Merged Ukraine erupts in riots and general strike.

[angrysoba]

Right now: Putin is holing a speech littered with lies. It's quite disgusting.

- He claims that the Crimea always has been a part of Russia, which is trivially easy to disprove if you have any grasp on history.

- He says that Crimean Tatars are collectively pro-Russian, which is hilariously out of touch with reailty.

- He claims the Russian presence in Crimea has been in accordance with international laws, which is also untrue.

- Putin asks what made Kosovo so special, which is either a trick question designed to placate the stupid people who supports him, or a sign that he himself isn't capable of understanding nuances.

It's extra hilarious as Russia hasn't acknowledged the independence of Kosovo.

- He keeps up the charade of labeling the new government in the Ukraine neo-Nazis and antisemites, which is one of the longest running lies since the new government took over.

- He lambasts the democratic development of the Ukraine, which would be a good point if it wasn't for the fact that Putin has had a hand in holding the development back.

He goes on, so updates to follow.

ETA: He criticizes the US foreign policy as being based on "might makes right". The sound you hear is millions of irony-detectors overloading.

Putin finishes by threatening retribution for the sanctions imposed by the West.

Well much of it is of course a litany of grievances, which plays well to his base.

I think that as much as we dislike Putin, he's popular in Russia for this kind of thing.

Why he's popular with the "anti-imperialists" I do not know, except of course perhaps that Putin is their kind of imperialist:

 

[shuize]

You expect them to senselessly die for a couple of useless buildings?

If Ukrainians expect the world to believe Crimea is an integral part of their nation, I expect those sworn to defend it do a bit more than shrug their shoulders and walk away from their military bases when Russian speaking thugs give them a mean look.

 

[McHrozni]

All three of those countries offered more resistance against the Germans and Japanese than Ukraine has shown the Russians thus far.

Not really a valid comparison. Russia is three times larger than Ukraine, and has nuclear weapons. If you want WW2 comparison, the first country to resist the Nazi Germany was Poland, which did offer substantial resistance that was only crushed when the USSR did exactly what they did in Crimea two weeks ago. Poland was smaller than Germany, but the difference was way smaller - and they were well armed, recieved military assistance from day three or so and have been preparing for just this conflict for the better part of a decade. Ukraine has none of those, plus the game chager of nuclear weapons hangs in the air.

Czechoslovakia offered less resistance for Sudetenland. The difference there was greater, but again, no nukes.

I want to support Ukraine on this, but when they shrug their shoulders and walk away from their own military bases because some Russian speaking thugs told them to leave, I have to ask whether they really believe in their own claims to the territory.

That Russian speaking thug wants to provoke a bloody escelation as to provide a pretext for another 250-500,000 or so heavily armed thugs to stream across the border and take at least half the country for their emperor. Ukraine is doing the least bad thing right now, imho. They need to explore peaceful ways until june or so. If it wants hard options it can always cut water and power to Crimea just as the tourist season starts. Let Russia deal with the economic fallout just as the sanctions begin to bite.

McHrozni

 

[Border Reiver]

In more bizarre news, the users of Japanese social media site 2channel are apparently utterly enamored of Ukraine's Crimea's new Attorney General, Natalia Polonskaya. Drawing-cute-anime-style-fanart-of-her enamored.

[qimg]http://i479.photobucket.com/albums/rr157/antpogo/clip2014-03-18at094401_zps1b710408.jpg[/qimg]

[qimg]http://i479.photobucket.com/albums/rr157/antpogo/clip2014-03-18at094451_zpsa60f6a97.jpg[/qimg]

She'll need a promotion then - her rank insignia is only that of a Lieutenant Colonel (equivalent).

 

[Puppycow]

In more bizarre news, the users of Japanese social media site 2channel are apparently utterly enamored of Ukraine's Crimea's new Attorney General, Natalia Polonskaya. Drawing-cute-anime-style-fanart-of-her enamored.

[qimg]http://i479.photobucket.com/albums/rr157/antpogo/clip2014-03-18at094401_zps1b710408.jpg[/qimg]

[qimg]http://i479.photobucket.com/albums/rr157/antpogo/clip2014-03-18at094451_zpsa60f6a97.jpg[/qimg]

That is awesome.

She does look a bit young for the position.

 

[Border Reiver]

All three of those countries offered more resistance against the Germans and Japanese than Ukraine has shown the Russians thus far. I want to support Ukraine on this, but when they shrug their shoulders and walk away from their own military bases because some Russian speaking thugs told them to leave, I have to ask whether they really believe in their own claims to the territory.

I would like to point to Denmark - whose country was occupied in pretty much the time it took for the Wehrmacht to drive from the border to Copenhagen - and with only 16 casualities. By your logic, liberating the Danes is the last thing the Western Allies should have tried to do....

The Ukraine's position militarily in the Crimea is at best tenuous - there are simply not a lot of troops, and they lack the heavy weapons and equipment to make anything more than a grand gesture of resistance to Russia. The Ukraine's position against Russia outside of the Crimea isn't much better, so the Ukrainians are doing the smart thing and talking.

Last stands make for inspiring reading and stories, usually when the side that loses comes back and ultimately wins, but it really sucks to be the people doing the last stand, and if you don't see your last stand achieving anything more than a series of "Deeply Regrets" telegrams it is really hard to movtivate yourself to take it for the team.

 

[Dcdrac]

What republic of Crimea ?

Russia has de facto annexed a chunk of another country, Ukraine, illegally and with a fig leaf that is less than paper thing made up of an obviously skewed referendum that had no legality within the laws of the Ukraine.

I am still stunned that a lot on the left are teaming up with an autocrat with a poor record on freedom, social security, rampant corruption, the stamping on gay rights, pandering to the mega wealthy just so he can strut about pretending to be a latter day tsar.

 

[Garrison]

I am finding it more than a little odd that some people seem to think the Ukrainian troops should have staged a latter day 'Battle of the Alamo' at these bases. Better to get these troops out of occupied territory and use them to shore up defences elsewhere.


And those who seem to be willing to give Putin a free pass I really have to ask what you think is driving him? A desire for peace, freedom, and democracy? Or a vision of himself as some medieval Czar recreating the Russian empire?

All of this trouble stems from the fact that Putin couldn't stomach the notion that Ukraine wanted to sign a trade deal with the EU and his heavy-handed efforts to stop it.

 

[crescent]

If Ukrainians expect the world to believe Crimea is an integral part of their nation, I expect those sworn to defend it do a bit more than shrug their shoulders and walk away from their military bases when Russian speaking thugs give them a mean look.

Those troops were surrounded and cut off. Like others said, if those troops were to fight, the Russians would use it as an excuse to take over other parts of Ukraine.

Also, on some bases the troops were cut off from the weapons systems the bases functioned around - like the airbase in which the Russian troops have prevented the Ukrainians from accessing the airplanes. The bases were not fully staffed when the Russians surrounded them, and service members who were not already on base were prevented to going to work that day.

So, it would have been lightly armed troops with no resupply facing heavily armed troops with unlimited resupply, triggering a much larger conflict that Ukraine has no hope of winning. Plus, the Ukrainian government might have then wanted to try to use some of its remaining military assets to try to relieve the troops in Crimea, and the Ukrainian military is already badly outnumbered.

This way, the Crimean troops get re-deployed to the mainland. This strengthens the troops on the mainland, and does not trigger the wider conflict. I think Russia originally wanted and expected a larger conflict, so this does not quite benefit Russia.

I do wonder what the Ukrainian military people in Crimea are going to do with the big ticket hardware - ships and airplanes. The ships are staffed, but the Russians have locked them in port with blockships. Do the Ukrainians try to scuttle the ships, surrender them, or hope to try to negotiate an eventual release of the ships (a long term thing to do, as removal of the block ships could take months). It sounds like the Russians probably already have control of the planes. The video from last week in which the unarmed Ukrainian troops confronted the armed Russian troops was on an airbase, and the Ukrainian troops stated aim was to secure the aircraft, which the Russians prevented them from doing.

 

[shuize]

Last stands make for inspiring reading and stories, usually when the side that loses comes back and ultimately wins, but it really sucks to be the people doing the last stand, and if you don't see your last stand achieving anything more than a series of "Deeply Regrets" telegrams it is really hard to movtivate yourself to take it for the team.

No doubt it really sucks to be the soldiers and sailors asked to make a stand against long odds. Which is why oaths to defend one's country should not be taken lightly. Just as statements that military bases will be defended to the last also should not be made if there is no will to actually do so. Since, as appears to have happened here, such vows and Ukraine's credibility just walked out the door together.

Even token resistance would help bolster Ukraine's claim to territorial sovereignty. As your example shows, even Denmark put up a stronger defense in WWII than the Ukrainian military has shown up to this point. My guess is the pro-Russians in eastern Ukraine and their backers in Moscow are watching closely and taking notes.

 

[A'isha]

A'isha, didn't I tell you now more than once that you don't qualify for "discussion" if you don't do your homework? What's that sullen first paragraph again? Don't the neo-cons exist, are they "conspiracy theory"? Doesn't the article deal with facts?

That story is nothing but a bunch of asserted guilt by association. And even if it were 100% true, it's also 100% irrelevant. Neo-cons didn't make Putin annex part of Ukraine. Nor did they make the new Crimean "government" order the Crimean Tatars to start leaving their land because it's "required for social needs".

But I guess that doesn't matter as long as it's not the US doing it.

If you manage to extract and formulate the huge question that arises between the lines of that to-the-point article, that would go a long way of showing me that you did your homework, and I would take my best shot at answering it, instead of thinking about putting you in the category of those who aren't even able to get an arrogant response from me.

Why should I even bother, since this whole discussion is a useless red herring that you're using as a distraction so you can avoid talking about the actual problem here, which is Russia's illegal absorption of territory from a sovereign state, a blatant act of imperialism that is mysteriously being defended and applauded by the so-called "anti-imperialists".

@shuize: The putschists in Kiev have no army that's loyal to them, that much is obvious by now. That's why they hectically form a "National Guard" out of their neo-nazi gangs.

But the "pro-Russian militias" in the Crimea that are attacking Ukrainian military bases and killing Ukrainian soldiers get no mention whatsoever by you.

 

[crescent]

No doubt it really sucks to be the soldiers and sailors asked to make a stand against long odds. Which is why oaths to defend one's country should not be taken lightly. Just as statements that military bases will be defended to the last also should not be made if there is no will to actually do so. Since, as appears to have happened here, such vows and Ukraine's credibility just walked out the door together.

The soldiers appear to have been ordered to surrender. They have not broken any oaths, only followed orders

Even token resistance would help bolster Ukraine's claim to territorial sovereignty. As your example shows, even Denmark put up a stronger defense in WWII than the Ukrainian military has shown up to this point. My guess is the pro-Russians in eastern Ukraine and their backers in Moscow are watching closely and taking notes.

Token resistance was what Russia wanted. That would have been the trigger Russia needed to apply overwhelming force throughout Ukraine. Crimea was a lost cause. This bolsters Ukraine's territorial integrity. It further demonstrates that Ukraine is not the one provoking confrontation, no matter how many time Russia insists otherwise. Ukraine is doing what it needs to do to secure its remaining territory the only way it can. Had the Ukrainians followed your line of thinking, the Russians would have been in Kiev a week by now.

 

[Border Reiver]

No doubt it really sucks to be the soldiers and sailors asked to make a stand against long odds. Which is why oaths to defend one's country should not be taken lightly. Just as statements that military bases will be defended to the last also should not be made if there is no will to actually do so. Since, as appears to have happened here, such vows and Ukraine's credibility just walked out the door together.

Even token resistance would help bolster Ukraine's claim to territorial sovereignty. As your example shows, even Denmark put up a stronger defense in WWII than the Ukrainian military has shown up to this point. My guess is the pro-Russians in eastern Ukraine and their backers in Moscow are watching closely and taking notes.

Having been a serving member for 28 years, I can tell you that a government that tells its soldiers, sailors and airmen to make a stand where the chance to make any kind of effective resistance has lost its right to command troops. As has been pointed out, the troops defending these office buildings, and establishments have light weapons - very likely only small arms with minimal ammunition. Couple this with a lack of support in the form of food, and likely water and most will be not in a position to do anything more than what has happened.

The oath that is taken by most militaries is that the member will bear honest and true alliegance to the government of that nation state, and that they will obey the commanders set over them.

For example: "I, Border Reiver, do swear[alt. "solemnly affirm"] that I will be faithful and bear true alliegance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, Queen of Canada, Her heirs and successors according to law. So help me God [may be omitted for a solemn affirmation]."

You may note that nowhere in that oath did it obligate me to die uselessly, and I suspect that the Ukranian oath on enrollment is similar.

The idea of a last stand is generally false, what is being conducted is generally a holding action, whereby a defending force is able to delay the attacker long enough for the balance of the defender's forces to obtain an advantage at a different location or at a different time. Thermopolaye is a good example - the 300 Spartans (and several thousand other Greeks) held off the Persian forces in order to buy time for the REST of the Greek forces to prepare fortifications so that they could resist the Persians better, while attriting Persian forces to make them less capable ehtn they did engage the Greeks later. What advantage does the Ukraine get by having its forces engage at this moment? They get a war they are not prepared for, against a superior force, with no allies in place (or even close by).

When Denmark made its resistance against the Nazis, they had had over 1 year to preapre and most of the Danish forces were not in the field, and those that were, were equipped with obsolete equipment. The Ukraine had what, a week or two to prepare bases that in most cases, they SHARED with the Russian forces who blockaded them into smaller areas, including buildings designed as offices, not fortifications.

in my opinion the Ukrainian Forces are doing the smart thing at the moment.

 

[dudalb]

Well much of it is of course a litany of grievances, which plays well to his base.

I think that as much as we dislike Putin, he's popular in Russia for this kind of thing.

Why he's popular with the "anti-imperialists" I do not know, except of course perhaps that Putin is their kind of imperialist:

At the risk of a Godwin..again....Hitler was pretty damn popular in Germany before World War 2 started.

 

[dudalb]

I am finding it more than a little odd that some people seem to think the Ukrainian troops should have staged a latter day 'Battle of the Alamo' at these bases. Better to get these troops out of occupied territory and use them to shore up defences elsewhere.


And those who seem to be willing to give Putin a free pass I really have to ask what you think is driving him? A desire for peace, freedom, and democracy? Or a vision of himself as some medieval Czar recreating the Russian empire?

All of this trouble stems from the fact that Putin couldn't stomach the notion that Ukraine wanted to sign a trade deal with the EU and his heavy-handed efforts to stop it.

I will repeat my opinion that a lot of those supporting Putin..in the West....think he is still a Marxist at heart and will restore the Soviet System..but make it work this time....

 

[magellan]

You guys are funniest when you try to divine motives.

Putin is a conservative. Russias Gini Index is only slightly better than the USAs. Nobody thinks he's a marxist.

And if anybody likes to know: I think the referendum was rushed. (As are the Ukraine elections, Autumn would have been appropriate) I think the 21st deal was actually acceptable for all sides. The Maidanians thought they could get more, and where obviously right. And back in the 90ies I had bought the free market fundamentalism hook line and sinker.

 

[uke2se]

Putin is a conservative. Russias Gini Index is only slightly better than the USAs. Nobody thinks he's a marxist.

Putin is a conservative, yes. That makes it even more strange that the Western left supports him. What dudalb is saying is that he thinks perhaps the Western left is under the delusion that Putin is a secret Marxist. At least that would explain why they support him.

And back in the 90ies I had bought the free market fundamentalism hook line and sinker.

The free market fundamentalists (read: Ron Paul) supports Putin. Is that what you meant?

 

[trustbutverify]

You guys are funniest when you try to divine motives.

The motive for favoring the Russian position among the fist shaking internet community is that it is perceived as being in opposition to "the West". If Putin was wearing an opposite number, that community would favor the rebel position. No divination required.

 

[jimbob]

And Childlike Empress, I agree with you that there unsavoury elements within the interim government - however there are going to be elections there in May. These will have *independent* observers, and the timescale is reasonable to get the systems in place.

Crimea had neither of those.

Childlike Empress - do you have any arguments that are not tu quoque's?

 

[crescent]

This article seems to encapsulate the attitude of some on the far left:

The Ukraine crisis was the final touch, the political piece, in a two-decade campaign to entice westward the country’s vigorously anti-Russian elements. More broadly, we have the advance of NATO up to Russia’s borders, a strategy so provocative and ahistorical that even Tom Friedman thinks it was dumb (or he did for at least one afternoon at the computer not long ago).

This strikes me as very, very patronizing.

Poland and the Baltic republics have a history of being repeatedly invaded and occupied by Russia. They have chosen themselves to become members of NATO, because they felt that was their best bet to prevent a repeat. They are democratic, they chose this. It not a process of colonization or imperialism, it is the self interest of the Poles and the Baltic states.