Invasion of Ukraine Continues As Russia Begins Nuclear Weapons Sabre Rattling 789
cold fjord writes Russian President has issued a stark indication of Russia's military capabilities: "I want to remind you that Russia is one of the most powerful nuclear nations. This is a reality, not just words." According to News.com.au, "It's the first time in more than 25 years that Moscow has raised the spectre of nuclear war. The difference this time is that its tanks are already pouring over its western borders." To put numbers behind that, "Russia has moved 4,000 to 5,000 military personnel — a figure far higher than one U.S. official's earlier claim of 1,000 troops. The soldiers are aligned in 'formed units' and fighting around Luhansk and Donetsk.... And they may soon have company: Some 20,000 troops are on border and 'more may be on the way.'" On top of that, the Ukraine Defence Minister claims Russia has made threats that they're prepared to use tactical nuclear weapons to stop further resistance.
Sigh... (Score:5, Interesting)
I guess I lose my bet that the end of humanity would come from war in the Middle East.
Re: (Score:2)
It won't be the end of humanity... There's no chance that this will ever develop to that scale.
But for what it's worth, if they go through with this, then I'll be losing a bet as well. I've been figuring for the last 15 years or so that the next nation to use a nuke as a wartime act of agression would be North Korea.
Re:Sigh... (Score:5, Insightful)
War is an archetypal situation. Once the possibility of one starting develops, it has "suction": people react to the archetype, and that threatens to overwhem rational thought. The archetype was worshipped as a divinity in many cultures precisely because war behaves as if it was a living thing seeking to devour people - or, in this case, the entire world.
So yes, there's every chance this will develop into World War III: Last Dance.
Re:Sigh... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Sigh... (Score:4, Insightful)
And just because you can lead a country doesn't mean you are rational. Putin: q.e.d.
You are dangerously underestimating Putin if you believe he is irrational. Better to go with Machiavellian.
Perhaps you can cite all those examples of "irrationality" you perceive in Putin and the rest of us can judge for ourselves.
Re:Sigh... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Sigh... (Score:5, Interesting)
I think Putin is crafty and Machiavellian is a great way to describe his choices.
But with that said, we don't have to assume Putin to be insane or foolish to concern ourselves with nuclear escalation. His gradual conquest of the Ukraine is a calculated risk that essentially says to NATO, "I bet you haven't got the balls to stop me, I can take what I want."
He's moving slowly and boiling the frog in the water slowly so that he can get what he wants with slower and safer escalation...but it's still escalation. He's planning to push until he himself is convinced that NATO is actually willing to go to war to stop him.
Basically, he's started a nuclear game of chicken, and the worst part about nuclear war is that the best outcome goes to the one who issues the first strike since it's hoped to at least partially blunt a portion of the counter-strike. In a nuclear missile crisis, you can't know when the point of no return is crossed because at that point, there's no response to the opponent's latest gesture of escalation, at that point the missiles are simply fired without notice to reduce the enemy's response time as much as possible.
I don't expect nuclear war to be imminent right now, but with the trajectory Putin is taking, I expect that he won't stop until he's pushed us all to the very brink of nuclear war, and the risk is that Putin may accidentally push us just a hair too far and find us in a situation that even he cannot de-escalate from since he won't know when he's overshot his limits.
Re:Sigh... (Score:5, Interesting)
No chance of Nuclear war. Who's going to call his bluff? President Obama? Not likely. Germany? They like sucking his dick too much. France? Don't make me laugh. Poland has the balls but not the muscle. Nope, Putin can goble Ukraine a little at a time until it's all gone. Of course, when it's done what does he have? A lot of pissed off Ukranians to try to keep his boot on. Just what Russia needs, more indigestion.
Re:Sigh... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Sigh... (Score:5, Interesting)
They don't. If they did, they'd have already threatened Russia with them to make them stop. That's the point of having nuclear weapons, after all.
Ukraine foolishly believed that the US and Europe would protect them when they agreed to give up their nuclear weapons after the end of the Cold War. They're paying for that mistake now. If Ukraine survives but doesn't get to become a member of NATO, expect a full force nuclear weapons program on their part (which shouldn't be too hard, they have lots of nuclear power plants, lots of spent waste full of plutonium, and are the world's #9 uranium producer).
Re:Sigh... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Sigh... (Score:5, Insightful)
It can be avoided 10,000 times... it only has to happen once.
Re: (Score:3)
But enough about the republicans and democrats-- what about russia and the united states?
Re:Sigh... (Score:4, Insightful)
It won't be the end of humanity... There's no chance that this will ever develop to that scale.
But for what it's worth, if they go through with this, then I'll be losing a bet as well. I've been figuring for the last 15 years or so that the next nation to use a nuke as a wartime act of agression would be North Korea.
While I think the actual outright end of humanity is slim, should anyone go any sort of nuclear - artillery or otherwise - there's going to be a pretty epic international shitstorm. There's no telling what some Ukrainian/Crimean commander will do if he actually has the power to retaliate in kind, and where that leads, or who rolls in tanks or planes to support.... ....someone.
I think it's probably going to end in UN finger-wagging and "peacekeepers" on the ground for 50 years, but what do I know...
Re: (Score:3)
> I think it's probably going to end in UN finger-wagging and "peacekeepers" on the ground for 50 years, but what do I know...
History, I'd say.
Re:Sigh... (Score:5, Interesting)
At this point in time, with almost no response by NATO/the West other than some obviously ineffectual sanctions, my money is on Russia successfully annexing enough of Eastern Ukraine and the Crimea (albeit as an "independant" state with its capital in Donetsk or Sevastopol) that it can resupply the Crimea via land from mainland Russia.
Re: (Score:3)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Ukraine removed all their nukes in 1994, three years after independence. No Ukrainian commander has the power to retaliate to a nuclear strike in kind. According to the article, they're regretting that decision right about now.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: Sigh... (Score:3, Funny)
The West needs them, not the other way around. Sanctioning Russia is right now proving a disaster for the EU, which cannot afford it. Germany is understanding it and if Germany fails, the whole of the EU sinks with it.
Re: (Score:3)
He was reminding Obama and NATO that the price for interfering in Ukraine might be higher than they're willing to pay....
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
if they do that, every single country out there will go out and develop nuclear weapons deterrents. Ukraine specifically received guarantees from Russia for its protection when it gained independence, 20--25 years ago. Russia's word is so easily broken? Sad, dangerous and sad.
Why the fuck is this on Slashdot? (Score:2, Insightful)
While this sort of news is important, without a doubt, I just don't see why it's on Slashdot's front page. This submission contains nothing but political news.
There are thousands upon thousands of news and discussion web sites that focus on politics and current events of this sort. We can go there if we want to read and discuss news such as that in this submission.
There are comparatively fewer web sites focusing on technology, mathematics, science, and computing. Slashdot was such a site. We'd be able to co
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Why the fuck is this on Slashdot? (Score:4, Informative)
You do realize he's an AC, right? That's why he's starting at 0 mod points. No one has modded him down.
Re:Why the fuck is this on Slashdot? (Score:5, Insightful)
Repeat after me: "News for nerds. Stuff that matters."
When one of the world's superpowers is threatening to make use of their nuclear arsenal, it is, most certainly, "stuff that matters".
Re:Why the fuck is this on Slashdot? (Score:4, Informative)
But he was not only person using fighting words. At a youth forum on Friday, Vladimir Putinâ(TM)s nuclear threat was simple.
"I want to remind you that Russia is one of the most powerful nuclear nations. This is a reality, not just words."
Itâ(TM)s the first time in more than 25 years that Moscow has raised the spectre of nuclear war. The difference this time is that its tanks are already pouring over its western borders.
"A great war arrived at our doorstep, the likes of which Europe has not seen since World War II,â Ukraineâ(TM)s Defence Minister Valeriy Geletey wrote on Facebook overnight, warning of âoetens of thousands of deaths".
Putin appears to agree.
Italian newspaper La Repubblica reports Putin has told the outgoing European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso: "If I want, I take Kiev in two weeks."
Okay... short of posting the entire fracking article, the context doesn't seem to be the problem.
---
Okay-- now imagine Obama responding,
âoeI want to remind you that America is one of the most powerful nuclear nations. This is a reality, not just words.â
And then saying to the prime minister of UK,
"If I want, I take Moscow/Havana/etc. in two weeks."
--
Short of Putin coming out and saying, "I'm going to bomb Ukraine with nuclear missiles during the next two weeks"... it was about as threatening as a head of state can get.
This is the problem with a closed circle jerk news system.
Re: (Score:3)
LOL. So have you always considered The Moscow Times to be a reputable source, or is your trust in them something new?
I read the transcript and I am perfectly capable of reaching my own conclusions without relying on The Moscow Times.
Re:A modern solution (Score:4, Insightful)
NATO has pictures of Russian units operating in Ukraine
http://www.newsweek.com/nato-s... [newsweek.com]
Rebel forces admit the Russians are fighting with them.
The Ukrainian government says Russian forces are in their country fighting them.
Russia and Ukraine have swapped prisoners, including Russian airborne soldiers captured in Ukraine.
Exactly what sort of proof were you looking for that this isn't enough?
Re:Why the fuck is this on Slashdot? (Score:5, Insightful)
I come to Slashdot for a certain type of view point, and sometimes, I am indeed interested in what Slashdotters have to say on topics of political and economic interest.
In that sense, I am often delighted when Slashdot carries such articles because it gives me an opportunity to understand a particular issue in a new light.
The signal to noise ratio here is significantly better than, say, CNN (i.e., imagine siphoning through thousands of comments on R vs. D debates). In contrast, I find that there is more rational discussion, and new insights here on Slashdot than elsewhere. Obviously, YMMV.
Agreed (Score:4, Insightful)
Geeks are thinkers, by nature. We'll all think off in a nutty direction sometimes, but it's always good to see what's on a few peoples minds.
Slashdot is somewhat international, and we get to moderate posts. It's like reading through the comments portions of an article without all nonsense drowning out the relevant viewpoints.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Why the fuck is this on Slashdot? (Score:5, Funny)
Next article up: "Ask Slashdot: Will nuclear winter usher in the year of Linux on the desktop?"
Not the end... (Score:4)
1) Putin is just posturing re: tactical nukes.
2) If Russia used tactical nukes, at least against NATO troops, it would go *very* badly for Russia. We're talking collapse-their-economy bad at the absolute minimum.
Re:Not the end... (Score:4, Informative)
NATO did not agree to anything. There was an agreement [wikipedia.org] where Russia, the U.S., and the UK confirmed the following;
1. Respect Ukrainian independence and sovereignty within its existing borders.
2. Refrain from the threat or use of force against Ukraine.
3. Refrain from using economic pressure on Ukraine in order to influence its politics.
4. Seek United Nations Security Council action if nuclear weapons are used against Ukraine.
5. Refrain from the use of nuclear arms against Ukraine.
6. Consult with one another if questions arise regarding these commitments.
Nowhere is there a commitment to defend Ukraine against conventional forces.
Re: (Score:3)
How did the US breach 1? The US has not entered Ukraine without invitation.
I also think 2 is about threatening to ruin the Ukrainian economy if they don't go along. Russia did this by threatening to cut off oil and natural gas deliveries. How did the US do anything similar to this?
The US consulted Russia about Russia's breaches and Russia is ignoring them. What did the US do wrong?
Please explain.
Re:Sigh... (Score:5, Insightful)
This war comes from Wall St. and Soros and other bullies backing the coup they started in Kiev and thus forcing Putin into a corner
Why would a change in government in Ukraine force Putin into a corner? It's not like he's the ruler of Ukraine.
Re:Sigh... (Score:5, Insightful)
Well he drops a nuclear weapon on Ukrainian territory and he's not going to have ANY friends in that area anymore. He's already made the bulk of the Ukrainian people that used to love him hate him and that would turn to the cold stark hatred of lifetime if he were to use a nuke against Ukraine. Honestly, not only has he broke the treaty to defend Ukraine from the west he'll have attacked them instead.
Much of this war is internal politics to Russia. The west just hasn't done a good job of explaining how Putin has gained and maintained power and much of it plays into the nationalism he's exploited. The people behind all this nationalism want a big strong Russia again, a world power that everyone respects and pays homage to. To get Russian support for his intervention into Ukraine he played up the angle of NATO on Russia's borders, that it was a direct threat to Russia. Now that it looked like Ukraine might beat the Rebels instead of falling to Putin's puppet state demands he's being forced to take action by those same nationalists he inflamed. If he ignores those people his political career is over and possibly his life.
IMO Putin was using this staged "revolt" to put pressure on Ukraine to accept the puppet state status he has gotten Belarus and others to take. But Ukraines armed forces winning the battle was something they didn't think was possible. I believe they thought that it would grind to a standstill and when winter rolled around and Ukraine started freezing without gas the government would need to negotiate where Putin's demands for the customs union and such go into play and he turns them into a puppet state again. Ukraines military advances the last few months have raised the spectre that Ukraine may beat the insurgent forces before winter. Combined with Ukraine's threat to join NATO this forced Putin's hand with the nationalists. He literally doesn't have a choice here as his own ass is on the line.
Re: (Score:3)
Pointing out traits of narcissistic psychosis in the leader of a nuclear capable nation is a good thing.
Re:Sigh... (Score:5, Interesting)
Imagine this scenario ...
China, and a bunch of their allies in South America who have formed a political/economic union, get together and oust the democratically elected president and parliament of Mexico and get appointed a group who immediately pull Mexico out of NAFTA and force them to consider joining a Chinese-controlled defence bloc.
Further imagine that the northernmost Mexican states are primarily populated by ethnic white Americans, and that the new Mexican state is openly hostile to Americans and is threatening to exterminate them.
Oh, and imagine that your only warm-water naval port was located in a part of Mexico that used to be part of the US, and also that a large part of your foreign trade depends on pipelines that go through Mexico to reach your customers.
Then imagine that those northern states rebel and demand to join the United States.
What would you do?
Re:Sigh... (Score:5, Insightful)
What would you do?
Point out a ridiculously inaccurate analogy?
Re:Sigh... (Score:5, Funny)
the new Mexican state is openly hostile to Americans and is threatening to exterminate them.
This is just a hypothetical, right? Not actually based on true events, correct?
What would I do? Well, I guess I would probably threaten to nuke Mexico. That clearly seems like the obvious and rational choice. That would most definitely move popular support in my favor, and people would not think that I am legitimately psychopathic. I would also send several thousand troops down to Mexico to bombard and lay siege to various towns while claiming that those soldiers are actually lost and/or on vacation with all of their military equipment, because that would allow me to both intervene militarily, and also let the world know that I am in no way in control of anything that my armed forces do. And of course I'll shoot down a civilian airliner, because it's not a party until someone shoots down a civilian airliner, but then I'll claim that I didn't do that and people will eventually forget it happened anyway. I'll also claim that Mexico was really always a part of the US, and so I would invade and annex the Yucatan peninsula, because why not? Then I'll meet the new democratically elected leader of Mexico and shake his hand while making a weasel face like this [skynews.com.au], and I'll have the leader of Canada stand behind me ready with the double-stink-eye.
Or I'll just tell everyone living in Mexico who would rather live in the US that they should probably just move here. I'd probably do one of those two though.
Re: (Score:3)
Only one thing wrong with your point. The EU is not NATO.
Re:Sigh... (Score:5, Insightful)
That's some pretty twisted imagining there. More logical is that the Mexican people get tired of their corrupt government playing the USA's puppet. They then overthrow their corrupt leaders and tell the USA to shove it. Now imagine that the USA didn't like this and started to send special forces troops into Northern Mexico to pretend they were actually local immigrants fighting to free themselves from the new illegal government in Mexico City. Imagine then that the USA takes one of Mexico's Naval Ports and claims that the people there are actually mostly gringos and don't want to live under the new illegal regime that has taken over in Mexico City and they hold a fake election and to make sure it's 100% they intimidate any of the locals who might disagree. Additionally all the special forces troops get to vote too. The USA then states that they are tired of being threatened by a Mexican army that they outnumber by a vast amount in addition to having technical superiority over as well. They invade and state that if any other nation tries to stop them they will use their vast Nuclear Arsenal if they must.
Now, if the USA did this we'd be just as fucking wrong as Putin and Russia.
Re: Sigh... (Score:3)
... ethnic white Americans...
There, right there, is where you lost me. Not coincidentally, that is the point where Poe's Law came into play.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Ukraine, "previously" held control of Russia's only viable winter port for the Russian fleet. The US's intervention in forcing a government change to a pro west/anti Russian government meant Russia was at risk of losing access to a vital military facility as well as have a close friendly neighbour suddenly become a NATO stronghold, wrongly or rightly Russia still view NATO with a great deal of suspicion if not as an outright enemy. If that isn't backing him into a corner and prodding the bear with a massive
Re:Sigh... (Score:5, Interesting)
No, Putin isn't ruler of the Ukraine, any more than the US President is the ruler of Iraq, or Lebanon, or Israel, or Afghanistan. Yet, when "US interests" are threatened anywhere in the world, our troops are ready to go. Note that it doesn't require that any US troops or citizens be threatened, merely "US interests".
Should Russia be any less timid in world affairs, than the US is? Russia had a sort of "agreement" regarding the naval bases in Crimea. Not so different from our own "agreement" regarding a certain naval base in Guantanamo. If a palace coup threatened our possession of Gitmo - what would be our reaction, do you think? Would it have been any different than Moscow's reaction to the threat of the loss of Crimea?
Russia had MORE justification in Crimea than we would have in Gitmo, because the population of the surrounding area is more than half ethnic Russian. In Gitmo, all of the population is ethnic Cuban - few if any of whom are US citizens or former citizens.
The issues in Donetsk and Luhansk are a bit more complicated than they were in Crimea. The population is less ethnic Russian than it is in Crimea. But, still - there IS an ethnic population - one which Porko-chenko is prepared to run roughshod over. We put a puppet in charge of Kiev, and he is behaving badly. Porko, the misbehaving puppet, sparked this revolution, after all. You can expect that sort of thing when you stage a coup. There are a lot of divided loyalties in the Ukraine, after all. Stage a coup, install a neo-fascist as your puppet, and some of those loyalties to Mother Russia are going to be reawakened.
You're right, Putin isn't the ruler of Ukraine. But, Putin does have obligations that our own government is pretending not to understand. Our government has simply dismissed any Russian claims, and Russian loyalties of the people. In our pursuit of "US interests" we act as if nothing else matters.
I am embarrassed at the arrogant, pompous jackasses running our government, here in the US.
Yes, of course we have backed Putin into a corner, in more ways than one. And, personally, it would please me if Soros and the Koch brothers were to lose their entire fortunes in their little adventurism scheme. All of Wall Street should take a hit on this one.
How are those petty little sanctions working, anyway? Has Wall Street come to understand yet, that Russia can and will feed her people, despite our impotent leadership's saber rattling?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Florida, Georgia, Alabama, Louisiana, Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, California, Utah - need I go on?
Granted, Louisiana was bought and paid for, but it WAS part of another country. Ditto with Alaska.
We haven't even considered all the land taken from the Indian nations here - only land acquired from Spain, Mexico, France and Russia, countries that we officially recognize. Nor have I mentioned that we fought a war with England to get those first 13 colonies.
UN charter? I don't give a flip about the UN.
Granted
Re:Sigh... (Score:4, Informative)
Florida, Georgia, Alabama, Louisiana, Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, California, Utah - need I go on?
Skip ahead a bit, brother.
How about Hawaii? It was a kingdom in the late 1800s, ruled by Queen Lili'uokalani. In 1893 she was overthrown and the government was replaced with a provisional government, led by an American lawyer. President Cleveland commissioned a report which found that the overthrow was illegal. The provisional government ended the following year and was replaced by the Republic of Hawaii. In 1898, despite opposition from a majority of native Hawaiians, and despite letters written by Queen Lili'uokalani also in opposition, the US passed a resolution which annexed Hawaii as a US territory. In 1959 it would become the 50th state. In 1993 the US Congress would pass a joint resolution signed by Clinton which apologized for overthrowing the government of Queen Lili'uokalani.
Or, how about Guantanamo Bay Naval Base? We invaded and captured that land in 1898 (good year for the US, I guess), refused to give it back, built a military installation on it (our only one in a country with which we do not have diplomatic relations), and Cuba has been protesting every year since 1959 that the occupation of it is illegal. But US interests.
Re: (Score:3)
Sighing right back at you. I STATED in my post that Louisiana and Alaska were purchased. Yes, I do know my history.
I note that you make no mention of all the other states we have "acquired" from other nations. You only saw fit to make mention of Alaska.
Re: (Score:3)
Regarding the US permanent ownership of Gitmo - I invite you to read the actual lease/purchase.
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20t... [yale.edu]
"ARTICLE VII. To enable the United States to maintain the independence of Cuba, and to protect the people thereof, as well as for its own defense, the Cuban Government will sell or lease to the United States the lands necessary for coaling or naval stations, at certain specified points, to be agreed upon with the President of the United States."
Yes, the
Re: (Score:3)
Not forced into a corner exactly, but there are a lot of people who regard themselves as Russian living there and who he is expected to defend. Their government, whatever you think of it, was overthrown and they wanted to go back to Russian rule. Particularly in Crimea they were Russian citizens until not that long ago, and all of it was under Soviet rule until the late 80s.
The people living in Crimean and Ukraine are Ukrainian citizens, not Russian citizens. Some of them are of Russian heritage. That is a totally different question. Before you commit to Russia being entitled to invading and annexing territory where some of the inhabitants have ancestors that lived in Russia you might want to see if there is a lower limit to that since there are probably few countries on the planet without some Russians living in them. Is Russian entitled to annex them all?
Besides that, Ru
Re: (Score:3)
Let's not mix after-the-fact bullshit justification (The one acting like a Nazi is Putin) with the real reason.
Re: (Score:3)
Right, Putin had nothing to do with it, and Kiev was full of love for the Russian dominance until the bankers started acting up.
Re:Propaganda, Lies and Bullshit (Score:5, Insightful)
Great. Conspiracy theorists.
Everyone except Russia has a consistent story.
Russia also recently denied having troops in Crimea prior to the annexation... until later Putin admitted he'd lied.
Let's not even get into the good ol' soviet knack for bullshit.
Of course, *some people* insist on believing contrived stories instead of logical conclusions.
Re:Propaganda, Lies and Bullshit (Score:4, Interesting)
First, i think Russia does have troops in the Ukriane.
But there are commercial entities in both Europe and the US who have satalites capable of taking photos with astounding resolutions. Google is one that comes to mind. Back in the 90s, ms had a site called terraserve or something like that which had sat photos of such resolution that you could read markings on stopped semi trailers. Of course that didn't last long before the US government limited the resolutions allowed to be released- which they just recently relaxed.
So i think it is a legitimate question. Where are all the sat photos of this incursion? We had tons of them when that plane disapeared. They were commercial photos and we were asked to look for potential wreckage from the plane.
Re:Propaganda, Lies and Bullshit (Score:4, Insightful)
I doubt that google has its own satellites.
They buy the photos like anyone else does from the "owners"
Where are all the sat photos of this incursion?
Stupid question, don't you think so?
Who owns the satellites up there? Mainly companies in NATO countries. A very few Indian, a few more Chinese and lots of Russians.
I don't even know if India and China have "spy" satellites or only telecommunication ones.
So: obviously in a crisis like this the companies owning satellites have court/martial law orders not to disclose anything like this. Or what would you do as the President of France when a french company threatens to put you into a war with Russia because it posts detailed troop movements in the internet?
Re: (Score:3)
Here [channel4.com] is a link to a news story that documented this over a week ago.
Unfortunately, posting this will undo a few troll mods. Eh.
Re: (Score:3)
Contrary. Mostly German-speaking Moravian (Austro/Czech) - by way of England.
Re: (Score:3)
And did you hear, rvz.ru/~vladimir/bullshit.html is reporting that Ukraine is now working with ALIENS and THE ILLUMINATI to force Russian mothers in the Donbass to eat their own babies! It's TRUE!
Freedom House [freedomhouse.org] on press freedom in Russia. Reporters Without Borders [rsf.org]'s take.
It's one thing if you're dumb enough to take state propaganda outlets of a country that takes #148th place on the press freedom ranking, where even blogs are forced to register with government censors if they get too many readers and where i
Re:You know .. (Score:5, Insightful)
Europe has only had 100 years to mess things up.
The Ottomans and all of the other Islamic empires are much more responsible for what state the Middle East is in today. Why can't the 3 factions in Iraq get along? Why can't the factions in Lebanon get along? Why can't the factions in Syria get along. Why does Egypt despise the Gazans just as much as the Israelis do?
This probably has more to do with the 1000+ years these territories spent under the control of various Islamic empires ending with the Ottomans.
Put it this way (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Put it this way (Score:5, Interesting)
The only question is - can Putin visualize the worst case scenario at all or has he completely lost his mind?
He's just confident that the west will let him have Ukraine. Unfortunately, I don't think he's wrong. Will be interesting to see if we ever draw a line somewhere and then what we do when he crosses it...
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I'm reminded of the CDT from the Keith Laumer "Retief" series on how the US and EU are conducting business.
Right now, they are in full, "peace at any cost" Chamberlain mode, willing to accept any concession. However, we all know how well that went.
With the way things are, I fear the line will be when Russia decides not to heed the '90s treaty that settled Germany, but goes back to the one from '45... and takes back their chunk. Hope Bonn can serve as a capital again. Same with the US. I wonder if the CI
Re:Put it this way (Score:4, Interesting)
If he does back down he risks losing a lot more than the next election.
Re: (Score:3)
And then Putin will start looking around for more real estate he likes. I hear there are a lot of ethnic Russians in Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia....
Which have been NATO countries for a decade. The Soviet^w^w Russia will have a bit more trouble getting them back.
In fact, Putin may be making his play for Ukrania now, lest it also slip permanently beyond his reach.
Re: (Score:2)
most of the First World countries are going to immediately join forces to invade and permanently occupy Russia
Why do you think that? I have the strong feeling most of the first world looks at this like a bag of poo that's on fire. No one really wants to do anything with it but pretend it's not there.
Not due to Putin's ego (Score:5, Informative)
Putin has a massive ego, yes. But he's also a realist.
He knows that no other superpower will do anything no matter what he does. Certainly not the U.S. No-one has or will do anything about a whole jetliner of people shot out of the sky with citizens from around the world, why would they about a war in the Ukraine?
Your notion anyone would join forces to invade Russia is the real madness...
So he does whatever he wants because he can. And people are surprised about that?
Invasion (Score:4, Interesting)
Except, this is how World Wars get started. There is a Treaty in play. One that says, we Ukraine will disarm all our nuclear weapons if you the USA will come to our aid should we ever be invaded. Which is why I suspect there is all this word play as to if Russia has indeed "Invaded" Ukraine or not. If indeed Russia has invaded Ukraine, then the USA would be obligated to come to their aid significantly, as would any others that signed the treaty. Not only that, you would get allies that have signed pacts with the involved countries for mutual military actions, then so on and repeat until everyone is involved and you get a World War. Combine that with the fact that the two major combatants would be the largest nuclear weapons owners, is cause for concern, particularly if one is currently rattling that saber.
However even if it came to conventional war, using nuclear weapons would be insane. The one and only time it was considered and used, was because the potential casualty rate was expected to be well over 1 million troops for a conventional invasion of Japan to force capitulation. The largest war in recent history lasted nearly 10 years, yet less than 5,000 US troops were killed. Think about how far those two numbers are apart. Even then the two devices were in the kiloton range not the megaton. The US isn't going to invade Russia, and Russia isn't going to invade the US.
Anyway if the US doesn't honor the Treaty it brings into question all their previous treaties, pacts, alliances, etc... as being worthless and subject to political whim.
Re: (Score:3)
No, the US didn't agree to defend Ukraine. The US and Russia both agreed not to invade Ukraine, but there's no stipulation that if one invades the other will defend.
The real aftermath of this will be that no nation will ever voluntarily give up their nukes again.
Re: (Score:2)
Although I don't want to find out the hard way, it would be interesting to know if the US successfully developed nuclear counter measures. I know they had a few prototypes years ago but I imagine with the advancements in technology that it would be much more effective now than ever.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Put it this way (Score:4, Interesting)
He's decidedly not mad in the sense of being irrational. Everything he does adds up towards his goal of strengthening the Russian state and the Russian military industrial complex. (Someone ought to investigate on Putin's and his family and friends stock ownership).
Russia has a strong hand the next 20-30 years, as the western world runs out of petroleum and has yet to create a replacement. Russia has huge untapped petroleum resources, which it can use as a bargaining chip. A country of merely 140 million, this may well be Russia's last chance to expand its borders until the end of history, so if that is Putin's goal then now is the time to play his hand as hard as he possibly dares to.
I would say that Putin might be a megalomaniac psychopath, but those are not irrational if they actually have great power. The time from now until he dies will be interesting.
Re: (Score:3)
That's a Chinese curse, isn't it? 'May you live in interesting times.'
Re: (Score:3)
Sure he can. He just assumes that the West will never call him on it, or that if they do it'll be a very, very clear line like the Cuban missile crisis or when Hitler invaded Poland. He could probably nuke Kiev and occupy Ukraine and I still don't think NATO would come out and declare war on their own against the second biggest nuclear force on the planet. Don't forget that it's only a defense alliance, you can't invoke it unless a member state is under attack so there'd have to be a long and ugly political
Re: (Score:2)
Wow (Score:3, Insightful)
I thought we were through with all this by the turn of the century. And I mean you can say that he's bluffing but really, Putin's a psychopath. If you corner a genuine bona fide psycho they'll take you down with them if they can, and they don't need any 72 virgins as an excuse either. Even if he's not, he'll have to act like one - to lose face in his position would represent a fundamental weakening of power, he'd lose support overnight, be deposed and likely disposed of.
It would seem to me that western leaders have been caught with their pants well and truly around their ankles in this situation, I doubt they were expecting this kind of heavy handedness, er, ever again. So my guess is they'll back out and leet him have his way.
Re: (Score:2)
... western leaders... I doubt they were expecting this kind of heavy handedness, er, ever again.
At least, coming from someone else, and directed at them.
Heavy-handedness is their tool to use on the proles, after all.
Re: (Score:2)
Lose today and prepare for tomorrow. You may be correct but no matter what happens none of this will rest easy in the long run. Russia be will be handled like a bully from here on out.
I think in today's age you would be quick to see the Russian army dissolve should all world leaders embark against them. Back in WW2 the communication highway didn't exist and if the Germans knew how much they were outnumbered and how quickly they were losing ground, they would have crumbled much earlier. In the face of defeat
Re: (Score:3)
No he doesn't claim god is on his side, his way of playing to his parish is to make himself out to be a fearless and rugged strongman. Thing is though if god's your gimmick you've always got an out - just say you're being tested. If you're claiming you can wrestle polar bears, you'd better not back down from a fight or you lose support. So to be honest a politician is better off cleaving to religion than machismo, as long as the voters swallow it.
Also I'm not sure who this "we" thing is paleface, my country
Unreal... (Score:4, Interesting)
P.S. Thank you Slashdot for posting at least 2-3 stories about Ukraine every day. I guess this is really the stuff that matters to nerds that much.
Re:Unreal... (Score:5, Informative)
It was made during a verbal question and answer session some days ago. You can read a transcript of the full thing, without western media's blatantly selective quoting and bias, right here [kremlin.ru]. Do go read it for yourself. The press has been having a field day with taking individual sentences out of context, in many cases not even mentioning that Putin was responding to questions from Russian citizens, to make it look like he's issuing press releases about Ukraine specifically. It's the most amazingly dangerous set of selective quotations I've ever seen. In this case Putin wasn't even talking about Ukraine!
I copy/pasted the full question and answer in a post below. But you can easily find it in that page. It's a long answer to a relatively vague question that asks (amongst other things) about how Russia can avoid being drawn into large scale conflicts. So right at the start he says he doesn't want to be drawn into any large conflicts, he doesn't think it's going to happen and that he thinks nobody has any intention of starting a large scale conflict (er, he might want to re-evaluate that given the noise coming out of NATO). Then he goes on to point out that Russia can defend itself, and talks about the "nuclear deterrent" (same language as the UK uses), and then states again that it's for defence.
You can choose not to believe him if you like. But the USA and UK also have "nuclear deterrents" and their so-called Departments of Defence routinely engage in offence at the drop of a hat. We routinely see far more aggressive language coming out of the White House. So I don't think anything Putin is saying here is particularly unique or unusual.
Actual full quote (Score:5, Informative)
Full transcript of this youth camp Q and A session is available here [kremlin.ru].
Sigh (Score:4)
OK, I guess this "story" qualifies as "stuff that matters", but can we at least get something more than a smattering of links to stories that are yesterday's news? Putin made his comment 4 days ago, and damn near every think in the summary points to stories that are three days old (and contain more than their share of unsubstantiated speculation).
I'm not normally one to make "why is this on slashdot?" posts. But taking into account the predilections of the submitter, I gotta say this comes off as a troll submission.
Seriously? (Score:5, Interesting)
Kiev has received threats of nuclear retaliation from Russia through unofficial channels if it continues to fight pro-Russian separatists in eastern Ukraine, the Ukrainian Minister of Defence, Valeriy Heletey, announced on his Facebook page on Monday.
This is news for nerds, for people who are supposed to love science. Science is, when you can prove things, reproduce them. An announcement from someone on the losing side who has an interest in dragging NATO into this is not a statement that can be relied on. It is not even mentioned what the unofficial channel, is, nor was any kind of prove provided, like with all the rest of the anti-Russian propaganda, btw.
I expect tomorrow news on ./ to be: The pope said that God is real.
Really? (Score:5, Informative)
This sounds like real news. You would think it would be on the front page of the world's news sites. However...
Isn't on the BBC
Isn't on the Guardian
Isn't on the Washington Post
Isn't on the New York Times*
Isn't on the LA Times
I detect a pattern here.
* The NYT does have on its home page a story entitled "Putin’s War of Words: A Roundup." I guess saying that "thousands of words are already pouring over its western borders" doesn't have quite the same pizazz.
Re: (Score:3)
The stories linked to were at:
News.com.au [news.com.au]
CNN [cnn.com]
Newsweek [newsweek.com]
Those are hardly obscure names in the world of journalism.
The pattern I see is that that you won't go to where the stories are posted and try to manufacture a controversy from it.
The article is complete fucking bullshit (Score:5, Interesting)
There are no formed Russian military units pouring over the border. There are some Russian soldiers who are on leave and using their personal time to help the separatist movement in Ukraine, but there is absolutely NO ORGANIZED RUSSIAN EFFORT here.
I have a lot of family in Donetsk and Luhansk and it is BUSINESS AS USUAL there. The territory is now and has been operating as if it were part of Russia for MANY MANY YEARS. Nothing has changed except the installation of a westernist puppet as President who is now trying to re-integrate separatist regions under threat of force.
Nobody in eastern Ukraine considers themselves Ukrainian, including my Family who has lived there for generations. Eastern Ukraine has always been and will continue to be Russian.
Re: (Score:3)
There are some Russian soldiers who are on leave and using their personal time to help the separatist movement in Ukraine
Documentation please... It's naive to think that Russia isn't hiring people to spread disinformation all over the internet.
Putin is the most out of control leader (Score:3, Interesting)
Anyone remember that itty-bitty little mistake of invading the wrong country after 9/11 based on falsified intellegence?
On a scale of 0 to Iraq, how does Putin invading Ukraine rate?
Slashdot jumps the shark (Score:3, Insightful)
This whole Ukraine 'crisis' is made in the USA. Most of the 'news' you hear about it is disinformation, and patent bullshit. Putin was saying, look, we don't want Kiev - if we did, we could take it, but we don't. Meanwhile the US (NATO) is making all kinds of threatening and provocative noises. So Putin was just reminding folks that look, we are not just some other shit country you can make roll over for the Empire.
Of course. this can not stand, according to the idiots that spout foreign policy in Washington. But it will.
Re:Slashdot jumps the shark (Score:5, Insightful)
I guess you're right. But somehow, Invading / providing substantial material support for an insurrection in another country, and then annexing it-- followed by reminding everyone "if you screw with us, things will get real" doesnt exactly sound as reasonable as the way you put it-- it somehow seems more aggressive.
Facebook? (Score:3)
Oh my, a member of a recently created government (appointed by coup), who is facing unrest from their own citizens, and is upset about outside assistance by another power (And US, Europe, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Israel don't?) is posting to his Facebook page that said outside force is planning mass murder. Stop the presses! This "story" has all of the validity of a small time drug dealer scrawling a message on a bathroom wall about the cities drug kingpin planning to release a plague in the city because..... well..... he can?
It's Clear (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:http://www.jimstonefreelance.com/ (Score:5, Insightful)
The whole idea that there is no actual Russian invasion falls a little flat when there are captured and dead Russian soldiers in Ukraine, and the official Russian line is that those soldiers, apparently with all of their military equipment and supplies, voluntarily invaded Ukraine on their vacations. You would think that Russia wouldn't want their soldiers taking tanks and artillery on vacation with them, but maybe they just do things a little differently in Russia.
By the way, it's just "Ukraine", not "the Ukraine". I would expect 8 former intelligence officials to know that, or at least be consistent in their so-called "memo".
Re: (Score:3)
The whole idea that there is no actual Russian invasion falls a little flat when there are captured and dead Russian soldiers in Ukraine, and the official Russian line is that those soldiers, apparently with all of their military equipment and supplies, voluntarily invaded Ukraine on their vacations. You would think that Russia wouldn't want their soldiers taking tanks and artillery on vacation with them, but maybe they just do things a little differently in Russia.
By the way, it's just "Ukraine", not "the Ukraine". I would expect 8 former intelligence officials to know that, or at least be consistent in their so-called "memo".
It's not actually incorrect to say 'The Ukraine'
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N... [wikipedia.org]
Re:Hm. (Score:4, Insightful)
I can't tell you how comfortable I would be feeling, right this instant, were Palin vice president.
Obama didn't win; the GOP lost, both in 2008 and 2012. If you want to be angry at anyone, be angry at the GOP for giving us shit choices.
Re: (Score:3)
He did, but he apparently paid attention.
Soviet influence on the peace movement [wikipedia.org]
Russian GRU defector Stanislav Lunev said in his autobiography that "the GRU and the KGB helped to fund just about every antiwar movement and organization in America and abroad," and that during the Vietnam War the USSR gave $1 billion to American anti-war movements, more than it gave to the VietCong.[19] Lunev described this as a "hugely successful campaign and well worth the cost".[19] According to Time magazine, a US State Department official estimated that the KGB may have spent $600 million on the peace offensive up to 1983, channeling funds through national Communist parties or the World Peace Council "to a host of new antiwar organizations that would, in many cases, reject the financial help if they knew the source."[13] Richard Felix Staar in his book Foreign Policies of the Soviet Union says that non-communist peace movements without overt ties to the USSR were "virtually controlled" by it. Lord Chalfont claimed that the Soviet Union was giving the European peace movement £100 million a year. The Federation of Conservative Students (FCS) alleged Soviet funding of CND.
In 1985 Time magazine noted "the suspicions of some Western scientists that the nuclear winter hypothesis was promoted by Moscow to give antinuclear groups in the U.S. and Europe some fresh ammunition against America's arms buildup."[20] Sergei Tretyakov claimed that the data behind the nuclear winter scenario was faked by the KGB and spread in the west as part of a campaign against Pershing missiles.[21] He said that the first peer-reviewed paper in the development of the nuclear winter hypothesis, "Twilight at Noon" by Paul Crutzen and John Birks (1982),[22] was published as a result of this KGB influence.
Re:But hey... (Score:4, Interesting)
I'm even more sad that so many Americans would STILL vote for this guy today simply because they're Democrats and that's that.
Low as my opinion of Obama is, I'd certainly vote for him again if he was running against the same two clowns as last time, or the two psychopaths from the time before.
Re: (Score:3)