Ukraine May Have To Rearm With Nuclear Weapons Says Ukrainian MP 498
An anonymous reader writes "USA Today reports, "Ukraine may have to arm itself with nuclear weapons if the United States and other world powers refuse to enforce a security pact that obligates them to reverse the Moscow-backed takeover of Crimea, a member of the Ukraine parliament told USA TODAY. The United States, Great Britain and Russia agreed in a pact 'to assure Ukraine's territorial integrity' in return for Ukraine giving up a nuclear arsenal it inherited from the Soviet Union after declaring independence in 1991, said Pavlo Rizanenko, a member of the Ukrainian parliament. ... Russian President Vladimir Putin said that the commitments in the agreement are not relevant to Crimea because a 'coup' in Kiev has created 'a new state with which we have signed no binding agreements.' The U.S. and U.K. have said that the agreement remains binding and that they expect it to be treated 'with utmost seriousness, and expect Russia to, as well.'"
Works for me! (Score:2, Funny)
Your friend in the Antichrist,
Kim Jong Il
Putin - Rusputin (Score:2)
Russian President Vladimir Putin said that the commitments in the agreement are not relevant to Crimea because a 'coup' in Kiev has created 'a new state with which we have signed no binding agreements.'
Pay no attention to that signature on the dotted line.
Re: (Score:3)
Russian President Vladimir Putin said that the commitments in the agreement are not relevant to Crimea because a 'coup' in Kiev has created 'a new state with which we have signed no binding agreements.'
Pay no attention to that signature on the dotted line.
It's almost as good as Putin's quote about "local security forces" buying Russian uniforms at any local military surplus store. So in order to protect law and order in my own country, I'm supposed to don the uniform of a foreign country? Now where did I put that old French Foreign Legion ensemble?
Re: (Score:2)
The irony about that statement is that, if uniformly applied, it would invalidate a great many other things. For example, the lease agreement that Russia signed with Ukraine which permits the former to have a naval base in Sevastopol, and troops to defend it (the same ones that effectively took over the entire peninsula).
Sure... (Score:2, Offtopic)
Sure, give 'm nukes. What could possibly go wrong?
OTOH, why is this on Slashdot? It's only a Ukranian MP with a wacko idea, probably meant to show his supporters that he's the strong man they seek. Wikipedia sums up his party, Udar, as "UDAR tends to avoid sensitive and polarising subjects and focuses instead on popular topics".
Re: (Score:2)
A bit late (Score:3)
Don't think they could do it in time. Sad though it is, the sensible thing would probably have been not to get rid of them in the first place.
Re: (Score:2)
Even if everyone had completely eliminated nuclear weapons in the 90s, how would that have stopped Russia from invading Crimea with its conventional forces?
Re: (Score:2)
It wouldn't have. But it might have stopped a nuclear holocaust one day when WWIII begins.
All in all, this will probably go one of two ways. (Score:2)
1) Rollback Ukraine to previous "territorial integrity", possibly with some bargaining over the structure of a new government.
2) Russia annexes Crimea after their puppets declare independence and the remainder of Ukraine joins EU (and possibly NATO), starting a new cold war. Ukraine gets screwed over in this case because they don't really have any guarantee that NATO would back them up any more than the current coalition fails to.
Ukraine is right (Score:3, Insightful)
This isn't the first time that international bodies have promised to protect a country's borders in return for it withdrawing from some territory, or giving up arms... but when it is time for those same international bodies to act they do not.
Another recent example is when Israel withdrew from Lebanon in 2000 to UN sanctioned, internationally-recognized borders. A short while later, Hezbollah started threatening Israel again, claiming it was occupying some fictitious piece of land that was never part of Lebanon. Instead of the UN and international bodies backing Israel's claim that it had fully withdrawn from all of Lebanon, they publicly referred to this piece of land as "disputed territory". This taught us two things:
1. All it takes is one idiot to claim ownership of some land, and regardless of the facts that land becomes "disputed".
2. International guarantees are utterly meaningless.
Countries are better off retaining their weapons and enforcing the peace themselves. Regardless of how much political pressure you're under, ignore it, because at the end of the day you cannot outsource your citizens security.
And on the flip side: the international community should shut the !#@ up until they gain a record of walking the walk instead of talking the talk. It's criminal to play with other people's lives in this way.
Re:Ukraine is right (Score:5, Informative)
Another recent example is when Israel withdrew from Lebanon in 2000 to UN sanctioned, internationally-recognized borders.
Israel hasn't been limited to its UN sanctioned, internationally-recognized borders since 1948. The pre-1967 borders include territory annexed in previous military conquests. Not just Shebaa farms, but also a little town called Jerusalem. The UN certified in 2000 that Israel had complied with Resolution 425, which did not have the explicit requirement of a withdrawal to its original legal borders, but merely from newly-annexed territory. Of course, all these "details" just don't agree with your "facts on the ground", so it's best that we leave them swept under the rug. That Shebaa farms was "never part of lebanon", as you say, shouldn't have anything to do with this, since it was a part of Syria, and sure as shit not a part of Israel. But I guess it should be okay for Israel to annex Syrian territory, because it's not Lebanese? I suppose it wouldn't have been a problem if the US just annexed Iran after we went into Iraq, since we'd still be withdrawn from Iraq, right?
Re: (Score:3)
The agreement in question dealt exclusively with Lebanese territory. Not Syrian, Jordanian, Egyptian or any other country.
Agreed. But don't try to play that off as having withdrawn to "UN sanctioned, internationally-recognized borders". The agreement in question dealt exclusively with Lebanese territory, as you yourself pointed out. Lebanon isn't the only state in the area to have some of its land annexed by Israel.
I think it is safe to say the probability of an Muslim-Jewish peace is very low (if they can't even get along with themselves, how can we expect them to play nice with others?)
Agreed. I don't see a Muslim-Jewish peace happening during my lifetime either. Perhaps this is because Israel's neighbors don't shy away from military conflict, as you suggest. Perhaps it's because Israel will eithe
Why would anyone sign a treaty... (Score:2)
with security guarantees from a Western power, when those guarantees are broken so easily?
This has implications for many other conflicts. For example Israel/Palestine - the US offered Israel security guarantees due to the vulnerable borders it would have after a withdrawal, and I'd expect the Palestinian leaders want some protection from extremists who reject peace with Israel and would assassinate any leader who agreed to it (as happened in Egypt after it signed a treaty with Israel). Now, I can't imagine
Where words fail, blows must follow (Score:2)
Rock Paper Nuke (Score:3)
Assume "Paper" is a treaty guaranteeing "Territorial Integrity". Then:
Rock beats Paper
Nuke beats Paper
Nuke beats Rock
Nuke loses to Nuke (MAD)
Who would ever play Paper?
USA is obligated to...well, not much (Score:5, Informative)
"Ukraine may have to arm itself with nuclear weapons if the United States and other world powers refuse to enforce a security pact that obligates them to reverse the Moscow-backed takeover of Crimea"
I don't know much about international law, but the Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances [wikisource.org] (the "security pact" referred to by the Ukrainian Parliament member) doesn't appear to obligate the US to do anything in this situation, other than "seek immediate United Nations Security Council action...if Ukraine should become a victim of an act of aggression or an object of a threat of aggression in which nuclear weapons are used."
Additionally, the Budapest Memorandum is more of a diplomatic "gentleman's agreement"; it is not a treaty confirmed by the Senate. When it comes right down to it, it doesn't seem to me that the US is obligated to do squat. Sorry Ukraine!
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
There's an existence proof that it can be done in four years, if someone is willing to devote sufficient resources to it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The old President and his cronies stole a big chunk of Ukraine's cash on hand. They're in the process of applying to the IMF for emergency loans. They will be lucky to keep the lights on in their government offices. Spending billions on a nuclear program is not feasible.
Re:Riiiight (Score:5, Informative)
Half of Ukraine's electricity is from nuclear power. That have 13 reactors now, and plan to add 11 more.
Ukraine's strange love for nuclear power [bbc.co.uk]
Missile [nti.org]
Ukraine is capable of producing advanced intercontinental range ballistic missiles, and its missile industry is second only to Russia's among the former Soviet republics. The linchpin of this industry is the former Yuzhnoye Scientific Production Association, arguably the preeminent intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) design and production facility in the Former Soviet Union, whose capabilities are matched only by a handful of U.S. and Russian missile enterprises.
Re:Riiiight (Score:4, Insightful)
Relevant in that discussion would be how much of that is in Crimea and possibly eastern Ukraine and how much of it are Russians / willing to leave so to say.
Re: (Score:2)
That means they dont need a nuke. they just need a very large explosion and some spent fuel. The big boom is not as effective as heavy radiation poisoning of the enemy forces. load it all in a plane and blow it up upwind from the enemy... the wind will spread it the rest of the way.
Re:Riiiight (Score:5, Interesting)
You do understand that Ukraine has enough expertize and know-how to make nukes within a few months? You do realize that Ukraine power supply is 50% nuclear?
There are nations in this world that can build nuclear weapons within months, if they wanted to. They simply choose not to. I would name Ukraine as one of these nations.
http://www.world-nuclear.org/i... [world-nuclear.org]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
They can surely make Nuclear Devices fairly rapidly. I doubt they will be able to weaponize them within a reasonable time-frame. (reasonable being: the time it takes Russia to steamroller the whole country and seize any facilities).
Re: (Score:2)
Because there is no chance they already have a few cores sitting in storage like Japan?
Re: (Score:3)
They can surely make Nuclear Devices fairly rapidly. I doubt they will be able to weaponize them within a reasonable time-frame. (reasonable being: the time it takes Russia to steamroller the whole country and seize any facilities).
Assuming (hopefully) that the current situation on the ground is going to be static for a while and doesn't become a shooting war, then yes the Ukrainians can and probably should build a few dozen nukes with some delivery capability as a deterrent.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Or... maybe they didn't give them all up?
Broad political implications (Score:5, Insightful)
What I think isn't getting talked about is that this is a much broader political threat. Ukraine gave up it's nukes under the assurance that the interested parties would protect it from each other. Russia has now reneged on that treaty, and the MP is reminding the US, Great Britain, and the world that we have an obligation to intervene.
It might be tempting to simply let Russia get away with this and avoid the threat of renewed nuclear war (cold or otherwise), but if we do that we also tell every other nation that has disarmed, or is considering disarming, that we cannot be trusted to honor our obligations under those treaties, severely undermining decades of work on disarmament.
Re: (Score:3)
"If America DOES go in either we open up yet another front in our war, and this time against someone a little more sophisticated then the Taliban."
How much more sophisticated? Russia got it's ass handed to them by them in the late 80s, and collapsed shortly after. Their military then went through over 15 years of disrepair and lack of training until they invaded Georgia in 2008 and got their ass handed to them more badly than expected by an inferior opponent (they lost 40 armoured vehicles and 70 soldiers a
Re: (Score:2)
All nukes are theoretically 'dual purpose'. But you run them differently to produce Plutonium for weapons. Full tilt for a short time, then reprocess the fuel extracting plutonium.
Re:How are nuclear weapons going to help though? (Score:5, Interesting)
Never underestimate a bunch of fanatics. And even the *threat* of them having nukes could easily be enough to start WWIII.
I think we've all gotten complacent with the idea that another World War couldn't happen. They thought the same thing in the 20's (anyone remember the Kellogg–Briand Pact [wikipedia.org]?). But it can not only still happen, but I think people would be surprised at how little it would take to actually set it off. That's why diplomats have to treat shit like this very carefully.
Re:How are nuclear weapons going to help though? (Score:5, Insightful)
Never underestimate a bunch of fanatics. And even the *threat* of them having nukes could easily be enough to start WWIII.
The "fanatics" in this case being in Moscow, which as repeatedly threatened its neighbors with attack, including Ukraine. And now it is back to seizing territory as has previously occurred to many of the neighbors of Russia (nee Soviet Union) in the last century: Finland, Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania, Poland, Romania. Now they try again with Ukraine.
Russia threatens nuclear attack on Ukraine [telegraph.co.uk] - 12 Feb 2008
Russia threatens to aim missiles at Czech Republic, Poland if US installs defence shield [radio.cz] - 20-02-2007
Re: (Score:2)
Fanatics are on both sides. Throwing more nukes into the mix is going to make an already bad situation 100x worse.
Re:How are nuclear weapons going to help though? (Score:5, Insightful)
You may recall it was the Russians that invaded.
Do you have any limits to the extent you would permit Russia to seize additional territory? Western Ukraine? Poland? Finland? Malta? Scotland?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I don't give a flying fuck who invaded. Starting a nuclear war over some local pissing contest is NOT an option.
Re: (Score:2)
What makes you think they would?
This is all posturing and nothing more. It's almost all brought upon by Russia.
Re: (Score:3)
It's not posturing, Russia has legitimate interests in the Ukraine such as a warm Water naval base, several natural gas pipelines and I could easily see how Russia would use military force to protect those interests from outside interlopers. Unfortunately using military force to protect those interests from the host nation is going to require a level of brinkmanship that is likely to be beyond even a former KGB Colonel's.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
How to explain it? There isn't much mystery I think.
Careful planning, speedy operations, overwhelming force, and generally achieving at least tactical surprise against a population with no viable means to either fight or defend itself. Even the Ukrainian military garrisons were greatly overmatched.
The Russians seem to have learned from their experiences in Georgia.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:How are nuclear weapons going to help though? (Score:5, Insightful)
Russia has had a treaty to use former Soviet military bases in Crimea, Ukraine, but Putin is now claiming that treaties with Ukraine are void. Russia doesn't have permission to occupy Crimea as it has, nor threaten to annex Crimea. Russia is also threatening a broader war on Ukraine having mobilized its army some time ago. It looks like you're the one that is out of touch. Sorry.
Re: (Score:3)
Russian foreign minister Lavrov has accused Ukraine of violating treatries by not allowing in Russian citizens. So it seems to ignore the treaties on one hand but complains when the other side isn't abiding by them...
(Sort of a silly argument by Lavrov, given that there's effectively an existing state of occupation by either Russian soldiers or pro-Russian separatist militants, so Ukraine would have to be really really stupid to let in even more Russian citizens to undermine the state.)
Re:How are nuclear weapons going to help though? (Score:5, Informative)
They have a prior agreement to be in Crimea to secure their naval base in Sevastopol. They certainly don't have any prior agreement to blockade and assault Ukrainian army bases and barracks and border posts.
This isn't even to mention the uniformed troops with no identification patches, which everybody knows are Russian (by their own numerous admissions when asked), but which Russia refuses to acknowledge outright. That alone is a war crime.
Re:How are nuclear weapons going to help though? (Score:4, Informative)
Yes, I do realize that. The problem is that Russian has two distinct words denoting Russian ethnicity/self-identification ("russkiy") and citizenship ("rossiyanin") which does not exist in English. The soldiers in the videos use the word that denotes citizenship. Not to mention various other slip ups (some have even named the place of origin where their units are normally stationed; heck, there was one guy from Pskov VDV who was openly wearing a cap with it inscribed!).
Anyway, at this point, believing that tens of thousands of troops, all dressed in brand spanking new Russian digital camo (which was only adopted a few years before and not used by any other ex-Soviet republic), carrying the best gear that Russian army has at its disposal (Pecheneg, AS Val etc), and riding around on BTRs with Russian flag colors on the tips of their exhausts, are some kind of "spontaneously organized local self defense force" requires going so far beyond Occam's razor that it's not even funny. Anyone who seriously believes that there are no Russian troops in Crimea is either not familiar with the facts, or plainly retarded, or is intentionally misrepresenting the issue.
Re:How are nuclear weapons going to help though? (Score:5, Insightful)
Contrary to what your propaganda sources claim there is not the slightest doubt that Putin has violated public international law and basically all existing treaties between Russia and the Ukraine. It also doesn't take much intelligence to see who's the bad guy here, namely the one who sends masked soldiers as thugs into a peaceful neighboring country claiming they are there for "protection", besieging army bases and threatening & beating up inhabitants who do not speak Russian. The act is particularly evil, because the Russian and the Ukrainian speaking people in the Ukraine never had any problems getting along with each other, and now Putin's thugs are creating unrest in order to destabilize the new government in Kiev.
It's a fucking disgrace and you know it.
Re:How are nuclear weapons going to help though? (Score:5, Informative)
Contrary to your propaganda I think there is actually significant doubt as to whether he has violated international laws.
Well, soldiers operating without proper identification is a war crime under the 1949 Geneva Conventions and its subsequent modifications(the "Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol I), 8 June 1977."). For example, from Article 37 [icrc.org]:
1. It is prohibited to kill, injure or capture an adversary by resort to perfidy. Acts inviting the confidence of an adversary to lead him to believe that he is entitled to, or is obliged to accord, protection under the rules of international law applicable in armed conflict, with intent to betray that confidence, shall constitute perfidy. The following acts are examples of perfidy:
[...]
(c) the feigning of civilian, non-combatant status;
Also the use of the Night Wolves [telegraph.co.uk] violates article 43 [icrc.org]:
3. Whenever a Party to a conflict incorporates a paramilitary or armed law enforcement agency into its armed forces it shall so notify the other Parties to the conflict.
Bullshit (Score:3)
None of what you say is news to me and I'm also not basing any of my assessments on any US media, because they total shit. (Well, I do sometimes take a glimpse at the NY times web pages which are not too bad.) I'm also not from the US.
It is an undeniable fact that Putin is about to annex Crimea in violation all treaties with Ukraine and international public law. It is also a fact that Russia has no track record of protecting minorities in their own country, in fact they suppress them brutally and Moscow's
Re: (Score:3)
Many of those countries broke away too, and were only subject nations for a relatively short period of time (ie, the passed back and forth over time as the history of European wars went on). At the time of WWI, Soviet control of those countries was relatively weak as they had their own internal problems to finish sorting through, and in WWII most of those countries had been considered independent. USSR took the opportunity to claim some of countries after the war as its own.
The Baltic nations (or the land
Re: (Score:2)
World War I started over basically spilled milk. All Putin has to do is announce that the USA is here to spread gayness and he would have the popular vote to go to war.
Re: (Score:3)
>That's why diplomats have to treat shit like this very carefully.
Only if the complaintant has nuclear weapons, or strong pacts with nations that do have nuclear weapons and have pledged to threaten to use them on their behalf. There is much wisdom in the MAD strategy - we buy a measure of peace with the threat of making the results of war truly horrifying. If Russia believes they can easily annex part of Ukraine using conventional weapons without invoking a prohibitive response from the US or Great Br
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The problem primarily arises when nukes find their way into the hands of unstable actors
WTF do you think Ukraine is? Giving nukes to an unstable country with a openly hostile relationship with its nuclear neighbor is FUCKING INSANE.
Would you support Russia just handing over a shitload of nukes to Cuba? North Korea? Iran? You know, to protect them from U.S. invasion?
Re:How are nuclear weapons going to help though? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Russia has never invaded another country without provocation and destroyed its leadership like the US did with Iraq.
You mean like Finland, Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania, and maybe a few others?
Re: (Score:2)
I fully agree, Russia/USSR has always created a provocation first before invading.
Re:How are nuclear weapons going to help though? (Score:4, Insightful)
> Would they actually launch a nuke at their neighbor?
As a last act before being completely overwhelmed by a superior force... what do you think?
Re: (Score:2)
I would, I would also rig every single asset to be blown to hell if the nuke did not work. Oh you want me to surrender? sure, let me just push this button here while we sign the surrender papers.
Re: (Score:3)
So where do you plan on living after blowing up all of the infrastructure in your own country?
Re: (Score:3)
I suspect, having plenty of people who remember living behind the Iron Curtain, that residents of countries like Ukraine would rather emigrate than go back to Russian rule.
Communism wasn't evil, but the communists were - maybe they're not communists anymore, but why would anybody believe that things will be "better this time"?
Re: (Score:3)
The ethnic Russians in Crimea seem quite eager with going back to Russian rule.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
A large swath of Ukraine is already radioactive [wikipedia.org] due to Russian carelessness, so why not?
Re:Just start the war already! (Score:5, Insightful)
We should all be thankful that people in the relevant positions in Ukraine have shown much restraint so far and trusted or hoped that diplomatic and economic means would be brought to bear. Once a shooting war starts in the Ukraine, the casualties will quickly accumulate. There's a large civilian population there, several large cities. The population is very polarized. Oh and Russia is pushing more soldiers, armor, mines, etc into the Crimea by the hour.
"Just start the war already?" Because you are bored? What a horrendous sentiment.
Re:Just start the war already! (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
You are oversimplifying to a dangerous degree.
There is at the moment no legitimate Ukrainian government. Putin is a vile authoritarian asshole, but he is right about one thing: Yanukovych's de facto removal from office was a coup [wordpress.com].
Yanukovych can still make a claim of legitimate legal authority to invite Russian troops in.
And some part of the population in Crimea wants them there.
So, an "invasion"? Not clear.
As for "an existenti
Re: (Score:2)
"Some part of Crimea wants them there"?
You mean the part that is 100% false and this has been shown via evidence?
http://news.slashdot.org/story... [slashdot.org]
Re: (Score:3)
I'm not so sure about the coup. Because it really is not clear. First off, you can not trust one word that Yanukovych says, period. He basically engineered his own election by many accounts; of course whether that is true or not is debatable as well. Second, he was losing badly in negotiations when many of his MP allies were deserting. Third, he left quickly which surprised many in government. Yes things didn't follow all the rules (the rules were written to give president most of the power and to mak
Re: (Score:2)
America, the UN, and the EU are not going to sanction Russia. They simply aren't. They are no more sanctionable than America is.
Not only can they easily get around pretty much any sanction, the act of sanctioning them is still an Act of War under international law, which would give Putin a casus belli to invade even more countries, which he is obviously itching for.
The troops are on the field. The question is simply how well dug-in does Russia get to be in Crimea before they launch their attack.
Re: (Score:2)
Is it going to be bloody? Absolutely, and that's terrible.
But, as has often been said, all that it takes for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing. Russia, under Putin, is a threat to the fragile world near-peace we currently have, as demonstrated by their words and by their actions. Their aggression cannot go unchecked, because otherwise we're looking at a full-blown world war in a decade's time or so. And Russia still has enough nuclear weapons to do some absolutely massive damage.
So which is bett
Re: (Score:2)
If someone throws nukes I can tell you what will happen.
Iran will nuke the shit out of Israel and Iraq. N korea will nuke S korea. China will nuke N korea and a few areas that have been bothing them some even in their own country. Israel being nuked will also start a couple of other countries to decide that throwing something at europe is a good idea. Putin will wipe the Ukrane off the map, as well as afganastan just for good measure, and maybe even throw one at japan because of that old "we h
Re: (Score:2)
Okay, you just lost me there. None of that makes sense.
Iran does not yet have nuclear weapons, and even if they did, they'd have only a handful of fission weapons. They probably wouldn't use them immediately - Iraq is not a threat, and Israel is enough of a threat to not want to start a war with unless they have an advantage.
China will not nuke North Korea - that's like saying the US will nuke Canada. They'll probably also stay uninvolved at first, making a move on Taiwan and the Senkaku Islands (or whateve
Re: (Score:2)
Lumpy
Obama will go on TV stating that everything is ok, and he will talk to Putin. within 30 days we will be living in caves, eating our neighbors, and fighting in thunderdome for gasoline.
Don't forget the strongly worded letter! He'll firmly community organize their asses.
m
Re:Just start the war already! (Score:5, Informative)
But fuck, even Poland at least tried to fight back when the German blitzkrieg rolled in.
"Even Poland?" What does that mean? Poland had a huge military, which is why Germany had to take them out before tackling France. They fought back very well. They were just not of the same caliber as the German officer corps, and were slightly behind in the tech race. The "horses verses tanks" scenario is highly overblown. Poland's infantry and artillery were adequate for the time, but no one really expected Blitzkrieg to work as well as it did. If Poland had a Guderian, it could have turned out very different.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Don't forget Poland was fighting a two front war. Germans on one side, Russians on the other.
Re: (Score:2)
The Soviet Union invaded Poland on September 17, 1939: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
I suggest you also read history books, as it seems you know absolutely nothing about WW-II... let me guess, American public education?
Re: (Score:2)
...Poland had a huge military, which is why Germany had to take them out before tackling France.
This statement doesn't make any sense, and unfortunately nullifies your entire argument. Invading Poland was the plan all along (to reach the USSR eventually). Why would Hitler start by invading France if the lebensraum was on the East?
Re: (Score:3)
You're missing some history.
Invasion of Poland, Fall 1939 [ushmm.org]
In September 1938, after signing away the Czech border regions, known as the Sudetenland, to Germany at the Munich conference, British and French leaders pressured France's ally, Czechoslovakia, to yield to Germany's demand for the incorporation of those regions. Despite Anglo-French guarantees of the integrity of rump Czechoslovakia, the Germans dismembered the Czechoslovak state in March 1939 in violation of the Munich agreement. Britain and France responded by guaranteeing the integrity of the Polish state.
German forces moving into Poland was an act of war to France and Britain so France had to be neutralized before German forces moved into Russia.
The Crimea is the new Sudetenland, and it is Russia that is accumulating territory.
Re: (Score:2)
They were never going to win the war. They were outnumbered, outclassed, outmanuevered even before the USSR got involved. It wasn't a Civilization-style cavalry-versus-tanks thing, but it was still not a war that they could reasonably expect to win.
They fought anyways. And even once the standing army had fallen, they fought a resistance.
Yes, if Germany had ignored them, they would have been a threat on their flanks. And given some time, they could be a pretty tough opponent. But Germany was geared up for wa
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I think the main reason other countries aren't intervening is that right now, Ukraine isn't defending itself. Military outposts in Crimea are surrendering without a fight to the Russians. It's hard to justify sending our troops over there when Ukrainian troops aren't willing to fight.
The other more fundamental issue is that sending troops into the Ukraine will basically be the start of WWIII, and this war would be between powers that are nuclear states. The literal and figurative fallout could be on a scale yet unseen.
That doesn't mean we always let Russia get away with whatever they want to do. If they continue to seize territory from other nations we have to put our foot down at some point. But is Crimea important enough to risk what could devolve into a nuclear war? No, probably not.
Re: (Score:3)
Hmm...South Ossetia sound familiar? That would be the last time Russia decided it wanted part of its neighbors' territory.
Last I checked, the Ru
Why a war? (Score:5, Insightful)
Something else to keep in mind, is the area under dispute. The Autonomous Republic of Crimea. See, it's not exactly "Ukrainian" at all. It is an autonomous republic. The demographics? 50% Russian, 25% Ukrainian, and the balance are mostly Tatars. How and when did Crimea become "Ukrainian" anyway? Oh - that was an administrative move, made by the old Soviet, which stuck Crimea in with the Ukraine. Administrative. Crimea never has been "Ukrainian". So, if an AUTONOMOUS Republic wishes to remove itself from association with a nation that only has administrative ties to it - why not?
I stand with Crimea and Russia on this issue. The current regime in the Ukraine are a bunch of racist assholes. Among their first actions upon assuming power, was to outlaw the Russian language in any formal or official documents. Crimeans speak Russian, not Ukrainian. Screw the president, and screw the capital - Crimeans decided that they don't want to be "Ukrainian" any longer.
Not very many nations are willing to assist another nation in the suppression of an AUTONOMOUS REPUBLIC.
Re:Why a war? (Score:5, Insightful)
Among their first actions upon assuming power, was to outlaw the Russian language in any formal or official documents.
You're deliberately distorting the issue. One of the first actions of the new government was to repeal a law about regional languages signed by Yanukovich that is widely believed to be flawed both inherently and procedurally - this was repealed among several other such laws. This reverted the country to the language laws that were in place since 1989 (back when it was still the Ukrainian SSR). A committee was immediately formed to author a new law to replace the repealed one, and in the meantime the acting president has vetoed the repeal of the old law, citing concern about the interim period.
The whole diatribe about racist assholes is just verbatim Russian propaganda. If they are so racist, why did Lviv hold a "Russian language appreciation day"? Why did the Right Sector troops participated in the burial of several observant Jews who died on the barricades of Maidan (presided by a rabbi, no less)? Why do the majority of Russian speakers in Kiev say that they want Putin to fuck off?
For that matter, why is that the new government in Crimea is led by outright criminals? The new prime minister, Aksenov, had criminal record for assault and extortion back in 90s. Why are the pro-Russian figures in Eastern Ukraine outright Nazis, like Gubarev, the wannabe "people's mayor" of Kharkov, who turned out to be an ex-member of Russian National Unity, a neo-Nazi organization with swastika as an emblem?
Re: (Score:3)
Hate to break it to you but just because a majority of Crimea are ethnic Russian still doesn't mean they want to be part of Russia. 58% are ethnic Russians but many of those still identify themselves as being of Ukrainian nationality despite their ethnic origin.
If the referendum was free and fair it's almost certainly the case that Crimea would not vote to be part of Russia, in fact, a poll was done on exactly this before this shit even kicked off as it has now:
http://www.cityam.com/blog/139... [cityam.com]
Even in Crime
Re:Why a war? (Score:5, Insightful)
You mean, like in Kosovo? Wasn't the West's main excuse to steal Kosovo from Serbia that most of the population was of Albanian origin? I fail to see how the West, having set such a precedent, can justify that Crimea is such an integral part of Ukraine, when most of its inhabitants are Russian.
But this is not about justice, fairness or anything. This is just hardcore geopolitics. Done in the same childish and short-sighted way as always. Putting fanatics in power in a Russia-satellite country to piss off the Russians... when have you last heard of such a move? Let me give you a hint, it usually blows right back in your face.
Re: (Score:2)
"I wouldn't want to start a gunfight with Russian soldiers when I'm outnumbered and cut off from reinforcements. "
Why? it worked out so well for Napoleon and Hitler.... oh wait....
Re: (Score:2)
I wouldn't want to start a gunfight with Russian soldiers when I'm outnumbered and cut off from reinforcements.
There is another explanation for the Crimean's lack of resistance. Most of them are ethnic Russians, who speak Russian, and are perfectly happy to be under Russian control.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I have not listened to a single report from American media on Ukraine - I use local sources, primarily the Euromaidan groups, but also Ukrainian newspapers/sites and even Russian ones (RT is horribly, horribly biased, but by looking at what propaganda they're spreading you can figure out what Russia is trying to do). The Maidan sources are biased as well, but you would think "our troops are fighting to the death against the Stalinist invaders!" would make better agitprop than "our troops are surrendering th
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I already posted this above:
Something else to keep in mind, is the area under dispute. The Autonomous Republic of Crimea. See, it's not exactly "Ukrainian" at all. It is an autonomous republic. The demographics? 50% Russian, 25% Ukrainian, and the balance are mostly Tatars. How and when did Crimea become "Ukrainian" anyway? Oh - that was an administrative move, made by the old Soviet, which stuck Crimea in with the Ukraine. Administrative. Crimea never has been "Ukrainian". So, if an AUTONOMOUS Republic wis
Re: (Score:2)
" So, if an AUTONOMOUS Republic wishes to remove itself from association with a nation that only has administrative ties to it - why not?"
Theoretically interesting, but not entirely representative of the current situation, since:
a) In the past, the Crimean Tatars had been forcibly deported and Russians moved in, and
b) The presence of foreign Russian military has a non-zero effect on what the autonomous republic "wishes", in particular the scuttling of a ship to block a port and military personnel removing i
Ukraine, Crimea & Russia (Score:2)
I too agree w/ the Russkies on this. Crimea had always been Russian, and was turned over to Ukraine by Nikita Krushchyev. Under the Soviet regime, it didn't matter, since there weren't really independent republics, but once the Soviet Union came unravelled in 1991, that was the time for the Crimea to become a part of Russia.
Sevastopol has already declared itself a federal subject of Russia. Good idea would be to merge Sevastopol into Crimea, and declare the entire area a part of Russia. Similarly, a g
Re: (Score:3)
Now, you see, this is the sort of shit which makes me REALLY wary of any Russian actions.
It's the sort of post that's drenched in pro-Russian propoganda that I draw parrallels to something that would come out of Rush Limbagh or Glenn Beck.
1) Except they didn't outlaw the Russian language. Someone proposed the bill and it got vetoed. But hey, you could twist that to be a major slight against the ethnic Russians.
2) You "side with Crimea and Russia?" Whoa dude. Whoa. While I'd LOVE to see a real actual vote by
Re: (Score:3)
Wait, how and when did Crimea become "Russian" anyway? Oh yea, when Stalin kicked the Tatars out and moved the Russians in.
It's SEMI-autonomous which reflects the fact that historically it hasn't been either Russian or Ukrainian for long periods of time.
As for racist assholes, I think you're believing too much of Putin's propaganda about nazis and fascists, which were only a small part of the protests and government. As for removing Russian as an official language (hardly "outlawing" it) that was indeed p
Re: (Score:2)
nope, making nuclear fuel from Ukraine's uranium was and is done by TVEL in Russia. The reactors are TVEL's also.
Re: (Score:2)
and let's hear about those foreign designers of the Rocketdyne F-1 engine, let's see if it matches my list of americans who managed, designed, built and refined the design of that engine
Re: (Score:2)
Because the next time the US requests a country to surrender its nukes, that country will remember this example?
Re: (Score:2)
First, I don't think Putin is going to go all over Asia and Europe after this. Second, it's pretty dangerous to try to take away the Crimea from Russia, access to the Mediterranean, and all. Third, a majority does seem to want to go with Russia, unlike in the rest of Ukraine.
Now, we threaten with sanctions, the Russians withdraw after OVSE organizes a referendum, Crimea gets a "special status" in Ukraine, Russia keeps its fleet, no-one loses face.