Ukraine places forces on combat alert and threatens war | Hacker News Reader

Ukraine places forces on combat alert and threatens war

theguardian.com

101 pointsck255 comments

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

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum_on_Securit...

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.

[Actually open to correction, I swear] Didn't Georgia invade South Ossetia shortly after vague noises about it being able to join NATO one day? I understand that under modern international law South Ossetia is part of Georgia but it's never been actually ruled by post-Soviet Georgia. They were invading.

On a separate note, why would any country treat the UK's guarantee as worth anything after Cyprus?

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkish_invasion_of_Cyprus

In response to the coup, US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger sent Joseph Sisco to try to mediate the conflict.[42] Turkey issued a list of demands to Greece via a US negotiator. These demands included the immediate removal of Nikos Sampson, the withdrawal of 650 Greek officers from the Cypriot National Guard, the admission of Turkish troops to protect their population, equal rights for both populations, and access to the sea from the northern coast for Turkish Cypriots.[47] These demands were rejected as they would have given Turkey an unacceptable amount of power on the island. Turkey, led by Prime Minister Bülent Ecevit, then applied to Britain as a signatory of the Treaty of Guarantee to take action to return Cyprus to its neutral status. Britain declined this offer, and refused to let Turkey use its bases on Cyprus as part of the operation.

Yes, Georgia invaded South Ossetia. It's incredible how often this incident is twisted to portray the Russians as aggressors.

Yes, because Russia has never displayed any aggression in the Caucasus.

Not that others are without fault here. We commentate the day here in New Zealand that a load of our troops went into the Caucuses. The deaths of New Zealand troops was somehow nation forming. There are those that see glory in killing nearly 3,000 young men and wounding nearly 5,000 on some grotty strip of coast that is about as far from home as its possible to get.

Just a point of fact: Gallipoli is far from the Caucasus (indeed, Greece is just as close to the Caucasus).

And I'm not sure I understand how the unfortunate slaughter of the ANZAC corps in WWI plays any role in the bloody ethnic conflicts that flare up regularly in the Caucasus, fueled by Russia's imperial ambitions.

It was the key part of the campaign to exert pressure on the Caucasus as there wasn't really any other way. But your right, it isn't a great example, it was the local connection (NZ) that got me there (we had Britain rather than the US as the master back then). However my point was that it isn't just the Russians who have had imperial ambitions there.

The reason there is a south and north Ossetia is because one side is in Gerogia and the other is in Russia.

The N and S Ossetians don't hate each other or anything - they want to join together.

Regardless if it's Georgians or Russians, both of them are invaders in the land. And if Russia wasn't near, I'd bet Georgia would be willing to let them go (that's what Saakishvili said in a recent interview).

If Georgia let S Ossetia go to Russia, it would be doing a big disservice to the people (I know because I am from the North Caucasus).

So Georgia didn't "invade" S Ossetia. It belongs to them to protect from Russia. That's why it has "South" in the name.

Mind you Crimea asked for help (and today some other states also asked for help, and passed laws authorizing referendums to ask their citizens if they want to leave Ukraine)

Also Russia still consider Yanuk as the president, since he was physically kicked out (the day he fled some Right-Sector people were actually trying to kill him, his car for example ended full of bullet holes), and they consider that since Yanuk authorized they to get inside to get rid of the new government (that in eyes of Russia is illegal), then it is not a invasion, or a act of war.

Of course that is just the theoretical explanation, if Putin REALLY believe that stuff or not, is another thing entirely.

Of course the US, UK and/or France aren't going to intervene, anymore than they intervened in Georgia.

But I doubt Russia actually wants war with the Ukraine either. They just want a Russia-friendly government installed, which they may well end up getting.

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-naval...

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.

Only to the extent that the "incoming war" has provided some great cover.

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?

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.

This is completely irrelevant - a big mistake does not justify a different - and completely unrelated - "smaller" mistake in any way.

It's not irrelevant, it just shows how governments "think". This is more or less accepted practice in foreign affairs.

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.

Not to mention that the population of Crimea is over 50% ethnic Russians.

That's how the "Five Eyes" operate, so yeah.

The Five Eyes rationalize that it's perfectly normal to spy on enemies together, and share information, given that the Five Eyes nations all speak English.

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

Well it's a little deeper than that isn't it? There is a lot more common ground than just the language, like 4 of those countries are CommonWealth realms with the Queen as the head of state, so there's a big distinction right there. They also have similar military structures or processes since WW2, a history of major collaborations (like the Manhattan project between Canada, UK and US).

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.

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.

No, Russia cares about access to the Black Sea.

Access to the Black Sea and gas pipelines to Europe. Without those pipelines, the Russian economy would tank in a minute and the country would collapse back to the bad old '90s.

They have plenty of access to the black sea. 3/4 of the east side of it is on their side.

The only decent port on Russian territory is Novorossiysk. That and Sevastopol are the the Russian Navy's only warm water ports.

>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.

Everything I have read indicates that its more of a 80/20 split. Where is this 50/50 number from?

Yanukovych was elected, not imposed. Remember, the current government is the product of a victory of a mob, not an election. The US and EU money men had a "powersharing" agreement set up and then some very, very brave young men won a pitched battle against riot police backed up by heavy weaponry.

But probably the real reason the protestors/rioters won was that many of the police went over. And that probably happened because an Interior Ministry armory in Lviv was captured by the rebels.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/24/world/europe/as-his-fortun...

Just remember, Yanukovych was elected, after the Orange Revolution. 80/20 is a large enough difference that they would have just gone for the EU. Obvious propaganda.

This.

Also the split is geographic. The protests are mostly in Kiev, which is in the pro-EU area.

A split in the country is a real possibility.

Obviously it's a rough description of the East Ukraine/West Ukraine relationship. I'd say that neither 50/50 nor 20/80 numbers are true. This is more complicated than that. Many people involved do not really think in terms of markets. Many of them just had that EU thing like a dream, because their reality is less than they could wish for and Europe is something cool and shiny, so they supported the protest, even if only passively. Back then they probably were in the dominance. Most of currently active participants weren't part of that from the start, but joined the revolution only when it actually looked more or less like revolution. Like beating the cops and all that stuff. It's not like they are "most of the whole country". So, when stuff got real, like war menace, no police in Kiev so some people go wild and abuse others because they are stronger and all these things — opinions tend to change. Right now many people I've talked to don't really care about political stuff, they just feel they have some problems coming. They don't really care about western or eastern markets, they care about being well and ok. Some just go to they work everyday and hope that it will be ok, some just run from the country (to Russia, for example).

So now it would probably be only for the best if Russia holds Crimea and stuff and no real combats coming. They even have excuses for doing so. I'm more worried about if that interests of other major countries (USA, major EU participants) are strong enough to intervene.

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.

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=...

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

> 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.

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.

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.

No, there can be no win in a WW3, for anybody.

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.

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?

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

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

Russia invading Ukraine was the escalation you are worried about

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

Russia wouldn't send troops to Ukraine if Ukraine was in NATO. And then Ukraine wouldn't be threatening war over it.

that is not correct Ukraine is one that decided not join NATO not NATO deciding not allow Ukraine into NATO

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.

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#...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com