Russia approves use of military in Ukraine | Hacker News Reader

Russia approves use of military in Ukraine

hosted.ap.org

170 pointsytNumbers241 comments

See what happened in Ukraine's neighboring country, Moldova, 24 years ago: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_Transnistria

Moldova had a population of ethnic Russians that lived on the Eastern bank of the river D'niest'r. (Similar to the Crimean region in Ukraine.)

Eventually a civil war broke out, and Russia stepped in to back the ethnically Russian region (sound familiar?). The end result was a stalemate. A ceasefire was declared in 1992, and the ethnically Russian region decided to spin off its own government. They call themselves Pre'd'niest'rovia (or Transnistria), and function as an entirely separate country from Moldova. That means different language (Russian, not Moldovan), currency, parliament, military, etc etc. Yet Moldova never accepted it as a sovereign country, and neither did the rest of the world.

To this day, when you see Moldova on a map you only see one country where really there are two.

What's happening in Ukraine today is almost a mirror image. I suspect it will result either in a similar two-country situation with one being unrecognized, or the Eastern half of Ukraine will form a new country.

PS - I was born in Transnistria and lived there until I was eight. Several months ago I went to visit for the first time since leaving 18 years ago. It's a miserable place to live. I also visited Kiev and Odessa (Ukraine) on the same trip, and am glad I did so before this violence broke out.

Same thing happened in Georgia in 2008. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgia_(country)#The_South_Oss...

Same thing happened in Serbia in 1999. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kosovo

Only in this case it was NATO who invaded, and it is viewed quite differently from the western media then what parents have cited.

The worst thing in world today is to become the rope on which the imperial forces tug to prove their strength.

Also in Cyprus in 1974: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkish_invasion_of_Cyprus

Kosovo seems a much better example although I don't understand why NATO was able to enter the war against the wishes of Russia. Maybe nothing major happened because Serbia was sort of a Russian puppet state instead of being Russia itself? Or the lack of interesting resources in Kosovo? I have some remembering to do.

By the way, while reading about Kosovo's history yesterday, I noticed how beautiful Pristina's National Public Library looked: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/65/Biblotek...

Unless you subscribe to an extreme pan Slavophilism, in which the Balkans are legally and morally Russian territory, then no, Russia had nothing to say in the Balkans.

Not Russian territory but under Soviet (and then Russian) influence. No?

No, pretty much the exact opposite: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tito%E2%80%93Stalin_split

Ah, this is very interesting, thanks for the eye-opening link! It actually might explain my previous questions about Kosovo.

Sarajevo was also a beautiful city until the Orthodox Serbs destroyed it.

It was in 1999, when Russian strength and morale (political, economic and military) was at it's nadir. Compare the two wars in Chechnya with the war in Georgia.

> The worst thing in world today is to become the rope on which the imperial forces tug to prove their strength.

Not just today -- it's been a shitty position to find oneself in since the beginning of time. The only difference today is that we think of ourselves as above such things. But clearly we're not.

I think the circumstances surrounding the conflict in Kosovo paint a starkly different picture from what's going on in Ukraine.

Big difference. Serbians under Milosevic were committing mass murder and ethnic cleansing (as they had done with Bosnia and Croatia few years earlier), while here, Ukrainians are not kicking people from Crimea out.

This is just a land grab.

>Ukrainians are not kicking people from Crimea out.

Not yet. Still, the first act of the new regime was to revoke language rights from ethnic minorities, i.e. Russians in Crimea. When this sort of thing happens, ethnic cleansing is not far away.

That's one ridiculous exaggeration. Did you even read the law you are talking about, or you are just repeating somebody else's propaganda? The law was actually criticized by Ukrainian minorities -- by Crimean Tatars [1], by Association of Jewish Organizations and Communities of Ukraine[2], by Congress of Ethnic Communities of Ukraine [3]. But the most important detail -- the law in fact wasn't repealed! Acting president already vetoed its repeal.

[1] http://www.unian.ua/society/669726-progolosovaniy-zakon-pro-...

[2] http://www.vaadua.org/news/zayavlenie-vaada-ukrainy-po-povod...

[3] http://old.kngu.org/kngu%20news%202012/Zayava%20Ch.html

This law does not affect Crimea as Autonomous Republic of Crimea has its own constitution, and Russian language is used as an official since 1998.

Seriously? Leaving out some details there, aren't you? Like Srebrenica?

I wouldn't say it's the same as the number of Russians living in South Ossetia was and is really small (2 to 3%?). There are some similarities but even the way the war started seems different from what's happening in Ukraine. But it's useful context to have though.

And by "same thing" you mean that Georgia started an invasion of South Ossetia and then forced to retreat when Russian forces counter-attacked?

I once stumbled upon this youtube about Transnistria: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O6kub-Ehbd4 Really fascinating, I had never even heard of the place. They really make it seem like the country is dependent on black market arms deals of former Soviet stock. Is it actually true?

It runs almost entirely on black market dealings (weapons, human sex slaves) and criminal enterprises. It's often called "the black hole" of Europe. It's very difficult to live there.

A great documentary. Thanks.

Do they still hear artillery shots there in daily life?

Not anymore. The ceasefire has held reasonably well. The "border" between Transnistria and the rest of Moldova has a demilitarized zone, protected by (drumroll please...) Russian "peace" troops.

That would actually an optimistic scenario. More pessimistic one would be if you notice Putin got approval to use Russian military in Ukraine, not just in Crimea. Which means he can also use it it Kharkov, Donetsk, Lugansk and other places where there is a majority Russian population. And try to split Ukraine along language-ethnic lines and destroy it as an independent state as a punishment for defying them. Note that any success of new Ukrainian powers spells trouble for Putin, as it means one can defeat the authoritarian rulers and succeed, while the official position is that the authoritarian rule is the only defense against chaos. So Putin would be very invested in causing the said chaos in Ukraine, both as a revenge, as means of control and to support the idea that his rule must be strong - otherwise see what happened to Ukrainians. So just having Crimea separate, as I say, would not be the worst yet.

I agree. I meant to suggest that the whole eastern half would form a new country, not just the Crimea.

Indeed. This could get arbitrarily ugly; I was ... disconcerted to see a still of a network video titled "Russian Tanks in the Ukraine" ... that actually showed self-propelled artillery, which means nothing good.

> different language (Russian, not Moldovan)

The official language of the Republic of Moldova is Romanian[1].

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Languages_of_Moldova

Yes, but many people in Moldova call the language they speak 'Moldovan', even if it's only subtly different from Romanian.

When given the option in a 2004 census, 60% of the population chose 'Moldovan' as their native language, compared to 16.5% who chose 'Romanian'.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moldovan_language

Sure, they can call it however they want. Technically they're the same language. There are only minor lexicographical differences, the grammar being roughly the same. Blame Stalin for the confusion.

Technically, they're different, which makes the question of whether they should have a different name a political one, not a linguistic one. As the saying goes, a language is a dialect with an army and a navy.

Canada has an army and a navy, yet it doesn't call its official languages Canadian and Canadien.

No, technically there is just Romanian language. The difference is purely ideological/political. If the U.S.S.R. have had more ambitious plans for Germans, there would have been more names out there for the same German language. Or for any other language for that matter.

The argument over Moldovan being a seperate language was promoted by Stalin, but the argument also predates Stalin by a century, so I am not sure he is to blame for this particular thing. Everything else, sure.

In 2004 the Communists were in power in Republic of Moldova.

But in December 2013 Moldovan court rules official language is 'Romanian,' replacing Soviet-flavored 'Moldovan':

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2013/12/05/moldovan-court-rules...

Just as there is no 'Austrian language', is German only. Or 'Switzerland language', is German, French and Italian.

Edit: Of course there is heavy dialect or accent of the language in Switzerland and Austria, but I was talking about high language.

JFTR: Austrian German is a protected language within the EU.

Swiss German is a real thing and quite different from high German.

Sure, we can argue about Italian dialects varieties, but in fact all are the same language: Italian.

Italy is not a good example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Languages_of_Italy

There are languages and dialects here that are incomprehensible to a native Italian speaker.

What would linguists say if, for political reasons, Swiss German starts being called simply "Swiss"?

I guess that French and Italian speaking Swiss people would have a veto on this ;-)

It looks really a scary place

The scariest part of all of this is the 6000 mystery troops that showed up without any logos on their uniforms or carriers or tanks.

They took over the border, airport, etc. without any identification, simply guns to insist "do as we say". They even blocked the coast guard from leaving their ports.

Which means they had this kind of force all prepared.

Can you imagine if US troops showed up somewhere in huge numbers with all identification hidden (I realize small "special forces" operate that way but not regular troops).

I think the strange/comical part of this is that Russia thought that "we'll just take off our logos" was a good strategy for keeping a secret or saving face.

My guess is it's just to give them short-term deniability. By the time anyone proves who they are it'll be too late.

I think it was actually a brilliant FUD strategy to buy the Russians time and stop the West from intervening in a timely (from their perspective) fashion.

As if somebody would be intervening. EU bureaucrats plan to hold "emergency meeting" on Monday - because occupation of a foreign country and potential war near their borders is not a reason to work on Sunday, you see. One can be sure nothing would come out of it on Monday either but empty "we are very worried" declarations.

> As if somebody would be intervening. EU bureaucrats plan to hold "emergency meeting" on Monday - because occupation of a foreign country and potential war near their borders is not a reason to work on Sunday, you see.

Or because the actual work to develop options and brief on the facts prior to the emergency meeting of decision makers is going to happen through Sunday.

Most of the work related to any meeting of decision-makers, even an emergency meeting, happens before the meeting.

They must prepare a lot of briefings if it takes 2 days. Even UN is moving faster.

> They must prepare a lot of briefings if it takes 2 days.

Not really.

> Even UN is moving faster.

Yeah, but all the UN would do in even an ideal (in terms of ability to decide on approach) situation would be to declare broad principles and call on other countries to take action of broadly-specified types to acheive them (with Russia's veto on the UNSC and role in the current crisis, there's about zero chance of even that happening unless Russia's rep gets lost on the way to the chamber.)

OTOH, the EU is more likely to need to evaluate not just what it wants to achieve, but what it can actually concretely do with its real actual resources to achieve its goals, which mean that there is, in practical terms, a lot more substance for the EU to address than the UNSC.

I suspect it's just a formality so they can increase the security around their base, without yet having formally requested authorization from their parliament. In both international law and the law of many countries, there are substantial distinctions made between troops in uniform wearing their country's flag and those not.

I don't think that there was any intent of being secret or saving face, just that because formal authorization from parliament hadn't yet been made, they couldn't move in under Russia's flag.

The Russians have this kind of force prepared because of their naval base at Sevastopol.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Sea_Fleet

Without logos on uniforms, carriers or tanks?

Did they think people would not know?

wow, they are starting to sound like the police here in the US, showing up without markings and knocking doors down.

As to who, most like Russian special forces, no identification is case it goes tits up

I would avoid this "can you imagine if US" thing. US has done all sorts of things, maybe even that one, I don't know. Most of the time, US has done so without any repercussion. Let's hope things go for the best this time in Ukraine, as Candide would say.

> I would avoid this "can you imagine if US" thing

That, unfortunately, is simply not possible. "For each and every internet discussion of a political event somewhere in the world, someone will attempt to drag the US into it, and probably point out how the US is actually worse than the situation being discussed".

Rightly so.

You mean like the thousands of mystery troops that showed up without any logos in Kiev, took over government buildings, the airport, etc. without any identification, simply guns to insist "do as we say"?

Which means they had this kind of force all prepared.

You think those were European or US troops? Are you serious? Quit spreading the FUD. A violent revolution happened in the Ukraine, sure, but there is no indication that Europe or the US sent in any people to instigate or help with that.

You can think about this as a fashion thing: on one side you had people wearing all sort of clothes and weapons, on the other you have people wearing exactly the same clothes and weapons. So, while you might have a point, it's much harder to not identify the second group as an official army not showing who's leading them.

They are not Russian troops. They are Russian private contractors: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/02/28/exclusive-r...

Also, there are only several hundred of them. The 6,000 you are referring to are troops the Russians brought in yesterday. These troops are not appearing "with all identification hidden".

The commenter may have implied they were troops of the Russian Army, but did not outright say it. Since these few hundred are mercenaries (might as well call them that, not 'private contractors'), they are still an extension of a sovereign nations armed forces.

Yep, just like Blackwater, etc were an extension of American might in Iraq. Unless the parent wants to go down teh path of saying that American PMCs in Iraq had nothing to do with American might and power?

I don't think the parent commenter was implying that, either. At the face of it, it is simply minor quibbling over details.

Just a note, Blackwater changed their name to Xe in 2007 and Academi in 2011. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academi

These forces are no mystery, they are obviously Russian troops. We do not know which branch of the military they belong to, but who cares? And Russia now moved to open military invasion, thus removing all doubt completely.

This could turn ugly really fast. If Russia attacks Ukraine the US and Britain would have to protect the borders of Ukraine, according to a treaty signed in 1994 [0].

If the US don't follow the treaty I guess we will know how much these treatys really are worth.

[0] http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2570335/Former-Briti...

Is there another source other than the daily mail i.e. one with an ounce of credibility?

Good on you for not trusting the Daily Mail, it's not even a rag at this point.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum_on_Security...

Depends what you're wiping with it ;)

Thanks for posting a more balanced and altogether less scary sounding article with references.

Don't bother to back up you cliched attack on a popular tabloid newspaper. Much more fun to recycle the old epithets. What amuses me is that way hypercritical folk evidently read the Daily Mail (along with the other on a regular basis else how can they be so adamant concerning it's 'rag' characteristics? Seems to be a moveable feast on HN.

Independent reports say that the DM has the largest online readership in the world at around 44 million. Disputable of course; remarkable that so few of these people (if any) appear have made a buck or two by suing the paper for telling all the lies it's supposed to peddle.

Of course we read the Daily Mail occasionally. Well not the whole thing every day. That would be tantamount to bashing one's head on the ground until your intelligence quotient descends towards the dog and monkey end of the bell curve. I'm not suggesting any other rag is any better, just with a different agenda. News should be considered based on a number of sources.

With respect to circulation; 44 million affords more lawyers than you. The Mail has certainly attracted its fair share of libel cases over the years where n_lawyers > daily_mail_n_lawyers.

It's not fit for my children to do papier-mâché with for they might accidentally read some.

People dislike DM for many other reasons and will jump at the chance to discredit it. Think British Fox News.

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Ukraine._Memorandum_on_Securit...

And nothing in the Budapest Memorandum requires or even permits a signatory to defend Ukraine against another signatory or anyone else. Obviously the Ukrainian government would ask for help in such a case, but there is no current treaty obligation to provide it.

Complicating this is that Russia claims Yanukovich is still the legitimate leader of Ukraine and that their actions thus far have his blessing, meaning their troops are not attacking Ukraine but supporting it against an armed insurrection. Nobody outside Russia's circle of friends believes that, of course, but its the fig leaf they are using.

Thats not was a prominent British diplomat says:

Sir Anthony Brenton (UK Ambassador to Russia 04-08): "If indeed this is a Russian invasion of Crimea and if we do conclude the [Budapest] Memorandum is legally binding then it’s very difficult to avoid the conclusion that we’re going to go to war with Russia."

Key emphasis on and if we do conclude the [Budapest] Memorandum is legally binding. That's a rather big if. But realistically, no one is going to care, because the west still isn't going to war with Russia over this. Edit: Technically, if it wasn't approved by the US Senate, then its legally just scrap paper.

Actually, that is a good point I was forgetting. This is not a treaty. This is a "gentleman's agreement" between three nation states.

All sides have been saying a lot of shit that is not exactly true over the past week. Here is the full text of the memorandum: http://www.larouchepub.com/eiw/public/2014/2014_1-9/2014-08/.... Nothing in there provides an obligation to defend Ukraine from a third party.

I doubt Americans would stand for a US intervention in Ukraine after all the crap the country has been dragged through with Iraq and Afghanistan.

I doubt anyone gives a shit about what Americans stand for.

They won't. What you expect, US going to war with a nuclear power over some territory in some third-rate country? The maximum you can expect is a couple of Obama speeches and Kerry promising an unbelievably small diplomatic effort to solve it.

So yes, all those treaties are worth something only when everybody wants to follow them, and they stop being worth paper on which they are printed as soon as one of the participants decides to break them. That's how it always worked.

It's not just "some territory": Russian natural gas --- one of the principle sources of Russian influence in Europe --- goes through Ukrainian pipelines.

Um, no treaty is worth starting World War III over.

I am glad this has finally got to the top of HN. People should be aware of the fact that a part of sovereign country is being aggressively annexed by their neighbor. And there is virtually no opposition to Putin in Russia.

> I am glad this has finally got to the top of HN

Because once HN is aware of it, we'll... uhm... Send Putin some nasty Perl scripts?

This, like almost all political / breaking news stories, is probably off topic for this site, given the guidelines:

http://ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

"Off-Topic: Most stories about politics, or crime, or sports, unless they're evidence of some interesting new phenomenon. Videos of pratfalls or disasters, or cute animal pictures. If they'd cover it on TV news, it's probably off-topic."

This will probably be the opening item on most TV news shows this evening. It's currently the lead article on www.cnn.com www.corriere.it www.bbc.com/news/ etc...

I don't know why you're being downvoted. This is entirely accurate.

I really wish "complaining about stuff being off-topic" was also against the guidelines.

Oh wait, it is:

"Please don't submit comments complaining that a submission is inappropriate for the site. If you think something is spam or offtopic, flag it by going to its page and clicking on the "flag" link. (Not all users will see this; there is a karma threshold.) If you flag something, please don't also comment that you did."

If no one points it out, people won't learn.

You folks can downvote all you want. I am more than willing to spend my "karma" to attempt to preserve this site from politics.

Also, while we're being picky, "I wish it were", not "I wish it was".

Good luck fighting the good fight, that ever noble pursuit of educating the masses about an arbitrary set of rules.

Back in the real world, some of the most enlightening discussion is "off-topic". So this example is not HN, but: I still remember back in the heyday of Slashdot reading the thread on 9/11 as it happened. Did anybody complain that that wasn't "News for Nerds"? What's happening in Ukraine is in that similar category of potentially world-shaping events. It doesn't hurt any of us to start paying attention.

Exactly. If whatever is happening in Ukraine ends up sparking a large-scale war (hopefully not), you will be reading about it in history books. That makes it both new and interesting, which fits the guidelines.

One major correction: "It doesn't hurt any of us to start paying attention."

Do not confuse "not wanting it on HN" with "not paying attention".

Have you read the commentary here? A lot of it is really bad.

> Have you read the commentary here? A lot of it is really bad.

I agree a lot of it is pretty far from the mark, but I object more strongly to the idea that one must dogmatically follow the rules.

Also, I do think folks here sometimes get carried away with the "no politics" rule in particular, as if to define politics too broadly or kind of miss the point. (OK, so this has political implications, but imagining some sort of time warp, would you deny a story on World War II because it's "too political"?)

I think politics is fascinating. But 99% of internet discussions about politics are crap. I'm beginning to develop some theories about that revolving around the idea that good discussion is costly, and cheap shots/conspiracy theories/empty words are very cheap, meaning the former get crowded out by the latter. In any event though, the discussions are pretty much horrible and worsen the site, which is one of the few good places to discuss hacking and startups out there.

>>But 99% of internet discussions about politics are crap.

So are 99% of HN discussions about guidelines. You do notice the irony, right?

People said the same thing on Slashdot after 9/11, and they were wrong then, too.

Once-a-generation events, with major impacts that last for decades across an entire region of the world, transcend "news for nerds" guidelines.

Well, this is really not once per generation. They did this with Georgia and Moldavia already. And more are to follow.

And indeed, there it goes - it's dropping off the front page like a lead balloon.

But Slashdot today is also a mere shadow of what it was in 2001. At least some of the decline in readership over there has been due to a gradual increase in politics-oriented submissions being shown on the front page, rather than technology/science-oriented submissions.

While events like this do have significance, without a doubt, there is already ample coverage in a very wide variety of general news outlets. Many of the ones that are online allow for discussion, as well.

So there's little need or reason for news sites focusing on rather specific topics like technology, science, mathematics and entrepreneurship to devote page space to rather unrelated political topics. The focus and the depth of coverage is what makes such sites appealing in the first place. Diluting them with news that can be found elsewhere is counterproductive.

I would agree if it weren't for the following:

There are already many political topics discussed here. That's a reality. As people always point out, they are interesting to large number of people. Maybe HN is over the purely-technical-topics phase.

I know many Americans read HN and this is a great opportunity to spread the word amongst those who might not have the experience to care. U.S. is still a democracy and at least in terms of public popularity its politicians care about their citizens' opinions. So, no Pearl scripts, but maybe this will help strengthen the U.S. position which is of paramount importance at this point.

"a part of sovereign country is being aggressively annexed by their neighbor"...sounds like you are getting your media fix from Fox News

Did Ukraine attack Russia in any way? No. Is Ukraine a sovereign Country? Yes. Is Russia sending troops to Ukraine? Yes. This is an invasion. Isn't an invasion an aggression? If not, what is?

You're oversimplifying the situation. Yes, Ukraine is a sovereign country. But half of it is ethnically Russian, and identify themselves a such. The Ukrainian border--like many geopolitical borders--is arbitrary and does not signify a single united nation.

I'm not saying one side is right and the other is wrong. I'm just highlighting the fact that's it's not as simple as you make it out to be.

This could have justified a referendum. Not an occupation. That IS an act of war. Or you think that France could occupy the French-speaking part of Swiss and that wouldn't be an act of aggression?

Is there a part of constitution of Ukraine that allows some region of it to split away from Ukraine?

Just wanted to point out that Ukraine is not half ethnically Russian; large parts of the country speak the Russian language but only 17% are ethnically Russian. Even these ethnic Russians are still Ukrainian citizens, making any claim by Russia to be "protecting" them rather dubious.

Hate to go all Godwin on you, but you don't happen to have Sudeten German ancestry, do you? This issue has already been settled.

I can't reply to gk1 for some reason, but he's exaggerating. Russian's are still a minority, not half the population as he/she suggests. According to wikipedia it's around 17% of the population.

Russia has a lot of control over Ukraine however since over half of their exports go to Russia (and those exports are generally of poor quality that likely couldn't be exported elsewhere) and they're also heavily reliant on Russia for natural gas...

To reply to a recent comment click the link that says "link" to the right of the poster's user name. You'll see the reply form.

I'm glad this is getting more attention since the vast majority of the developed world doesn't share a lot of knowledge regarding Easter Europe / post Soviet countries.

What's happening currently in Ukraine can easily happen in any other country that's under Russian's sphere of influence, and the only solution, imo, would be the intervention of a 3rd party.

From what I gather, Obama has some of the same foreign policy advisors as Bush did. We are pursuing some backdoor strategy to get Ukraine to join the EU. The democratically elected president chose to ally with Russia instead, because Russia offered them more. We set up riots over there, and he flees the capital.

The leader is declared to be deposed, and now a leader friendly to the west can take over. Russia can't stand for this - they have military bases in the country, and it is literally in their backyard. In terms of distance to moscow, it would be like taking over north carolina to washington DC.

Question is - who is the aggressor in this situation, really? How is some unelected foreign policy team, fighting some bullshit game over expanding the EU, able to get us into this kind of mess?

I thought Obama was supposed to be the anti-imperialist replacement for Bush? Or is each new president just a toady of the people who really run the show?

I've got no stomach for war. We've done enough damage to ourselves in Iraq and Afghanistan. Please Obama, live up to what you were elected for - make that nobel peace prize count for something.

What exactly can Obama do, though? Anybody have any clear ideas?

This dude never knows what to do. That's the problem. With Bush as a President Putin just wouldn't dare.

Do you remember this actual war Russia fought and won during Bush's tenure? Didn't think so. The US's forces were tied down in Afghanistan and Iraq during that time, Putin had even more leeway than he does now.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russia%E2%80%93Georgia_war

What are you talking about???? Bush kept building US bases in plenty of ex-USSR republics day and night. He kept Putin by the balls. I'm an US citizen in Poland now. Bush wanted to build anti-ballistic shield in Poland that would render this country along Czech Republich untouchable by the Ruskies. First decision Obama made? He scrapped the whole deal in order not to make Russia feel bad. You have no idea how pissed of Poles are about that development. Strong president wouldn't do that. Strong President would build this freaking shield here and also in Ukraince. Just in case. And what about Syria? Huh? Obama just does what Putin says. That's whole Syria thing. Putin said, Obama did. WTF??? Is he a pussie or a president of the United States of America? He lacks balls in confrontation with America enemies who do whatever hell they want. And what is this now? Obama says on Friday, hey Putin there will be grave consequences if you involve yourself militarily in Ukraine. And what happens the very next day? What happens??Putin ignores this kid and his funny twitter posts and officially orders his army to invade Ukraine. Nobody treats this weakling seriously. Just let him go back to his community and smoke pot and leave politics to politicians with balls.

How does an anti-ballistic shield help against tanks then?

The plan for anti-ballistic launchers in eastern europe are to protect the USA against long range launches, not to protect eastern europe from ground troops.

OMG, the shield requires personnel to run it. So when you invade a country, you need to take into account there might be casualties among US serviceman. Now this is really risky. Another point, that's pretty simple: with the shield you can nuke Ruskies and they can't nuke you. Quite a difference compared to the current situation which is a direct result of Obama being soft on Putin.

So he should start a war with a nuclear power?

Oh no, definitely not. Now it's too late. For years this weakling (Obama) have been porting an image of a weakling and that's the problem. There are plenty of examples: Syria and the red-line with chemical weapons usage. That was a red-line, we were supposed to do something once it's crossed. So it was crossed and what Obama did? Listened to Putin who said don't invade!!! He listened to Putin! So Syria is lost because he is weak. He'd rather listen to Russian President than to keep his word to the international community. Another example: Bush was in the process of building anti-missile shield in Poland and Czech Republic. The shield would render the countries untouchable by the Ruskies. And what happened next? Obama won election and to "improve relations with Russia" sold our allies in Eastern Europe, scrapped the already signed deal regarding building the shield on the territory of our NATO allies, just not to worry Putin. These are just 2 examples I have no time to spend here to make up for your lack of interest in reading international news in the past few years. The point is this: if you promote such image of such a weakling to a bully like Putin, you will get hit.

But, again it's too late now. We'd need to have McCain to fix that. None of that (shield in Eastern Europe, Syria) would ever happen with McCain or Bush leading the country.

"None of that (shield in Eastern Europe, Syria) would ever happen with McCain or Bush leading the country."

How are you so certain? =\

Because under Bush shield building was already in process. There were US soldiers on the Polish ground literally building the damn thing. Then Obama went weak on Putin, broke US promise towards its Eastern European NATO allies, and stopped the process in its tracks. Great job!!!

Obama is about to be pawnd by Putin. This is going to make him look extremely weak. If I was on his national security team, I would push for an immediate no-fly zone in Syria. Then, in March, when the Ukraine dissolves into 2 separate countries via referendum, the US will at least have gained something from Russia's blundering.

Pawnd? WTF? So, Obama is an imperialist if he sends in troops or supports the Ukrainian government (and there's zero chance of the former happening) or he's a dunce who gets pawnd by Putin? Seems like you've been suckered in by the cult of tough guy macho Putin.

> Seems like you've been suckered

Seems like, from your comment history, that you've been suckered into a Political Discussion on HN :-)

As they say: "the only winning move is not to play the game"

He is a tough guy. He just invaded a country by force and effectively told Obama to shutup up and sit down. It's Obama's move now. If he does nothing now, will he also do nothing when North Korea rolls into the South? The thugs are watching and learning.

Except...Ukraine is in no way comparable to Korea. Maybe there are 30000 American troops in Ukraine that I didn't hear about?

Try Taiwan then.

> He is a tough guy. He just invaded a country by force and effectively told Obama to shutup up and sit down. It's Obama's move now.

Er, no, its the Ukraine's move now.

> If he does nothing now, will he also do nothing when North Korea rolls into the South?

Does the US have a mutual defense treaty with and prepositioned large military forces in the Ukraine? How about South Korea? Seems to me, the two situations aren't comparable.

Looking weak? You realize Putin looks weak if he doesn't defend Crimea, with an actual majority Russian population and an actual Russian naval base. You want to start running the US like Russia, jumping at every threat and feeling insecure at every turn?

Stop thinking about appearances of weakness, that is not a path to emulate, it is the path of tyrants and despots.

Citation needed. Name those advisors. Every country in teh world recognizes Crimea as being Ukraine. Russia has just announced its invading that.

Victoria Nuland, the woman who was caught on the leaked tape saying "F*ck the EU", essentially because the EU was not quite as enthusiastic about supporting further action, was the principal deputy foreign policy adviser to Vice President Dick Cheney.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victoria_Nuland

Obama has a lot of stuff he has to deal with on a daily basis - listening to the audio, it would make sense that she is calling the shots on a daily basis. you can hear her saying that she is going to arrange biden to give an "attaboy" which is basically "i need a guy in a leadership role to appear to bless this" not that biden is actually making any substantive decisions.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CL_GShyGv3o

Her brother-in-law came up with Bush's "surge" strategy in 2007, her husband was a foreign policy advisor to mccain in 2008. i would guess that's not the full extent of their republican advisory work but that's all i found in a minute or two on wikipedia.

So, you're left with one lowly ranking woman who you think is some mastermind of an evil cabal. "Her brother-in-law came up with Bush's "surge" strategy in 2007"

TOTALLY irrelevant here. Logical fallacy violated. Non sequitor.

EDIT: Seriously, you think Victoria Nuland, by herself, is pulling the strings of the American foreign policy?

How is Victoria Nuland "low ranking"? You realize the title "secretary" does not mean they answer phones and schedule appointments?

Here's the state department org chart.

http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/rls/dos/99494.htm

The assistant secretary position she holds is responsible for that area, and two links below the secretary of state.

It might be worth noting that Crimea is actually the Autonomous Republic of Crimea. They have their own government, etc. They are still under the Ukraine umbrella, sure.

The Crimea was part of Russia until 1954. there is a very large Russian military base there. In 1992 the Ukrainian government ceded that the Crimea was almost completely autonomous of Ukraine.

How is Russia invading when it already has a massive military base there, in the Crimea, which was Russian until 1954?

Crimea is legally, according to international law and recognized by everyone but Russia, part of Ukraine. You mean Crimea was part of the RSFSR until 1954, not the Russian Federation.

Being legalistic in this circumstance ignores what Crimea means to Russia, and how the majority of Crimea is ethnically Russian. The background of the region matters for realizing how much Russia cares about Crimea, and therefore how to deal with it in this situation.

Okay, if you're willing to throw the law and legalities aside, then...you're nothing more than a thug, and/or an apologist for them.

No, I'm being realistic about what it means to push Russia on this point. They're serious about Crimea, handling this well will require consideration.

The law matters, yes. And so does how Russia feels about Crimea. Both need to be considered.

Japanese feel strongly about Kunashir too. But you don't see them sending in the military. I think thuggish behavior means you should consider their feelings less, not more. Get the military out, then talk about feelings.

It's brinksmanship of the most professional kind, there's no doubt about that. Russia can push harder than the US in this case. But of course the world needs to push back, I'm not saying take it lying down.

However, I will be surprised if Russia doesn't retain control of Crimea.

Are you trolling or can't comprehend the difference between having a military base on the territory and taking over that territory completely?

> How is Russia invading when it already has a massive military base there, in the Crimea, which was Russian until 1954?

The same way the US would have been invading if it invaded the Phillipines in 1991, where it had a massive military base and which had been American up until 1946. Neither "this was our territory ~50 years ago" nor "we have a massive military base in this territory" gives a country permission to invade and occupy a territory.

> I thought Obama was supposed to be the anti-imperialist replacement for Bush?

America has been imperialist since WWII. It has nothing to do with the sitting president.

America has been imperialist since the 1800s.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexican%E2%80%93American_War

"We set up riots over there": Who? How?

I don't know much about this conflict, but neither Russia nor the Ukraine are democracies in the Western sense of the word. I've been to Ukraine once. It felt like the Wild West only without the code of honor you see in the movies.

Last time I checked I didn't see any democracy in the Western sense of the word in the western world. Except for Switzerland maybe

Examples:

Tapping phones without warrant

Searching homes without without warrant

A policy of guilty until proven innocent

Torture

Obviously we have much to live up to. Democracy has always been more ideal than reality. But societies differ in their place along a "democracy" spectrum, and Russia and the Ukraine are much farther from that ideal than the west.

I know, but historically compared there were times when the above 4 "non-democratic behaviors" didn't occur (or they occurred less frequently or at least we didn't know).

I see a tendency away from democracy which in my eyes destroys any credibility of the West to spearhead a democratic movement.

Why are they supposed to adhere to gold standard of western democracy? America seriously needs a reality check. Why such supreme belief in american(western) way of liberty. Rest of the world doesnt kill innocents in drones, guantanamo, libya, iraq ...

No, they kill them with paramilitary snipers firing into crowds of demonstrators.

The "we" would be the CIA. Has their signature all over it.

If so, they haven't shown this much competence in a long while. Successfully toppling a foreign government? I'm impressed. Although I'm not sure this level of success is the CIA's signature...

> We set up riots there Just looking at pictures of what was going on in Kiev, it was fairly obvious. Nothing is going on and suddenly thousands of people are bussed into Kiev. Large video screens are set up and professional placards are distributed. Of course the always tell-tale English language signs of the "we want freedom" type. It does not generate an effect of the type desired so they up the amount of violence with burning cars, Molotov cocktails, and then bring out the guns.

Then they finally get some control and immediately begin a harsh crackdown on the eastern portion of the country, the massive existing Russian military bases that are within land which was Russian until 1954, and officially autonomous from 1992 on etc.

Ukraine isn't the only country being pushed into the EU, while Spain and Greece stagnate economically, they have the same kind of neo-nazis that have been marching through Kiev come to the fore. Croatia just got pushed into the EU a few months ago, despite opposition, economic stagnation etc.

That Americans and some western Europeans are taking advantage of the situation is of their nature. What is laughable is watching their stage-managed show of neo-nazis and well-financed by outsiders demonstrations and hearing nonsensical moralistic bombast about freedom, how awful Russia is to protect its ceded territory with its military bases etc.

If they are neo-nazis, why are ex-IDF jews fighting for them?

As platoon leader, Delta says he takes orders from activists connected to Svoboda, an ultra-nationalist party that has been frequently accused of anti-Semitism and whose members have been said to have had key positions in organizing the opposition protests.

“I don’t belong [to Svoboda], but I take orders from their team. They know I’m Israeli, Jewish and an ex-IDF soldier. They call me ‘brother,’” he said. “What they’re saying about Svoboda is exaggerated, I know this for a fact. I don’t like them because they’re inconsistent, not because of [any] anti-Semitism issue.”

http://www.haaretz.com/news/world/1.577114

If jews are happy with neo-nazis in Ukraine, why they are asking Netanyahu to send forces to protect them? http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/177920

Did you read the article you posted?

Over the weekend, when Yanukovych's situation as President was still unclear, Arutz Sheva's Russian-language sources reported that the Ukrainian police forces - who are loyal to Yanukovych - have been making open threats against the Jewish community, and promoting anti-Semitic propaganda.

Talk about Kiev riots run by neo-nazis is a laughable attempt to marginalize the people. If you can read Russian, check the bios of the people killed in Kiev ("heavenly hundred"): http://crime.in.ua/statti/20140222/nebesna-sotnya

That's some pile of bullshit. Who are "we" that set up the riots? Those people stayed there since November, with wide popular support, risking life and limb. It is unbelievably obtuse to echo Kremlin propaganda that those were but the agents of US State Department. One has to be either exceptionally ignorant or exceptionally motivated to find a way to blame America to believe this canard.

>>> Question is - who is the aggressor in this situation, really?

Really? I guess that would be the country that sends the military to the territory of another country. But who would that be? There should be some way in here to blame America here and prove sending military into neighbor's territory is actually all fine, provided that neighbor did an unspeakable atrocity of potentially siding with America or EU.

>>> I've got no stomach for war.

Looks like you've got a lot of stomach for believing propaganda, as long as it matches your prejudices of America being the root of all evil. What a surprise would it be for you when it turns out believing propaganda spouted by an authoritarian dictator with ambitions for territorial conquest is not the surest way to achieve peace!

>>> propaganda, as long as it matches your prejudices of America being the root of all evil.

>>> believing propaganda spouted by an authoritarian dictator

>>> ambitions for territorial conquest is not the surest way to achieve peace!

wow dude, take a chill pill. how about you abide by what you're preaching? the us has military bases in more than 150 foreign countries

I do? Nice to know. American people must be really generous giving 150 military bases to a dude who isn't even US citizen. I wonder what they give to citizens - it must be at least 10 military bases in 300 countries!

I'm still not sure what I'm supposed to abide though. I guess you call me to abstain from invading foreign countries? I was going to invade Poland tomorrow, but if you say so, I won't. Citizens of Poland, you're welcome.

>That's some pile of bullshit. Who are "we" that set up the riots?

"We’ve invested over $5 billion to assist Ukraine in these and other goals that will ensure a secure and prosperous and democratic Ukraine."

http://iipdigital.usembassy.gov/st/english/texttrans/2013/12...

You could also research finances behind 2004 Ukrainian revolution. I'm not saying it's bad. I even support current Ukrainian revolution and I am against Russian aggression. But it's quite obvious that US and allies are are trying to undermine pro-Russian or neutral governments in ex-USSR countries and make these countries adversarial towards Russia geopolitically. It happened in Ukraine, Georgia, Kyrgyzstan, with Color revolution technique, where large groups of people occupy squares and then capture government buildings.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colour_revolution

Sorry, but how does the link that to setting up the riots? That's an accusation without any concrete proof.

This is the part everybody (Russians) don't quote:

"Since Ukraine’s independence in 1991, "

It's ~$200 million of official US support for NGOs per year. Quite a lot considering $100-400 average wage during this period.

Yes, US sent financial aid to Ukraine. And dozens of other countries too. But you talked about setting up the riots.

>>> with Color revolution technique, where large groups of people occupy squares and then capture government buildings.

You must be kidding. That's how revolutions are done since inventing of squares and government buildings. That's what revolutions are - a lot of people gather together and oust the existing powers. Presenting this as if it is some sinister technique freshly invented by US State Department is idiotic - this is how it was done before US State Department even existed.

Of course US supports governments that are not aligned with the dictatorship of Putin and of course US encourages people not to align with the dictator - what else would you suggest? For US officials to tell "we don't care if there's a dictatorship or not - it's not like we in America have any position in regard of human rights, freedom, self-rule and all such matters - those are things we don't care about here at all"? That is, however, a very far cry from "setting up the riots" which you have claimed.

You are placing me in an uncomfortable position of spewing pro-Kremin propaganda. Ok.

>Presenting this as if it is some sinister technique freshly invented

Well, I didn't go into details, and I'm not an expert, but Color revolutions in ex soviet countries have certain common qualities to them. The main is "nonviolent action" of Gene Sharp. Holding a square for weeks, and waiting for violence to discredit government wasn't a normal normal way to make a revolution before this method was used. Other than that there is financing of pro-Democracy NGOs, that work under assumption that there is a lack of democracy(no matter what), and leaders with western eduction or ex-Reagan administration staffer wives.

>dictatorship of Putin

While I hate Putin and don't like Russia generally it's too subjective and CNN-like to call Putin a dictator. He definitely has support of pupation, and is adequate to Russian people. And I think the level of democracy in Russia is not important to US policy. Russia is US's major geopolitical opponent, one of the few of still independent ones. The US will support revolutions on Russian border no matter how democratic Russia is. Even more, it's easy to argue that Russia is not democratic as say western europe or the US, precisely because The US is very capable at overthrowing governments.

>a very far cry from "setting up the riots" which you have claimed.

While of course US didn't set up riots, it certainly assisted the forces which performed an illegal government coup. There is even a recording of ambasaddor Nuland on youtube. Maybe Yanukovich wasn't popular in the Ukraine(Bush too at the end of his second term), but he was a legally elected president, and Eastern parts of the country supported him initially. Forces that took over the government lost in the last elections, and (most likely)didn't have a chance at winning them next time.

As for me personally, being a Russian with pro-Liberty ideology, taking into account the fact that US is meddling with Russia's neighbors, still I'm for these revolutions. I even can't wait for one that will take out Putin. Russia must be weak and fragmented, because cultural code is very authoritarian, and if Russia is strong it will create problems not only for Russians but for people all over the world. But it's not a position of a patriot. Nor it's position of neutral observer.

The main is "nonviolent action" of Gene Sharp. Holding a square for weeks, and waiting for violence to discredit government wasn't a normal normal way to make a revolution before this method was used.

What about Ghandi in India? Or Mohism in China in 400BC? The idea that the color revolutions are the first to popularise using nonviolent resistance to gain a moral upper hand against an opponent, is plainly ridiculous.

>are the first to popularise

Where did I say they are the first?

Ghandi's struggle against colonialism, and I suppose Mohism are not about government coups, especially in modern context, and modern understanding of what the state is. And Color revolutions are not exactly nonviolent - they are non violent at the initial stage.

>>> Holding a square for weeks, and waiting for violence to discredit government wasn't a normal normal way to make a revolution before this method was used.

Protest which turns out violent is a normal way of revolution to happen. The protest can either end up in nothing - in which case it is called protest and forgotten soon - or can turn out violent and spread, in which case it is called civil war, or revolution, or such.

>>> Other than that there is financing of pro-Democracy NGOs,

That is very sinister, to finance NGOs that promote human rights and democracy.

>>> that work under assumption that there is a lack of democracy(no matter what),

It's not an assumption, it's a fact. "No matter what" is your addition, which is false.

>>> leaders with western eduction or ex-Reagan administration staffer wives.

I'm not sure how western education or having wife working for US administration is sinister, but I'm sure you'll explain it to me soon. For now I conclude obviously nobody having western education can be trusted. Those college things, they are obviously set up by CIA.

>>> it's too subjective and CNN-like to call Putin a dictator.

It's the fact - he's a an authoritarian unchangeable ruler, and has been for some time. The fact that a lot of people like him doesn't matter - a lot of people liked Stalin or Lenin or Hitler or Mao too. That doesn't make their regimes non-dictatorial.

>>> The US will support revolutions on Russian border no matter how democratic Russia is.

That is a baseless conjecture, but even if it were true, that doesn't make Putin less of a dictator.

>>> Even more, it's easy to argue that Russia is not democratic as say western europe or the US, precisely because The US is very capable at overthrowing governments.

It's very easy to argue, but it is false. Russia is not democratic because it is convenient for the ruling clique, not because of the US. If the US didn't exist at all, Putin were the same dictator, maybe even worse at the loss of deterrent - though to be frank Obama administration couldn't deter a kid from eating a booger.

>>> it certainly assisted the forces which performed an illegal government coup.

There's no such thing as legal coup, so your insistence on it being illegal is useless - every revolution is illegal by definition, it happens when citizens lose their faith in legal. As for assisting the forces, the assistance has been mainly in words, which are never in short supply, but don't matter too much usually.

>>> There is even a recording of ambasaddor Nuland on youtube.

That seems to be the ultimate argument in support of the "meddling" hypothesis. Except that Nuland did nothing but express her wishes about the future Ukraninian government. That doesn't even relate to "assisting" charge, let alone "setting up" charge. Of course they were talking to opposition leaders and of course they said what US would like to see from them - that's what diplomats do.

>>> As for me personally, being a Russian with pro-Liberty ideology,

Voe is for Russia if pro-Liberty Russians spend their time on proving how Putin is a nice democratic leader and US is to blame for "meddling" with everything and making it worse, while denying agency to anybody else completely. If this is a position of pro-Liberty Russians - that everybody in the world hates Russia and wants it to be harmed and weak and only Putin is the alternative for that - Liberty obviously means something different there. I certainly hope not.

>That is very sinister, to finance NGOs that promote human rights and democracy.

It's indeed sinister, when the government spends money of taxpayers, billions of dollars over years, on democracy in foreign states, especially considering the US has supported brutal dictators when that was advantageous to their their interests or overall foreign policy. More reasonable explanation is that democracy is not their primary goal.

>but I'm sure you'll explain it to me soon.

Western education (payed for by fellowship from the United States State Department) or Reagan staffer wife for 40-50 year olds in ex Soviet Block countries is very very very uncommon thing. Please tell me how it's a historical coincidence and there's no involvement of the US, that exactly these people lead successful revolutions and installed anti-Russian policies.

>a lot of people liked Stalin or Lenin or Hitler too.

They didn't vote for Stalin or Lenin or Mao. A crucial difference.

>but it is false. Russia is not democratic because it is convenient for the ruling clique

It's convenient for ruling clique indeed. But the situation when there's potential foreign involvement in democratic process, meaning that (historically adversarial) foreign interest takes side in internal politics, is not conducive for really open democracy in eyes of sovereignty minded citizens.

>If the US didn't exist at all, Putin were the same dictator,

Similarly baseless statement you accuse me of. Putin's persona was certainly affected/formed by 2004 Orange revolution in Ukraine.

>As for assisting the forces, the assistance has been mainly in words

I'm sure that in 50+ years FOIA request will reveal what the assistance was in detail.

The fact is that US is supporting undemocratic coup, ignores interests of eastern regions that voted for Party of Regions and Yanukovich. That is not exactly pro-Democracy, it's more about supporting "our" guy.

>US is to blame for "meddling"

Even if Putin is not a democratic leader, US is certainly "meddling". One would be dumb not to see that.

>pro-Liberty Russians spend their time

I mentioned before that much of this position is not exactly mine. It's more like knee-jerk sophistry reaction to people who believe that US can do no bad with covert foreign actions, is not involved anywhere where pro-US governments suddenly pop up, and such actions have no negative destabilizing effects. I don't like rabid patriots who condone foreign interventions. While I'm really for these actions, because these actions indirectly are in my interests, I can't deny that these actions undermine sovereignty of independent states, provoke authoritarian states to became even more authoritarian, and it's an example of the US acting as World Police, which many view in a negative light(not me in this particular case).

>>> when the government spends money of taxpayers, billions of dollars over years, on democracy in foreign states,

It's not the worst thing to spend money on. Taxpayers money are spent in billions - not over years, but in single year - on much worse projects with much less positive impact on human life. So if you're worried about taxpayer dollars, start with hundreds of examples of waste, abuse and corruption that are abundant in government funding. Once we're done with that, we can talk about cutting funds on promoting liberty and human rights. Otherwise sudden worry about taxpayers doesn't sound exactly genuine.

>>> the US has supported brutal dictators when that was advantageous to their their interests

Yes, they did. Yes, it was wrong. That doesn't make not supporting this particular one wrong.

>>> But the situation when there's potential foreign involvement in democratic process,

This is bullshit. There's no meaningful foreign involvement in democratic process in Russia, beyond promoting common humanistic notions like human rights and free elections and such. For heaven's sake, Obama can't even squeeze out a meaningful statement when Russian military invades Ukraine, calling it "uncontested arrival" instead, and you're talking about controlling Russian democratic process? They don't even think about it in their wildest dreams, their dreams are about golf anyway.

>>> They didn't vote for Stalin or Lenin or Mao. A crucial difference.

Not sure about Mao, but "elections" were regularly held in the USSR. Of course, everybody knew who would win it, but so everybody does in Russia. Nobody expected anybody but Putin to win elections, and anybody but ER to hold the majority in Duma. Not exactly the democratic situation here.

>>> Putin's persona was certainly affected/formed by 2004 Orange revolution in Ukraine.

No it wasn't. Putin is ex-KGB officer, he never was a a freedom-loving libertarian and always was keen on concentrating power.

>>> I'm sure that in 50+ years FOIA request will reveal what the assistance was in detail.

But you know about it right now. But can't tell me where from because it's super-secret, your eyes only. I get it.

>>> The fact is that US is supporting undemocratic coup

The coup is plenty democratic. It is made by the very same demos whose kratos you're so worried for. Of course not everybody is happy with it, especially in pro-Russian regions, but you can't expect to hold referendum before a revolution. After - maybe, but invasion from Russia is not exactly conductive to that.

>>> That is not exactly pro-Democracy, it's more about supporting "our" guy.

Errr, what "our" guy? There's no any specific guy there, and US had no idea until recently about most of the leaders there.

>>> It's more like knee-jerk sophistry reaction to people who believe that US can do no bad with covert foreign actions

That would be a lot more appropriate if there were such people around. But we're discussing the case where pro-Russia thug president Yanukovitch, after messing up very badly with very open and explicit Russian support, runs away to Russia, and immediately Russia sends their military into Ukrainian territory - and it's US that is "meddling" and is to blame for the situation? You may not like "rabid patriots who condone foreign interventions" but you certainly sound a lot like one.

>>> provoke authoritarian states to became even more authoritarian

That sounds like classic psycho killer line - "look what you made me do!". No, dictators are to blame for their dictatorship, not some vague clandestine meddling.

>Otherwise sudden worry about taxpayers doesn't sound exactly genuine.

I don't worry about taxpayers money. I'm saying that taxpayers money are never simply gifted to people, there is always certain rationale in how that money is spent, and it must be spent in interest of taxpayers. If it's in interests of taxpayers to support unconstitutional coups through "democratic" NGOs, than fine. But financing brutal dictators also could be in interests of the US in minds of the elite. (Like Bahrain) The crucial part is that it should be in interest of the US not in interests of democracy or other country's peoples.

>There's no meaningful foreign involvement in democratic process in Russia

How do you know? You have all the information? You are certain that there were no attempts to initiate recruitment of people who would eventually perform an unconstitutional coup? You can't be serious.

There is circumstantial evidence that it's not just about common humanistic notions, or why would they need to hide it in a rock? http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/world/2006-01-23-russia-... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Short_range_agent_communication... (UK is well known cooperator of US in all things anti-Russian state)

> when Russian military invades Ukraine, calling it "uncontested arrival" instead, and you're talking about controlling Russian democratic process? They don't even think about it in their wildest dreams

American security and defense agencies are a huge machine that works constantly. There is no need for Obama to show particular willingness for such actions. What is required from him is to just approve, or not cancel policies and programs that were in the place for years. He's pretty willing to kill people with drones. Don't see problem why he would say no to "promote coups in Russia"

>but "elections" were regularly held in the USSR.

these "elections" were with one candidate. And there is infinitely more freedom in Russia today. People generally don't go to prison for saying something against Putin. Similar thing could be said about the US, everybody knows who would win in the presidential elections - it would be either a democrat or a republican. No expectations of significant changes to foreign policy either. It was pretty continuous throughout last few presidents. It would be pretty stupid to compare level of freedoms in the US and Russia, but comparison of USSR with Russia doesn't pass the smell test either.

>ex-KGB officer, he never was a a freedom-loving libertarian

Stereotyping proves nothing. After he was a KGB agent, he was an assistant to pro-democracy mayor of St Petersburg. Who the fuck knows what was really going on in his mind.

But, of course personally I believe you are correct in this particular case. But it's just an opinion, proves nothing.

It doesn't mean that generally foreign involvement in politics and coups does not teach lessons to other (semi)authoritarian states, where elites might entertain a thought of going more democratic.

>But you know about it right now.

The facts that Saakashvili had US State department funded education and Yushchenko hand Reagan staffer wife are pretty glaring. I am a mere non-spy mortal and can't know all the details(like you), nor I'm payed to research details about said revolutions. In fact I didn't discuss this issue in years.

There a lot of circumstantial and direct evidence of foreign involvement in past revolutions. In english wikipedia and newspapers. I believe that there is at least some US involvement in this second Ukrainian revolution, considering directness and one sidedness of their support, and considering history. Probably through recruiting and financing media, thinktank people who frequent pro western tv channels.

>The coup is plenty democratic.

Elections are democratic. Coups by the political minority are not. If they are truly democratic they should have waited 1 year for elections. Media is pretty free, diverse and independent in Ukraine compared to Russia, so no worries about government propaganda. If elections are rigged THEN you can legitimize the revolution as democratic.

>especially in pro-Russian regions,

"Pro-Russian" (if there is such a thing beside city near Russian military base in Crimea) regions have majority of Ukraine's population btw. That's how Yanukovitch won. That "Not everybody" is pretty significant one.

>It is made by the very same demos whose kratos you're so worried for.

Liberty is not the same thing as democracy. I consider democracy as one of the tools needed for maintaining liberty.

>There's no any specific guy there, and US had no idea until recently about most of the leaders there.

How could you make such a statement? Do you work for State Department or CIA? US Media is not US State.

>but you certainly sound a lot like one.

Where did I condone Russian aggression? I said I am against it. I'm generally against strong states and military or covert actions of states against each other. Russian or American.

Speaking of insults, you sound like a FoxNews viewer. (Talking about how Obama is weak leader and so on)

>and it's US that is "meddling" and is to blame for the situation

I didn't say that US is responsible for Russian aggression. I said that US has history of meddling.

>president Yanukovitch, after messing up very badly

If there are people with molotovs(and some with guns, I saw the pictures) who are trying oust you, and are very persistent, willing to die, have at least some support among population, it's pretty hard to not mess up very badly if you want to keep power for the rest of your term. It will end badly for you one way or another.

>dictators are to blame for their dictatorship

You don't understand sovereignty. There are peoples who value independence more than democracy. I'm not saying it should be like that, but it just is.

If today, you just came back from a year long vacation in a country without papers, internet access or TV, had no idea what happened in Syria, and was unaware of the back-and-forth struggle to get Ukraine to align with the EU ...

Woke up today for the first day back in civilization, opened the papers, and see that Putin was mobilizing forces ...

then I guess yes, my whole argument is a "pile of bullshit" and the guy who is mobilizing forces must be the "aggressor." And I'm obviously a sucker for propaganda. Tin foil hats and all.

I guess we have short memories - it wasn't too long ago that the US fooled itself by going into war in part based on the crack reportage out of the New York times, courtesy of Judy Miller. Here's an apology from Bill Keller on her work:

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2011/06/03/bill-keller-speaks-o...

So, yes, by all means call me crazy for trying to piece together what might actually be going on here.

USA Today reports that protestors were being paid to show up and protest:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2014/02/16/ukraine-...

"Protesters said those who stay at the government rally 24 hours a day earn as much as $94 per diem, the highest amount possible."

There was a little thing there in Iraq about a Kuwait-invading, mustard gas-using, terrorist sponsoring dictator, but sure, the main thing was Miller's reporting.

And of course whatever happened in Iraq means it's OK for Putin to invade Ukraine. Because US wouldn't like it and since US is evil obviously Putin is a good guy here. See your logic now, you've pieced it all together perfectly.

how? same way libya was bombed into oblivion. same way europe and the us can "legally" send guns to extremists in syria, that decapitate civilians, christians, and basically anyone who disagrees with the destabilization efforts. same way france can constantly do political coups in african countries without anyone caring.

heavy german support of the opposition, eu sanctions of the country(i'm not sure how legal this really is) certainly helped as well.

you call it backdoor. i call it coup. and if we're still alive in 50 years, and didn't bomb ourselves into oblivion given the course we're taking right now, we can probably read about these coups in controversial sections of wikipedia or wikileaks.

watch ukraine get split up like so many other countries in the recent past.

it's not about which party is more powerful. it's about which party wins the media war. if we had respected their sovereignty in any manner we would have let them play out their conflicts internally, but we didn't. we completely supported the opposition.

Imagine if you will a US that is not imperialist; a foreign policy that is one of isolationism. Now imagine Russia as it exists today; expansionist and oligarchical. With no one strong enough to oppose it, how would anyone stop it from pulling off political coups or military invasions on flimsy pretexts?

Or vice versa?

By spewing conspiracy theories like this you're taking away from the sacrifices a lot of people have made in Ukraine in order to campaign for what they believe is right. I'm not denying that the US and EU have an interest in the outcome of this but people don't give their lives for something they don't believe in. Please take your tin foil hat nonsense elsewhere.

That's a nice conspiracy theory, would you care to cite anything to support it?

Russia has a long tradition of "protecting"

"[...]The Soviet Government also cannot view with indifference the fact that the kindred Ukrainian and White Russian people, who live on Polish territory and who are at the mercy of fate, should be left defenceless. In these circumstances, the Soviet Government have directed the High Command of the Red Army to order troops to cross the frontier and to take under their protection the life and property of the population of Western Ukraine and Western White Russia."

People's Commissar for Foreign Affairs of the U.S.S.R. V. Molotov

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_invasion_of_Poland

US has a long tradition of "protecting" as well. They were protecting Yugoslavia, then protected Iraq, Afganistan, Libya.. recently Syria. They are also looking to protect Iran and Ukraine now. Most of it without UN resolution, with the exception of Libya, where they interpreted "no fly zone" resolution as "just bomb everything that moves" (because Gaddafi tanks could fly I guess).

It would be interesting to discuss how Ukraine got into this kind of situation ([1] [2]) and what are the "natural" consequences of it. Somehow it feels we are not dealing with a single country anymore.

[1] http://i.imgur.com/1iiXqHN.jpg

[2] http://i.imgur.com/eNo56LZ.jpg

Crimea is "Russian", it was granted from the Russian SSR to the Ukrainian SSR by Khrushchev in the 50s.

It's interesting that the situation is playing out pretty much according to this blog post: http://cluborlov.blogspot.jp/2014/02/shock-over-ukraine.html

"Most of them don't even know what it is they are protesting, but, in essence, they are protesting the very existence of their country, which is made up of two parts: Eastern Poland, which is Ukrainian-speaking and predominantly Catholic, and Western Russia, which is Russian-speaking and predominantly Orthodox. The “Russians” outnumber the “Ukrainians” two to one. The ultimate resolution to the crisis lies in partitioning the country. Nobody has the stomach to even talk about it—yet. But until that happens we will continue being subjected to this strange spectacle, where every single actor in Ukraine does everything possible to undermine the country's political system. Deep down, the Ukrainians don't want there to be a different government in Kiev—they don't want there to be a government in Kiev at all."

Ukraine has never been controlled by the government of the Russian Federation.

I agree separation seems to be the elephant in the room, but ignoring the separate Ukrainian language is somewhat oversimplifying. If the language spoken in Kiev was Polish, then maybe you'd have a case about the Poland bit.

What I grokked from the quote is Poland as in catholic and more culturally European, not literally Polish.

"The potential strike by the [Russian Federation] against [Ukraine], despite strong opposition from many countries and major political and religious leaders, including the pope, will result in more innocent victims and escalation, potentially spreading the conflict far beyond [Ukraine]’s borders. A strike would increase violence and unleash a new wave of terrorism. It could undermine multilateral efforts to resolve the [Chechnya] problem and the [Syrian] conflict and further destabilize the Middle East and North Africa. It could throw the entire system of international law and order out of balance." – Vladimir Putin, six months ago. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/12/opinion/putin-plea-for-cau...

I'm not so sure you can use brackets to replace any noun with another noun. It's clearly satire but some people might think this is a direct quote of Putin.

At the time that op-ed came out, people did similar things with an even earlier op-ed of his: http://www.nytimes.com/1999/11/14/opinion/why-we-must-act.ht...

Clearly, his position is whatever is convenient at any given time.

It looks to me like it was all organized from the start: If using the economic pressure of gas prices wasn't enough to keep Ukraine in the Russian sphere of influence, they were ready to seize Crimea and maybe something more...

Russia just cannot lose Crimea. It was silly for EU and especially US pols to think Ukraine could be snatched from Putin wholesale (and using neonazis, no less).

From the word "snatched", it looks like in your opinion Ukraine was Putin's property... or was it protectorate?

Spheres of influence are real. If Panama fell under a Russian-friendly government likely to stop US vessels going through the strait, would the US government just sit there, "respecting the democratic rights of the citizens of Panama"?

First of all, the Ukrainian government wasn't bent on stopping Russian anything, AFAIK. Second, I morally condemned many acts from the USA, like the second war in Iraq based on evidently fake accusations of weapons of mass destruction. So, why shouldn't I condemn even more baseless acts from Russia?

"Baseless"? Crimea is populated by a majority of ethnic Russians, it's the most strategic base for the Russian Fleet to access the hugely-critical Mediterranean Sea, and it's a potentially key location to get gas from Russia to the European market without going through central Ukraine. In the last decade, when a Ukrainian government turned pro-US, they threatened to stop the all-important flow of gas; this is something Russia simply cannot allow to happen, it would destroy the country.

The (elected) government of Ukraine has just been deposed by street protests directed by right-wing extremists, half of the country is in shambles and the newly established government's first act was to attempt to abolish a language law aimed at favouring Russian-speaking minorities (not exactly a priority, when the economy is tanking and half your police force has been disbanded). It's reasonable to believe that gas pipelines are threatened and that a revolutionary government might choose not to respect previous agreements, since there is a fairly recent precedent (2009, iirc); also, it's fair to expect that such a ragtag of right-wing ideologues will likely make the life of Crimean-Russians very uncomfortable very quickly.

I personally don't see Putin's actions as "baseless" or irrational -- he's defending Russian interests that are clearly threatened. It's very simple and quite unsophisticated, but I don't see the moral scandal.

Baseless accusations = nothing was happening in Crimea. You yourself said that the new government "might", that "it's fair to expect", etc. For the time being, it's Russia which isn't respecting previous agreements, ie, not to try to take apart Ukraine.

And the fact that Russian interests are clearly threatened is NOT a moral justification for invading a foreign nation. Otherwise, every war would be justified.

>For the time being, it's Russia which isn't respecting previous agreements, ie, not to try to take apart Ukraine.

Nuland's call clearly shows that the US administration has actively supported the overthrowing of an elected government. This comes after $5bn of investments to "democratise" (i.e. de-russify) Ukraine in the last 10 years. Is that "respecting previous agreements"?

>And the fact that Russian interests are clearly threatened is NOT a moral justification for invading a foreign nation.

I admire your "black & white" thinking, but history is not that clear cut. Was Reagan justified in invading Grenada? Was Bush I justified in invading Panama? Big countries must look after their interests, or they wouldn't be big countries.

Crimea is a majority-russian enclave, on which Russia maintains historical dibs, and which is irreplaceable from a strategic point of view. Ukraine as a whole is almost not a "foreign nation" in many ways (it has holy cities for the Russian Orthodox and a long history shared with Russia that only sort-of ended 20 years ago). There is no way a Russian government will ever leave Crimea to NATO or the EU, end of; as I said elsewhere, it would be like Panama being left to the Chinese or the Russians.

A sane US/EU strategy would have worked to peacefully de-federate Crimea from West Ukraine first, before bidding for Kiev. That's the realistic, win-win approach. Trying to get that peninsula out of Russian control is an overreach that Putin will not accept. The '90s are long gone, Putin is not Eltsin, if we want to keep weakening the old bear we have to play smarter than this.

This entire frame is insane. The USA and EU certainly have their own interests in Ukraine, but by the sounds of it you think the protests were part of a US/EU strategy to engineer an artificial coup.

And your critiques are incoherent. First you claim that the protests are the works of ultra-nationalist neo-nazis, then you move to saying that all the developments of the past couple months are the work of the EU, USA, and Russia? It makes no sense. The neo-nazis you link to above are relatively fringe groups with little influence (though a propensity to violence), but they despise the EU and USA as much as they do Russia. There may be a path to reconcile these seemingly very contradictory stances, but it's very, very narrow and you don't seem to to realize they need to be reconciled.

neonazis

I guess that's the talking point of the day.

Ironically, Hitler invaded Czechoslovakia under the pretense that it was to protect its ethnic Germans.

It's not a talking point: Svoboda and Pravyi Sektor are right-wing extremist groups with racist tendencies, just look them up on Wikipedia. The first act from their new government was to revoke a law granting language rights to Russian and Hungarian minorities.

Just because Putin is a bad actor, it doesn't mean his enemies are good actors.

I thought the opposite: it makes for a lot influence on Ukraine only if it remains a part of Ukraine. Yesterday I thought Putin would back off after having made a point of "protecting Russians abroad".

It's quite an ancient "war" technique to simply have population over decades or centuries slowly migrate to a region, and then either through voting power or simply creating a new group of who have a common interest or similar values are now in this new region and can leverage their numbers.

So Latin America is at war with the US? And the Russian migration to Crimea is just a "war" technique carried on from Tsar Nicolas to Putin over the course of 150 years and multiple revolutions. How much clearer do I see these things now.

Oh wait, you're using a nonsensical argument to explain migratory patterns.

Or you're conflating two different possibilities to try to form an argument that I'm nonsensical. Natural migratory patterns are also a possibility.

Do you think the US invasion of Panama was drawn on a napkin?

Of course the Russians would have plans, like the US military have plans to take over Mexico or Canada. It's their job to come up with such plans, even if war has not been declared or is unlikely to ever be declared.

Its true every military power has plans for military action against other countries/territories. Its a known fact that US has military plans for China and even Canada.

The Russians have a lot more to lose in this situation than we do. The Russian Mediterranean fleet is based out of Sevastopol, hence their movements into the Crimean Peninsula. While I sympathize with the people of the Ukraine Obama wasn't smart to bet our credibility in a situation where the Russians could not back down.

It is too complicated to discuss here. First of all, the naval bases, gas pipeling infrastructure were build in Soviet times using resources of whole Soviet union. After its collapse in 90th everything became messy, but old strategic interests were respected.

These events has very simple cause - too avoid any shift of control over strategic resources of former Soviet Union to pro-EU oligarchy and eventually EU capital which which Russia cannot compete.

The other question is a moral one - does the interests of Russian oligarchs, controlling Gazprom, who "inherited" Soviet infrastructure should be reinforced by military operations?

At least it is not an ethnic conflict, just conflict of interest.

It's all going to be fine. Hitler stopped after getting Sudetenland too, right? Oh wait ...

All of Easter Europe should watch this carefully. We all knew that Russia considers all east of Dresden to be their property. When they were leaving here after their invasion of 1968, they told us it's temporary.

Now they are starting to reclaim it. All of it.

It's a crazy situation all around. Russia has a military base in the Ukraine, in Crimea.

If Cuba had a modern day revolution would the US not send in troops to Guantanamo? Would we be in the wrong for doing so? Even if the interim government was more US friendly?

I tend to agree that the US would take such steps, but if the US decided to control larger portions of the country than just their bases (which is what is sounds like Russia is doing), that is a major problem and more than just protecting a military asset.

Who would it be a major problem for if Cuba was ostensibly part of another state, yet had a population of 60% Americans and a newly anti-American government?

The analogy doesn't hold, as Cuba's present government is nominally anti-US.

There's a difference between sending troops to Guantanamo Bay military base and sending troops to take control of Guantanamo province.

wow! everyone was just silent after the "revolution". no one said a single word about the right-wing armed forces. now the news are back in the front page of HN, cool... and meaningful in terms of timing, as one of those politics guys says in my country.

live stream http://rt.com/on-air/embed/global/

RT (of course) gives such a different view from Western media, it may as well be a completely different story. Right now, for example, it tells how "armed extremists sent from Kiev tried to seize government buildings in Crimea".

truth is the first casualty at the time of war. hence you want to see propaganda from both sides.

And usually none of the versions is the correct one...

That specific part might talk about some groups of people (not army related) trying to do what some other did in other cities of Ukraine. It's hard to know what's true and what's not.

before watching this please read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RT_(TV_network)

"..funded by the federal budget of Russia..", "Since its foundation in 2005, RT has been widely accused as being a mouthpiece of the Kremlin."

Parliament approved (by 100% votes).

Unbelievable.

My reaction as well. I suppose it must be true that United Russia are rigging all the polls.

That's normal for Russia, sadly. Yesterday there was a voting about mandatory registration of all web sites in Roskomnadzor (heavily controversial bill). 438 for, 0 against, 0 abstained. Russian democracy.

I hope that was just a political move in response to harsh words from the USA and no real sending troops will follow. Because that is very stupid thing to do for Russia. It makes me sick that nobody in the parliament voted against. And even though western media was using propaganda heavily as well as russian's did, there's no need to bend the truth with that kind of stupid move. It will only make the conflict bigger instead of helping it. Most people in the Crimea just wants all that shit(from both sides) to stop and live peacefully. I hope everything will end up fine.

P.S. I'm Russian with some Ukrainian roots.

Apparently, troops are already there though.

There's naval base in Sevastopol with permanent troops.

Yes, but from what I read Russian troops are deployed outside those bases, around the government palaces. I just hope this ends well (even if I couldn't define what "well" could mean here).

The new troops are already there, which were airlifted in recently, not the ones previously present in Crimea.

Will we ever manage to act morally, ethically and rationally in situations like that? Or will the situation where suddenly everything escalates and we blow up the planet come first?

This is getting serious. Soon we'll find out how much human politics have progressed in the last ~50 years and what we have learned.

Let's see how this crisis will get solved. Hint: armed forces, not a good sign already.

> Off-Topic: Most stories about politics...

I guess most stories about politics involves China, Russia, Iran, Syria, DPRK, USSR, Cuba, Venezuella...

We averted the Cuban missile crisis. This is a bit smaller than that. It's power play by Russia. Things will subside soon.

Ugh, politics. Why bring into a "hacker news" site? Keep that garbage on Facebook and in reddit where it belongs.

we need a politics flag and it needs to be removed. I agree.

Has anyone noticed an ramp of DDOS attacks on ISPs? In the DC Metro Area, we've had a bunch of issues with Windstream, Allied Telecom, Comcast, etc... All NTP based. Not to mention the inbound call issues with ATT in the Mid-Atlantic Market. Could this be a result of Current events with Russia?

Images of the USSR invasion of Finland sprang up in my mind.

Blood for oil.

When will the State Department, the White House and NATO issue a response on Facebook and Twitter? In the ultimate battle, Obama can out text, twitter and talk Putin. US wins and is the world power in nothing. We have the leadership we deserve.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com