleon, defeated by Japanese in Russo-Japanese war, later Russian Civil War ), USSR (invaded by Hitler, Afghanistan proxy war) and post-USSR Russia (defaulted in 90').
  I am sure that you will also objectively cover the fact that today's Ukraine was part of USSR just as it was one of the battle grounds in Russian Civil War. Will you attribute some invasions to Ukraine too?
  Looking forward to your exact calculations!
8. Re:Still they are underpowered by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-22 08:32 · Score: 0
  
  The EU is learning the cost of challenging Russia. Yes, Russia is hit hard too but its population is more used to adversity. Europeans - especially pampered West Europeans - do not and can not cope with hardships. The EU economy is failing rapidly and there's a panic brewing. More downturn and unemployment would push moral further down. Europeans do not want to become paupers and while Brussels eurocrats pride themselves into not caring what the masses think or want, the death of european economy would mean the end of their privileges as well.
9. Re: Still they are underpowered by dunkelfalke · 2014-11-22 08:38 · Score: 2
  
  Well, that might be because Ukraine has existed as a nation for only 23 years. There was simply not enough time.
  Ukrainians had a history of raiding neighboring villages, pillaging, raping and burning, though. Sort of wanna-be vikings, just without ships and wearing silly ottoman inspired costumes. Polish still think that an Ukrainian national hero was a bandit and a war criminal and that is, in fact, not far off the mark.
  
  --
  "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
10. Re:Still they are underpowered by unixisc · 2014-11-22 08:47 · Score: 1
  
  Why should Putin be afraid of the West? Everybody knows that since the 90s, the West has been busy disarrming, even as they get involved in stupid wars like Bosnia, Kosovo, as well as nationbuilding projects in Afghanistan & Iraq. If he marches troops into even a NATO member, say Latvia, NATO will be exposed for being as feckless as it is.
  Real reason is that Russia has been a weakening power, and incurring huge casualties in Afghanistan and Chechnya did nothing for their confidence. If they lose thousands in a war w/ Ukraine, they'd be seriously embarrassed, and any other internal secession movements there, like Tatarstan, could erupt. Which is why they are trying to subvert Donbass into becoming a part of Russia.
11. Re: Still they are underpowered by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-22 08:47 · Score: 0
  
  After a brief check for Ukrainian invasions (horrid makhnovist menance: nope; triple damn banderistas: nope)... ...I made it simple, and only counted Russian invasions *before* Peter I started his imperial shit... and I got about 4 Russian invasions to the administrative unit where I'm located, along with one Swedish, one Polish and one German invasion, to be fair.
  Among the primary culprits, may I present: the princedom of Moscow with 3 invasions (two of them by Ivan IV, I think that's approximately when stuff started going seriously wrong). The princedom of Pskov: one invasion. Kiev gets off the hook. If you want dirt on them, ask from elsewhere... ...and strangely enough, I stumbled upon an episode of democratic Russian state (besides the one that ended with Putin). It was in Novgorod, around the 12th century.
12. Re: Still they are underpowered by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-22 08:48 · Score: 0
  
  Russia is the legal successor to the Soviet Union, and the Soviet Union was effectively the Russian empire disguised in Marxist ideology, so there is no need to differentiate between those entities.
  Here is a list of wars involving Russia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_involving_Russia
  In the last several years alone, Russia has engaged in international terrorism (i.e. blowing up a gas pipeline in Turkmenistan to prevent Europe from diversifying its energy supplies), created terrorist movements abroad (i.e. in eastern Ukraine), started wars (Georgia, Ukraine), and engaged in ethnic cleansing (Crimea and east Ukraine), while propping up a mass-murdering tyrant (Russia supplies weapons, intelligence, and mercenaries to Assad; in exchange, Assad prevents gas pipelines from being built across his territory, preventing Europe from diversifying its gas sources).
  List of incidents involving Russian military and Nato since March 2014: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/full-list-of-incidents-involving-russian-military-and-nato-since-march-2014-9851309.html
  That's just a cursory look at Russia's recent crimes against humanity. This is what happens when a country is ruled by a small cabal of gangster-kleptocrats posing as statesmen.
  One of the most repugnant things about Russian behavior has been the propaganda. They have made up countless lies about the source of the war in Ukraine, have tried to pretend that it wasn't Russia's terrorists who shot down the MH17 (in spite of the terrorists admitting they did it within minutes of the incident), and have accused Ukraine of causing an ethnic conflict, when it is Russia that's doing so (Russians have far more freedom in Ukraine than they would have under Putin, and in a survey from about a year ago, only a fraction of a percent of Ukrainian citizens claimed that they were the victims of discrimination based on their Russian identity - ironically, the percentage of people making the same claim in Russia was greater).
  Due partly to the above, Russia just may be the most reviled nation in the world right now.
  Now your turn - who are these alleged enemies of Ukraine, that are present all over the world?
13. Re: Still they are underpowered by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-22 08:53 · Score: 0
  
  Well, that might be because Ukraine has existed as a nation for only 23 years. There was simply not enough time.
  Yes, let's assume that given enough time, Ukraine willl start behaving belligerently like its eastern neighbor. Under suspicion, by default, through perpetuity...
  
  Ukrainians had a history of raiding neighboring villages, pillaging, raping and burning, though. Sort of wanna-be vikings, just without ships and wearing silly ottoman inspired costumes. Polish still think that an Ukrainian national hero was a bandit and a war criminal and that is, in fact, not far off the mark.
  Wtf are you talking about?
14. Re: Still they are underpowered by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-22 09:01 · Score: 0
  
  He might be talking about the cossacks, since the princedom of Kiev didn't feature Ottoman-inspired anything (it fell to the Mongol conquest before the Ottoman empire started).
  Well, the cossacks were a mixed bunch. Some of them were tired of being rules by czars and nobles, and practised democracy. Others, sure enough, aligned with anyone who seemed to be getting lucky, and acted as mercenaries. Others farmed.
  As for what became of them? They were pressured by Russia to swear allegiance or get butchered. Some swore allegiance, some fled to Turkey. Some of the modern-day cossacks are ironically fighting on the separatist side, some on the Ukrainian side. But mostly, their traditions have been lost during the Soviet era.
15. Re:Still they are underpowered by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-22 09:15 · Score: 0
  
  Ukrainian government will help to do the rest by shelling civilians and generally behaving like a bunch of idiots.
  The fact that you are saying this is a testament to the success of the Russian propaganda campaign. Russia's Chechen, Ossetian, and Russian mercenaries shell civilian populations on a regular basis, under the belief that the locals will blame the Ukrainian army (most of them watch Russian state-owned TV channels, which promote the notion that Ukraine is responsible for the shelling).
  For example, Russia's forces just shelled the town of Debaltseve: http://goo.gl/rsgmF2
  There are no known incidents of the Ukrainian army intentionally shelling civilian quarters, but residential areas probably have sustained damage as a result of the fact that the Russian army and terrorists have embedded themselves among the civilian population. Remember Putin's promise from March, in which he said Russia would use human shields in Ukraine: http://youtu.be/c_RG83ff7hw
  "let somebody in Ukraine try to shoot at their own civilians, behind whom we'll be standing - not behind them, but in front of them. Let them just try to shoot women and children. I want to see who will give such an order in Ukraine." Yes, that is what Putin actually said.
16. Re:Still they are underpowered by segedunum · 2014-11-22 09:23 · Score: 2
  
  As opposed to a western sympathetic president who is also a Nazi?
  
  Ahhhh, a westerner's view of knowledge of world politics and history...........
17. Re:Still they are underpowered by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-22 09:34 · Score: 0
  
  Brought to you by the propaganda apparatus, now with mod points.
  (Citation needed on naziness. Kremlin court media need not apply.)
18. Re:Still they are underpowered by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-22 09:53 · Score: 0
  
  That thing about uniting Ukrainians may actually be true. In the country as it were it did not work too well because local Russians did not go along with Ukrainians. This has caused quite some problems so far. The other thing - nation building event was missing. A good war with some losses but with some level of success too is always good. Separation from impurities by newly created border is also good. Separation from unwanted heavy industries is possibly also a good thing. Keeping them under constant pressure makes people there leave eventually so you may get the country ethnically purer and all this with a good word from EU - that was never easy before but hey - chose a proper ethnicity for oppression and EU does not mind all too much. In any case it does not ask for any protection. All this courtesy of Putin. Come to think of it those new power people in Kiev should at least be a little thankful for 'terrorist' actions. But hey what do I know I am just a putinobot.
19. Re: Still they are underpowered by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-22 10:32 · Score: 0
  
  Greetings to one of the Baltic states then!
  Ever heard of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carpathian_Ruthenia and its annexation by Ukraine?
  I guess you went too far into past....
20. Re: Still they are underpowered by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-22 10:44 · Score: 0
  
  Actually it is the pro-Russian separatists who are being disillusioned by corruption. They are learning that their new separatist leaders are just as corrupt as the former pro-Russian Ukrainian president who fled when the people called for his removal and prosecution for corruption. Much of the humanitarian aid coming from Russian is being taken by the leaders and sold on the black market. Everything from coal to blankets to food to medicine.
21. Re: Still they are underpowered by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-22 11:25 · Score: 0
  
  If we go back as far as you have, we'll find that the bulk of peoples in the world did the same thing.
22. Re: Still they are underpowered by edis · 2014-11-22 13:28 · Score: 1
  
  You are comparing enemies of Ukrainians vs enemies of Russians over the globe, seriously?!! You are seriously nuts.
  
  --
  Servant of karma
23. Re: Still they are underpowered by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-22 13:35 · Score: 0
  
  If you're american, as the majority of slashdotters are, you might open a fu**ing history book for the first time in your life (i.e., not one of those that are used in US schools) and realize that you live in the country that has carried out the highest number of invasions in the world, and that has organized the highest number of coups abroad, including the ukrainian coup on february 22nd 2014. You're definitely not in any position to judge.
24. Re:Still they are underpowered by edis · 2014-11-22 13:45 · Score: 1
  
  You don't get it right. They don't need these parts of Ukraine to be part of Russia, doesn't make most of the sense. Crimea was it, nice souvenir to get army of fools as supporters for a national hero, bringing lands back. And that's it. Chunks of Ukraine with influence of Russia need to obtain special confederation status, while remaining part of Ukraine, so retaining control over Ukraine. Just like Moldova is kept in halt trough Transnistria.
  Putin is not afraid of the West at all, but he does not like them, and his country won't ever see themselves as a part. They protect their zone of influence, and Ukraine was pretty much still in it. Now it wants to walk own ways - and is made to struggle.
  
  --
  Servant of karma
25. Re:Still they are underpowered by edis · 2014-11-22 14:20 · Score: 1
  
  You first. Meaning economy of Russia. Europeans can cope with hardships for a good reason, and can continue trading without Russia very well, while it is opposite, that is going to be pretty hard. Watch ruble to get better idea meanwhile.
  
  --
  Servant of karma
26. Re: Still they are underpowered by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-22 14:30 · Score: 0
  
  Your knowledge of Ukrainian history leaves much to be desired. Find out how the name "Russia" was coined and how the Russians bribed Encyclopedia Britannica so that the name Moscovia is changed to russia.
27. Re:Still they are underpowered by Cyberax · 2014-11-22 15:07 · Score: 1
  
  Poroshenko's own words: "We will make it intolerable for civilians in Eastern regions to support the terrorists". Clear and unambiguous.
28. Re: Still they are underpowered by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-22 16:57 · Score: 0
  
  Wouldn't that make us experts on the subject matter? I think we're more qualified to judge than anyone. ;)
29. Re: Still they are underpowered by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-22 23:45 · Score: 0
  
  lol, you might be surprised to find, russians aren't bombing sovereign nations, ukraine is not perse a country, anything else is just blind nationalism
30. Re:Still they are underpowered by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-23 04:41 · Score: 0
  
  What sort of point are you trying to make? If you're saying that the implications of what he said are clear and unambiguous, perhaps you should consider that you've got a preconceived idea of Poroshenko, and you're projecting those expectations onto his words. Also, since you're generally so full of it, whenever you quote someone, can you please provide a reference? That would be appreciated.
  Putin's "we will be standing behind women and children" comment, on the other hand, is an example of "clear and unambiguous". Doesn't get clearer than that. Sociopathic murdering coward, whom only similarly depraved people could possibly support.
31. Re:Still they are underpowered by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-23 19:31 · Score: 0
  
  What entrenched resistance?
32. Re:Still they are underpowered by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-23 19:50 · Score: 0
  
  You are both correct. Putin and Poroshenko are both insufferable irresponsible cunts.
33. Re:Still they are underpowered by nemyax · 2014-11-23 19:57 · Score: 1
  
  The fact that you are saying this is a testament to the success of the Russian propaganda campaign. Russia's Chechen, Ossetian, and Russian mercenaries shell civilian populations on a regular basis, under the belief that the locals will blame the Ukrainian army (most of them watch Russian state-owned TV channels, which promote the notion that Ukraine is responsible for the shelling). For example, Russia's forces just shelled the town of Debaltseve: http://goo.gl/rsgmF2
  
  Ukrainian media are, well, meh. NYT, however, is a more reputable source: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10...
34. Re:Still they are underpowered by Cyberax · 2014-11-24 11:29 · Score: 1
  
  Ukraine is fighting a civil war. You don't fight terrorists by threatening civilians. It's as simple as that.
  
  And the West is supporting a side in this civil war, a side that is ready to resort to dubious tactics of targeting civilian population.
35. Re:Still they are underpowered by unixisc · 2014-11-25 09:14 · Score: 1
  
  Crimea was a legitimate claim of Russia - historically, it had always been a part of Russia, even after Brest-Litovsk made Ukraine independent. It was given to Ukraine on Nikita Krushchev's whim, when few in Russia or Crimea could protest about it.
  It's different in the rest of the Ukraine, where people - whether Russian speaking or Ukrainian, don't wanna be Russians. Since the 1990s, there has been a lot of migration b/w the former Soviet republics - Kazakhs returning to Kazakhstan, Uzbeks to Uzbekistan, Ukrainians to Ukraine & Russians to Russia. So it's fair to say that the people of Ukraine don't want to be either a part of Russia, or a Russian client state. However, they're willing to go slow on joining NATO, given how explosive an issue that is, vis a vis Russia.
  However, NATO is an outdated organization, that lost its purpose when the Soviet Union came apart. With the Warsaw Pact, NATO should also have disbanded. Since the 90s, all Western countries have been disarming & seeking the 'peace dividend', which is incompatible w/ NATO's charter of the entire organization going to war if one of them is attacked. If Russia was upset @ say, Latvia, and sent troops into Riga, would the US launch missiles across the Bering Strait? If no, why give countries like them false hopes that NATO would protect them? Given the stupid interventions that NATO has done, like Bosnia & Kosovo, it's past the point where it was a force for good.
Why is this news? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-22 05:59 · Score: 0

Why is this news, or relevant...
Seriously, Slashdot has gone down a very large hill...
1. Re:Why is this news? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-22 06:11 · Score: 0
  
  Go read another story if you can't figure it out, whiner.
2. Re: Why is this news? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-22 06:21 · Score: 0
  
  I would much rather you explain it to me, so that you may dispel my ignorance. Because I honestly don't understand, and I feel like someone as brilliant and charming as your self would be the perfect candidate to elliquently explain this to me.
  I hold my breath for your reply.
  But honstly, I take the onion more seriously now-a-days.
3. Re: Why is this news? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-22 07:17 · Score: 0
  
  Banksters enlist everybody in their fight for russias natural resources. Sd included.
  This b word gave mr 9 minutes waiting time.....
4. Re: Why is this news? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-22 10:15 · Score: 0
  
  fuck off putin troll.
5. Re: Why is this news? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-22 10:43 · Score: 0
  
  Try a tiny bit harder. Just throwing abuse like this is not even annoying being pathetic instead.
Don't let your life be stolen ... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-22 06:16 · Score: 0

You can see from the post above how mental illness can ravage a life. Please contact your local mental health professional before its too late. Don't let that happen to you.
1. Re:Don't let your life be stolen ... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-22 08:08 · Score: 0
  
  The mind is a terrible thing to waste. Donate today to the United Wigro College Fund.
2. Re:Don't let your life be stolen ... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-22 08:25 · Score: 0
  
  Your mind is a waste. Please seek help so you don't die an insane racist.
Are we there yet? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-22 06:18 · Score: 0

World War III for the win!
who needs them when NATO is there? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-22 06:30 · Score: 0

Well, just a week ago i read in a Greek defence related blog about the brand new radar and drones that were officialy delivered in the Ukranian armed forces from one of their NATO unofficial allies (yes, it was U.S.A., but had the blessings of E.U., mostly U.K. and Germany plus others) - and just yesterday i read about a Greek (one of the 150.000 living there, a Greek community from the ancient times, suddenly denied their rights to their language by this Ukranian regime) that was killed by the Ukranian armed forces (yes, he was with the Russians of cource, as all Greeks there are - by the way, all Greeks in Syria, a large Greek community from the ancient times also, are with Assad...).
Since i am Greek (that have served directly in NATO, as a Greek conscript marine attached in the NATO Rapid Respone Force), with my country as an EU and NATO member, i feel strange...
1. Re: who needs them when NATO is there? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-22 07:26 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  Well, you might wake up to the fact that russia is a more humane civilization than the criminals who are in charge of nato. Just look at how they conspire with the mohammedanic evil all the time. Next to greece they recently allowed the ethnic cleansing of serbs by the kosovar mohammedanics. I have seen a presentation by a german officer myself where he showed the pictures of a burnt down serb monastery. That whole conflict was paid and ideologized by the wahabist menace of saudi arabia. US and UK nurture the enemies of our own civilization.
2. Re: who needs them when NATO is there? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-22 07:40 · Score: 0
  
  Congratulations. You have won first place in the Global Conspiracy Theory Contest! Your reward of 5 million roubles (don't wait! the rate is dropping!) will be awarded to you by the prince of Nigeria! :)
3. Re: who needs them when NATO is there? by umghhh · 2014-11-22 10:47 · Score: 1
  
  that was a princes last time and she was mine - I feel sooooo betrayed!
4. Re: who needs them when NATO is there? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-23 04:30 · Score: 0
  
  Well, you might wake up to the fact that russia is a more humane civilization than the criminals who are in charge of nato.
  Yes, Russia's support of Assad, its wars against Ukraine and Georgia, and its terrorism against Tajikistan illustrate just humane that country is. And that's just the last 6 years or so.
5. Re: who needs them when NATO is there? by Xest · 2014-11-23 21:55 · Score: 1
  
  No actually, I think it had something to do with the massacre of 10,000 civilians by the Serbs that after 3 years of indifference finally made the West put an end to yet another evil Russian backed bunch of fascist murderers.
  Or were you letting your own anti-Islamic hatred turn a blind eye to the fact that by far the worst atrocities and largest massacres in that conflict were committed by the Serbs you're trying to pass off as innocent victims of the West?
  The West helps moderate muslims yes, just like it helps the Kurds and FSA against IS who are themselves muslims.
  But if you need it pointing out here, the common factor isn't helping muslims (IS are muslims), the common factor is destroying people who like to commit horrendous atrocities. Saddam, the Serbs, IS, Gaddafi, Osama Bin Laden - all guilty of mass murder etc.
  Does the West always get it right? hell no. Sometimes maintaining the regimes of those evil people is unfortunately the least bad option, and sometimes the attempted cure is worse than the disease. But don't try and pretend these sorts of people who have been hit by the Western military weren't people guilty of the worst crimes known to humanity.
  The Serbs as victims when you look at things like the Srebrenica massacre is a sick joke.
Sell them stuff by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-22 06:34 · Score: 2, Interesting

The US has billions of dollars of unused military equipment just sitting in places like Afghanistan. I read an article on how it will all be turned into scrap metal at 1000th of the cost to build the damn things. The rest get shipped over here to be sold at an insane discount to our military police forces...
Why can't we sell this junk to the Ukrainians and make a profit. It would kill three birds with one stone. (Reduce waste slightly, kill Russian troops, and stop militarizing our police forces.)
1. Re:Sell them stuff by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-22 06:52 · Score: 0
  
  In no small part because of politics. The Ukraine wants to join the EU, not the US, and nobody in the region really wants the US hanging around too much. Russia certainly doesn't want the US selling arms to the Ukraine, and the Ukrainians don't want to look like their government is a US puppet fighting the Russians, and the EU gets nervous about the US, although the EU also can't ever figure out what the fuck it wants to do and would endlessly dither on the question of whether to continue breathing or not if someone were to ask them. Really, the EU needs to man up and support -- not just with free copies of Ode to Joy but with materiel and possibly men -- the people who risked their lives to embrace the less-dithering aspects of the EU way of life. If the EU were to buy the US surplus materiel (at greatly discounted prices if they like) and ship it to Ukraine, that would solve the problem: the Ukrainians get the supplies they need, the EU gets some face, and the US doesn't have to be in the middle of Yet Another Foreign Conflict.
2. Re:Sell them stuff by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-22 07:13 · Score: 0
  
  The US has a bad history of selling arms to unstable allies, only to find that the arms have a longer lifespan than the country they were sold to.
3. Re: Sell them stuff by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-22 07:39 · Score: 0
  
  I am german and i hate the idea of the EU imperium. All those empires ended in tears near moscow. Only our corrupt politicos are for it. They like power and they are ready and willing to sell out their own nation and the happiness of their compatriots for this.
  The euro currency by now even erodes the french economy after having killed off vast parts of meditteranean economy. Scheiss drauf !
  Ich will die d mark zurÃ¼ck !
4. Re: Sell them stuff by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-22 09:25 · Score: 0
  
  There's a difference between imperialism and defending the people who are risking their lives and freedom to stand against tyranny and to join your peaceful union of nations because they yearn for the freedom and hope that they see in Europe. Imperialism isn't what happens when people vote to join you, when they voluntarily apply and change their laws and standards and currency to be in concord with yours: that's federation, not tyranny or imperialism. The Ukraine understands well what an imperium is: they lived under Soviet rule, and recently under Putin's puppet, and that now they want freedom, they choose to look to the EU because they don't see an empire there but a hope for a just world. The only question is whether the EU has the strength to stand up for freedom, or if they are so mired in self-loathing and melancholy recollections of history that happened three generations ago that they'll let the supplicants who are begging for Europe's help be trampled under Putin's boot.
5. Re:Sell them stuff by umghhh · 2014-11-22 10:50 · Score: 2
  
  Selling is a good thing and various regimes of this planet engage in selling military toys to different (sometimes clearly very unpleasant) regimes. Yet in case of Ukraine there is a problem with selling because that involves paying for goods and services which Ukraine has difficulty with.
6. Re:Sell them stuff by rtb61 · 2014-11-22 12:28 · Score: 1
  
  The Ukraine government had huge amounts of military junk at one stage. It all 'er' disappeared, as various oligarch got 'er' rid of it, selling 'um' paying to dispose of it to supply various war lords around the world. Providing more weapons for free will just most likely enrich a free oligarchs and empower a few more African wars. Always have to take a long hard look at countries where diplomacy is considered far more expensive than war regardless of course how much less in reality, hint, hint, USA. Apparently there is no profit in diplomacy for the minority even when the majority make huge positively mind boggling savings but of course the minority must have their profits and they pay for the PR massaging of reality to make murdering people look good.
  So why isn't or more accurately shouldn't military hardware be shipped around the war, BECAUSE IT FUCKING FEEDS WARS AND GREED, let's try shipping low cost diplomacy around the place and under UN accord starve the war beast by blocking all international trade in arms and munitions. If you fucking can't make it you most certainly don't need it when it comes to weapons of war, you wont solve nay problems by buying into that shit but you must certainly will end up killing a lot of people, making the majority suffer and oh yeah, feed the greed of a tiny psychopathic minority.
  So a better idea, how about political activism to block all global trade in arms and munitions. History has proven all those efforts largely turn around and bite you on the ass, repeatedly.
  
  --
  Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
7. Re:Sell them stuff by schnell · 2014-11-22 13:45 · Score: 1
  Why can't we sell this junk to the Ukrainians and make a profit
  Fair question but unfortunately the answer is:
  
  We wouldn't make a profit. We might make slightly more than selling it for scrap, but it's not like battle-worn Humvees fetch anywhere near what they cost us... that's why the military is (inappropriately) giving them away to the cops in the US.
  
  Ukraine is not exactly swimming in money to buy these things. Their economy has suffered 10% contraction in the past year and they can't even afford to subsidize the natural gas needed to keep their citizens alive this winter, now that Russia has jacked up the rates.
  
  Selling arms to Ukraine (or fast tracking its entry into NATO) would be a major provocation to Russia and would set the stage for a potential full-on NATO vs. Russia regional conflict. Putin has enough crazy in him that he can't be trusted not to do something extremely stupid that would hurt him more in the long run, but would be painful enough to both sides that there would be no "winner." That's a hornet's nest you don't want to poke until you have exhausted every other conceivable alternative.
  --
  "95% of all Slashdot .sig quotes are incorrect or completely fabricated." -Benjamin Franklin
8. Re: Sell them stuff by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-22 23:55 · Score: 0
  
  said no european ever, go home dirty american
9. Re: Sell them stuff by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-23 03:18 · Score: 0
  
  Vollidiot...
10. Re:Sell them stuff by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-23 20:13 · Score: 0
  
  Why can't we sell this junk to the Ukrainians and make a profit.
  Because they have no money. If you like killing Russians so much, hand it over to Poroshenko for free. Even better, tack some cash on while you're at it. That 17.6 trillion can take some more.
11. Re: Sell them stuff by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-23 20:20 · Score: 0
  
  Ah, here comes the Ode to Joy from the third post above.
12. Re:Sell them stuff by Xest · 2014-11-23 21:41 · Score: 1
  
  "Selling arms to Ukraine (or fast tracking its entry into NATO) would be a major provocation to Russia and would set the stage for a potential full-on NATO vs. Russia regional conflict."
  How is invasion of a neutral nation by Russia not already a major provocation of us that deserves proper response? Appeasement of people like Putin has never worked.
  But regardless, Putin is on a knife edge as much as he likes to hide it.
  Sanctions are beginning to bite and discontent with the Russian leadership amongst the populace is finally growing.
  The only reason he started this ceasefire is because there were beginning to be real questions asked about the 400+ dead Russian servicemen that had been quietly buried in Russia with any reports of the funerals hushed and the families threatened at a time when Russia is supposedly not at war with anyone and everyone fighting in Ukraine was meant to be a Ukrainian rebel.
  Do you really think if the costs start ramping up in Russia's already crippled economy and the bodies of Russian soldiers start pouring in again that he could really survive? Prior to the Crimea annexation his popularity was at an all time low and protests almost toppled him last time elections came around. The people got caught up in nationalist zeal with the Crimea annexation but they're beginning to realise it wasn't worth the cost.
  Supplying arms to Ukraine that result in more Russian regulars crossing back into Russia in bodybags is one of the best things we can do right now because it creates an increasingly politically untenable situation for Putin.
  Think back to Georgia 2008, Putin was stopped then not by threats of sanctions, condemnation and so on and so forth, but when Bush finally sent US troops driving around Tbilisi in Humvees on a "training exercise" (one of the few military moves Bush actually did that was reasonable), coupled with lots of Russian bodybags being sent back North. It was a repeat of what happened for even soviet era Russia against Afghanistan in the 80s. Putin knows he can't survive a proper confrontation with the West and like all bullies the only language he understands and that makes him back down is when someone bigger squares up to him.
  Russia isn't different to the US in that way- support for the US incursion into Iraq and Afghanistan plummeted when US soldiers started getting killed by the hundreds. The sooner and greater number that happens with Russian troops the sooner Putin will be forced to withdraw.
Re:Arm Ukraine by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-22 07:09 · Score: 0

The US must arm Ukraine to the teeth. We could make it such that not a piece of Russian armor survives on Ukrainian soil, if that gutless coward Obama would back it of course. After the next collapse Russia will have to be dismembered.
And as soon as the conflict with Russia ends I am quite certain the Ukrainian military will out these weapons away. Nope. The UA will turn on the US as as "Great Satan du Jour."
How do you pronounce the name Skrypnyk? by tloh · 2014-11-22 07:59 · Score: 0

I'm inclined to say Scary Punk. How far off am I??

--
Stay sentient. Don't drink bad milk.
1. Re:How do you pronounce the name Skrypnyk? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-22 08:08 · Score: 0
  
  It would be a good start if you tried pronouncing it "screepnik". It would still be wrong, but less so than "scary punk". :)
2. Re:How do you pronounce the name Skrypnyk? by MildlyTangy · 2014-11-22 09:02 · Score: 1
  
  I'm inclined to say Scary Punk. How far off am I??
  Surprisingly, you are way off the mark. It is simply pronounced "Skrypnyk".
3. Re:How do you pronounce the name Skrypnyk? by tloh · 2014-11-24 21:03 · Score: 1
  
  My fellow slashdoters sometimes amazingly lack a sense of humor.
  
  --
  Stay sentient. Don't drink bad milk.
Clever way to post politics on a tech site by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-22 08:32 · Score: 0

Who the hell keeps posting political bs on slashdot
1. Re: Clever way to post politics on a tech site by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-22 09:01 · Score: 0
  
  That's the kind of thing only a Putin lover would say.
  We must now condemn you to the fiery pit of hell, for the gory of Ukraine and trolls...
  If there would ever be a sport "troll fishing" SD would be the best place to go for bait
I call bullshit by rs79 · 2014-11-22 10:08 · Score: 1, Troll

Russia didn't invade at all. It was a part of Russia and Russia *gave* it to Ukraine. There's a bilateral treaty between the two nations whereby Russia can have up to 25,000 troops there and Russia has had 16,000 troops there. They were there last month, they were there last year. Plus nearly everyone there is Russian. Who just gave a 96% mandate to rejoin Russia and GTFO of Ukraine which is in the middle of a Kosovo/Sarajevo style civil war with (hundreds of) Ukranians being killed by other Ukrainians - leftists, being killed by neo-Nazis and outright fascists. The Crimeans want out and who could blame them? Nobody has died in Crimea and they want to keep it that way, and then there's the Chevron fracking deal with the Ukraine that Crimea won't have to suffer through. How could this possibly be called an invasion? Read the background on Crimea, Russia and the Ukraine here and here.
Here is a *partial* list of US invasions:
The list does not include the 1801-1805 US Marine Barbary War operations against Barbary pirates based in Morocco , Algeria , Tunisia and Libya , and also ignores massive US subversion of virtually all countries in the world.
(1) American Indian nations (1776 onwards, American Indian Genocide; 1803, Louisiana Purchase; 1844, Indians banned from east of the Mississippi; 1861 onwards, California genocide; 1890, Lakota Indians massacre), (2) Mexico (1836-1846; 1913; 1914-1918; 1923), (3) Nicaragua (1856-1857; 1894; 1896; 1898; 1899; 1907; 1910; 1912-1933; 1981-1990), (4) American forces deployed against Americans (1861-1865, Civil War; 1892; 1894; 1898; 1899-1901; 1901; 1914; 1915; 1920-1921; 1932; 1943; 1967; 1968; 1970; 1973; 1992; 2001), (5), Argentina (1890), (6), Chile (1891; 1973), (7) Haiti (1891; 1914-1934; 1994; 2004-2005), (8) Hawaii (1893-), (9) China (1895-1895; 1898-1900; 1911-1941; 1922-1927; 1927-1934; 1948-1949; 1951-1953; 1958), (10) Korea (1894-1896; 1904-1905; 1951-1953), (11) Panama (1895; 1901-1914; 1908; 1912; 1918-1920; 1925; 1958; 1964; 1989-), (12) Philippines (1898-1910; 1948-1954; 1989; 2002-), (13) Cuba (1898-1902; 1906-1909; 1912; 1917-1933; 1961; 1962), (14) Puerto Rico (1898-; 1950; ); (15) Guam (1898-), (16) Samoa (1899-), (17) Honduras (1903; 1907; 1911; 1912; 1919; 1924-1925; 1983-1989), (18) Dominican Republic (1903-1904; 1914; 1916-1924; 1965-1966), (19) Germany (1917-1918; 1941-1945; 1948; 1961), (20) Russia (1918-1922), (21) Yugoslavia (1919; 1946; 1992-1994; 1999), (22) Guatemala (1920; 1954; 1966-1967), (23) Turkey (1922), (24) El Salvador (1932; 1981-1992), (25) Italy (1941-1945); (26) Morocco (1941-1945), (27) France (1941-1945), (28) Algeria (1941-1945), (29) Tunisia (1941-1945), (30) Libya (1941-1945; 1981; 1986; 1989; 2011), (31) Egypt (1941-1945; 1956; 1967; 1973; 2013), (32) India (1941-1945), (33) Burma (1941-1945), (34) Micronesia (1941-1945), (35) Papua New Guinea (1941-1945), (36) Vanuatu (1941-1945), (37) Austria (1941-1945), (38) Hungary (1941-1945), (39) Japan (1941-1945), (40) Iran (1946; 1953; 1980; 1984; 1987-1988; ), (41) Uruguay (1947), (42) Greece (1947-1949), (43) Vietnam (1954; 1960-1975), (44) Lebanon (1958; 1982-1984), (45) Iraq (1958; 1963; 1990-1991; 1990-2003; 1998; 2003-2011), (46) Laos (1962-), (47) Indonesia (1965), (48) Cambodia (1969-1975; 1975), (49) Oman (1970), (50) Laos (1971-1973), (51) Angola (1976-1992), (52) Grenada (1983-1984), (53) Bolivia (1986; ), (54) Virgin Islands (1989), (55) Liberia (1990; 1997; 2003), (56) Saudi Arabia (1990-1991), (57) Kuwait (1991), (58) Somalia (1992-1994; 2006), (59) Bosnia (1993-), (60) Zaire (Congo) (1996-1997), (61) Albania (1997), (62) Sudan (1998), (63) Afghanistan (1998; 2001-), (64) Yemen (2000; 2002-), (65) Macedonia (2001), (66) Colombia (2002-), (67) Pakistan (2005-), (68) Syria (2008; 2011-), (69) Uganda (2011), (70) Mali (2013), (71) Niger (2013).
Things that led up to this:
The IMF
http://www.euronews.com/2014/0...
"austerity" to pay ba

--
Need Mercedes parts ?
1. Re:I call bullshit by mi · 2014-11-22 10:13 · Score: 1
  
  Russia didn't invade at all. It was a part of Russia and Russia *gave* it to Ukraine.
  False. USSR — of which Russia and Ukraine were both parts — took it from Russia and gave to Ukraine.
  Either way, that's not the claim Russia is making even now, so take your Moscow propaganda back to where Putin-TV is the source of truth.
  
  Here is a *partial* list of US invasions:
  Irrelevant.
  
  --
  In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
2. Re:I call bullshit by dunkelfalke · 2014-11-22 10:38 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  Well, and by the same law that has created an independent Ukraine in 1991, Crimea should have been an independent country as well, given that they have declared their sovereignty almost a year earlier but were basically forced to remain in Ukraine by the military threat.
  This is not Moscow propaganda, just a little history lesson. It is interesting that you don't know it, given that you've previously mentioned being an Ukrainian yourself. Could it be that you are but a kid yet? That would fit the whole picture about you very well indeed.
  
  --
  "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
3. Re:I call bullshit by mi · 2014-11-22 11:14 · Score: 0
  
  Well, and by the same law that has created an independent Ukraine in 1991, Crimea should have been an independent country
  Which "same law" is that? There were no provisions in the Soviet Constitution for any entity other than one of the main 15 Republics to declare independence.
  
  given that they have declared their sovereignty almost a year earlier but were basically forced to remain in Ukraine by the military threat.
  Have you read your own link? The referendum of 1991 turned Crimea into an "autonomous republic" within Ukraine — no "military threats" involved — certainly not from Ukraine, which had no military of its own until after the 1992 split-up of the USSR.
  Crimea retained its "autonomous republic" status until 2014 — it had its own Parliament and ran many of its own affairs. It was never sovereign, however.
  
  just a little history lesson
  You fail your history. Have your parents acknowledge your "F" by next week.
  
  --
  In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
4. Re:I call bullshit by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-22 11:28 · Score: 1
  
  Russia didn't invade at all. It was a part of Russia and Russia *gave* it to Ukraine. There's a bilateral treaty between the two nations whereby Russia can have up to 25,000 troops there and Russia has had 16,000 troops there.
  Horseshit. Russia was allowed to have a fixed number of troops within Crimea, and their movement was restricted to their bases, and a few other areas. The annexation of Crimea was done by Russian troops who were stationed in Crimea, Russian troops who came over from Russia, Russian intelligence services (FSB, GRU), and criminal syndicates. Any aggressive action by foreign military or paramilitary forces is called an invasion.
  Here is a great article dealing mafia organizations' role in the Crimea annexation: http://www.rferl.org/content/crimea-crime-criminals-as-agents-allies/26671923.html.
  Reading this article, one understands why Russia intends to turn Crimea into a giant Las Vegas; also, the criminal gangs will have much more freedom insofar as drug trafficking, human trafficking, and contraband smuggling are concerned. Basically, Russia unleashed a massive humanitarian disaster upon the peninsula.
  
  Plus nearly everyone there is Russian.
  Horseshit. Since you're either too lazy to find the facts, or perhaps won't state the facts because they contradict your justifications for Russia's invasion, at last count (2001), ethnic Russians were 60% of Crimea; since then, it is believed that the proportion of Ukrainians and Tatars has grown, relative to Russians.
  
  (hundreds of) Ukranians being killed by other Ukrainians - leftists, being killed by neo-Nazis and outright fascists.
  90% of the "rebels" in Ukraine are not-Ukrainians. Many of them are from the Russian army (Russia dubiously claims that these thousands of Russian military personnel are "on vacation", and went to fight in Ukraine out of patriotism - incidentally, engaging in a foreign war is illegal for Russians, and such acts are subject to severe punishment under Russian law). Russia has refused to close their border with Ukraine (they only allow the OSCE to monitor two border checkpoints), and has created terrorist training camps in Rostov. Military recruitment stations in Moscow and Rostov are used to recruit the "rebels"; the Russian embassy in Latvia is also used to recruit mercenaries to fight in Ukraine. The Nazis and fascists doing the killing in Ukraine are Russians. Russia's initial "rebel" leader in Ukraine, Pavel Gubarev, is a neo-Nazi (just do an image search for his name, with the word "Nazi").
  
  The Crimeans want out and who could blame them? Nobody has died in Crimea and they want to keep it that way
  Horseshit. Now you're contorting the chronology of events to suit your propaganda, and making false statements about what Crimeans wanted. All polls before the annexation showed that a plurality of Crimeans favored staying with Ukraine, with about 40% favoring joining Russia. The referendum, as stated in the article I linked above, was held by Russia, colluding with local gangsters. The Kremlin's own HR council dismissed the referendum as a total sham: http://www.businessinsider.com/did-vladimir-putins-human-rights-council-just-publish-2014-5
  
  then there's the Chevron fracking deal with the Ukraine that Crimea won't have to suffer through.
  
  If you don't think that Russia will exploit the peninsula's resources to the fullest, including fracking, you're even more clueless than your post suggests. In addition to "suffering through fracking", as stated above, the Crimeans will be subjected to unprecedented gangsterism. Ethnic cleansing has been going on since March, and human rights abuses have spiked to levels not seen since Stalin.
  https://www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/reports/crimea1114web.pdf
  What kind of ethical void do you have to be to support Russia's war? If you want to support gangsterism, war, and ethnic cleansing, go live in Putinstan, where your delusions are welcome.
5. Re:I call bullshit by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-22 11:52 · Score: 0
  
  Indeed, the precise reasons that Crimea was given to Ukraine are uncertain, but it was transferred to Ukraine legally, in contrast to Putin's Sudetenland-style land-grab. I've heard a few hypotheses as to why Crimea was given to Ukraine.
  First of all, the transfer made sense, since the Crimea landmass is contiguous with Ukraine, but has no land bridge to Russia (and this is one of the reasons that Russian aggression in Ukraine continues - Putin wants to carve out a land bridge to Crimea, and if possible, to Moldova, where Russia has carved out a chunk of that country's territory).
  Second - at the time of the transfer, Crimea was one big village. There was barely any infrastructure. Russia just didn't want to invest in building the place up, so the burden to do so was shifted over to Ukraine.
  Third - Ukraine's population had suffered a massive decline due to the genocidal famine which Stalin had created (there is a mass remembrance for the victims of the Holodomor today, on the genocide's 81st anniversary), and due to WWII. Kruschev may have wanted to give Ukraine's population an artificial boost.
  For anyone making the argument that Crimea is "historically Russian land", take a look at Crimea's demographics: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Crimea#Ethnicities_.26_languages. Until about 1940, less than half of Crimea's population was ethnic Russian (the proportion of ethnic Russians increased when Stalin conducted ethnic cleansing of Crimea's Tatars). Also, if you want to make historical arguments, in the interest of consistency, you should argue that ethnically Ukrainian regions of Russia (such as Kuban) should be returned to Ukraine.
6. Re:I call bullshit by dunkelfalke · 2014-11-22 12:30 · Score: 2
  
  Soviet constitution which was the basic law of USSR.
  First, Crimea turning into an autonomous republic within Ukraine was already contrary to the referendum since restoring the Crimean ASSR would be restoring it as part of RSFSR.
  Second, even if we would let my first point slide, Soviet constitution clearly states that an autonomous republic can only exists within an union republic. If Ukraine is no longer a part of the union, this notion doesn't work anymore. This is what has caused the war in Abkhasia in 1992.
  Third, here is just one of several examples of using force to keep Crimea on a tight leash through the years. They have tried to become independent several times through the years and were regularly screwed by Ukraine. No wonder they seized the opportunity now.
  
  You fail your history. Have your parents acknowledge your "F" by next week.
  Hm, must be a recent and traumatising experience for you, trying to project it on me in such a detail. Let me tell you something, kiddo. I went to schools and universities in several countries. None of these used letters for marks. Have left my parents' basement several decades ago and one day you will grow up and do the same and see the big and very diverse world out there. But until then, get off my lawn.
  
  --
  "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
7. Re:I call bullshit by edis · 2014-11-22 13:59 · Score: 0
  
  You liar. Russia invaded Ukraine, and annexed Crimea. That's what any serious paper will tell you. As to Crimea (Qirim yarimadasi) "is Russian, because nearly everyone there is Russian", learn when and how it became populated by Russians extensively, how many natives still remain there, and how rightful is "mandate", being part of annexing campaign. Then think again how much rights to annex territory of independent state of Ukraine Russia has had.
  
  --
  Servant of karma
8. Re:I call bullshit by imperious_rex · 2014-11-22 14:29 · Score: 0
  
  Wow. You really came into this prepared. How long did it take you to research all this since the article appeared on Slashdot? Did you have some help tovarisch? This is about Russia's current bad behavior, not the sins of the US. Nice try. The bottom line is that Crimea is a semi-autonomous territory that is part of Ukraine and has been since it was legally given to Ukraine in 1954. Russia's annexation of Crimea has absolutely NO legal basis at all. The referendum was a farce, and everybody knows it. Crimea is heavily dependent on Ukrainian tourism and resources (water and electricity being the most important). Kiev should take maximum advantage of that and exert massive economic pressure on the Crimean peninsula. Ban all Ukrainian tourism and strangle business transactions with red tape. Raise the price of electricity and water to the sky (and if necessary, phase out water and electricity completely. Let Russia pay for building new infrastructure to its new prize.) With Crimea an economic drain and in combination with Western sanctions, Russia's economy will suffer as it hasn't suffered since the 90's. I'm sure the Russian public will appreciate this.... If Russia still refuses to surrender Crimea, then Ukraine should escalate to the next level and implement low-level guerrilla warfare. Ukraine has a proud history of partisan warfare. Operating in Crimea, a few dozen sniper teams and a few hundred special forces would send dozens of young Russian soldiers back to the motherland in zinc boxes every day. Unless Russia wants Crimea to turn into another prolonged conflict like Chechnya, Putin would be wise to let Crimea go and worry about the damage to the Russian economy and its relations with the world.
9. Re:I call bullshit by Cyberax · 2014-11-22 15:17 · Score: 2
  
  Your post is so fucking full of lies...
  
  First of all, the transfer made no sense. Crimea has NEVER been a Ukrainian territory.
  
  Second, at the time of transfer Crimea had been a USSR tourist hub, well known throughout the country and with a good infrastructure. Billions of Soviet roubles were spent to construct water supply and build reliable infrastructure on the Crimean peninsula.
  
  Third, Ukraine's population has pretty much recovered by the time of the Crimean transfer. It was more deeply damaged by the WWII than by Stalin's holodomor.
  
  And yes, if Kuban' wants to return to Ukraine then I have no objections. But having been in Kuban' too many times to count - their citizens would riot if anybody tried to give their land to Ukraine.
10. Re:I call bullshit by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-22 23:18 · Score: 0
  
  so giving presents and taking it back 50 years later is OK?
  glad to see that for all your accusations, russia doesnt do anything to take the moral highground, but shows that they are determined to beat america in dirty tricks
11. Re:I call bullshit by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-23 04:27 · Score: 0
  
  Sad - you accuse a perfectly reasonable post of inaccuracies, yet yours is chock full of bullshit and equivocation.
  1. What part of "Crimea is contiguous with Ukraine" do you not comprehend?
  Crimea was Ukrainian since 1954, and de jure, still is (unless North Korea and Cuba's recognition of the land theft by Russia means something to you). I'm not sure how it's possible for you to say that "Crimea was never Ukrainian". I'm not quite sure why they'd want it (it's a massive financial drain, rife with gangsterism), but that's another story.
  2. During the handover by Kruschev, the infrastructure was shit. Wasn't even that impressive in the 80's, as I recall, but it was certainly massively improved since the 40's/50's.
  Even to this day, Crimea's utilities (electricity, most of their water) are supplied by mainland Ukraine. And that is indeed part of the reason why Putin continues his war against Ukraine.
  3. The population recovered? What do you suppose the population would have been had Stalin not orchestrated the Holodomor, and had Ukraine not been ravaged by WWII? Sorry, but there's no such thing as "the population recovered" here. If it had returned to 1930 levels, that does not mean "recovered".
  
  And yes, if Kuban' wants to return to Ukraine then I have no objections. But having been in Kuban' too many times to count - their citizens would riot if anybody tried to give their land to Ukraine.
  That's exactly the point! You can't just redraw state boundaries, citing history as a justification - that was Hitler's M.O.! Most Crimeans did not want to be part of Russia (according to polls, about 40% supported it; or less than that, according to the Kremlin's own Human Rights body. The number would surely have been lower if not for the constant barrage of Russian propaganda). Many Crimeans of those who wanted the annexation thought they would get higher pensions. Russia have announced that they would cut pensions starting in January.
  Russia's annexation of Crimea has subjected the population of that peninsula to a humanitarian catastrophe, from resource shortages to ethnic cleansing. Because Russia needs the land bridge to Crimea, they've unleashed a cataclysm upon Donetsk (the last survey I saw showed that under 20% in Donetsk support joining Russia, with a single digit percentage of people supporting the DPR) - hundreds of thousands have fled their homes and thousands are dead. Those are the consequences of revanchism. Oh, but Putin's popularity is through the roof, which can be expected when a dictator satisfies an ultra-nationalistic population's delusions of grandeur.
  I'm not expecting a reasonable response from you, but hopefully, some of that will sink in.
12. Re:I call bullshit by mi · 2014-11-23 05:19 · Score: 0
  
  Soviet constitution which was the basic law of USSR.
  As I already taught you in our previous history lesson, there were no provisions for anybody other than the 15 main Republics to break away. Your first argument, once again, is nonsense.
  
  Soviet constitution clearly states that an autonomous republic can only exists within an union republic.
  Nonsense (again) Soviet Constitution stated nothing of the kind — because nobody writing it could ever imagine any of the republics to actually ever leave. Their right was listed there to make it easier to pretend, members of the USSR are there volunteerely, but it was all for show. Go ahead, cite the relevant portion of Soviet Constitution — in any language.
  
  If Ukraine is no longer a part of the union, this notion doesn't work anymore
  Ukraine didn't simply leave the Union — the union itself dissolved — along with its Constitution. The 15 Republics all agreed to keep their borders.
  
  This is what has caused the war in Abkhasia in 1992.
  There were plenty of factors igniting the war in Abkhasia, but the fine (and imaginary) points of the constitution of country, that no longer existed weren't among them. Sure, Russia likes to bring that example up, but it convinces no one other than Russians themselves. Putin much?
  
  Third, here [nytimes.com] is just one of several examples
  Wrong. There is only one incident described there. That you chose to use a plural (examples) shows you as not merely ignorant, but a liar too — just what we've come to expect from pro-Russian propagandists Internet-wide. And what was the incident? That in 1995 Ukraine's Interior ministry troops disarmed an illegal private army. States the article you found:
  
  The Ukrainian move this week came after Crimean leaders refused for months to bring local laws in line with the Ukrainian Constitution.
  How long would any country tolerate unconstitutional behavior of local lords and the armed thugs in their employ? At any rate, this is not germane in the slightest to your earlier assertions that a) Crimea was entitled to sovereignty; b) Crimea voted for such sovereignty in 1991; c) Crimea's sovereignty of 1991 was "crushed" by Ukraine's military.
  All three are demonstrable (indeed, already demonstrated as) falsehoods.
  
  Let me tell you something, kiddo. [...] I went to schools and universities in several countries.
  Heh-heh... Judging by your "arguments" here, you must've cheated in all of those schools. Being caught lying must be traumatizing indeed.
  
  --
  In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
13. Re:I call bullshit by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-23 05:22 · Score: 0
  
  I love slashdot groupthink. Modded troll for expressing a dissenting opinion.
14. Re:I call bullshit by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-23 06:01 · Score: 0
  
  Obviously, your argument is completely pro-russian bs. Ukraine existed before Russia ever did. If Crimea was Russian, it was only because they took it from Ukraine previously. Ukrainian lands were far far larger than they are now, and far larger before ww1. Learn your history dude. If you don't take the last 1000 years into consideration of your argument, not just Tsarist Russia, or Soviet Russia, you are missing the boat.
  Even better, the eastern regions only have Russian native speakers, because they were put there by Russians to replace dead Ukrainians, either by war or Holodomor (terror famine). Go back to Russia, get drunk and go beat your kids.
  Finally, under your rationale - Russia should take back the Alaska territories - LETS HAVE RUSSIA ATTACK AND TAKE BACK ALASKA AND THEN SAY "Oh, it was Russian at some point, so we want it back" fuck you
15. Re:I call bullshit by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-23 22:01 · Score: 0
  
  You mention a treaty between Russia and Ukraine allowing Russia to have troops in Crimea (specifically, in Sevastopol naval base where their Black Sea fleet is located). That's correct.
  But you forget to mention that In that same treaty, Russia promised to “respect the independence and sovereignty and the existing borders of Ukraine” and “refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of Ukraine.”
  Sorry, had to pop the troll's bubble. :) The professional Russian trolling is a fascinating phenomenon... Check this out: http://www.sptimes.ru/index.php?action_id=100&story_id=38052
16. Re:I call bullshit by whodunit · 2014-11-24 01:04 · Score: 1
  
  Cool propaganda post bro
Puny American help is a shame by mi · 2014-11-22 10:24 · Score: 1

since March has raised about $300 million from ordinary citizens
That's how it would cost Pentagon to build temporary barracks in Eastern Bumfuck.
That Ukraine — a country promised protection, when it gave up nuclear weapons, and one of America's allies (such as in Iraq) want of anything, when they now need to defend their own country is a shame.
Obama would not supply them with weapons . Even getting some blankets and helmets — a puny quantity of the so called "non-lethal" supplies — was delayed by months.

--
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
1. Re:Puny American help is a shame by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-22 15:35 · Score: 0
  
  One of the few things on which Democrats and Republicans in Congress can agree these days is the need to arm Ukraine. The only roadblock has been Obama, who was initially using the disingenuous argument that supplying weapons to Ukraine would escalate the situation (the situation keeps escalating just fine without US weapons, as Putin has sent in countless tanks, soldiers, anti aircraft systems, and so on). Yesterday, Biden went to Ukraine to announce that the US would provide some mortar defense systems, some armored vehicles, and some miscellaneous items ($20 million in total). The prevailing theory is that Obama is refusing to arm Ukraine because he needs Russian compliance on a nuclear deal with Iran. Nevermind that betraying Ukraine to Russia, when we promised to guarantee their territorial integrity in exchange for their nuclear weapons (Budapest Memorandum), will encourage nuclear proliferation.
2. Re: Puny American help is a shame by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-23 01:21 · Score: 0
  
  Obama is not as stupid as commonly thought. He sees the weapons industry and new york have staged the coup detat im kiev for their respective interests. Very much like they did in syria. Remember u.s. and saudi weapons deliveries ?
3. Re: Puny American help is a shame by mi · 2014-11-23 05:22 · Score: 1
  
  the weapons industry and new york have staged the coup detat im kiev for their respective interests
  If this were true, Putin would've found actual proof of it in the materials Snowden delivered to him. Have you heard anything material, anonymous coward?
  Nobody has... Because you are lying, Kremlin troll.
  
  --
  In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
Go asymmetric -- tank vs anti-tank rocket by drnb · 2014-11-22 10:29 · Score: 1

It won't help them against the Russian military, the numbers speak against them.
Numbers can be a tricky thing. The Russians send in 100 tanks, the Ukraine receives 600 FGM-148 Javelin man-portable anti-tank missiles. It attacks from above to go for thinner armor and it can defeat reactive armor. Both sides have invested about the same amount of money, the tanks are highly vulnerable, and more importantly Russia can't afford to lose many tank crews due to internal public opinion.
1. Re:Go asymmetric -- tank vs anti-tank rocket by dbIII · 2014-11-22 12:52 · Score: 1
  
  more importantly Russia can't afford to lose many tank crews due to internal public opinion
  With respect, if you knew anything about Russia you would know that their greatest historical heroes sacrificed large numbers of Russians to achieve their aims. That still applies in the modern day with things like the reaction to a school hostage situation a few years ago. They celebrate as a great victory the drowning of the Teutonic Knights by sinking them into a frozen river under the weight of Russian corpses FFS. They don't mind a few dead heroes.
2. Re:Go asymmetric -- tank vs anti-tank rocket by drnb · 2014-11-22 15:52 · Score: 1
  
  more importantly Russia can't afford to lose many tank crews due to internal public opinion
  With respect, if you knew anything about Russia you would know that their greatest historical heroes sacrificed large numbers of Russians to achieve their aims. That still applies in the modern day with things like the reaction to a school hostage situation a few years ago. They celebrate as a great victory the drowning of the Teutonic Knights by sinking them into a frozen river under the weight of Russian corpses FFS. They don't mind a few dead heroes.
  You misinterpret history. Russians will endure great sacrifice to defend *Russian* soil. They won't tolerate the same to take over a part of the Ukraine. And if you had paid attention to news reports you would have heard about the protests by families of Russian paratroopers and news blackout the Kremlin imposed regarding paratroopers killed in action. The Kremlin is trying to minimize the perception of casualties for a very good reason, a very internal domestic reason.
3. Re:Go asymmetric -- tank vs anti-tank rocket by shutdown+-p+now · 2014-11-22 16:03 · Score: 1
  
  You misinterpret history. Russians will endure great sacrifice to defend *Russian* soil. They won't tolerate the same to take over a part of the Ukraine.
  
  Thing is, a historical perspective on this that has always been present in Russia, and that has been enjoying a very strong resurgence lately, is that Ukraine is Russian soil.
4. Re:Go asymmetric -- tank vs anti-tank rocket by shutdown+-p+now · 2014-11-22 16:05 · Score: 2
  
  They celebrate as a great victory the drowning of the Teutonic Knights by sinking them into a frozen river under the weight of Russian corpses FFS.
  
  If you mean the Battle of the Ice, there's nothing in the mainstream historiography about it that involves "weight of Russian corpses" or anything like that. Quite the opposite, the ice supposedly cracked under the weight of heavily armored Teuton knights, when they were trying to flee across the lake.
5. Re:Go asymmetric -- tank vs anti-tank rocket by dbIII · 2014-11-22 18:51 · Score: 1
  
  True or not that's how a popular retelling goes.
6. Re:Go asymmetric -- tank vs anti-tank rocket by drnb · 2014-11-22 20:02 · Score: 1
  
  You misinterpret history. Russians will endure great sacrifice to defend *Russian* soil. They won't tolerate the same to take over a part of the Ukraine.
  Thing is, a historical perspective on this that has always been present in Russia, and that has been enjoying a very strong resurgence lately, is that Ukraine is Russian soil.
  Maybe Crimea but not Ukraine. According to a recent survey over 50% of Russians surveyed approve of Crimea being returned to Russia. However when the question turned to whether they thought it worth it to send theirs sons to fight in the Ukraine for the the pro-Moscow militants over 60% said no. The attitude towards Ukraine is overwhelmingly that it is a "brother country" not Russian territory.
7. Re:Go asymmetric -- tank vs anti-tank rocket by shutdown+-p+now · 2014-11-24 11:03 · Score: 1
  
  I have no idea where you've got the "popular retelling" from. I'm Russian, so I've heard about the Battle of the Ice a lot (it is a cultural icon, that much is true) - and that's the first time I hear about "weight of Russian corpses breaking the ice".
8. Re:Go asymmetric -- tank vs anti-tank rocket by shutdown+-p+now · 2014-11-24 11:06 · Score: 1
  
  So the question that was asked wasn't whether it is Russian territory or not, but whether they were willing to send their children die to "return" it. I don't think you can reasonably make any conclusions from this. Especially given that a popular attitude in Russia today seems to be that Ukraine is a failed state in the making, and once it fails for good, Russia can just come in and pick up the pieces that it lays claim on (generally speaking, this is everything except for the parts that were in Austria-Hungary before WW1 - Lvov etc).
  The attitude towards Ukrainians, as a nation, is that they're a "brother people" (though the notion that they're not a distinct nation is also popular). It doesn't necessarily extend towards recognition of their national sovereignty.
9. Re:Go asymmetric -- tank vs anti-tank rocket by dbIII · 2014-11-24 22:35 · Score: 1
  
  From a different Russian. I'm not Russian so for all I know they are pulling my leg, so I'm going to have to take your work for it until I can talk to him again.
10. Re:Go asymmetric -- tank vs anti-tank rocket by drnb · 2014-11-24 22:48 · Score: 1
  
  So the question that was asked wasn't whether it is Russian territory or not, but whether they were willing to send their children die to "return" it. I don't think you can reasonably make any conclusions from this.
  One absolutely can given that Russians have historically endured great sacrifice to protect **Russian** soil. So either Russians have changed their attitudes and will no longer make such sacrifices for Russian soil, very very doubtful, or they don't consider the Ukraine to truly be Russian soil requiring such a sacrifice.
  
  Especially given that a popular attitude in Russia today seems to be that Ukraine is a failed state in the making, and once it fails for good, Russia can just come in and pick up the pieces that it lays claim on ...
  That theory seems to fail given the level of active Russian interference in Ukrainian affairs. If it were truly on the path to failure such heavy handled Kremlin intervention would not be necessary. However a re-alignment of political and economic interest from Moscow and towards the west could motivate such intervention. In other words the real fear is a western oriented successful state not a failed state.
11. Re:Go asymmetric -- tank vs anti-tank rocket by shutdown+-p+now · 2014-11-24 23:35 · Score: 1
  
  One absolutely can given that Russians have historically endured great sacrifice to protect **Russian** soil. So either Russians have changed their attitudes and will no longer make such sacrifices for Russian soil, very very doubtful, or they don't consider the Ukraine to truly be Russian soil requiring such a sacrifice.
  In case you haven't noticed, there are already thousands of Russian volunteers fighting in militia units in Donbass. And it keeps ramping up.
  
  That theory seems to fail given the level of active Russian interference in Ukrainian affairs.
  
  I was talking about a popular attitude of Russian citizens, which is not necessarily shared by the Russian government.
  Also note that the heavy-handed intervention always seems to be stopping short of full-on invasion (which, let's face it, would have the country steamrolled in matter of weeks if not days). Right now it's arms and munitions supply, artillery strikes across the border where the range allows, and occasional infiltration by the more elite units to lend a hand at hot spots (like Mariupol), but all covert and unofficial. No air support - which would make a really huge difference! - and no Russian tank columns rolling across the border in numbers.
  From the "failed state" perspective, this actually makes a great deal of sense - you want to help it fail faster, but don't want to overtax yourself in doing so.
12. Re:Go asymmetric -- tank vs anti-tank rocket by shutdown+-p+now · 2014-11-24 23:43 · Score: 1
  
  You can run the Russian version of the Wikipedia article through a translator to see a reasonably complete modern historiographic take on it from the Russian perspective - it also mentions a bunch of associated mythology, correcting it as needed (e.g. the ice breaking under the weight of retreating Germans - it's a late addition, and wasn't in the primary sources). But you can also see what is not there.
Re:Arm Ukraine by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-22 10:33 · Score: 0

The US must arm Ukraine to the teeth. We could make it such that not a piece of Russian armor survives on Ukrainian soil, if that gutless coward Obama would back it of course. After the next collapse Russia will have to be dismembered.
And as soon as the conflict with Russia ends I am quite certain the Ukrainian military will out these weapons away. Nope. The UA will turn on the US as as "Great Satan du Jour."
Ukrainians are not muslims. Their background is christian and european in nature. You have got your former soviet states mixed up.
Amazing by Dunbal · 2014-11-22 11:25 · Score: 2

Can't feed their army or pay the pensions of their citizens but they managed to get $300mln for this. I wonder if this $300 mln was at all voluntary or simply taken from their bank accounts.

--
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
1. Re:Amazing by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-22 16:18 · Score: 0
  
  Your might have hit the nail on the head there.
Criminal, er Crimean Tatars by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-22 13:44 · Score: 0

Re: different ethnicities living together: sure, as long as they all start speaking Russian or keep their mouth shut. Exempli gratis: Crimean Tatars (related to the topic of Ukraine too!).
Crimean Tatars were by no means an innocent indigenous people persecuted by the eviiiilllll Russkies. During their history, they were as belligerent a power as any, allied to the Kazan Tatars and also to the Ottoman sultans. They controlled not just the Crimean peninsula, but the entire coast of Ukraine and beyond.
Also, during their history, their wars included ransacking Moscow, among other places, so they were a genuine threat to the Russians. So it was just inevitable that either the Russians would stamp them out, or get stamped out by them. Their khanate was terminated and Islam extinguished.
During WWII, the bulk of them were deported by Stalin to Uzbekistan. Question is - why do they need to leave Uzbekistan, where they have more in common with the locals than in the Crimea? Not just Islam, but like the Uzbeks, the Crimean Tatars too are of Turkic descent, so can assimilate a lot more easily in Uzbekistan, or even better, Kazakhstan or Kyrgyzstan.
1. Re: Criminal, er Crimean Tatars by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-22 14:28 · Score: 0
  
  Based on your reasoning why can't the Russians in the Ukraine go back to Russia?
Re:Arm Ukraine by shutdown+-p+now · 2014-11-22 16:06 · Score: 0

The conflict with Russia will never truly end. Even if Ukraine can take back all the lands that it has lost, and expel all Russian troops and sympathizers among the local populace, there will always be a looming threat of a repeat so long as Russia exists as the state that is inherently imperial, land-gathering in nature.
Re:Arm Ukraine by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-22 23:03 · Score: 0

Oh I see - you stopped short of asking US to bombing them Ruskis out of existence and/or establishing a protectorate. I am not sure who would be willing to donate troops to pacify such protectorate but I am sure you have an idea. As for other of your proposals I must say appalling as ethnic cleansing is, if done properly it solves the problems - Poland had that done, Turks did that too, last time kind of peacefully and in cooperation with Greece and (OMG) of international community. Croats did that recently in Kraijna too albeit that did not involve any agreement or protections for anybody. Maybe indeed population exchange as it was called in 1923 or ethnic cleansing as it is called now in some cases is the only solution of the problem.
To me it looks like so called international community failed at event trying to resolve the issue peacefully by not addressing concerns of Ethnic Russians. I guess listening to Muricans is not all that helping as they have difficulties in dealing with minorities, borders and generally recognizing rights of others - if a solution does require some activities not involving bohmbers and drohns it is too difficult for Muricans to even comprehend.
no propaganda at slashdot by paai · 2014-11-23 03:15 · Score: 1

I feel that this is just Ukrainian propaganda and has no place in Slashdot.
Paai
1. Re:no propaganda at slashdot by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-23 03:56 · Score: 0
  
  I feel that this is just Ukrainian propaganda and has no place in Slashdot.
  Paai
  Written by a Russian journalist for Bloomberg Businessweek. Did you read the article to find out why it was posted or did you feel that it would be inappropriate to do that before voicing your feelings?
Ukraine was in the top 5 global weapons exporters by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-23 16:43 · Score: 0

certainly in 2011-2012 - nowadays I guess not. I seem to remember reports about Poroshenko stopping the exports a few months ago to keep some weapons for his troops.
Re:Arm Ukraine by Xest · 2014-11-23 22:03 · Score: 1

So what are the odds in your opinion that if the Russian economy keeps suffering from sanctions and the Russian body count keeps increasing that Putin's regime falls that Russia as a nation will turn away from that mindset?
Do you think there's any hope of that from the Russian people or do you think it'd merely buy us another 20 years until they build themselves up and start looking to conquer again?
Re:Arm Ukraine by shutdown+-p+now · 2014-11-24 11:09 · Score: 1

I didn't make any proposals - merely stated an objective fact. Historical track record has shown time and again that Russia is inherently a land hungry empire, and will expand unless and until stopped by force. Hence, any countries bordering Russia always have to contend with the fact that they may be the potential next target for that expansion. This is doubly true for any country that has been previously occupied, because of all the drivel along the lines of "this land is ours because it is washed by the blood of Russian soldier".
Oh, and I am not Ukrainian.
Re:Arm Ukraine by shutdown+-p+now · 2014-11-24 11:22 · Score: 0

I think that for things to to truly change, Russia needs to undergo the same experience that Germany had, basically. It has to very explicitly, clearly and unambiguously denounce its past actions, and the imperial ideology behind them. This never happened so far, not even in 1993 - it was always token nods and apologies, but always with "... but" tackled at the end. We had gulags, but we crushed the Nazis, that sort of thing.
So long as that remains, it keeps being used again and again as a basis of nationalist revival once the country gets strong enough that it can assert itself, and the populace thinks that they don't get the respect they are due as a nation. Witness the present arrangement, where pro-Novorossiya and anti-Ukraine rhetoric is heavily grounded in WW2 symbolism and cast as "fight against fascism" - even while many of the militia units fighting in Donbass openly use Nazi symbols themselves, and engage in rather vitriolic nationalist talk (my favorite is when they start going on about the "Jewish fascist junta", with revelations like Poroshenko's true last name being Valtzman etc). They don't see the contradiction at all, which just goes to reinforce that the Soviet/Russian cult of WW2 victory is fundamentally imperialist in nature, rather than anti-fascist - it's about Russia winning over a strong enemy, not about good guys winning over the bad guys. Or, from another perspective, it's a world view when Russia is fundamentally where the good guys are, and so anyone opposing is bad guys by definition. This can justify a lot of things.
I don't think there's much likelihood of this kind of thing happening, though. The only way it could happen is if Russia starts WW3, is defeated and occupied, and forced by the victors to undergo a process similar to de-Nazification in Germany, and similar purges in Japan. I think that all of these are rather unlikely.