Russians Take Ukraine's Last Land Base In Crimea 551
An anonymous reader writes "Firing shots in the air and using stun grenades, Russian troops captured the last Ukrainian military base in Crimea today. From the LA Times: 'Meanwhile, Ukrainian and Russian officials were carrying on talks on evacuating Ukraine's loyal servicemen and families from the peninsula, a top Ukrainian military official said during a briefing Monday in Kiev. "About 50% [of Ukraine servicemen stationed in Crimea] joined the Russian side," said Olexandr Razmazin, army deputy chief of staff, the UNIAN news agency reported. The decision has been made to carry out the evacuation, he said, "but we need to work out a legal way to do it."'"
An intercepted communiqué from Russia to Ukra (Score:5, Funny)
"All your base are belong to Rus'"
This is all Bush's fault! (Score:2, Funny)
Once Obama takes office, our respect and standing with the world will be restored!
Re: (Score:2)
You must have missed a decade here at Slashdot. For 8 years even a discussion about particle physics would have several people blaming Bush for something or another. It mostly evaporated when Bush III was elected (twice) and the same policies and problems persisted, though sometimes you see some anti-Obama madness substituted instead.
Re: (Score:3)
The post you replied to clearly was poking fun at how we are basically right back to where we were when we elected Obama. His "reset" does not seemed to have worked. It's all Bush's fault that Russia invaded Georgia and effectively annexed a small pro-Russian part. Obama will do better. And Georgia earned it by being too aggressive with Russia. Hopefully other former Soviet republics will learn and be more passive - that should head off any future annexations of territory.
History Lesson:German occupation of Czechoslovakia (Score:5, Insightful)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G... [wikipedia.org]
At the time Germay was "reoccupying land dominated by Germans". The League of Nations stood by and actually there were negotiated terms, the Munich Accord which spelled out what would happen.
However, Germany was emboldened by the success of expansion. And the occupation was far from the end of the aggression.
Re: (Score:2)
Germany had a decent chance at the time, having a very advanced military and being technologically superior. This is definitely not in the cards for Russia right now. Sure they have enough firepower to destroy a continent, but it's also a guaranteed mutual destruction. Sure, Putin may try to nab a few more regions here and there that are relatively low-risk, but a world conquest is out of the picture.
Re: (Score:3)
Your argument is flawed in that it assumes people are rational and make logical decisions.
Re:History Lesson:German occupation of Czechoslova (Score:5, Interesting)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G... [wikipedia.org] At the time Germay was "reoccupying land dominated by Germans". The League of Nations stood by and actually there were negotiated terms, the Munich Accord which spelled out what would happen.
However, Germany was emboldened by the success of expansion. And the occupation was far from the end of the aggression.
I have found it the height of irony that Putin has been essentially mirroring the beginning of a conflict that killed millions of Russians (not to mention millions of people from other countries as well) in the name of protecting "Russians". Putin is playing a very dangerous game, especially when you consider that, for the last few weeks, whether or not Russia and Ukraine went to war was essentially dependent on some panicked soldiers not giving in to fear or uncertainty and pulling the trigger.
Re:History Lesson:German occupation of Czechoslova (Score:4, Insightful)
Unfortunately we are in the very dangerous point of really needing lots of people to die to stop Putin. I am sure he knows this and knows that until he encounters a country
a) willing to commit to the loss of lives
and
b) expecting to be able to "win" should a) occur
Putin is going to be able to do whatever he wants.
After the interventions in Iraq and Afghanistian it is clear that the west is highly resistant to (a) and is uncertain if (b) is even possible. With those massive levels of innertia Putin is going to be able to march all over the Ukraine and likely several other "Soviet" regions as well.
Re: (Score:2)
Could you refresh me about which conflict it was that the US invaded a peaceful neighbor and annexed some of its territory to itself by force of arms? I can't think of any examples.
Re:History Lesson:German occupation of Czechoslova (Score:4, Insightful)
The actual beginning of the end for the League of Nations as a meaningful quantity was when it stood by and let Italy seize Abyssinia without question. Once it became clear to Hitler that there were no real repercussions to forced annexations, he felt quite free to begin plotting his own.
Re: (Score:2)
Germany is a member of NATO. While everyone may sit around dithering about what to do about a former Russian satellite being carved up, to invade Germany would enact NATO's mutual assistance clauses (ie. an attack on one member is an attack on all members). No matter what Russian demagogues may say, Russia does not have the military capacity to invade Germany, which still hosts US nukes.
Putin is bold, but not insane.
Re: (Score:2)
I wasn't aware MAD doctrine had actually been abandoned and the US was now willing to sell its own territory out of fear of a nation whose military capabilities are inferior to its own.
The whole point of nukes is to never use them, and that means having them where an enemy might attack to prevent even a conventional war.
Re: (Score:2)
The WWII treaty says the eastern part is Russia's.
The WWII treaty has long been concluded, with Russia (well, USSR) signature among others.
Re: (Score:3)
No "real" similarities exist between Hitler's Germany and Putin's Russia, nor do they exist between Sudeten and Crimea, nor do they exist between the actions of Hitler and Sudeten and Russia and Crimea.
the similarities are huge and terrifying
Sudeten never voted to become part of Germany as Crimea did Russia.
that was not a vote in crimea. invaded by a foreign army, which operates without insignia and is denied by russia itself. active terror against tatars. it has been a terrible, terrible lie that seems to be promoted by rt, mostly (well, and the mass media in russia, of course).
Crimea as a region has been pro Russia since long before the coup in the Ukraine
it was not a coup. the current rada is the same one for the most part. claiming anything else is a lie from the cremlin media.
so the vote was not Russia "taking territory" like you are trying to frame it.
an
And history once again repeats itself ... (Score:5, Interesting)
Here we go again. I thought this ended when I was a kid and that when my father and his generation passed away, that WWII would finally be over as though he was a good man, the death of that generation means the end of suffering for all those who not only fought in the war ... but had to come home and live with what they had done. Fighting a war, even for 'the good guys and reasons' still means you have to do things that no civilized man should be able to do in a healthy frame of mind, and none of them come up the same as they left. The winners are still losers.
Alas it looks like Russia doesn't want it to be over and wants to rekindle its 'former glory'.
Is my son now going to have to suffer the life of a soldier like my father because of some assholes half way around the planet can't just fucking leave well enough alone with his rich life of being a political prick?
I'm beginning to wonder if my father and his cold war hate weren't that unjustified.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Is my son now going to have to suffer the life of a soldier like my father because of some assholes half way around the planet can't just fucking leave well enough alone with his rich life of being a political prick?
The only Political pricks that can send your son to war are right here in the good old USA. Careful who you vote for, and keep the camper full of gas... you just might be moving to Canada in the middle of the night.
Re: (Score:2)
...and leave your gun alone, because we don't like them thar things up here ...
Re:And history once again repeats itself ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Alas it looks like Russia doesn't want it to be over and wants to rekindle its 'former glory'.
This has nothing to do with glory and everything to do with geopolitics/spheres of influence.
Russia might be wrapping their activity in patriotism and nationalism, but that's just an easy way to sell militarism to the Russian people.
The real issue is that Europe has been slowly encroaching on Russia's borders and Putin isn't about to allow a buffer state with a warm water port used by the Russian Navy to align itself with Europe.
Re:And history once again repeats itself ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Utter nonsense. This is the post-Soviet area. Ukraine is no longer a buffer state or the "Russian border." It is a sovereign nation and can mold its foreign policy as it sees fit, whether or not those interests align with Russia.
Russia has been moving more and more of it's Black Sea naval operations to Novorossiysk, so Sevastopol is not nearly as important to Russia as it was a decade ago. No Russia's Crimean intervention is about money. The Russian oil oligarchs want the natural gas deposits in Crimean waters (there is between 4 trillion and 13 trillion cubic meters to be had), and unlike Ukrainians, they have money to build the infrastructure needed to harvest those deposits. They afraid that Ukrainian integration into the European Union with open a flood of British, French, German, and Italian investment in Ukranian natural gas, eventually allowing the nations of the EU to wean themselves off Russian oil. That's bad for business.
Re: (Score:3)
As a not-quite-yet-middle-aged New Zealander by birth, I have long been fascinated by big, strong countries that formerly had empires (not enough to study it though). I lived in Russia on an exchange for a year and a half many years ago, and I spent 6 months in China, 6 months in Costa Rica (and many more countries for less). I have been living in France for the last decade. I have an aunt who (reverse-)migrated to back to England many decades ago and travel there regularly (about 30 times over the last 15
Re: (Score:2)
Here we go again. I thought this ended when I was a kid and that when my father and his generation passed away,
Two things. It seems unlikely that we'll ever reach the stage that where we can be confident that a large-scale war will never happen again. Countries constantly jostle for power and economies rise and fall, creating instability, power vacuums, and changes in dominance. These are potential triggers for war. Secondly, we don't know that this is "here we go again." Russia may well quit with Crimea. Perhaps it'll push into Eastern Ukraine then quit at that. Perhaps it'll push into all of Ukraine, then quit at
OMG! (Score:4, Funny)
Where on earth did Russia get the idea they could stir up political descent with spys, attack a countries network infrastructure then invade after there was a coup and have the people hold questionable votes for a new government that violate that sovereign nations constitution all while at gunpoint? Oh wait... that's right, we did. Shit.
Re:OMG! (Score:4, Insightful)
please, the Russian's and other european countries were doing such things long before the USA existed, just substitute older methods of communication for your "network infrastructure" phrase
Re: (Score:2)
“Always keep your foes confused. If they are never certain who you are or what you want, they cannot know what you are like to do next. Sometimes the best way to baffle them is to make moves that have no purpose, or even seem to work against you. Remember that, Sansa, when you come to play the game.”
“What...what game?”
“The only game. The game of thrones.”
Sansa (V)—Lord Littlefinger and Sansa Stark
Politics, Diplomacy, Empire, War they are all the same game. And the game has existed as long as humans have realized that someone must be in charge.
Re: (Score:2)
Where? That doesn't describe Iraq. That doesn't describe Afghanistan. Your statement is false.
Re: (Score:2)
Where? That doesn't describe Iraq. That doesn't describe Afghanistan. Your statement is false.
It doesn't? I think your view and my view on those 2 invasions may differ slightly. We were the benevolent helper country that "Freed the people" right? lol
Re: (Score:3)
And unlike Crimea, Iraq committed hundreds of acts of war against the US before it acted.
Any that occurred outside of Iraq, against the actual United States?
As to Iraq, maybe you could explain to me why you think ordinary Iraqis would want to continue being subjected to Saddam's government?
Ask the 100,000+ civilians we killed directly as collateral damage? Or the 500,000+ that died as indirect results of the war (e.g. not getting health care due to the city being in flames)?
That was the effect of the war o
Re: (Score:3)
The US invaded Afghanistan in a legitimate act of self defense after a series of attacks on diplomatic posts and military units culminating in the 9/11 attacks.
Wait, I'm confused. Which Afgan war are you talking about? In the one we were the country with the secret spys providing stinger missiles to shoot down aircraft to a gorilla group that did not represent the legitimate government of that country and later became the Taliban... In the other the Taliban were generally assholes but no more than any other theocracy in the world and being poor and impovrished had little choice when the US said "Hand over Osama" and when the US did invade we didn't capture him anyway. But at least we installed our own "just" government and they're free of the Taliban now right? So twice we've armed groups that did not represent the people in a war that mattered little to the people and even justified the second war by saying we needed to throw out the ones we install during the first?
As to Iraq, maybe you could explain to me why you think ordinary Iraqis would want to continue being subjected to Saddam's government?
It's none of our God damned buisness why Iraqies put up with Saddam. Maybe if it were Canada we'd have more of a say... but Iraq? That's so far outside our moral jurisdiction I can't even bother to reply. If the ENTIRE middle east, the whole of Islam thought it wasn't their place to interfere, how on earth could we claim that it was our own? Oh, that's right, we were invovled in the coup that put him in power. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F... [wikipedia.org]
For Christs sake. We cannot trust our government. They should not be involved in this crap. We should stay the hell out of it. We do harm... that's it. Saddam was a horrible person but our invasion killed more Iraqis than Saddam ever did and the country is falling right back into the same morass it was before he left. Now Al Qaeda is flying flags over Fallugha! http://www.breitbart.com/Big-P... [breitbart.com]
The only way to win the game is never to play in the first place.
Re: (Score:2)
Aaah, the "two wrongs make a right" theory...
opinion (Score:4, Funny)
As Latvian, I not give two potato about situation in Crimea.
I give one potato, but only because is very important issue.
Gained Crimea, lost G8 (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Two men (Score:5, Funny)
are sitting in Odessa, discussing what is going on in Ukraine.
Man 1: I stopped speaking Russian.
Man 2: Why? Afraid the Ukranians will beat you?
Man 1: No, that Russians will come to protect me.
Re:I dont get it (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I dont get it (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes I guess the Ukranians should have added "no backsies" to the 1994 Belgium memorandum. But I guess that piece of international law was "more like guidlines".
I guess we should watch out for Mexico reclaiming parts of Texas real soon now because "it is Mexican". After all they over 60% are Mexican and they speak "Mexican" and a scant 160 years ago they did rule the place.
Hell why we are at the Russians should take back Alaska too. After all what are borders when Russians get bored of the current borders. Never mind that the reason that the Crimea is mostly russian is that only 25% of the Tatars repatriated after Stalin kicked them out. And also that Russian soldiers were given free apartments and cars when they "decided" to retire to Yalta.
Re:I dont get it (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I dont get it (Score:4, Funny)
The alaska thing is straw man, it was sold to the US.
Russia keeps the receipts and has an expansive view on return policies.
Re: (Score:3)
To make the Kosovo analogy work, you would need to establish that Ukraine acted against Crimean Russians in a way comparable to how Yugoslavia acted against Kosovan Albanians.
Re: (Score:3)
There is a difference between "self determination" and "referendum performed under armed guard, with no international election observers allowed into the country", but it's a subtle one, I grant. That said, it's the sort of difference that can give you a 95% "Join Russia" vote, with 80% turnout (76% of total voters, if you do the math) in a region where at most 60% of the population is ethnic Russian and at least 10% (the Tatars) are _extremely_ unlikely to have vote for union with Russia.
If you think thos
Re: (Score:3)
This.
> The referendum was observed by 135 international observers from 23 countries with no violations registered.[14][15][16] The EODE observer mission concluded that the referendum was conducted freely and fairly.[17] [...]
Is this.
> Eurasian Observatory for Democracy & Elections (EODE) is an election monitoring organization led by the Belgian far-right activist Luc Michel.[1] Since its founding in 2006, it provided monitoring missions to Russia, Ukraine, Belarus, Caucasus, Balkans, the Black Sea
Re: (Score:3)
Ukrainiane didn't attempt to ethnically cleanse Crimea of Russians. That is the critical difference.
No, it is a spot on analogy. Crimea was legally transferred from Russia to Ukraine in the 1950s. Alaska was legally transferred from Russia to to the US during the 1860s. Both transfers were approved by the Russian legislative body of the time. The only dif
full circle (Score:3)
I guess you are throwing the right of self determination out of the window dude. What sort of international law are you talking about? It's funny because in Kosovo, there was no referendum at all, it became independent just by bombing. The alaska thing is straw man, it was sold to the US.
Ironically, Alaska was sold to the US in part** to help pay for Russia's war debt incurred during the Crimean War (and in recognition that it would likely loose the territory anyways in a war with Britain as well) ...
The reason it took so long to close the Alaska deal (1859-1867) was that the US was fighting its own right-of-self-determination referendum (aka US Civil War) and that temporarily interrupted negotiations. I don't remember how that referendum turned out... ;^P
Fortunately for the US, we kicked
Re: (Score:3)
Mysterious snipers, maybe hired by Yanukovych, maybe hired by someone else, no one is sure. But after that most of Yanukovych's parliament allies either stopped siding with him or pressured him to soften his stance. And soon after that he fled office. I think he saw the writing on the wall, knew that he could not win the next election, knew that he'd be in big legal trouble when all the money turned out to be missing, and knew that his only friend left was Putin.
Re: I dont get it (Score:5, Informative)
It did not legally belong to Russia at all. At a time when it was legally owned by the USSR an internal transfer was made from one region to another.
A referendum with two alternatives, both of which were the same.
Wrong. Independence wasn't either of the options. They were both "join Russia".
Re: I dont get it (Score:5, Informative)
That is disengenuous and will only fool those who don't know what's going on. The two options were:
"Are you in favour of the reunification of Crimea with Russia as a part of the Russian Federation?"
"Are you in favour of restoring the 1992 Constitution and the status of Crimea as a part of Ukraine?"
The latter establishes an independent state technically within Crimea, but with autonomy to later join Russia if it wishes, and the parliament already said it does.
So, basically, the options were "Join Russia now, or join later." There was no option to remain as part of Ukraine under the status quo.
Re: I dont get it (Score:5, Interesting)
No the grand parent remember wrong as well. The two options was independence or join russia. Remain in Ukraine was not an option which is why 40% of the population (tartars and ukranians) boycutted the election. Fortunately their boycut was made up for by 120% voter turnout in the capital.
Re: I dont get it (Score:4, Informative)
The referendum was bogus by any rational measure. No time was set up for voters to become aware of the issues or debate them, it was obviously rushed. There was plenty of heavy handed intimidation by mobs in the streets, Tatar houses were marked with Stalinist era crosses, and so forth. No opposition would want to speak out in that environment. Journalists were intimidated. The government itself was essentially gone; the Crimean government buildings had been taken over forcibly and flags replaced before any voting. Ukrainian forces (the legal military protectors of that region of land) were blockaded in their bases. The pro-Russian people essentially set up a de-facto "we're already Russian" system in a couple of days.
Re: (Score:3)
The US did not install a government in Kiev. That is ridiculous Russian propaganda. This was internal strife in the country, not from outside agitators, and Yanukovych was quite well disliked on his own lack of merits.
Yes, that government had a shakeup. Yanukovych fled, the remaining parliament rolled back recent constitutional changes, some minority MPs got a few seats in the government. But it was not entirely lawless (except in Crimea). However, even if it had been completely lawless, that is no jus
Re:I dont get it (Score:5, Insightful)
Because it would have been A> futile, and B> converted this into a full-scale shooting war, which no one, but particularly Ukranians, want to see in their country. Ukraine cannot, as a practical matter, do anything about Russia.
Re:I dont get it (Score:5, Insightful)
to finer tune your point, the Ukranians stand alone and will lose even more if/when this escalates.
Re: (Score:2)
Ukraine cannot, as a practical matter, do anything about Russia.
The Ukrainians also remember what happed to them [youtube.com] the last time Moscow was really unhappy with them. And oddly enough Putin is a former career KGB secret police officer.
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
Well, unfortunately Ukraine forgets what happened to them when Moscow was happy with them. Like giving the whole Donbass to the Ukrainian SSR in 1919, Novorossiya in 1922, parts of western Ukraine in 1939 and Crimea in 1954. Without all this generosity, Ukraine would be much smaller today.
Oddly enough, both Khrushchov and Brezhnev were Ukrainians.
Re: (Score:3)
Well, duh.
The Supreme Soviet gave, the Supreme Soviet has taken away.
Re: (Score:2)
That worked out well in Sudetenland, eh? God let's hope it doesn't come to that...
Re:Bullshit (Score:5, Informative)
There were many reasons for Finland's relative success that don't apply today to this conflict, and if you don't understand that you are in the realm of magical thinking. I will also point out that as glorious as Finland's resistance was, Finland actually lost that war and had some of its territory taken by the Soviet Union and added to the Russian Soviet Republic.
Re: (Score:2)
Canada burnt down the White House. Your point?
Re: (Score:2)
During the War of 1812, more than 50 years before the country of Canada was created, British forces raided Washington DC.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B... [wikipedia.org]
Britain at the time was the naval superpower and had just helped defeat Napoleon so had some free troops to play with which made this attack possible. To say that "Canada" burnt down the White House is silly.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Bullshit (Score:5, Insightful)
Finland dished out an awesomely disproportionate asskicking, but in the end, who won? Do you think Stalin missed all the guys Russia lost? Think Finland's equally failed to mourn their fallen?
Regardless of whatever Ukraine could do, they're thinking about what they should do, and a lot of their people getting killed, doesn't rank high on the list. Even if you can kill a bunch of Russians, sometimes your death isn't worth it.
BTW, to anyone who thinks the Crimean referendum was a sham election, you need to talk to an American Republican to get the right perspective. Keeping dissenters away from the polls wasn't a rights violation; it was all about preventing election fraud. ;-)
Re:I dont get it (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:I dont get it (Score:5, Insightful)
The last elected Ukranian president was a Russian loyalist.
Perhaps he should have been loyal to Ukraine.
Re:I dont get it (Score:5, Insightful)
I myself have been to combat more than once.
I'm not sure how much I would like to fight a Russian MRR on the offense.
These guys use recoilles rifles (modern bazookas) to rescue children. They killed 1 out of every 13 Afghans in the Soviet-Afghan war (no shit). Look how Chechnya looked after the battles.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not sure how much I would like to fight a Russian MRR on the offense.
Depending on the country you live in there may not be an option in the not too distant future. That is assuming Russia needs more than Spetsnaz and airborne forces to seize control.
Re:I dont get it (Score:5, Insightful)
Because they'd get walked over. They are nothing compared to the red army.
Some of the commanders on bases were publicly BEGGING the Ukrainian leadership to give them the order to leave, because until they got that order, they were going to stand their ground ... and they knew what the result would be. They were more than willing to die for their country if that was what they were supposed to do, but not for a cause they weren't going to win.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Maybe they are following orders of the elected government, not the coup leaders.
Yanukovitch didn't agree to give up Crimea (Score:3)
He was pro-Russia, but not pro-give-up-Crimea-for-free-pro-Russia. For instance a deal Yanukovitch would have taken would be 'Russia gets Crimea, Ukraine gets lots of money and gas for many years, and permanent leases for military bases in Crimea, just as Russia had the reverse when it was Ukrainian."
Right now, he has FSB following him everywhere. He is now Putin's bitch.
Re: (Score:2)
Because if Ukrainian soldiers fired a single shot on a Russian soldier, Putin would march directly to Kiev and just take all of Ukraine as new Russian territory.
Re:I dont get it (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I dont get it (Score:5, Informative)
It's the same reason you give your wallet to the mugger with the gun and the crazy eyes.
And this is exactly what it is. Putin is a mugger with a gun and crazy eyes. Too bad he also has nuclear weapons so nobody can do anything about. The only thing that can be done is to isolate Russia the same way as we isolate North Korea. Nazdrovje!
Re: (Score:3)
Russia is not getting isolated. That would mean tens of millions of Poles and Germans getting very cold next winter.
The big question is whether giving up Sudetenland^WCrimea will be enough to placate the dictator.
Re: (Score:2)
Germans too.
Yes, that is what I wrote.
Re:I dont get it (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, according to the OP, about 50% joined the Russian side, so even without the outside forces you'd have most people dead, assuming equal training and weaponry (which if they're all from the same base, is pretty likely). Also, most of these guys would have served together for years, so it's likely they didn't relish the idea of killing (and being killed by) their comrades when the alternative was "pack up your shit and go home to be with your families."
Now add in the outside Russian forces, and anyone who fought back would have been quickly destroyed. Ukrainians aren't stupid, but they can be pretty pragmatic. The ones from Crimea were likely Russian heritage or at least had Russian sympathies, and the ones who were just stationed there likely didn't give much of a rat's arse about losing the peninsula after most of the people there voted to leave Ukraine. So rather than dying, they went home.
There's a lot to be said for living to fight another day, and it seems like these people "get it" in that regard. Why die for a lost cause that you may not really believe in? Why defend a peninsula that doesn't really seem to want to be defended? Russia takes what it wants, the "allies" of Ukraine have made it clear they have no intention of doing more than a bit of posturing in response, why stay and fight?
Re:I dont get it (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't get why the obviously loyal Ukrainian military didn't defend their bases with firepower against the invading Russians? Were they just too scared?
Because they don't want to give Russia a casus belli for a war with Ukraine. Without being directly fired upon, if Ukrainina soldiers shoot at the Russians the Russians can rightfully claim Ukraine as the agressor and invade. Also the Ukrainian soldeirs have been given express orders not to shoot except in cases of self defense. If a Ukrainian soldier shoots a Russian "peacekeeper" (where's a sarcasm tag when you need one?) Russia won't stop until they have tanks parked on the streets of Kiev.
One other thing: look at all the pictures that have been taken over the past few weeks regarding the standoff between the Russians and Ukrainians. The Russians have been posturing with armored vehicles and the Ukrainians have not been seen deploying any heavy weapons in any type of defensive fortifications. This would indicate that these troops are armed with nothing more than light weapons, with heavier weapons probably stored in depots elsewhere, if at all. No sane soldier is going to try to stand against amored vehicles with nothing heavier than a light machine gun. It's not fear. It's realism and following orders.
Re: (Score:2)
1) The Russians never let facts get in the way of propaganda.
2) Russians can not rightfully claim anything if they are already inside Ukraine, threatening a base, and being fired upon within Ukraine. That is utter bullshit.
This is just a situation of Ukraine not being in a position to defend their own sovereignty and the last thing they want is to make the cri
Re: (Score:2)
2) Russians can not rightfully claim anything if they are already inside Ukraine, threatening a base, and being fired upon within Ukraine. That is utter bullshit.
Well you see, those aren't Russian forces attacking the bases, they're Crimean Self Defense, and if Ukrainians start shooting, Russia would have to step in to protect the ethnically Russian population from the Nazi Ukrainian threat. This is more or less literally what I heard some Kremlin shill say in an interview yesterday.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Sadly I suspect that a sufficient proportion of Russians would eat it up, and what everyone else thinks doesn't matter because nobody's going to lift a finger over Crimea/Ukraine.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Because Saddam Hussein made open threats against the west, repeatedly defied the United Nations, refused nuclear weapon inspections, and ultimately defied UN resolution 1441. This is why Iraq was invaded by a coalition made of mostly the United States, United Kingdom, Spain, Australia, Poland, Portugal, and Denmark with 33 other countries providing some form of troop support.
The fact that Saddam Hussein himself escalated the events leading up to the war and that i
Re: (Score:3)
Iraq was wrong. However we did not march into Iraq in a single weekend, we didn't send in soldiers in unmarked uniforms, instead we went to the UN and when that failed we still obtained allies. Dubya did not have the unswerving patriotic fervor of all Americans standing behind him ready to do his every bidding; instead he got a lot of flack for it and lots of protests. Russia invades almost immediately after Yanukovych leaves, with no external allies, no attempt at diplomacy, citizens standing behind hi
Re:I dont get it (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't get why the obviously loyal Ukrainian military didn't defend their bases with firepower against the invading Russians?
They didn't have the firepower necessary to hold off even an immediate attack, much win the conflict they would have started when things escalated. All they could accomplish would be to get themselves and possibly others killed. Worse, the example of Georgia has shown that the Russians will use any violent resistance as an excuse to just seize even more territory.
Some of the bases personnel essentially chose to engage in nonviolent protest, marching with flag and no guns (despite getting warning shots from the Russians). It's been a really weird conflict so far, from this distance. [dailymail.co.uk]
Re: (Score:2)
Better question? Why are the Russians taking known traitors into their military?
Every military will take information from traitors. But I thought they all knew to never trust them afterwards.
Re: (Score:2)
Every military will take information from traitors. But I thought they all knew to never trust them afterwards.
You think the military trusts privates? No more than they trust unstable high explosives. Like explosives, you compartmentalize them, you treat them with appropriate caution, and then you point THIS END TOWARDS ENEMY before you release them.
No more than a handful of the defectors, those they have some reason to trust, will ever be able to advance significantly. But all of them are available for use as cannon fodder, something Russia knows more about than perhaps any other nation on the planet.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Better question? Why are the Russians taking known traitors into their military?
Because they aren't viewed as traitors by the side that's taking them. Think of them like Confederate soldiers who crossed the line to join the Union because they were put the nation before their home state. The Confederates would consider them traitors; the Union would consider them loyalists.
It's actually a lot like that time period, because the people in Ukraine consider themselves more loyal to their factional groups than to the country as a whole. Imagine how bad partisanship would be in America if
Re: (Score:2)
This is like asking why a battered wife doesn't defend herself against her abusive husband.
The Russian military is much larger than the Ukrainian military, and the Ukrainians knew they didn't stand a chance in any conflict. Additionally, having a tumultuous change of government at the same time which paralyzed decision making didn't help. The Russians, on the other hand, had been preparing for this for weeks, moving additional troops into the Crimea before the opportunity presented itself. It didn't help t
Re: (Score:3)
Three reasons:
1) They are basically countrymen or close to it, and probably didn't feel like shooting their own.
2) Half your brothers in arms defected to the other side, probably really don't feel like shooting them either.
3) This is the Russian armed forces who have come in strength and prepared, given situation how wise to provoke?
To my mind this is a lot like Canada and Quebec relations.
It would be like Canada deciding Trade options between France and England, where it is likely that Canada might decide
Re: (Score:2)
It would be the perfect excuse for Russia to let the war escalate to the rest of Ukraine.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, this is what I see forwarded to me from a Russian friend here in the West:
http://maidantranslations.com/... [maidantranslations.com]
If this is true, the takeovers are being done in such a manner that a) it generates a lot of bad publicity for the Ukranians if they resist ("They're shooting civilians!") and giving Russia a pretext to take away the Eastern part of the country, which is mixed Ukranian and Russian.
Re: (Score:2)
BTW, before you knock it as a strategy... it worked for getting the United States to abandon Vietnam to serfdom to the Russian Mob (whether it's pretending to be 'communist' or not this week). Not to mention many other conflicts around the globe, up until the present day.
Re: (Score:3)
I think this is flame bait, but just in case...
To compare to America, I think you'd do better to look at Afghanistan or Chechnya. "Capturing" an island (peninsula?) that wants to be captured is not exactly the best example. You'd have to go back to the annexation of Texas, Hawaii, or something else in the 19th century to get a good analog on the US side.
And that is the point, the 19th century kind of sucked for all sorts of reasons, and it would be nice if Russia didn't take us back there.
Re: (Score:2)
Comparing the overthrow of a far inferior professional force by a far superior professional force is very different than dealing with an ongoing insurgent war. Ukraine did not have ongoing tribal warfare where everyone is happy to shoot anyone not of their tribe. In Ukraine combatant can be identified by being in uniform. In Iraq anyone could be a combatant. In the Ukraine all combatants were on military bases. In Iraq combatants could be anywhere. In the Ukraine the soldiers knew that they would be killed
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The comparison of Crimea with Iraq is utterly moronic. Iraq didn't have a 65% American population, with a good half of the remaining 35% also expressing support for US.
Re: (Score:3)
There is, of course, the fact that whatever the legal status of the Iraq invasion, Iraq was not annexed.
Re: (Score:2)
By stolen, you mean liberated from genocidal fascists...
And Kosovo was not annexed either, but became a sovereign state.
Re: (Score:2)
You mean there's no oil left in Iraq?
Re: (Score:2)
a very clean and professional job.
Mr Pink sends his regards [youtube.com]
Re:Request: Explain It Like I Am Five Years Old? (Score:5, Informative)
Are people making a big deal out of this because even though the majority of Crimerians voted to merge with Russia, they believe that vote was coerced under the threat of violence ( Russian troops massing on the border )?
No, people are making a big deal out of this because Russia marched troops and mobile armor into Ukraine, allowed (some would say encouraged) armed mobs of fanatical ethnic Russians to run amok, surrounded Ukrainian bases in Crimea, and then decided there should be a hastily organized vote on whether Crimea should join Russia immediately or become independent and let its leadership vote on whether to join Russia (no options to remain part of Ukraine). Ethnic Russians make up about 51% of Crimea. Since Crimea was handed to Ukraine some 60 years ago, younger generations of ethnic Russians have grown up as Ukrainians and largely self-identify as Ukrainian. About 15% of the population there are ethnic Tatars, who were brutalized and murdered by Russia until Crimea came under control of Ukraine. The rest is mostly ethnic Ukrainian.
So with Russian tanks and armed troops parked outside peoples' homes and armed mobs of fanatical pro-Russia groups roaming the streets uninhibited, a vote took place in which 97% of votes cast were to join Russia. 97%, despite the fact that at least 15% of the population would essentially be like Jews voting to have their homes fall under the control of the Nazis. The Russians claim this is somehow a legitimate vote and that the people of Crimea have the right to simply vote themselves part of any country they choose (so long as that country is Russia).
Why are some Crimerians fighting and not others? Different ethnic groups being for and against the merger?
There's very little fighting going on. Much of the violence you're seeing in Crimea is from pro-Russian fanatics who've formed armed mobs supported by the Russian military. They've killed or wounded a small number of Ukrainian soldiers stationed at Ukrainian bases in Crimea and they're generally running amok because nobody's stopping them. The Ukrainian troops in Crimea aren't shooting because if they did, the Russians would just murder them (bombing from the air, rockets from helicopters, shelling from artillery; the Russians have a lot of options against small numbers in tight quarters armed only with small arms). As it turns out, about half the Ukrainian military on the ground in Crimea are joining Russian forces, likely because they don't want to be on the losing end of a potential slaughter and/or due to personal or familial Russian self-identification issues.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
"Why does everyone ignore the fact that the population there WANT to join Russia?"
Because they almost certainly don't? Objective polling before the election put only 41% of Crimeans in favour of becoming part of Russia. Russia invaded, installed a puppet Crimean government (kicking the democratically elected one out) took over the airwaves, spread propaganda everywhere, refused to allow impartial international observers in and then called an election which they "won" with 97% support - the jump from 41% to