8 ms·

Ukraine places forces on combat alert and threatens war

101 points by ck2 13y ago

osipov 13y ago
I for one feel better that we didn't let Ukraine into NATO.
- waterlesscloud 13y ago
  Russia wouldn't send troops to Ukraine if Ukraine was in NATO. And then Ukraine wouldn't be threatening war over it.
  - fredgrott 13y ago
    that is not correct Ukraine is one that decided not join NATO not NATO deciding not allow Ukraine into NATO
  - toyg 13y ago
    Russia would have sent troops to Ukraine a minute before they officially joined NATO. "Claiming" Crimea for NATO is something that Russia will never allow, like the US will never allow Panama to fall in Russian or Chinese hands.
    - kiiski 13y ago
      Indeed. According to wikipedia (source was written in ukrainian, so can't checĸ), Putin said in 2008 that Russia would attempt to annex Crimea and East Ukraine if they were to join NATO. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukraine%E2%80%93NATO_relations#Russian_resistance_to_Ukrainian_NATO_membership http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukraine%E2%80%93NATO_relations#...
dharma1 13y ago
doesn't look good does it. hope it doesn't escalate
- pekk 13y ago
  Russia invading Ukraine was the escalation you are worried about
yoha 13y ago
One interesting point is the agreement with Ukraine in favor of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons [1]. To sum it up roughly, Ukraine ended up with a lot of nuclear devices after the split of USSR. Since nuclear powers wanted to avoid the spread of the deadly weapon, they convinced Ukraine into getting rid of its nuclear arsenal. In exchange, US, Russia, UK and France agreed to respect and help defend Ukraine's borders. So, it would seem that Russia did violate this agreement but there remains to see what other countries will do. One thing to underline is that they would have to respond to a call for help from Ukraine and, with the ousting of the Ukrainian government, it is still unclear who is to make the call. The strategy of Russia might just have been to play on this period of uncertainty to claim some of Ukraine's territory. Because the US-Russia relation is still similar to the one from during the Cold War, they might really want to avoid a direct conflict with Russia. Until the situation in Ukraine is settled, Russia can move its troops without having to face the US. Once it's settled, the US will probably not want to engage a fight and will not push them back out of Ukraine. tl;dr: Russia might be on a conquer-and-hold over Crimea Edit: the agreement is the Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances [2] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapons_and_Ukraine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapons_and_Ukraine [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum_on_Security_Assurances https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum_on_Securit...
- JumpCrisscross 13y ago
  The Crimea, presently, is threatening to secede from Kiev. That this appears to largely be the work of Russian special forces is a moot point. Russia is interpreting its obligation to protecting Ukraine's territorial integrity as compelling it to prevent the Crimea from seceding. In its eyes, the regime in Kiev is illegal and antagonising ethnic Russians in the Crimea. The simplest solution, to Moscow, is fighting the illegal" regime. This follows a similar script to Georgia - provoking the new regime into aggression and then intervening to keep the peace (with such an intervention not necessarily restricted to the initial separatist areas, e.g. South Ossetia or Crimea). In Russia's defence, it is a strategy the United States has used to great success as well.
  - barry-cotter 13y ago
Zenst 13y ago
Half the country wants to be part of Russia's Economic market and the other half want to be part of the EU economic market. Are either markets in a position to take on Ukraine in the state it is in, who knows fully. Russia also have a vested interest in parts of the Ukraine and the EU has none, beyond growing the members list realestate wise. The part of the country Russia has a vested interest is also the part that wants to be apart of the Russian market, so whilst democracy does play a part it does get down to a yes or no type approach in choice. Which is perhaps the real issue in how it is applied and for Ukraine I can see the country splitting into two, appeaseing both mindsets with regards to economic market. I just hope Ukraine has a say and allows the logicle approach that appeases the people in a way that could appease both and place the country into a unique position which would enable it to gain from the Russian and the EU market. But sadly other contries will want to show face, even if not effected and this may cause esculation and force Ukraine into a position that blinds it from looking at all options and what might be the best choice and a slice of each cake. But it would be nice if that chocie was enabled. We have Russia standing by the Russian market embracing and the EU and USA in effect behind the rest. Either way, if the pissfest by the World leaders progresses then Ukraine will be sadly left out of debating what happens in its own country, nomatter what the people want and when it is near a 50/50 split then maybe that would be better way on many levels and keep all happy. But if done wrongly then it will be East/West Germany and a step back in progress in diplomacy for many years. Still, however you feel, it is one news item that will rollon for a while. Heck if Scotland can vote for independance the maybe part of Ukrain needs to be allowed the same and save many milatary operations. Though not seen any World leader suggest that avenue of progress as some seem stuck in the cold war mentality or at least there advisers are.
- hartator 13y ago
  They can be part of both markets. The only problem is corruption, not markets. Ukraine's revolution was against corruption, human rights, more democracy, EU is last. Russia wants just to protect the assets of the past governments. Money and corruption, they don't care about anything else.
  - caf 13y ago
bonchibuji 13y ago
There are protests organized in London, Paris, Berlin, Helsinki, The Hague, Rome, SF, Riga, Krakow etc. If you wish to join one of them, please check out here: https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=237875373062939&set=a.220820914768385.1073741828.220542374796239&type=1 https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=237875373062939&set=...
- yoha 13y ago
  I don't want to sound like a downer, but what could these protests could actually achieve? It is very unlikely that even an important mobilization of citizens would change the decisions that each country will take, considering the incentives driven by the diplomatic context. And that's a genuine question, I would be interested in reading an answer.
  - toyg 13y ago
    This sort of "protests" can be useful in granting political capital to this or that politician to come out in favour of (or refrain from adopting) this or that position, eventually snowballing into official government policy.
    - yoha 13y ago
      Yes, that's the purpose of a demonstration (it's a way to demonstrate the political power lent by the people to an opinion). However, I just don't see how this would change anything in the current situation since the incentives of avoiding a war already seems the predominant objective.
      - toyg 13y ago
        I wouldn't be so sure. Drawing the Russian military in a lengthy and expensive campaign to pacify a huge country is actually a very compelling scenario from a certain point of view. Yes, Europe would be short on gas for a while, but quoting one Ms. Nuland, "F*ck the EU", right? There are a lot of incentives on all sides, at this point.
candl 13y ago
Meanwhile Aleksei A. Navalny, Russia’s leading opposition figure, was placed under house arrest on Friday and ordered not to use the Internet or telephone for two months, thus removing President Vladimir V. Putin’s fiercest critic from public life. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/01/world/europe/aleksei-navalny.html?ref=world http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/01/world/europe/aleksei-naval...
- yoha 13y ago
  Noticed this in the flood of topics related to the Crimean invasion on /r/worldnews. I do not think is has a lot to do with the incoming war though. The NYT does not suggest it either.
  - jnbiche 13y ago
    Only to the extent that the "incoming war" has provided some great cover.
danbruc 13y ago
The Russian President underlined that there are real threats to the life and health of Russian citizens and compatriots on Ukrainian territory. Vladimir Putin stressed that if violence spread further in the eastern regions of Ukraine and in Crimea, Russia reserves the right to protect its interests and those of Russian speakers living there. So if there are some English speakers or tourists from foreign countries in Russia subject to threats to their life or health, maybe gay people, then...the United States, Great Britain, Australia...the home countries of the tourists...have some kind of legitimation to invade Russia? Seriously?
- firstOrder 13y ago
  Reagan's justification for invading Grenada was that he was protecting the hundreds of American medical students studying in Grenada. The Crimea was part of Russia until 1954. It had, and still has, a massive Russian military base there. In 1992 Ukraine officially recognized the Crimea as largely autonomous. So in that light, Russia has much more standing to go into the Crimea then Reagan had to go into Grenada.
  - danbruc 13y ago
    This is completely irrelevant - a big mistake does not justify a different - and completely unrelated - "smaller" mistake in any way.
    - toyg 13y ago
      It's not irrelevant, it just shows how governments "think". This is more or less accepted practice in foreign affairs.
      - danbruc 13y ago
        I did not want to imply that the comment is irrelevant, it shows, as you say, an interesting parallel in the way of thinking. I wanted to say that it is completely irrelevant as a justification for the current actions of Russia.
jeveloper 13y ago
Take a look at the annexation of Crimea to Ukraine in 1950s , that was a ridiculous and at this point an illegal move. Time to bring it back. i definitely would not want to see a war of any kind and there is no reason to take what's not Russias.
patrickg_zill 13y ago
One thing that I have found, is the limit of English language media to address Russian language events. You really have to be careful to cross-check things as much as possible. I chalk it up simply to there not being enough Eng/Rus bilingual speakers in the media to reach a critical mass. I am not criticizing this particular article, just making a general observation.
aaronsnoswell 13y ago
I've been following these developments closely. One question that I was hoping someone here could comment on; what are the international law ramifications of the Russian soldiers not wearing insignia? I was under the impression that the lack of displayed insignia during a conflict strips them of many rights to protection if captured etc.
- IgorPartola 13y ago
  This. Except, there is no armed conflict currently, they are not getting captured, and Putin likely does not give two shits about what happens to them. Speaking as a Ukrainian-American, the US and the rest of the world are responding way too slowly to this.
danbruc 13y ago
One of my coworkers is from the Ukraine and he predicted exactly this while the situation at Maidan was slowly escalating a few weeks before the Olympic Games began - once the Olympic Games are over, Russia will send tanks, he said.
ChuckMcM 13y ago
I guess Putin really does want the old days back, including the Cold War. I cannot imagine any scenario where this comes out well for the Russians, and a number of scenarios where a lot of innocent people die. Going to be one of those 'turning points in history' either way.
- allochthon 13y ago
  > I cannot imagine any scenario where this comes out well for the Russians I'm not so sure there will be immediate repercussions. Something similar happened with Georgia, and although this has further tarnished Putin's reputation internationally, the Russian government seems to have shrugged off the diplomatic difficulties.
ChristianMarks 13y ago
It's not a great win for Russia to annex the Ukraine. If they do, they're stuck with an expensive mess.
X4 13y ago
Seriously, why the hell does Ukraine want to join the EU? They don't meet the criteria to be even allowed to join the EU afaik and why would the EU allow a country in inflation to join? Except to suck up all of their Oil reservoirs for free, that means giving them a huge credit (which of course won't help them). Just like the German credit didn't help Greece. Albeit I believe I might be terribly wrong on some of this, I think that I better have a picture, than none. My own answers are like this: The USA avoids a direct conflict with the Russians, by subverting the country to join the EU, which then will allow US troops to be placed near Russia. I would think that this could give the USA a win at first-strike chance in a possible WW3 scenario. They don't even need to ship an atom bomb over from the USA, but can use the ones already placed in the Ukraine. Germany and Ukraine seem to be critical to the US's WW3 strategic scenerio superiority. It could also just be the massive amounts of Oil in the Ukraine, which the US or the EU (which currently means Germany) could tap on. I wish I could know the truth about all this. Yes it's surely just about power and money again, but such an oversimplification removes a lot colors and nuances from the grand picture.
- eloff 13y ago
  No, there can be no win in a WW3, for anybody.
ommunist 13y ago
Ukraine has Mickey Mouse Army. 24 planes, of which only 4 can fly. Everything shootable was sold to Africa long time ago. Artillery is very obsolete, but there ae mo troop capable to operate it. I kid you not. And most of the 'army' are ethnic Russians. Guess, shall they shoot east or west?

101 points by ck2 13y ago

osipov 13y ago

I for one feel better that we didn't let Ukraine into NATO.

waterlesscloud 13y ago
Russia wouldn't send troops to Ukraine if Ukraine was in NATO. And then Ukraine wouldn't be threatening war over it.
- fredgrott 13y ago
  that is not correct Ukraine is one that decided not join NATO not NATO deciding not allow Ukraine into NATO
- toyg 13y ago
  Russia would have sent troops to Ukraine a minute before they officially joined NATO. "Claiming" Crimea for NATO is something that Russia will never allow, like the US will never allow Panama to fall in Russian or Chinese hands.
  - kiiski 13y ago
    Indeed. According to wikipedia (source was written in ukrainian, so can't checĸ), Putin said in 2008 that Russia would attempt to annex Crimea and East Ukraine if they were to join NATO. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukraine%E2%80%93NATO_relations#Russian_resistance_to_Ukrainian_NATO_membership http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukraine%E2%80%93NATO_relations#...

dharma1 13y ago

doesn't look good does it. hope it doesn't escalate

pekk 13y ago
Russia invading Ukraine was the escalation you are worried about

yoha 13y ago

One interesting point is the agreement with Ukraine in favor of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons [1]. To sum it up roughly, Ukraine ended up with a lot of nuclear devices after the split of USSR. Since nuclear powers wanted to avoid the spread of the deadly weapon, they convinced Ukraine into getting rid of its nuclear arsenal. In exchange, US, Russia, UK and France agreed to respect and help defend Ukraine's borders. So, it would seem that Russia did violate this agreement but there remains to see what other countries will do. One thing to underline is that they would have to respond to a call for help from Ukraine and, with the ousting of the Ukrainian government, it is still unclear who is to make the call. The strategy of Russia might just have been to play on this period of uncertainty to claim some of Ukraine's territory. Because the US-Russia relation is still similar to the one from during the Cold War, they might really want to avoid a direct conflict with Russia. Until the situation in Ukraine is settled, Russia can move its troops without having to face the US. Once it's settled, the US will probably not want to engage a fight and will not push them back out of Ukraine. tl;dr: Russia might be on a conquer-and-hold over Crimea Edit: the agreement is the Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances [2] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapons_and_Ukraine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapons_and_Ukraine [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum_on_Security_Assurances https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum_on_Securit...

JumpCrisscross 13y ago
The Crimea, presently, is threatening to secede from Kiev. That this appears to largely be the work of Russian special forces is a moot point. Russia is interpreting its obligation to protecting Ukraine's territorial integrity as compelling it to prevent the Crimea from seceding. In its eyes, the regime in Kiev is illegal and antagonising ethnic Russians in the Crimea. The simplest solution, to Moscow, is fighting the illegal" regime. This follows a similar script to Georgia - provoking the new regime into aggression and then intervening to keep the peace (with such an intervention not necessarily restricted to the initial separatist areas, e.g. South Ossetia or Crimea). In Russia's defence, it is a strategy the United States has used to great success as well.
- barry-cotter 13y ago

Zenst 13y ago

Half the country wants to be part of Russia's Economic market and the other half want to be part of the EU economic market. Are either markets in a position to take on Ukraine in the state it is in, who knows fully. Russia also have a vested interest in parts of the Ukraine and the EU has none, beyond growing the members list realestate wise. The part of the country Russia has a vested interest is also the part that wants to be apart of the Russian market, so whilst democracy does play a part it does get down to a yes or no type approach in choice. Which is perhaps the real issue in how it is applied and for Ukraine I can see the country splitting into two, appeaseing both mindsets with regards to economic market. I just hope Ukraine has a say and allows the logicle approach that appeases the people in a way that could appease both and place the country into a unique position which would enable it to gain from the Russian and the EU market. But sadly other contries will want to show face, even if not effected and this may cause esculation and force Ukraine into a position that blinds it from looking at all options and what might be the best choice and a slice of each cake. But it would be nice if that chocie was enabled. We have Russia standing by the Russian market embracing and the EU and USA in effect behind the rest. Either way, if the pissfest by the World leaders progresses then Ukraine will be sadly left out of debating what happens in its own country, nomatter what the people want and when it is near a 50/50 split then maybe that would be better way on many levels and keep all happy. But if done wrongly then it will be East/West Germany and a step back in progress in diplomacy for many years. Still, however you feel, it is one news item that will rollon for a while. Heck if Scotland can vote for independance the maybe part of Ukrain needs to be allowed the same and save many milatary operations. Though not seen any World leader suggest that avenue of progress as some seem stuck in the cold war mentality or at least there advisers are.

hartator 13y ago
They can be part of both markets. The only problem is corruption, not markets. Ukraine's revolution was against corruption, human rights, more democracy, EU is last. Russia wants just to protect the assets of the past governments. Money and corruption, they don't care about anything else.
- caf 13y ago

bonchibuji 13y ago

There are protests organized in London, Paris, Berlin, Helsinki, The Hague, Rome, SF, Riga, Krakow etc. If you wish to join one of them, please check out here: https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=237875373062939&set=a.220820914768385.1073741828.220542374796239&type=1 https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=237875373062939&set=...

yoha 13y ago
I don't want to sound like a downer, but what could these protests could actually achieve? It is very unlikely that even an important mobilization of citizens would change the decisions that each country will take, considering the incentives driven by the diplomatic context. And that's a genuine question, I would be interested in reading an answer.
- toyg 13y ago
  This sort of "protests" can be useful in granting political capital to this or that politician to come out in favour of (or refrain from adopting) this or that position, eventually snowballing into official government policy.
  - yoha 13y ago
    Yes, that's the purpose of a demonstration (it's a way to demonstrate the political power lent by the people to an opinion). However, I just don't see how this would change anything in the current situation since the incentives of avoiding a war already seems the predominant objective.
    - toyg 13y ago
      I wouldn't be so sure. Drawing the Russian military in a lengthy and expensive campaign to pacify a huge country is actually a very compelling scenario from a certain point of view. Yes, Europe would be short on gas for a while, but quoting one Ms. Nuland, "F*ck the EU", right? There are a lot of incentives on all sides, at this point.

candl 13y ago

Meanwhile Aleksei A. Navalny, Russia’s leading opposition figure, was placed under house arrest on Friday and ordered not to use the Internet or telephone for two months, thus removing President Vladimir V. Putin’s fiercest critic from public life. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/01/world/europe/aleksei-navalny.html?ref=world http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/01/world/europe/aleksei-naval...

yoha 13y ago
Noticed this in the flood of topics related to the Crimean invasion on /r/worldnews. I do not think is has a lot to do with the incoming war though. The NYT does not suggest it either.
- jnbiche 13y ago
  Only to the extent that the "incoming war" has provided some great cover.

danbruc 13y ago

The Russian President underlined that there are real threats to the life and health of Russian citizens and compatriots on Ukrainian territory. Vladimir Putin stressed that if violence spread further in the eastern regions of Ukraine and in Crimea, Russia reserves the right to protect its interests and those of Russian speakers living there. So if there are some English speakers or tourists from foreign countries in Russia subject to threats to their life or health, maybe gay people, then...the United States, Great Britain, Australia...the home countries of the tourists...have some kind of legitimation to invade Russia? Seriously?

firstOrder 13y ago
Reagan's justification for invading Grenada was that he was protecting the hundreds of American medical students studying in Grenada. The Crimea was part of Russia until 1954. It had, and still has, a massive Russian military base there. In 1992 Ukraine officially recognized the Crimea as largely autonomous. So in that light, Russia has much more standing to go into the Crimea then Reagan had to go into Grenada.
- danbruc 13y ago
  This is completely irrelevant - a big mistake does not justify a different - and completely unrelated - "smaller" mistake in any way.
  - toyg 13y ago
    It's not irrelevant, it just shows how governments "think". This is more or less accepted practice in foreign affairs.
    - danbruc 13y ago
      I did not want to imply that the comment is irrelevant, it shows, as you say, an interesting parallel in the way of thinking. I wanted to say that it is completely irrelevant as a justification for the current actions of Russia.

jeveloper 13y ago

Take a look at the annexation of Crimea to Ukraine in 1950s , that was a ridiculous and at this point an illegal move. Time to bring it back. i definitely would not want to see a war of any kind and there is no reason to take what's not Russias.

patrickg_zill 13y ago

One thing that I have found, is the limit of English language media to address Russian language events. You really have to be careful to cross-check things as much as possible. I chalk it up simply to there not being enough Eng/Rus bilingual speakers in the media to reach a critical mass. I am not criticizing this particular article, just making a general observation.

aaronsnoswell 13y ago

I've been following these developments closely. One question that I was hoping someone here could comment on; what are the international law ramifications of the Russian soldiers not wearing insignia? I was under the impression that the lack of displayed insignia during a conflict strips them of many rights to protection if captured etc.

IgorPartola 13y ago
This. Except, there is no armed conflict currently, they are not getting captured, and Putin likely does not give two shits about what happens to them. Speaking as a Ukrainian-American, the US and the rest of the world are responding way too slowly to this.

danbruc 13y ago

One of my coworkers is from the Ukraine and he predicted exactly this while the situation at Maidan was slowly escalating a few weeks before the Olympic Games began - once the Olympic Games are over, Russia will send tanks, he said.

ChuckMcM 13y ago

I guess Putin really does want the old days back, including the Cold War. I cannot imagine any scenario where this comes out well for the Russians, and a number of scenarios where a lot of innocent people die. Going to be one of those 'turning points in history' either way.

allochthon 13y ago
> I cannot imagine any scenario where this comes out well for the Russians I'm not so sure there will be immediate repercussions. Something similar happened with Georgia, and although this has further tarnished Putin's reputation internationally, the Russian government seems to have shrugged off the diplomatic difficulties.

ChristianMarks 13y ago

It's not a great win for Russia to annex the Ukraine. If they do, they're stuck with an expensive mess.

X4 13y ago

Seriously, why the hell does Ukraine want to join the EU? They don't meet the criteria to be even allowed to join the EU afaik and why would the EU allow a country in inflation to join? Except to suck up all of their Oil reservoirs for free, that means giving them a huge credit (which of course won't help them). Just like the German credit didn't help Greece. Albeit I believe I might be terribly wrong on some of this, I think that I better have a picture, than none. My own answers are like this: The USA avoids a direct conflict with the Russians, by subverting the country to join the EU, which then will allow US troops to be placed near Russia. I would think that this could give the USA a win at first-strike chance in a possible WW3 scenario. They don't even need to ship an atom bomb over from the USA, but can use the ones already placed in the Ukraine. Germany and Ukraine seem to be critical to the US's WW3 strategic scenerio superiority. It could also just be the massive amounts of Oil in the Ukraine, which the US or the EU (which currently means Germany) could tap on. I wish I could know the truth about all this. Yes it's surely just about power and money again, but such an oversimplification removes a lot colors and nuances from the grand picture.

eloff 13y ago
No, there can be no win in a WW3, for anybody.

ommunist 13y ago

Ukraine has Mickey Mouse Army. 24 planes, of which only 4 can fly. Everything shootable was sold to Africa long time ago. Artillery is very obsolete, but there ae mo troop capable to operate it. I kid you not. And most of the 'army' are ethnic Russians. Guess, shall they shoot east or west?