Russian Army Spetsnaz Units Arrested Operating In Ukraine 623
An anonymous reader writes with this excerpt from The Examiner: "The Security Service of Ukraine (SBU) confirmed March 16 the arrest of a group of Russians in the Zaporizhzhia (Zaporozhye) region of Ukraine. The men were armed with firearms, explosives and unspecified 'special technical means'. This follows the March 14 arrest ... of several Russians dressed black uniforms with no insignia, armed with AKS-74 assault rifles and in possession of numerous ID cards under various names. One of which was an ID card of Military Intelligence Directorate of the Russian armed forces; commonly known as 'Spetsnaz'. ... Spetsnaz commandos operating in eastern Ukraine would have the missions encompassing general ground reconnaissance of Ukrainian army units ... missions they may perform preparatory to a Russian invasion would be planting explosives at key communications choke points to hinder movement of Ukrainian forces; seizing control of roads, rail heads, bridges and ports for use by arriving Russian combat troops; and possibly capturing or assassinating Ukrainian generals or politicians in key positions ... Spetsnaz also infiltrate themselves into local populations ... Once in place they begin 'stirring the pot' of ethnic and political strife with the goal of creating violent clashes usually involving firearms and destabilizing local authority."
The submitter adds links to more at Forbes, The Daily Beast, and The New Republic.
clearly (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
Should have at least asked for free shipping...
This is a propaganda war first of all (Score:4, Insightful)
This being a propaganda war more of the first degree, among these guys' objectives was, likely, the staging of violent incidents to give Russian media more video clips of Ukraine's "nazis" persecuting "innocent civilians".
Russia keeps trying to portray Ukraine's new government as the sort of Serbs persecuting Albanians in Kosovo (or Bosniaks in Bosnia) — so as to give itself the same justification West used for intervention against Milosevic.
Because Ukraine, despite daily provocations, refuses to engage in ethnic cleansings, "convincing" spetznas operations may be in order...
Re: (Score:3)
Putin can call the US hippocrites all he wants, but at least when the US invades someplace we don't plant evidence to justify it.
And if we do, we don't get caught redhanded over and over again.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Putin's actions are almost cartoon villianny. Maybe he was bunkmates with Boris Badenov [wikipedia.org] when he was in the KGB.
Putin can call the US hippocrites all he wants, but at least when the US invades someplace we don't plant evidence to justify it.
And if we do, we don't get caught redhanded over and over again.
When the US need evidence?. They only need to say that you have weapons of mass destruction. And that's enough.
Re:This is a propaganda war first of all (Score:5, Insightful)
I know that many Americans are quite myopic about the US, mostly due to their media, but this is a bit much.
If you think Bush and his evil cartoon sidekick Cheney (who looked exactly like The Penguin!) are not the same then you are WAAAAYYY off base:
- The unilateral invading of countries while claiming "support" from small island nations depending on financial aid.
- The "Mission Accomplished" sign
- The "fancy dress" outfits Bush would wear with a straight face: e.g. "The Cowboy" & "Air-force Pilot"
- The corporate rorts (e.g. the company Cheney was a CEO of) and millions in money that went missing in Iraq
- The tortured prisoners and gulag that is Guantanamo
- Cheney shooting someone IN THE FACE
- Palestine and Israel anyone?!
Bush was a complete joke around the world. And while I know many Americans thought he was a joke too, he was a two term president there.
If you think that the US's foreign policy is not directly related to why Putin thinks he can get away with this you are simply mistaken. That is why he uses the word hypocrite and that is why he scoffs every time the US tries to tell him off.
Not to mention the fact that the UN security council is an even bigger joke which he has veto powers at which all the super powers have used around the world constantly to shoot down any attempt at doing anything productive in any major conflict.
None of the super powers are bastions of goodness and almost all are the complete opposite.
Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely....
Re:This is a propaganda war first of all (Score:4, Insightful)
Putin can call the US hippocrites all he wants, but at least when the US invades someplace we don't plant evidence to justify it.
Yes, the US simply pretends the evidence exists, even when there's proof to the contrary (there are still some Americans who think there actually were chemical weapons in Iraq).
Whilst I agree that something needs to be done in regards to the Crimea, meeting the Russians with force is a huge mistake. From the Russian perspective, a US led invasion (they dont care if it's lead by the UK, Germany or even Belize, as long as the US i involved their propagandists will say it's US led) will be used to rally the people behind Putin against the imperialists. This only servs to solidify Putin's position and silences his dissenters by presenting an external threat.
Also Russia wont be a pushover like Iraq was, you wont be facing dilapidated T54's, Russia has T90's and on paper, they may not be a match for a Abrams or Challenger 2, they've got a lot more of them. Same with Airpower. Given that the Ukraine is right next door to Russia and they'll be able to mobilise their entire force much faster than the NATO allies could, it is likely to be a route.
However, if economic pressure was applied, it would affect Putin's popularity. Despite the perceptions of those who have a hard on for sending others off to war, economic sanctions are quite effective especially when there is already dissent. The US and USSR used them to topple quiet a few governments (Yugoslavia in 1968, Chile in 1973), economic sanctions imposed by the Commonwealth of Nations had a huge part in ending Apartheid in South Africa and the US and Canada used economic sanctions to enforce nuclear non-proliferation treaties in the 70's and 80's.
But we don't need to topple Putin's government, we just have to make it more expensive to stay then to go, Russia is very dependent on exports into the EU for a large portion of their GDP where as the EU doesn't depends exclusively on Russian Imports. By applying economic pressure, instead of galvanising the people behind Putin, we push them to blame Putin. It'll take time, but it wont cost millions of lives.
Re: (Score:3)
Over-hyped (Score:5, Informative)
The summary is over-hyping this story, which is a day or two old, and not given anything like this much play in the mainstream media. The link to Forbes is actually just to a third-party renting space on the Forbes site, and the New Republic piece is opinion, not news coverage. Not that I am in any way denying or condoning Putin’s invasion, but overreacting doesn’t help.
Re:Over-hyped (Score:4, Insightful)
...which is a day or two old, and not given anything like this much play in the mainstream media.
That isn't the same as not being true. You might notice that Linux kernel releases don't get much play in the mainstream media either.
You may also notice that Russian units started moving into Crimea weeks ago and that is still in the news.
.. The link to Forbes is actually just to a third-party renting space on the Forbes site..
We come back to the question, "Is what it reports true?"
New Republic piece is opinion, not news coverage
Sometimes called "analysis."
Not that I am in any way denying or condoning Putin’s invasion, but overreacting doesn’t help.
Minimalizing or ignoring Russia's actions got us to where we are now. And hey, what's a little covert action with Russian troops massing on your border while Russian airborne divisions conduct mass tactical airborne drop exercises (rehearsals)?
Authoritarian Oligarchy vs. Democracy (Score:4, Interesting)
As a result of this struggle, Putin sees Ukrainian protests as a direct threat to his dictatorship, least Maidan escalate into 'Russian Spring'. As such, he is willing to risk sanctions, isolation from West, and a shooting war in order to destabilize Ukraine at all costs. That why Crimea annexation, that why Soviet-era propaganda trying to paint Ukrainian protesters as radicals/nazis, that why he is sending covert ops into the rest of Ukraine.
What is more interesting, is that Russian KGB learned a great deal how to use Internet to misdirect and confuse otherwise very clear issue. Reading the comments sections of all major new sources you can clearly see paid shills spewing Kremlin's talking points and/or trying to derail the conversation.
Re:Authoritarian Oligarchy vs. Democracy (Score:5, Insightful)
The thing is that even though Russia may not be the old USSR with command of virtually every single continent except for North America (like they had until the late 1980s), they have a very, VERY good propaganda machine. They can tell people to go to hell, and the people told will be gladly packing their suitcases one minute later.
The problem right now is that Russia has nobody interested in stopping them. Both US parties are hell-bent at attacking each other. Even with that in mind, both the US and Europe have way too many Chamberlains and no Churchills. With the way things stand now, tanks could be rolling through Poland and sitting at Germany's eastern border before people acknowledge the Russian threat.
I do say their intel is quite good. Six months of Snowden's handler owning the world press and weakening ties between the US and Europe (something the Russians tried for DECADES), an olympics, and now a military action. Russians are playing chess while the rest of the world is playing Pogs.
Re:Authoritarian Oligarchy vs. Democracy (Score:5, Informative)
The USA messed up it's abusive relationship with Europe; it's not Snowden's fault he reported the USA for beating the wife.
Re: (Score:3)
With the way things stand now, tanks could be rolling through Poland and sitting at Germany's eastern border before people acknowledge the Russian threat.
They'd have to get the tanks to start and actually run for more than a few km before breaking down, wouldn't they?
IIRC, the invasion of Georgia a couple of years ago had more than a few moments where it bordered self-parody with a lot of mechanical breakdowns. Uncle Ivan's once mighty war machine hasn't fared well over the past decades .
Re:Authoritarian Oligarchy vs. Democracy (Score:5, Insightful)
Doesn't look like that to me, to be honest.
They have voted for Kuchma for two times. Then they have ousted Yanukovich in 2008 and voted for Yushenko, but gave Yushenko only 5% of their votes in 2012, chosing Yanukovich instead (in free and fair elections by the way).
Then they ousted Yanukovich again without waiting for real elections.
I personally think, Ukrainians don't really know what they want and they don't really want democracy when they have Maidan. They have inherited the best agriculture and the best industry from the USSR and what have they done with it? Absolutely nothing. For fuck's sake, even Belarus has twice the GDP per capita PPP. Even worse, Kosovo of all countries is better off.
Re: (Score:3)
No country knows what "it wants" because all countries are made up of many individuals, and individuals have a rich mix of viewpoints, and change radically over the course of their lives.
The U.S. voted for Reagan twice, Reagan's VP once, then turned around and voted for Clinton twice and then impeached Clinton. Then another ostensible conservative twice, followed by a radical socialist twice. It used to be a failed fool of a president like Carter got ignominiously tossed out ASAP, but for the last generatio
Re: (Score:3)
East Ukraine has Russian-speaking majority with Ukrainian-speaking minority and West Ukraine has Ukrainian-speaking majority with Russian-speaking minority. Russian and Ukrainian languages are close enough that speakers can understand each other just by speaking their own language. Regardless, nearly every Ukrainian speaks both languages - Russian and Ukrainian since both are studied in school, and with languages being so cl
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, they tried to repeal the language law and it got vetoed. How many times did US congress tried to repeal ACA? I think in both cases system worked as intended.
Entirety of Russian economy is oil and gas exports. Ukraine doesn't have these mineral riches and economic boos
Should You or any of Your IM Force be Caught ... (Score:2)
Clearly while these troops probably were or are active Russian units, I expect they were either AWOL and/or certainly acting without orders. ... ... or at least thats what I expect we'll hear pretty soon.
Re:Should You or any of Your IM Force be Caught .. (Score:5, Interesting)
If they're Spetsnaz, and they allowed themselves to be arrested, they clearly had orders to not kill anybody, especially cops.
Re: (Score:3)
I don't know how bad they actually are. I bet they are badder then Ukrainian cops.
Geneva Convention (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Not sure they can be unlawful combatants unless there is actually combat taking place.
Re: (Score:3)
Not sure they can be unlawful combatants unless there is actually combat taking place.
Ah, yes. It was vacationing Russians that took over the Crimean peninsula. They saved some money by parachuting in rather than taking a commercial flight to Sevastopal. (The checked bag fees are brutal!) And I hear combat gear is the newest fashion statement out of the Moscow fashion district this year.
Re: (Score:3)
Citation? I have a hard time believing the Geneva Conventions condone a bullet to the head for anyone.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Summary_execution#Exceptions_to_prisoners_of_war_status [wikipedia.org]
According to Article 4 of the Third Geneva Convention of 1949, irregular forces are entitled to prisoner of war status provided that they are commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates, have a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance, carry arms openly, and conduct their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war. If they do not do meet all of these, they may be considered francs-tireurs (in the original sense of "illegal combatant") and punished as criminals in a military jurisdiction, which may include summary execution .
Emphasis mine.
Re: (Score:3)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S... [wikipedia.org]
According to Article 4 of the Third Geneva Convention of 1949, irregular forces are entitled to prisoner of war status provided that they are commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates, have a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance, carry arms openly, and conduct their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war. If they do not do meet all of these, they may be considered francs-tireurs (in the original sense of "illegal combatant") and punished as criminals in a military jurisdiction, which may include summary execution.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U... [wikipedia.org]
Article 5 of the Third Geneva Convention states that the status of a detainee may be determined by a "competent tribunal". Until such time, he must be treated as a prisoner of war.[2] After a "competent tribunal" has determined that an individual detainee is an unlawful combatant, the "detaining power" may choose to accord the detained unlawful combatant the rights and privileges of a prisoner of war as described in the Third Geneva Convention, but is not required to do so. An unlawful combatant who is not a national of a neutral State, and who is not a national of a co-belligerent State, retains rights and privileges under the Fourth Geneva Convention so that he must be "treated with humanity and, in case of trial, shall not be deprived of the rights of fair and regular trial".
It doesn't recommend summary execution, it just says they're not protected via POW status and thus it is acceptable to do so. Although I'm not quite sure why the GCs are specifically against mercenaries (mercenaries and undercover/special forces being separate cases).
Really? (Score:2)
The russian military spying agency is handing out ID cards to their agents?
Re: (Score:3)
The russian military spying agency is handing out ID cards to their agents?
Um, yes? Did you think they just know each other and it's all informal? Now, should the soldier have been carrying it with him at that time? Probably not.
Meanwhile in the West (Score:5, Insightful)
PM Neville Chamberlain and the League of Nations said "Naughty naughty" to Putin.
Re:Meanwhile in the West (Score:4, Insightful)
Since Russia has stated that it has an interest in ethnically Russian populations outside Russia, and as demonstrated can invade and annex that territory, we seem to be seeing a respin of this "principle": "Ein Volk, ein Reich, ein Führer" or "One People, One Empire, One Leader".
Aw shucks now I can't be a comrade (Score:2)
Gleiwitz (Score:2)
Is Putin really trying to engineer a phony Hitleresque provocation? The sanctions need to get upped big time. I doubt Russia would mobilize for war behind that gluttonous kleptocrat.
Situation is as clear as mud (Score:5, Insightful)
I think right now this situation is so complex and muddied that no-one is in the right, and no-one has all the information.
Accusations have gone back and forth like crazy but I still haven't seen any of them from either side backed up by evidence beyond "it's obvious", which, in this situation, I highly doubt.
As for these supposed Russian commandos... I really doubt they are what the report says they are. Whenever you send agents (either Spies or Commandos) into the field you strip them of anything that would identify them as spies/commandos, having ID cards for "Spetsnaz" sounds like a plant to me.
"We found the enemy's agents doing bad things so we have reason to attack!" when they are nothing more than your own agents planted to make them look like the enemy.
I also find it interesting that this bit of 'news' hasn't shown up on any even remotely neutral news sources. I frequent the BBC and have been watching their coverage of this Cluster F*** closely, and while they have agreed with USA in many of their stances and statements concerning this, they have no mention of this bit of news... makes me very suspicious of it's authenticity.
All that being said, I really think Russia is going to far and should back off, let things settle, allow the "newly independent Crimea" to exist for a while to prove it's not a Russian puppet but actually something it's people want.
Nunya (Score:4, Interesting)
Putin's neo-Stalinism aside, it may be sad to sit helplessly on the sidelines but the US has no territorial, economic, or security interest in Ukraine whatsoever. It's none of America's damn business.
Somewhere, sometime, the US has got to get over this notion of being the world's comic-book superhero.
Now is a good time to start. Picking a fight with a bully that has a huge nuclear arsenal is a bad idea.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Pretty much the entire world is laughing at the absurd bluster of the US and EU in this matter. They certainly are not "picking a fight" in any real sense. They are just making a comical noise.
So I think it's happening, what you and I want to happen vis-a-vis policeman of the world. I would say it's actually been mostly keystone kops of the world, except characterizing it thus seems insensitive to a lot of dead victims.
Not Ukraine, no. But Russia... (Score:3)
We have no interest in the Ukraine. This is true. We do, however, have interest the resurgence of Russia as an international antagonist. If we can stop Ukraine from entering into the Russian fold, we can put a kink in the establishment of the Eurasian Union (tentatively with Ukraine, Georgia, and Azerbaijan), which would otherwise negatively impact our economic clout.
Fact is, in an almost totally globalized economy, almost everyone has an interest (either direct or indirect) with every event in the world, w
Russian airborne division exercises (Score:3)
It turns out that Russian airborne units were holding large exercises around the time of the Crimea vote.
Russian Paratroopers Hold Massive Drills as Crimea Vote Nears [en.ria.ru]
MOSCOW, March 11 (RIA Novosti) – An airborne division based in central Russia began large-scale exercises Tuesday against the backdrop of an ongoing political and security crisis in Ukraine.
The Defense Ministry said units of the 98th Guards Airborne Division, based in Ivanovo, a city east of Moscow, were put on high alert and moved to unspecified locations to “check readiness” in simulated combat conditions.
Four thousand troops, 36 military transport aircraft and an unspecified number of combat vehicles are taking part in the exercises, which will run until March 14.
The drills will include a massive simultaneous paradrop involving 3,500 servicemen, the ministry said.
The drills come in the wake of a number of military exercises in Russia’s western regions in the past days, including air defense drills, combat readiness snap checks and a launch of an intercontinental ballistic missile.
A mass tactical drop of 3,500 paratroopers is pretty big.
It is also worth noting that Russian airborne [wikipedia.org] units are mechanized with air droppable infantry fighting vehicles [youtube.com] like the BMD 3 [wikipedia.org]. That makes them highly mobile after a drop, and they have significant additional firepower. It is a deadly combination. A World War 2 tank division would find them tough to chew on.
Russian airborne troops with BMD 2 armoured fighting vehicles [youtube.com]
A video broadcast on Internet shows Russian airborne with BMD-2 armoured infantry fighting vehicle in Veselaya Lopan 20km from the Ukraine border.
Spies get shot (Score:3)
disinformation (Score:5, Interesting)
I have relatives in Ukraine living in Odessa oblast, Novoukrainka, Kiev and in Lviv, and friends in Crimea. Those listening to Russian news, are saying that ultra-nationalists are shooting Russians in the street in Lviv. Panicked, we called our relatives, and found they are absolutely fine, and the streets are quiet. A percentage of the population believes whatever the Russian media tells them; a form of information bias. Unfortunately, Russian media has past Ukraine in a pretty negative light, and have now resorted to telling outright lies, in what looks like an attempt to soften up Russian sympathetic Ukrainians to invasion; dividing and conquering within with an information war..
Hitler once said -- if you're going to tell a lie, don't tell a little one, tell a big one. Ukraine is a poor country. They just had to deal with the most corrupt leader they had ever experienced. Russia has somehow convinced it's citizens that ultra-nationalists have taken over the country. In reality closer ties with the EU require tolerance for minorities.
The elections are due at the end of May. All Russia would have to do to insure that a Russian sympathetic government is elected is to continue with an information war. It was/is unnecessary to send in the army, other than to carve out pieces of Ukraine.
Re:We need a US base in the Ukraine (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:We need a US base in the Ukraine (Score:5, Interesting)
The US has a treaty with Ukraine and Russia that Russia is violating, so we need to step up. It would likely be best to send a small to medium detachment and put them temporarily under the control of the Ukraine government. Also plenty of intelligence officers. We don't need to direct them ourselves and generate more strife than needed.
Re:We need a US base in the Ukraine (Score:4, Insightful)
so we need to step up.
And by "we" you mean everyone else but you, right? Until YOU are ready to pick up a rifle and go fight in WWIII and pay high taxes to pay for the massive war you're proposing, then STFU. The rest of us "we" have no interest in starting a World War over some pissy little region in the Ukraine whose citizens clearly want to be part of Russia more than Ukraine anyway.
But please, don't let us stop you. A plane ticket and a Ukrainian Army recruitment office await you anytime, brave comrade!
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You do know that a referendom with a 97% acceptance for one option is highly suspect ? I think it's almost statisticly impossible. I'm quite sure that a lot of people in crimea where not allowed to vote and / or the vote was rigged. Crimea might want to go back to Russia but at the moment where only seeing Russian propaganda at work and we have no proof of that.
Re: (Score:3)
Crimea was russian territory until Chrushev gave it to Ukraine about 50 years ago. Everybody speaks russian there, most of crimeans think of themselves as russians.
In Crimean cities people get water from the tap couple of times a day, electricity is also unstable.
Pensions, salaries to public servants about twice higher in Russia.
Ukraine did not invest much, if at all, to local public services - public transport w
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I too have been to Crimea (and Odessa, and Kharkiv, and many other places in Ukraine) and this is absolute bullshit. Crimea used to be in Ukraine, before it was Chrushev's to give away. I spoke Ukrainian(-ish) to them, and they happily replied back. Russian is spoken in many other places in Ukraine, almost everybody is bilingual. The further you go east, the higher the proportion of people who choose to speak Russian. But I know people in L'viv (far west) who speak Russian (and have been doing so for 50 yea
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The rest of us "we" have no interest in starting a World War over some pissy little region in the Ukraine whose citizens clearly want to be part of Russia more than Ukraine anyway.
So you are an advocate of Peace for our time [wikipedia.org]? Splendid. I'm sure it will work out just as well now as it did then, just like the pacifist movement in Europe helped .... to keep the various nations from rearmament and at the mercy of the fascist powers.
Did you know that a number of countries in Europe, some of which are NATO allies of the US, also have ethnically Russian populations? The echo of "Ein Volk, ein Reich, ein Führer" hasn't died out, and now seems to have a Russian accent.
Re: (Score:3)
Once again, WTF are all you war-hawks wasting your time posting on /. for?? If you're so sure that you're fighting the next Hitler, than let me say it again: GO BUY A PLANE TICKET AND GO FIGHT! Absolutely no one is stopping you, and I'm pretty sure Ukraine will be happy to have you on board.
But you don't want to fight in this war or pay for it with your own money, right? You want THE REST OF US to fight and pay *for you*, while you sit back here at home and shoot off your fucking mouths, right?
Sorry, you wa
Re: (Score:3)
If you're so sure that you're fighting the next Hitler, than let me say it again: GO BUY A PLANE TICKET AND GO FIGHT!
The threat of the Axis powers was stopped by concerted action by nation states, not a few individuals that took a plane trip. The same thing goes for the Soviet Union and the Warsaw pact. If you think a few guys getting on a plane is the proper way to counter Russian aggression involving special forces brigades, airborne divisions, and 60,000 troops, you don't really have a useful perspective.
Absolutely no one is stopping you, and I'm pretty sure Ukraine will be happy to have you on board.
Many (most?) countries have prohibitions against joining foreign armies without permission, and that is seldom giv
Re: (Score:3)
Had the UK and France not declared war on Germany, Germany would have conquered Poland and then smashed most of the USSR with impunity. And then conquer France, Netherlands, Norway and Belgium, and UK easily at its leisure with a one-front war instead of 2-front.
Re:We need a US base in the Ukraine (Score:5, Informative)
You're talking about the post-Cold War agreement to recognize their sovereignty and to not encroach on it, right? That agreement, which included the UK as well as the US and Russia, never stipulated that the other signatories had to defend Ukraine if one of them became an aggressor. It merely required that they not become aggressors themselves. If Russia is breaking that agreement, the US and UK are under no obligation to assist Ukraine, though it may be in their best interests, given that Ukraine has threatened to restart their nuclear weapons development, the abandonment of which was tied to that agreement.
Now, I'm not suggesting one way or the other about what the US or the rest of the world should do. I'm merely pointing out that the agreement you're talking about in no way obligates the US to defend Ukraine. It merely required that they leave it alone, and that in exchange Ukraine would give up their nukes.
Re:We need a US base in the Ukraine (Score:5, Insightful)
Sure, we technically don't have to intervene. Unless we want the entire world to know that assurances of protection given in exchange for giving up their nuclear weapons are worth slightly less than the paper they're written on. Which means every country in the world will (and ought, if they intend to remain safe) seek nuclear weapons to prevent this kind of aggression in the future. You sure that humanity won't start using nuclear weapons if 90%+ of countries have them? Because I'm definitely not sure about that.
Re: (Score:3)
Sure, we technically don't have to intervene. Unless we want the entire world to know that assurances of protection given in exchange for giving up their nuclear weapons are worth slightly less than the paper they're written on.
As I just said in my last comment, there were no assurances of protection. There were merely assurances that there wouldn't be encroachment, but no provisions for what would happen if those assurances were broken by one of the parties. This wasn't like post-occupation Japan, which received specific assurances that they would be defended by the US [wikipedia.org]. This was simply a case of agreeing not to invade them and carve them up if they gave up their weapons. They were still responsible for their own defense.
Again, I'
Re:We need a US base in the Ukraine (Score:4, Interesting)
"Which means every country in the world will (and ought, if they intend to remain safe) seek nuclear weapons to prevent this kind of aggression in the future".
Yes, that certainly is the lesson of Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Iran, and Syria... in contrast to Pakistan and North Korea. The strong do as they will, the weak as they must. Iraq was invaded, and Iran has been threatened and harassed, precisely because they were known NOT to have "WMD". Don't be distracted or confused by the things politicians say: instead, watch what they do.
Re:We need a US base in the Ukraine (Score:5, Informative)
Aaaand what "treaty" would that be? (hint: there isn't one).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B... [wikipedia.org]
which is a memorandum contingent upon Ukraine signing http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T... [wikipedia.org]
Although the memorandum is not a treaty, but a mere political agreement, "The memorandum bundled together a set of assurances that Ukraine already held from the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe (CSCE) Final Act, United Nations Charter and Non-Proliferation Treaty." So there are treaties in place that should prevent what Russia is doing. Russia just doesn't care.
Re: (Score:3)
For the US to enter a treaty, Senate concurrence is required. This was never run past the Senate, nor was it ever intended to be.
Re:We need a US base in the Ukraine (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:We need a US base in the Ukraine (Score:5, Insightful)
How about we stay the fuck out of things for once and fix some problems back home.
1. A pity the Russians aren't saying that.
2. Ignoring problems seldom makes them go away. In fact we seem to be seeing that ignoring the Russians means they come to stay.
3. What "problems back home" do you think are going to turn out any different if the US and Western Europe turns a blind eye to Russian aggression?
4. On whose behalf are you speaking?
Re: (Score:3)
2. Ignoring problems seldom makes them go away.
It's a venerable Russian tradition [wikipedia.org] to distract people's attention from problems by trying to direct it somewhere else. For example, to Ukraine. ;-)
Re:We need a US base in the Ukraine (Score:4, Insightful)
In Soviet Russia, borders move to include you.
Re:We need a US base in the Ukraine (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Snark-snipe all you want, but think how much easier things might have been if we did in fact annex Iraq.
Christians would never allow that. Interstate freedom of movement and all that. They'd be afraid of Iraqis moving to the Bible Belt and making it a Quran Belt. ;-)
Re:We need a US base in the Ukraine (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
They have a direct interest in access to the black sea.
They already had access to the Black Sea.
Re: (Score:3)
That isn't really a suitable response to this particular foreign policy problem. If the problem was a loose moose eating up all of the flower beds in Crimea's capital it might work, but not for the actual problem we have.
Re:We need a US base in the Ukraine (Score:5, Insightful)
It works fine as long as we are talking about tiny countries. But when major world powers start taking over countries just because, we found out what a moronic idea it was.
Re:We need a US base in the Ukraine (Score:5, Informative)
For the hundredth time, please recall that the USA did not enter WW2 until the Axis powers declared war on it (or attacked it in the case of Japan). Hitler personally declared war on the USA while the latter was STILL mulling its options several days after Pearl Harbor.
The obvious moral of that particular period of history is that the USA is always willing to beat up weaker nations, but maintains a prudent neutrality in the face of anyone of its own size.
Re:We need a US base in the Ukraine (Score:4, Insightful)
In short, "You damn Americans! You stay when we want you to come, and go when we want you to stay." I guess it's a question of whose ox is being gored, and something else.
When the Soviet Union moved SS-20 missiles into Eastern Europe there were few protests in Western Europe. When NATO agreed and the US deployed Pershing and cruise missiles to counter the Soviet missiles there were protests in Western Europe ... largely against the US. (Moscow was paying for the "peace movement." ) It was only after those weapons were deployed that the Soviets agreed to real negotiations to reduce nuclear weapons in Europe.
When Saddam's Iraq invaded and annexed Kuwait there weren't protests in Europe. When the US, UK, and other nations formed a coalition to remove Saddam's army from Kuwait there were large protests in Western Europe.
Re: (Score:3)
In short, "You damn Americans! You stay when we want you to come, and go when we want you to stay."
If you say so. But is it entirely unreasonable for nations that are to be invaded, and perhaps partially or wholly destroyed, to be allowed some say in the matter?
When the Soviet Union moved SS-20 missiles into Eastern Europe there were few protests in Western Europe. When NATO agreed and the US deployed Pershing and cruise missiles to counter the Soviet missiles there were protests in Western Europe ... largely against the US.
Perhaps because we felt the USSR was arming and defending its allies - just as the USA has always done and does today. Israel, anyone? UK, Saudi Arabia, any Gulf state of your choice... Ukraine? As for the US missiles in the UK and elsewhere, maybe we didn't want to become targets. Especially since many of us rather doubted whether the Soviets rea
Re:We need a US base in the Ukraine (Score:4, Insightful)
And many Americans want to think of the US as the hero of WWII. Really, it was Britain. They were fighting alone for almost 2 years until the US got off its ass an entered the war -- and only after Pearl Harbor.
Something like only 10% of Americans wanted to get involved and/or help Britain before Pearl Harbor, even though they were getting pounded during The Blitz, civilians killed, cities on fire, etc. (not to mention what was happening in the rest of mainland Europe) The US did nothing, sent some supplies after a while, but that was it until Pearl. And Britain lost 10x as many civilians alone during the blitz as the us lost military personnel in Pearl.
Sure, US industrial strength and involvement was critical as the war progressed, but the war would have been over before the US entered if it weren't for the pilots who fought in The Battle of Britain, the country enduring The Blitz, along with everything else they did.
Re:We need a US base in the Ukraine (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh, and what, may I ask, happened to these fine words?
But, if you must have a cold reason for helping this particular liberty, let me remind you, that Ukraine was a nuclear power — until it agreed to give up its nukes in exchange for guarantees given jointly by Russia, US, and UK [wikipedia.org]... The guarantors promised to ensure Ukraine's sovereignty and territorial integrity.
No one ever believed Russia's word, but if US and UK fail to keep theirs too, what sort of message will that send to Iran and others developing their own nuclear weapons? A very clear one: you do need these weapons to be taken seriously, and no foreign guarantees are worth the paper they are soiling...
Re:We need a US base in the Ukraine (Score:5, Insightful)
You want to know what happened to these fine words:
They were lies spoken by a politician. What is new? They were lies then, they are lies now. The people in charge of the American regieme do not actually approve of liberty for anyone but themselves and seldom ever have.
How does alliance with Saudi Arabia assure the survival and the success of liberty? Is it in the way they stone women to death for being seen in public with men who are not their husbands that does it?
How does the drug war, which has justified raids on private homes, the militarization of police, and the erosion of fair trial rights through the use of "Parallell construction" assure the survival of liberty? (and what liberty? The liberty to do as you are told? The liberty to choose not to use drugs?)
Lies is all they ever were, why do you cling to such crap?
Re: (Score:3)
Please stop repeating that lie. There is no fucking treaty, there is no fucking treaty. No we are not treaty bound as the Budapest Memorandum is not a treaty. Also the Budapest Memorandum does not require us to protect the Ukraine.
So please before you keep spouting off nonsense about some non existent treaty please learn at least a little about what your are talking about.
This is what the BM is about
Respect Ukrainian independence and sovereignty within its existing borders.
Refrain from the threat or use of
Re: (Score:3)
But, if you must have a cold reason for helping this particular liberty, let me remind you, that Ukraine was a nuclear power — until it agreed to give up its nukes in exchange for guarantees given jointly by Russia, US, and UK [wikipedia.org]... The guarantors promised to ensure Ukraine's sovereignty and territorial integrity.
It doesn't look like you actually read the information in the Wikipedia article you cited. There are no obligations of the signatories to "guarantee" Ukrainian territorial integrity.
The Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances does nothing more than obligate the signatories to respect Ukraine's sovereignty/borders/politics/economics, and to "Seek United Nations Security Council action if nuclear weapons are used against Ukraine ". (I would argue that the actual text of the memorandum [wikisource.org] could be interpret
Re:We need a US base in the Ukraine (Score:4, Informative)
I'll see you, and raise you:
"Of all enemies to public liberty war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded because it comprises and develops the germs of every other. War is the parent of armies: from these proceed debt and taxes. And armies, and debts, and taxes are the known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few. In war, too, the discretionary power of the Executive is extended. Its influence in dealing out offices, honors, and emoluments is multiplied; and all the means of seducing the minds are added to those of subduing the force of the people No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare". - James Madison
"The most extravagant idea that can be born in the head of a political thinker is to believe that it suffices for people to enter, weapons in hand, among a foreign people and expect to have one's laws and constitution embraced. It is in the nature of things that the progress of Reason is slow and no one loves armed missionaries; the first lesson of nature and prudence is to repulse them as enemies.
"One can encourage freedom, never create it by an invading force". - Maximilien Robespierre
"War is an instrument entirely inefficient toward redressing wrong; and multiplies, instead of indemnifying losses". - Thomas Jefferson
"Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence (I conjure you to believe me, fellow-citizens,) the jealousy of a free people ought to be constantly awake; since history and experience prove, that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of Republican Government. But that jealousy, to be useful, must be impartial; else it becomes the instrument of the very influence to be avoided, instead of a defence against it. Excessive partiality for one foreign nation, and excessive dislike of another, cause those whom they actuate to see danger only on one side, and serve to veil and even second the arts of influence on the other. Real patriots, who may resist the intrigues of the favorite, are liable to become suspected and odious; while its tools and dupes usurp the applause and confidence of the people, to surrender their interests.
"The great rule of conduct for us, in regard to foreign nations, is, in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connexion as possible. So far as we have already formed engagements, let them be fulfilled with perfect good faith. Here let us stop". - George Washington
"No one nation has a right to sit in judgment over another". - Thomas Jefferson
"We wish not to meddle with the internal affairs of any country, nor with the general affairs of Europe". - Thomas Jefferson
Re: (Score:3)
Your linked source says nothing about "promising to ensure Ukraine's sovereignity and territorial integrity". Did you link the wrong source? Did you just make it up?
From your link:
Russia, the U.S., and the UK confirmed that they would:
1. Respect Ukrainian independence and sovereignty within its existing borders.
2. Refrain from the threat or use of force against Ukraine.
3. Refrain from using economic pressure on Uk
Re: (Score:2)
Agree. These idiots screaming for the U.S. to once again be the world police in this are going to stumble us right into WWIII, over a tiny part of Ukraine that clearly doesn't even want our help.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, eventually, this would help. Meanwhile, however, Ukraine needs military equipment — not just the drone-provided intelligence. The sort of massive airlift of military supplies, that helped Israel defend itself against the massive Arab armies back in the day...
Ukraine has soldiers, what it does not have is enough fuel for its tanks, airplanes, and other vehicles...
Re: (Score:2)
Bad idea.
This isn't a problem of the U.S. since Ukraine isn't in any way, shape or form affiliated with NATO [wikipedia.org].
The EU on the other hand might be interested... But intervening with Ukraine at this stage would be enough to provoke Putin and the rest of Russia into World War 3 mode.
That would be a mistake on Putin's part, since barring a full nuclear war, he cannot realisticly win, and even with nukes he can only drag the rest of the world to the dark ages. EU + USA has enough troops to repel all of Russias adva
Re: (Score:2)
Also, we want a military base in that reason and are losing one.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re:We need a US base in the Ukraine (Score:5, Funny)
Sorry, what? Are you comparing defending of a sovereign state to staging of an election within an all-of-a-sudden-separatist region in order to justify an invasion?
Yes I'd nip it in the bud. Once the American colonies wanted to become separate and just look where that got us ;-)
Re:We need a US base in the Ukraine (Score:5, Informative)
You do realise Crimea has been autonomous within the Ukraine precisely because it is more ethnically Russian than Ukrainian, and that in the post-USSR history of the region the Ukranian government has gone back on agreements with the region whenever they display behaviour that is too pro-Russian (for example, Crimea appointing a pro-Russian local leader, which had the result of Crimea having their privileges to do so revoked).
Theres a fuck load of history surrounding the region which is being glossed over by the international media - that doesn't mean I support what Putin is doing, but it annoys me no end when all you see are details which definitely slant it one way in the publics eyes.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:We need a US base in the Ukraine (Score:5, Informative)
Crimea has been autonomous within the Ukraine precisely because it is more ethnically Russian than Ukrainian,
How Russians Became Crimea's Largest Ethnic Group, In One Haunting Chart [businessinsider.com]
Crimea may have a majority Russian population today, but it hasn't always been that way.
The peninsula's dark history of ethnic cleansing is visible in the following chart from Reuters.
The chart shows a collapse in the population of native Crimean Tatars from 34.1% in 1897 to zero in 1959, marking brutal harassment leading up to Soviet leader Joseph Stalin's forcible deportation of the entire population in 1944, with nearly half dying in the process. It took decades for the population to climb back to 12% by 2001.
While the population of Ukrainians and especially Russians rose, the percentage of the population falling into an unlisted category also fell from more than 20% in 1921 to around 5% in 1959. This was a consequence of the deportation of Armenians, Bulgarians, Greeks, and other groups.
Who are the Crimean Tatars, and why are they important? [washingtonpost.com]
Whatever the Tatar grievances against the Ukrainian state may be, when faced with the choice of being under either Russian or Ukrainian control, the Crimean Tatar leadership has consistently and unequivocally chosen Ukraine. Since the Soviet period, attempts to split the Crimean Tatar movement and persuade some of the Tatars to support a pro-Soviet, and later pro-Russian, agenda has not borne fruit.
Crimean Tatars fret over Russian domination again [usatoday.com]
Crimean Tatars living in Turkey said Monday they worry of a return to the terrible oppression they suffered in the Ukraine province the last time it belonged to Russia and the Soviet Union.
"We've seen this movie before and we don't want to see it again," said Celal Icten, 59, head of Crimean Tatar Association of Istanbul, whose parents were born in Istanbul and Romania but both draw direct lines to the ancient city of Bakhchisaray, the pre-Tsarist capital of Crimea.
Once Victims Of Stalin, Ukraine's Tatars Reassert Themselves [npr.org]
Re: (Score:3)
Let's see:
Vote is held under an occupying force with a vested interest in a certain result? Check.
Vote was not subject to scrutiny by international observers? Check.
Vote was hastily organized? Check.
Vote has wildly implausible result typical of a rigged vote? Check. (Doesn't stand alone, but reinforces the rest)
Voting irregularities were observed despite the major restrictions? Check.
Reporters were scared away and even beaten? Check.
Major surge in propaganda, including the restriction of non-russian media b
Re: (Score:2)
"On the subject of "always" - how long has Crimea been "Ukrainian"? My own lifetime, plus two years - not a very long time really. Crimea IS NOT Ukrainian!!"
Really? For me it's Palestine that has been Israeli for my lifetime plus 2 years.
Nice to meet you.
Re: (Score:2)
So how long does it have to be "ours" before we stop squabbling about it? 100 years? 200? 500? 1000?
Good thing Europe has managed to more or less get over it. Apparently Russia hasn't.
Re: (Score:2)
In the real world, the difference between evil and good is not a bright line, but instead small details.
A prime example is that the difference between murder and self defense is just the state of mind of the shooter.
Setting up a new military base in the Ukraine is a measured, careful response to potential problems. It sends a clear message, does not cost any immediate lives, and makes it harder for Russia to continue on
Re:How is this about technology Slashdot???? (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
" Quit trying to get web clicks and stop writing about technology, which is what slashdot is supposed to be about"
says who?
I am assuming by stop you mean start, as if there hasn't been any technology post ...
NEWS FOR NERDS (Score:5, Insightful)
Strange, I don't see anything specific to technology in Slashdot's header/manifesto. I believe it's "News for Nerds" and "Stuff that Matters". I'm sure there are plenty of history nerds on here to whom this matters
Heck, this is even under the appropriate category (The Military).
Perhaps you should restrict the article categories to only include Hardware and a few other sections you like, rather than imposing what you think the site should be about on everyone else.
Re: (Score:2)
Because nuclear explosions at altitude tend to cause computer-destroying EMPs.
That do it for ya?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:How is this about technology Slashdot???? (Score:5, Insightful)
It's "stuff that matters", which is expressly the sort of thing that Slashdot covers. 99% of the time, I don't care about international politics (nor national politics, for that matter), but when they get this big and this tense, it matters. I'm glad that Slashdot has the sense to break in with stuff like this when it gets this important, since otherwise it's particularly easy for nerds to keep their heads down and not notice what's going on in the world.
Re: (Score:2)
This ain't the Sudetenland. Move along.
Re: (Score:3)
If you think Putin is stopping at Crimea, you're a fucking moron.
"If you think Bush is stopping at Iraq, you're a fucking moron," said many a Russian citizen in 2003.
Re: (Score:3)
"If you think Bush is stopping at Iraq, you're a fucking moron," said many a Russian citizen in 2003.
And they turned out to be wrong, didn't they?
You do realize that the reason for the conflict does make a difference, right?
Russia is practically asserting the right to invade and annex lands with ethnic Russians in them. There are a lot of those in countries currently outside the borders of Russia. How do you think that is going to go? Does that meet your approval?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
I've yet to see any evidence.
A phony referendum under Russian military occupation with blatant fraud does not count. No democratic vote results in 90+ percent.