Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
The Military

Russian Military Forces Have Now Invaded Ukraine 848

Posted by timothy
from the or-maybe-it's-a-1000-person-picnic dept.
SpzToid (869795) writes Those plucky "Ukrainian separatist's" ambition to join Russia have now been given Russian military support, as the Russian Army with long columns of armor have invaded Ukraine and have opened up a second warring front, in a big way. The Reuters report, interestingly, quotes a member of Putin's own advisory council on human rights describing the move as an invasion: "When masses of people, under commanders' orders, on tanks, APCs and with the use of heavy weapons, (are) on the territory of another country, cross the border, I consider this an invasion."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Russian Military Forces Have Now Invaded Ukraine

Comments Filter:
  • by stoploss (2842505) on Thursday August 28, 2014 @12:05PM (#47775807)

    I mean, how'd you feel if Russia took over Mexico?

    About the same way we'd feel when they tried to put nukes in Cuba?

    But at least that one went well...

    Right. In that case they were simply reacting to our aggressive positioning of Jupiter missiles in Turkey. We offered to remove those if they pulled back from Cuba. Balance of MAD restored.

    What's the quid pro quo play here?

  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 28, 2014 @12:11PM (#47775923)

    As far as Russia is concerned, it doesn't recognize the legitimacy of the Ukrainian government because of the coup, so adherence to a non-binding memorandum is a non-starter.

  • by TheRaven64 (641858) on Thursday August 28, 2014 @12:13PM (#47775957) Journal
    Arming Afghanistan wasn't the problem. Arming them in secret (so most of the population had no idea that the USA was spending half a billion dollars a year on helping them fight the USSR and felt abandoned) and then cutting off the money as soon as the USSR pulled out and leaving the country a mess, rather than helping to rebuild schools and so on was the problem.
  • by PraiseBob (1923958) on Thursday August 28, 2014 @12:36PM (#47776311)
    Would Russia invade if Ukraine still had their nukes? Will any other nuclear country disarm in the future given this scenario?
    In the end, a treaty is just words on paper. Russia clearly isn't honoring the treaty so it goes to line 6:

    "The United States of America, the Russian Federation, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland will consult in the event a situation arises which raises a question concerning these commitments."
  • by gstoddart (321705) on Thursday August 28, 2014 @12:38PM (#47776333) Homepage

    You know how you deal with a playground bully? You stand up to his crap, get people behind you, and call his bluff.

    Which works really well right up until you discover the schoolyard bully is a little unhinged, and is playing out of his own book because he believes his own story.

    And then you discover it's not a bluff, and then things get really hairy.

    Chairman Mao, Ho Chi Minh and Hitler, not so much with the bluffing.

    And I'm not so sure about Putin either.

  • by Prune (557140) on Thursday August 28, 2014 @12:38PM (#47776335)
    It's silly to expect sanctions to accomplish much.

    After WWII, the US should have had Patton march east and take care of uncle Stalin.

    There was a second chance much more recently to decisively deal with the Russian problem. A bit less than ten years ago, this paper http://belfercenter.ksg.harvar... [harvard.edu] identified the US as having achieved nuclear primacy (a shorter version can be found printed in Foreign Affairs of that year). It would have been possible at the time for the US to get away with a preemptive nuclear strike against Russia. With most silos and mobile launchers on Russian territory located, a counterforce preemptive nuclear attack by the US would have resulted in the only real retaliation to be from submarine launches, which would have been few enough not to overwhelm missile defense.

    The paper generated controversy and there were counterpoints from other academics and some in the military, but there was also a lot of support expressed. In any case, it's at least plausible that the US could have taken the first shot and saved an order of magnitude more pain, suffering, and deaths in the future than it would have generated. No doubt Russia's military build-up in the last decade takes this scenario out of the realm of possibility, and given the evil the russkies are doing and the tons more they've yet to perpetrate, it's a damn shame.

    I expect to be modded down, as many here won't understand a sentiment generated by having survived the Soviet occupation of Eastern Europe. No, things haven't changed. The bear's beastly character is immutable, a fundamental aspect of it that can't be tamed or cured by diplomacy, education, or civilization.
  • by superwiz (655733) on Thursday August 28, 2014 @01:03PM (#47776787) Journal
    None. Russia will continue its aggression until the first nuclear exchange. No one thinks this is for real. And no one will until it gets real.
  • by tekrat (242117) on Thursday August 28, 2014 @01:05PM (#47776831) Homepage Journal

    We were busy having our asses kicked by a couple of towel-heads in a foxhole. The multi-trillion dollar juggernaut of the US Military was having it's head handed to them by some IEDs and a few snipers. We couldn't fight a guerilla war with all that cold-war training, and it was already stressing our military.

    Furthermore, you're missing the entire point of 10 years ago. There was no PROFIT in nuclear striking Russia. Dick Cheney wasn't interested in attacking anyone he couldn't steal money from on both sides, that's why North Korea was ignored, and Iraq was invaded.

    Striking Russia wouldn't do anything except isolate the US from the rest of the world, as we'd be responsible for a Billion deaths, and we'd be spending all our time even now defending ourselves from every other country on Earth, and we'd be starving and bankrupt because China would have cut us off.

  • by gstoddart (321705) on Thursday August 28, 2014 @01:31PM (#47777183) Homepage

    So USA isn't a bully?

    I said nothing of the sort.

    I said that sometimes you call the bluff of the "bully", and discover it isn't a bluff, and that the bully is far more dangerous than anybody realized.

    Everything else, that's all your baggage and not mine.

    I'm no more convinced that the Ukrainian government is blameless than I am that the 'referendum' wasn't rigged, and carried out by people who are, historically speaking, relatively new to Ukraine, and not actually representative of the entire population.

    So, if all the Chinese Americans in California decided they were forming their own country, how would you feel about that?

    I have a fairly simple rule: there's at least one more side to any story than that are actors involved. Which makes this a complex and multi-faceted thing where anybody who says "all of these people say this" are being overly reductionist.

    But, I also know other Ukrainian expats who feel this is something which is being brought about by what are essentially Russian people who have been in Ukraine for however long and have decide they want to separate and join Russia.

    So, either I conclude you're wrong, they're wrong, or like all things like this ... it's much more complicated and attempt to distill it down to one point is hopeless.

  • by superwiz (655733) on Thursday August 28, 2014 @01:34PM (#47777225) Journal
    No, the current regime of Russia is a text book Nationalist Socialist regime. Russia is currently a text-book Nazi state. So the factions in Russia which are Nazi are not minor. They are the government.
  • by Mysticalfruit (533341) on Thursday August 28, 2014 @01:39PM (#47777295) Journal
    Don't forget that before this whole mess, the Ukrainian president was going to the EU hat in hand asking for 15 Billion Euros to pay off debts paid to Russia and to fix its infrastructure. Speaking of which, their infrastructure is in complete shambles. When Russia first took Crimea a couple days later the Russian minister of fiance was bitching about how much is was going to cost to fix Crimea (something like 15 Billion over 3 years).

    So by all means, if Russia wants to take over Ukraine an incur the expense of actually fixing Ukraine... excellent, I suspect very quickly the whole thing will be a pyrrhic victory.

    Also, while they're expending their military forces trying to keep the Ukrainians from engaging in an insurgency against them, we're going to keep putting the screws to them on the global market, causing their currency to go into an inflationary spiral.

    As of right now, the Europeans have been hesitant about criticizing Russia too heavy because of fears about their gas supply. However, I can't imagine the Europeans will say nothing if Russia rolls in the tanks. Possibly we'll start shipping NG to the Europeans to further undercut the Russians? Who knows.

    However, now that Russia has banned food imports from the EU and the US. How long before the standard of living starts spiraling downwards? I don't imagine that Putin would starve his own people, but who knows?
  • by mi (197448) <slashdot-2014@virtual-estates.net> on Thursday August 28, 2014 @02:09PM (#47777617) Homepage

    The US can't afford to perform any surgeries.

    Of course, we can. Obama's economy may be weak, but it is still greater than that of Russia and Ukraine combined. Many times greater.

    We don't need to send "boots on the ground" — just help Ukrainian defenders with weapons. Like, for example, precise ground-to-ground missiles to let them destroy a Russian "Grad" [wikipedia.org] parked behind an apartment building without hitting the building too. Or all that surplus equipment, that Pentagon has been sending to police departments nation-wide, militarizing them against fellow citizens [washingtonpost.com]. But the charlatan-in-chief would not even send Ukrainians the perfectly defensive helmets and body armor [freebeacon.com]...

    pissing it all away invading Afghanistan and Iraq?

    We pissed nothing away invading those two. We pissed it away by withdrawing prematurely [nationalreview.com].

  • by mi (197448) <slashdot-2014@virtual-estates.net> on Thursday August 28, 2014 @02:16PM (#47777699) Homepage

    Right, as opposed to the previous guy, who went into Iraq to settle his daddy's score

    His daddy has kicked Saddam's ass so bad, there were no score left to settle. But let's not change the subject, Ok?

    blunder around with pointy objects in the dark making a lot of noise and hoping everyone swoons over your manliness

    Oh, I guess, you just can't help it, can you?

    the country you did invade is falling into civil war.

    Had we withdrawn from Germany in 1955, that country would've fallen into a "civil war" as well... Whatever you blame Bush for, the rise of ISIS in Syria and Iraq are squarely Obama's doing [nationalreview.com]. As is the emboldened Russia [washingtonpost.com], to bring us back on topic.

  • Re:lulz (Score:4, Interesting)

    by werepants (1912634) on Thursday August 28, 2014 @05:10PM (#47779473)

    The amount of disinformation that is coming from Russia, but also Ukraine and the NATO command is vast and it is very hard to sift through it to get to the truth. Very likely Russian troops are somehow involved in the conflict, but trust me that if Russia started an invasion of Ukraine, they could take Kiev the next day. So Occam's razor applied, this is not an invasion.

    if Russia started an invasion of Ukraine, and wanted to provoke immediate international retaliation they could take Kiev the next day. FTFY.

  • Re:lulz (Score:5, Interesting)

    by aralin (107264) on Thursday August 28, 2014 @05:23PM (#47779631)

    There are also Ukrainian troops in Russia. In far bigger numbers as well. Last time there were 400 soldiers who strayed to Russia, now there is a report of about 1000 soldiers encircled by the separatists that might be seeking refuge in Russia after being abandoned by their commanders. It is not as simple as some news outlets let you believe. Most of the headlines are sensationalist anyway, that's how you sell newspaper. There is also 300 US active military "advisors" embedded with the Ukrainian military, helping with tactics, logistics and strategy. But I don't see you being upset over that.

    I am mostly upset that nobody is talking, they could have had a week long cease fire couple months ago to at least talk through what each side wants, but Ukraine pushes for a complete victory in the east. Maybe that is a good strategy, maybe not, but US is the only one benefiting right now. Ukraine, EU and Russia are all losers in this conflict. And I am also upset with the rhetoric of people that drive us into a military conflict with Russia. It is almost as if everyone forgot the 2000 nuclear warheads aimed at pretty much the entire world. But let's say they won't use them. Won't they maybe sell them? Or sell the technology to make them? What is their incentive not to?

  • by flyingsquid (813711) on Thursday August 28, 2014 @05:46PM (#47779807)
    There is a saying, attributed to Napoleon, 'never get in the way of your enemy when he is in the process of destroying himself'. Putin may score points at home by annexing the Crimea and invading Ukraine. Internationally, however, Russia moving towards becoming a pariah state, like Iran, North Korea, or Libya under Qaddafi. He's invaded and annexed part of his neighbor, shot down a civilian airliner, imprisoned political opponents, clamped down on free speech and murdered journalists, criminalized having a different sexual orientation. If the long-term goal is to politically isolate Russia, to help contain Russian influence like during the Cold War, well, Putin is doing a fantastic job of it.

    War has been called "politics by other means". Putin has launched this war because he is desperate not to let the Ukraine fall into the Western political sphere- probably the best analogy would be the way the U.S. got defensive about having communist governments in Cuba and Central America. At best, he'll manage to carve off the eastern edge of Ukraine to create some tiny, pro-Russian buffer states. In the process of gaining this territory, Russia will isolate itself and its political sphere of influence will shrink. Putin will never give up power, and the West will never trust him again, so we could be looking at another 10-25 years of this sort of behavior, before eventually someone succeeds him and tries to normalize relations with the West.

Parkinson's Law: Work expands to fill the time alloted it.

Working...