Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Ukraine's IT Brigade Supports the Troops

Posted by Soulskill on 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.

55 of 140 comments (clear)

  1. Yah, sure by Anonymous Coward · · 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 fustakrakich · · 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!”
    2. Re:Yah, sure by edis · · 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
    3. Re: Yah, sure by edis · · 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
  2. Still they are underpowered by Anonymous Coward · · 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 · · 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 · · 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 · · 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...

    4. Re:Still they are underpowered by SuricouRaven · · 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.

    5. Re: Still they are underpowered by dunkelfalke · · 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
    6. Re:Still they are underpowered by unixisc · · 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.

    7. Re:Still they are underpowered by segedunum · · 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...........

    8. Re: Still they are underpowered by edis · · Score: 1

      You are comparing enemies of Ukrainians vs enemies of Russians over the globe, seriously?!! You are seriously nuts.

      --
      Servant of karma
    9. Re:Still they are underpowered by edis · · 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
    10. Re:Still they are underpowered by edis · · 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
    11. Re:Still they are underpowered by Cyberax · · Score: 1

      Poroshenko's own words: "We will make it intolerable for civilians in Eastern regions to support the terrorists". Clear and unambiguous.

    12. Re:Still they are underpowered by nemyax · · 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...

    13. Re:Still they are underpowered by Cyberax · · 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.

    14. Re:Still they are underpowered by unixisc · · 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.

  3. Sell them stuff by Anonymous Coward · · 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 umghhh · · 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.

    2. Re:Sell them stuff by rtb61 · · 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
    3. Re:Sell them stuff by schnell · · 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
    4. Re:Sell them stuff by Xest · · 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.

  4. Re: who needs them when NATO is there? by Anonymous Coward · · 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.

  5. Re:How do you pronounce the name Skrypnyk? by MildlyTangy · · 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".

  6. I call bullshit by rs79 · · 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 · · 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 · · 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 Anonymous Coward · · 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.

    4. Re:I call bullshit by dunkelfalke · · 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
    5. Re:I call bullshit by Cyberax · · 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.

    6. Re:I call bullshit by whodunit · · Score: 1

      Cool propaganda post bro

  7. Puny American help is a shame by mi · · 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 mi · · 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.
  8. Go asymmetric -- tank vs anti-tank rocket by drnb · · 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 · · 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 · · 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 · · 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 · · 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 · · Score: 1

      True or not that's how a popular retelling goes.

    6. Re:Go asymmetric -- tank vs anti-tank rocket by drnb · · 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 · · 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 · · 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 · · 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 · · 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 · · 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 · · 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.

  9. Re: who needs them when NATO is there? by umghhh · · Score: 1

    that was a princes last time and she was mine - I feel sooooo betrayed!

  10. Amazing by Dunbal · · 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.
  11. no propaganda at slashdot by paai · · Score: 1

    I feel that this is just Ukrainian propaganda and has no place in Slashdot.

    Paai

  12. Re: who needs them when NATO is there? by Xest · · 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.

  13. Re:Arm Ukraine by Xest · · 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?

  14. Re:Arm Ukraine by shutdown+-p+now · · 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.

  15. Re:How do you pronounce the name Skrypnyk? by tloh · · Score: 1

    My fellow slashdoters sometimes amazingly lack a sense of humor.

    --
    Stay sentient. Don't drink bad milk.