Russian Military Forces Have Now Invaded Ukraine 848
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."
Send in the drones! (Score:5, Insightful)
Putin: "Your move, West" (Score:5, Insightful)
Unfortunately for those living there a lack of control of Ukraine is an existential threat to Russia, and it always has been. This is Putin and his faction basically saying "Bring it Europe/US. What are you going to do?" They're gambling that Ukrainian sovereignty is less important to the US and Europe than getting in a shooting war with Russia, and quite frankly they're probably right.
Re: Putin: "Your move, West" (Score:2, Insightful)
God willing. Nobody needs Call of Duty Modern Warfare 2 real edition.
The slow blade penetrates the shield (Score:4, Insightful)
As someone else put it, Putin is aspiring to be a Dune character. Or more prosaically, he's learned a lot from watching US corporations and the US government manipulate the news cycle. Do something that will outrage the public, wait for the new furor, pull back a little, wait for the news to move on to some other subject, and try again.
Just Accept the Realpolitik (Score:0, Insightful)
Comrade Putin's long-term intention is to reclaim the old Russian/Soviet empire as a popularity move to mask the economic rape of the country by the Chekists and their cronies.
It has the secondary effect of securing his western flank, before he can focus on Siberia. Despite the current Moscow-Peking love fest, Russia is very paranoid about Chinese actions and intentions in the Far East.
In any event, what is the West going to do except piss themselves in a sanctimonious fit of faux outrage? Do you think any sane leader is going to risk poking the thermonuclear bear over what is essentially a border dispute?
Re:Cut the Russians Off (Score:3, Insightful)
If I remember right, there's a treaty in place that was the result of Ukraine's voluntary handover of its nuclear weapons where it was supposed to receive defense. I'm curious to see if it'll be invoked.
Re:Send in the drones! (Score:5, Insightful)
Im not 100% clear why we wouldnt want to get involved here, if ever there were a time to get involved.
Ukraine disarmed itself in 2006 at our urging, with the understanding that we would come to their aid if ever it were needed. At the same time, having a superpower like Russia going into full imperialism mode is good for noone but Russia. A tepid response like the one theyve been given will only encourage further aggression.
Re:The US and UK need to stay out of this (Score:3, Insightful)
Eh, I'm usually a pacifist when it comes to all the pointless conflicts the US gets involved in, but unopposed military hegemony ruthlessly expanding has a .000 batting average on helping anyone but the elites of the expanding power.
Re:Putin: "Your move, West" (Score:5, Insightful)
Obama will be breaking out his Red pen anytime now...Red Line imminent!
His phone is on standby too!
So what was the plan? (Score:5, Insightful)
This is something we saw coming, at least since the incident with Crimea. What plans were made for this? Or are they all pretending to be surprised?
beware the source (Score:1, Insightful)
The source of this claim is the Ukrainian government, which has just suffered a setback in their campaign against the rebels. I would take their statements with a huge dose of suspicion right now, they are desperate and will say anything to try to swing opinion in their favor.
Remember during the fist Gulf War how the tearful Kuwait woman claimed that Iraqi soldiers had invaded a hospital and killed babies? A bunch of lies.
Remember how in the Second Gulf War we invaded because Saddam had WMD? Again, a bunch of lies.
Keep you pants on, let this play out, don't be so quick to believe everything you are told, consider the source, don't be a sucker every time.
Re:Send in the drones! (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't know how Russia, you know, the big one, reacts if the US decided to support (and possibly occup... I mean liberate) a country right at its border.
I mean, how'd you feel if Russia took over Mexico?
I'd be quite careful how to react to that. Putin doesn't have as much leeway to do what he pleases as it seems. Russia likes big, strong, tough men at the top. Men who give in have a pretty hard time to remain in power.
Re:Send in the drones! (Score:5, Insightful)
It is the tepid response given to atrocities elsewhere that has sent the message that Putin can do this with impunity. He knows he can get away with this and only risk getting Russian assets frozen world wide. That might tick off the rich guys some, but Putin isn't really elected by them anyway.
Re:Remember the Sochi Olympics (Score:4, Insightful)
Wasn't it a wonderful, peaceful time, so long ago? Ah, those were the days.
Yeah, both Hitler and Putin put on good games before moving on to occupying what they believed their natural sphere's of influence in eastern europe.
Re:Cut the Russians Off (Score:5, Insightful)
And for good measure, Ukraine should "sell" its ownership in the Ukrainian section of the gas pipeline to a Nato country and then shut off the flow of gas.
Cutting off the flow of gas would hurt Europe a lot more than it would hurt Russia at this point. Entering the winter with your largest gas supplier no longer providing you with the gas that you use for heating would suck. And as gas is fungible, it doesn't matter to Russia if we stop buying it from them, unless everyone else stops buying it from them - if China doesn't join in with the boycott then it just means that they'll be buying more has from Russia because the price of everyone else's gas will go up.
Re:Not exactly news for nerds (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Remember the Sochi Olympics (Score:4, Insightful)
Can't help it, it kinda felt like Berlin 1936...
Re:Send in the drones! (Score:0, Insightful)
Another fucking moron who doesn't know that Putin is protecting these people from the US.
Inevitable (Score:5, Insightful)
Once you appear weak, and unwilling to stand for your "red lines", your competition simply won't take you seriously anymore.
Nothing Obama (or the international community for that matter) is willing to do will aver Russia from its course. At this point, the questions to be settled will be around just how much of Ukraine manages to stay independent at all.
While people may have been all pissy about Bush, unilateral wars, and Team America World Police, the fact of the matter is that it was better than the alternative. "America, Fuck Yeah" sure looks better than "America, Fuck No" at this point.
Re:Cut the Russians Off (Score:4, Insightful)
People keep repeating this but I don't think it's true.
It will be difficult in the short term but the consequences of being under Russia (Or rather the robber barons that control the failed state that carries the name Russia) are becoming too big to ignore.
China and Russia really are not friends. China's not stupid. They don't want to be dependent on them either.
Re:Send in the drones! (Score:5, Insightful)
About the same way we'd feel when they tried to put nukes in Cuba?
But at least that one went well...
Re:Putin: "Your move, West" (Score:5, Insightful)
>> Obama will be breaking out his Red pen anytime now
I'd love to see the transcript of their next call.
Obama: "Putin, but why?"
Putin: "Because fuck you, that's why."
But I won't, so I'll have to comfort myself with some classic Clinton triangulation, probably coming out on Friday.
H.Clinton: "I knew Romney was right about Russia, but it wasn't my place to defy my President as Secretary of State."
Re:Cut the Russians Off (Score:4, Insightful)
You don't want China deciding to flex their economic muscles by playing with the bond market next time America invades some random country, do you?
Oh, I don't know. Maybe that would be a nice object less as to why it's not healthy to be buried in so much debt. Or to be policing the entire damned world on our own dime, for that matter.
Re:Send in the drones! (Score:5, Insightful)
What a skewed analogy. I think you mean, how would we feel if Russia came to the aid of Mexico at their request after we were sending troops to support rebel secessionists?
Seriously get bent.
Ukrainians are a modern civilized people ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah, supplying weapons and lunatics crazy enough to fight our enemy has worked so well in Afghanistan, let's do that again!
Ukrainians are a modern, western, civilized people. Arming them is quite different than arming religious fanatics looking to recreate the middle ages.
And besides, it did work. The Russian military suffered over 14,000 killed in Afghanistan and over 53,000 wounded. The Russians experienced actual battlefield military defeat. Not the political defeat the US is experiencing.
Re:Cut the Russians Off (Score:5, Insightful)
Wat?
I assume from your absurd statement that you consider invading Afghanistan and Iraq, then replacing their governments, is not "conquering"? Because ..... ? Because they installed a new government and then left, sorta, except they still routinely fly drones and air-strike anyone in those countries they see fit, which no truly independent country would tolerate.
Even if you use such a stupid definition of "conquer", you're attacking a straw man. I said invade, not conquer. It's indisputable that America has routinely invaded countries far away from their own borders over and over again. Any regime that boils down to "those who use military force against others gets sanctioned" would result in America being entirely cut off from the world economy for years. That clearly won't happen so this is just another case of American (and to some extent European) hypocrisy at work. Either do it consistently or don't do it at all. Preferably not at all - sanctions are based on the idea that punishing huge swathes of ordinary citizens on both sides will somehow bring about political change. How many people really believe the people are in charge of their governments foreign policies in countries like the USA?
Re:Advanced western anti-armor rockets for Ukraine (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah, supplying weapons and lunatics crazy enough to fight our enemy has worked so well in Afghanistan, let's do that again!
Most Ukrainians are secular, and those who are religious are mostly Christians. I don't see much parallel at all to Afghanistan and the things that went wrong after we double-crossed them.
Also, we wouldn't economically abandon Ukraine afterwards; all of Europe already have trade ties, and nobody is against trading with them or investing there, post-war. Heck, I've got sunflower oil from Ukraine in my kitchen right now. Afghanistan went sideways because we promised them they could be in the modern family of nations if they drove out the Russians, and that was a lie. They were abandoned to their mud huts.
Re:Putin: "Your move, West" (Score:4, Insightful)
You read a lot of strange propaganda if you still believe that stuff even 6 months later. You make it sound like their protesters were American paratroopers. A little too much Pravda in your ear, I'd say.
Re:Mod parent down for lying (Score:4, Insightful)
And NATO is a guaranteed source of truth, because? Western militaries never ever have faulty intelligence? This is a military organisation that has always been in opposition to Russia. I'm not sure that's a "confirmation" any more than something announced by the separatists is. I don't trust either of them and neither should you. Perhaps Russia is invading. If it's a real invasion then we'll see soon enough.
Anyway, my "ludicrous claim" is simply what western media are reporting, including the BBC. Here's their story [bbc.com]. It leads with "Ukraine's President Petro Poroshenko has accused Russia of deploying its troops in the east of his country" ... which is exactly what I said the Slashdot story wasn't claiming but should.
Re:Inevitable (Score:3, Insightful)
When Great Britain stopped being a world power, and vied for "peace in our time" with Chamberlain, the average UK citizen's standard of living was dramatically affected by the aggression of Germany in WW2.
When the US finally became the world police, drawn into the conflict by the Japanese, and won the war for the allies, and took over the bulk of the military responsibilities of European allies, *that's* when UK citizens living standards went up.
Chew on that :)
Re:Cut the Russians Off (Score:2, Insightful)
Everyone keeps waving around this "US debt is bad" thing like they understand how national economies work. Guess what currency the US debt is issued in? And who prints that currency?
Re:Cut the Russians Off (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, for the US an open conflict started by China in our bond market, that would naturally leave them frozen out of it. They enjoy buying our bonds, so they'd be cutting their own nose. And as the largest bond holder, they'd be destroying their own investments. Our continued bilateral economic friendliness is a basic requirement for China to get any return on those investments.
When they're the biggest bond holder, attacking the market would risk losing their investment, and for the US, our risk is that we would have to write off a bunch of debt. We'd come out ahead in the long term; they could trash our federal budget for a couple years, but most of the US economy is private and independent of the government.
Also, in the short term the dollar would drop, and China would have increased costs in keeping their currency pegged low against. Likely it would rise. That would lower the value of their giant pot of cash, which would be growing quickly without bond purchases. They would be stuck with shrinking liquid assets where they used to have an increasing investment portfolio.
So, no. The whole situation is an object lesson in not buying somebody's debt if you want them to be your enemy; you'll only be able to afford them as friends. China may not be our "best" friend, but their economic friendliness runs deep. Trillions of dollars deep.
Re: Send in the drones! (Score:5, Insightful)
I think there are enough examples in history to prove that appeasement does not work. Russia Ascendant is not the doomsday scenario we may have believed it was during the Cold War, but no country, not even a UN Security Council veto power, gets to unilaterally occupy another member of the UN.
Re:Why we wouldnt want to get involved here (Score:1, Insightful)
Putin's first instinct is to go to war. He has invaded Ukraine once and gotten away with it. He is invading a second time. Next will be Moldova. Then Georgia. Then Latvia. Then the rest of Europe until it is under Putin's rule. Better to stop him on his doorstep, rather than wait until he is parading himself through Paris.
Phillip.
Re: Prediction: (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Send in the drones! (Score:1, Insightful)
We fought Hitler and now Germany is a free and prosperous country at peace with its neighbors. China — where we dithered — not so much. Nor is North Korea — in the 60 years since we decided to "give peace a chance" there and not use nukes against the invading Chinese "volunteers" [wikipedia.org], generations of millions lived in dire poverty and suffering, that they deserved even less than the Chinese soldiers.
Some times non-invasive therapies are indicated, but quite often the best course is surgery. Sadly, what we have in the White House is a "herbal remedies" charlatan...
Re:Send in the drones! (Score:5, Insightful)
1) It's not about defending ourselves from foreign invaders, so we have no business here, regardless of whether we think slightly better about the cunts in Moscow or the cunts in Kiev;
2) You're a fucking idiot if you interpret an arms reduction agreement as promise of military aid, and so was the Ukraine;
3) The US has been in full imperialism mode since the '40s. It is never a good time to invade the US;
4) The artificial creation of the Ukraine was the first problem;
5) The undemocratic overthrow of the Ukrainian government was the straw that broke the camel's back;
6) This doesn't make Russia's behaviour correct;
7) There is no correct behaviour.
That you refer to 'the Ukraine' shows that you are neither Russian nor Ukrainian and misinformed even about the name of that country.
Re:Send in the drones! (Score:4, Insightful)
Maybe Scotland should keep its nukes after all...
Re: Putin: "Your move, West" (Score:4, Insightful)
It always works out that way.
Re:Send in the drones! (Score:2, Insightful)
Wow, pravda has people on Slashdot. Cool!
Re:Send in the drones! (Score:5, Insightful)
Im not 100% clear why we wouldnt want to get involved here, if ever there were a time to get involved.
Ukraine disarmed itself in 2006 at our urging, with the understanding that we would come to their aid if ever it were needed. At the same time, having a superpower like Russia going into full imperialism mode is good for noone but Russia. A tepid response like the one theyve been given will only encourage further aggression.
Assuming that you are implying American boots/bombs on the ground in the Ukraine, are you crazy? I mean seriously. Are you? There is in my opinion a dangerous detachment from reality in some circles of American political discussion about confronting Russia. Perhaps you may feel my language is inflamatory. But I get kind of disturbed when so many people, including those in power, put forward actions which would likely lead to thermonuclear war.
Looking back at history, there has never been a shooting war between the Soviet Union and the US. Never. The Cold War? It was always fought between proxies of the great powers. We would sell arms to pro-US or anti-Soviet interests (like in 1980's Afghanistan), or we would directly confront pro-Soviet interests (like in Vietnam). We came close to a shooting war with the Soviets more than once (the Bay of Pigs in Cuba). But such a war never happened, because those in power knew that such a war would inevitably decay into a thermonuclear war that would likely end western civilization with the press of a button.
The proper response to this is to strengthen military forces in new NATO member states surrounding Russia, including US boots on the ground. This will make a clear line that Russia knows it cannot cross without provoking all-out war. Unfortunately Ukraine is not part of NATO. We might be able to sell arms to Ukraine, but there are risks and limitations to this. What must be made clear to Russia is that if it enters Ukraine, it will face profound economic isolation. If it goes further it must be clear that it will result in WWIII. Thus we end in a stalemate. Not unlike the Cold War.
Re:Send in the drones! (Score:5, Insightful)
Putin is pushing, because the West is pulling back. Some blame can be laid at Obama's feet, though I don't think anyone would want a President who went around making threats of open warfare. A lot of blame can be laid at the EU's feet, for inspiring the revolution, and then getting weak-kneed when the Russians became belligerent.
One thing is awfully clear. If you're an Eastern European nation with even a handful of ethnic Russians in your territory, you have a serious problem.
Re:Send in the drones! (Score:5, Insightful)
Right, as opposed to the previous guy, who went into Iraq to settle his daddy's score, and based on "intelligence" which was provably NOT true at the time? The overly simplistic moron who said "you're either with us or with the terrorists" when there was no connection between the war and what they said it was for? The one whose administration said they'd pay for that little jaunt with all the oil money you'd be getting? The one who started the sledge-hammer of an agency which is DHS?
Because, the yellow cake thing was a lie, there were no WMDs, they weren't sponsoring terrorism, and had nothing whatsoever to do with 9/11.
You mean that kind of "surgery", where you blunder around with pointy objects in the dark making a lot of noise and hoping everyone swoons over your manliness?
Because, really the chimpanzee who was Bush the Second didn't exactly do anything with surgical precision. He wasn't even in the right country until far too late, and the country you did invade is falling into civil war.
So, tell us another story, please. But, we're still not buying it.
True. This is a lot like 1938. Stop Putin NOW (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Cut the Russians Off (Score:4, Insightful)
And for good measure, Ukraine should "sell" its ownership in the Ukrainian section of the gas pipeline to a Nato country and then shut off the flow of gas.
Cutting off the flow of gas would hurt Europe a lot more than it would hurt Russia at this point. Entering the winter with your largest gas supplier no longer providing you with the gas that you use for heating would suck. And as gas is fungible, it doesn't matter to Russia if we stop buying it from them, unless everyone else stops buying it from them - if China doesn't join in with the boycott then it just means that they'll be buying more has from Russia because the price of everyone else's gas will go up.
No Russian economy depends on this income, it make up a significant part of their entire national GDP, meanwhile Europe has been finding other alternative sources of energy in case Russia would cut of the supply again as they did after the sanction put on them for the invasion of Georgia. And the gas is not fungible, it would take over a year to build new pipelines to other countries, especially China is a long long way away from the gas going to Europe. Russia would be completely and utterly fucked without the gas, in Europe it would just hurt the home owner who has invested in natural gas heating to save money, they would not be saving money anymore.
Re:A bit less than 10 years ago (Score:4, Insightful)
That is typical, always blaming the others. The reason why Bulgaria sucks is not because of Russians. Estonia was a part of the USSR and is way better off. No, the inherent and prevalent corruption is the actual reason. Don't blame Russians, blame yourselves. Besides, being on the wrong side in both WW1 and WW2 also was kind of a stupid decision, don't you think?
Although, you probably don't, since you seem to consider Russians subhuman, just as Hitler did.
Re: Send in the drones! (Score:5, Insightful)
The current Ukrainian government was elected in a nation wide vote (minus Crimea and potentially the rebelling areas).
Right. Which was about a third of the country, and precisely the people that would have voted the other way.
The reason it is wrong is because those people are part of a country. The WHOLE country decides if a part should be separated from them.
So America should get involved in a war over the principle that the sanctity of borders is more important than the self-determination of people? Plenty of arguments can be made about which side is right or wrong. But the bottom line is that there is a huge gray area. Even if the Ukrainian government prevails militarily, the eastern regions will be nearly ungovernable, and the situation will fester for years if not decades. A negotiated end to the war would be in everyone's best interest, and that will required concessions by both sides. The people in the west shouting "no appeasement" should keep in mind that many people in Russia are shouting the same thing about "appeasement" of the West. If we really insist on taking a hard no-compromise stance, we will probably lose. The Russians have both the troops on the ground and the support of their people. We have neither.
Re:Send in the drones! (Score:5, Insightful)
Ukraine is in a much worse shape than Russia, economically speaking. Steamrolling over Ukraine is not hard. Steamrolling over Europe is much more complicated.
Re:lulz (Score:5, Insightful)
It is interesting that everybody just repeats this. The source of the "confirmation" is Ella Polyakova, which is a chairman of organization Soldier's Mothers and opposition politician. She has an advisory role on human rights. This is a person with an axe to grind at the very least. It is hard to take her as some official spokesman of the Russian government and definitely not someone in-the-know about the situation. All the articles make her seem like some member of Putin's inner circle of advisors.
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.
Re:Why we wouldnt want to get involved here (Score:2, Insightful)
I don't think Putin will make it to Paris. But I do think he absolutely has plans to control at least all the former USSR regions. They honestly think Ukraine has always been a part of Russia, and they show every sign of wanting to dominate and punish the Baltic states all over again. Not all may be invaded but all are being given the message to only elect governments who are pro-Russian (the "elect" part is optional).
Re:Send in the drones! (Score:4, Insightful)
Whatever you blame Bush for, the rise of ISIS in Syria and Iraq are squarely Obama's doing.
Bullshit. Obama might not have handled things terribly well, but Bush bears most of the blame here. Let's look at the first issue: former prime minister Nouri al-Maliki. Maliki pursued a divisive, sectarian agenda that caused the country to split along religious lines. Could Obama have done more to influence Maliki to be inclusive? Maybe. But who created him in the first place? That's right- George W. Bush. Maliki was brought to power in 2006 with extensive US involvement and support. If Maliki's politics are to blame, then Bush is ultimately the one to blame for Maliki.
Second Issue: withdrawal of US forces from Iraq. Damn you, Obama! Except wait a minute, who was it who approved a Status of Forces Agreement with Iraq that called for all U.S. troops to leave in 2009... hm, it'll come to me... oh, that's right, it was BUSH! Maybe Obama could have pushed harder to keep a residual force, but he wasn't able to get an agreement. Turns out, he couldn't negotiate with Maliki. The guy, you will recall, put in power by the Bush administration.
Third Issue. These ISIS guys. Where do they come from? They're pretty badass, they act more like an occupying army than a terrorist organization. Turns out, there's a reason for that- they include a whole bunch of former Iraqi Army officers, who went to military academy and everything. Iraqi army officers who joined the insurgency after the Iraqi Army was disbanded by, wait for it... George W. Bush. Disbanding the Iraqi army was arguably the stupidest move of all, possibly even stupider than invading. It took the only force capable of holding the country together, destroyed it, and then then turned a bunch of disgruntled, unemployed soldiers and military officers loose to create an insurgency.
Fourth, Iraq invasion. It should be pretty obvious where the blame for that lies.
Re:lulz (Score:5, Insightful)
Very likely Russian troops are somehow involved in the conflict
Given that Ukraine actually captured a group of Russian paratroopers, showed them on TV, and the Russians admitted they were in fact Russian troops, yes, I kind of think there are Russian troops in the Ukraine.
Re:lulz (Score:5, Insightful)
I worked with Ukrainians, and i worked with Russian, and we worked all together. Most of the normal people on both sides have no problem friends to each other, or being married with each other.
I am deeply worried about some polititians (on both sides) being more conderned about economics than about saving the lives of many civilians, and soldiers. Russia could have stopped a long time destabilizing the region, and the West made some big mistakes about 9 months ago in not giving Russia guarantees for their safety and constructive influence, and instead of insiting in finally "winning" the cold war.
Re:Send in the drones! (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Maybe, but Russia would be the world's largest 'pariah' state - too big to ignore. People will acquiesce, just like they did the Chinese conquest of Tibet. Not just that, there are major countries in Russia's corner, including China and India. If Russia has those 2 trading partners, what else do they need?
Re:Send in the drones! (Score:4, Insightful)
A slightly more cynical view:
Putin is going to grab Ukraine (or as much as he can), because he's willing to put boots on the ground and the Western World isn't. He's correctly surmised that the West has overextended itself a wee bit (both in terms of materials and willpower and moral authority). After all, he's "liberating", ain't he? Isn't that what the US did in Iraq? And Afghanistan? He's even invited by the locals!
Ukraine likely doesn't have the forces to stop them (if they did, they woulda kept them out of Crimea). The western world doesn't care enough to put skin in the game. As long as he doesn't heat the water too fast, I'd bet on Putin getting his Ukrainian lobster dinner.