Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Ukraine May Have To Rearm With Nuclear Weapons Says Ukrainian MP

samzenpus posted about 8 months ago | from the big-boom dept.

The Military 498

An anonymous reader writes "USA Today reports, "Ukraine may have to arm itself with nuclear weapons if the United States and other world powers refuse to enforce a security pact that obligates them to reverse the Moscow-backed takeover of Crimea, a member of the Ukraine parliament told USA TODAY. The United States, Great Britain and Russia agreed in a pact 'to assure Ukraine's territorial integrity' in return for Ukraine giving up a nuclear arsenal it inherited from the Soviet Union after declaring independence in 1991, said Pavlo Rizanenko, a member of the Ukrainian parliament. ... Russian President Vladimir Putin said that the commitments in the agreement are not relevant to Crimea because a 'coup' in Kiev has created 'a new state with which we have signed no binding agreements.' The U.S. and U.K. have said that the agreement remains binding and that they expect it to be treated 'with utmost seriousness, and expect Russia to, as well.'"

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Works for me! (1, Funny)

ColdWetDog (752185) | about 8 months ago | (#46447349)

Your friend in the Antichrist,

Kim Jong Il

Re:Works for me! (0)

Katatsumuri (1137173) | about 8 months ago | (#46448079)

Yep. The nukes would not help Ukraine in the current crisis. You have to be a crazy dictator to get any of the benefits.

This is just one MP expressing his personal disappointment with the slow reaction of the West.

How are nuclear weapons going to help though? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46447363)

Would they actually launch a nuke at their neighbor? Surely not.

Quite frankly I agree with them, we stupidly signed up to be the policeman of the world and now we have an actual job to do if they request it.

Re:How are nuclear weapons going to help though? (5, Interesting)

NotDrWho (3543773) | about 8 months ago | (#46447493)

Never underestimate a bunch of fanatics. And even the *threat* of them having nukes could easily be enough to start WWIII.

I think we've all gotten complacent with the idea that another World War couldn't happen. They thought the same thing in the 20's (anyone remember the Kellogg–Briand Pact [wikipedia.org] ?). But it can not only still happen, but I think people would be surprised at how little it would take to actually set it off. That's why diplomats have to treat shit like this very carefully.

Re:How are nuclear weapons going to help though? (5, Insightful)

cold fjord (826450) | about 8 months ago | (#46447891)

Never underestimate a bunch of fanatics. And even the *threat* of them having nukes could easily be enough to start WWIII.

The "fanatics" in this case being in Moscow, which as repeatedly threatened its neighbors with attack, including Ukraine. And now it is back to seizing territory as has previously occurred to many of the neighbors of Russia (nee Soviet Union) in the last century: Finland, Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania, Poland, Romania. Now they try again with Ukraine.

Russia threatens nuclear attack on Ukraine [telegraph.co.uk] - 12 Feb 2008
Russia threatens to aim missiles at Czech Republic, Poland if US installs defence shield [radio.cz] - 20-02-2007

Re:How are nuclear weapons going to help though? (1)

NotDrWho (3543773) | about 8 months ago | (#46448043)

Fanatics are on both sides. Throwing more nukes into the mix is going to make an already bad situation 100x worse.

Re:How are nuclear weapons going to help though? (5, Insightful)

cold fjord (826450) | about 8 months ago | (#46448189)

You may recall it was the Russians that invaded.

Do you have any limits to the extent you would permit Russia to seize additional territory? Western Ukraine? Poland? Finland? Malta? Scotland?

Re:How are nuclear weapons going to help though? (1)

Lumpy (12016) | about 8 months ago | (#46448041)

World War I started over basically spilled milk. All Putin has to do is announce that the USA is here to spread gayness and he would have the popular vote to go to war.

Re: How are nuclear weapons going to help though? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46448095)

The fanatics are in the other hemisphere. Russia has never invaded another country without provocation and destroyed its leadership like the US did with Iraq.

Stop reading Fox News.

Re: How are nuclear weapons going to help though? (1)

cold fjord (826450) | about 8 months ago | (#46448227)

Russia has never invaded another country without provocation and destroyed its leadership like the US did with Iraq.

You mean like Finland, Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania, and maybe a few others?

Re:How are nuclear weapons going to help though? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46448235)

Nobody wants to be known as the moron that got their country blew off the map not even Kim Dong Lil.

Re:How are nuclear weapons going to help though? (3, Insightful)

roc97007 (608802) | about 8 months ago | (#46447773)

> Would they actually launch a nuke at their neighbor?

As a last act before being completely overwhelmed by a superior force... what do you think?

Re:How are nuclear weapons going to help though? (1)

Lumpy (12016) | about 8 months ago | (#46448069)

I would, I would also rig every single asset to be blown to hell if the nuke did not work. Oh you want me to surrender? sure, let me just push this button here while we sign the surrender papers.

Re:How are nuclear weapons going to help though? (2)

Katatsumuri (1137173) | about 8 months ago | (#46448097)

No-one would do that except maybe some comic book villain.

Re:How are nuclear weapons going to help though? (1)

MachineShedFred (621896) | about 8 months ago | (#46447945)

A large swath of Ukraine is already radioactive [wikipedia.org] due to Russian carelessness, so why not?

Riiiight (0)

slashmydots (2189826) | about 8 months ago | (#46447369)

"The United States, Great Britain and Russia agreed in a pact 'to assure Ukraine's territorial integrity' in return for Ukraine giving up a nuclear arsenal it inherited from the Soviet Union after declaring independence"

So they can get the nukes back from either the US and its allies or Russia. Hmmm...so basically if they start building the uranium enrichment plants now, they might have a working nuke in 10-20 years. They are seriously talking out their ass right now because that's ridiculous. Where would they get the nukes, ebay?

Re:Riiiight (1, Informative)

Eric Smith (4379) | about 8 months ago | (#46447435)

so basically if they start building the uranium enrichment plants now, they might have a working nuke in 10-20 years.

There's an existence proof that it can be done in four years, if someone is willing to devote sufficient resources to it.

Re:Riiiight (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46448151)

Four years is a long time. Russia would have reacted to even a whiff of anything in a swift and brutal fashion well before the Ukraine could do much with it.

Re:Riiiight (5, Informative)

cold fjord (826450) | about 8 months ago | (#46447473)

Half of Ukraine's electricity is from nuclear power. That have 13 reactors now, and plan to add 11 more.

Ukraine's strange love for nuclear power [bbc.co.uk]

Missile [nti.org]

Ukraine is capable of producing advanced intercontinental range ballistic missiles, and its missile industry is second only to Russia's among the former Soviet republics. The linchpin of this industry is the former Yuzhnoye Scientific Production Association, arguably the preeminent intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) design and production facility in the Former Soviet Union, whose capabilities are matched only by a handful of U.S. and Russian missile enterprises.

Re:Riiiight (4, Insightful)

aliquis (678370) | about 8 months ago | (#46448013)

Relevant in that discussion would be how much of that is in Crimea and possibly eastern Ukraine and how much of it are Russians / willing to leave so to say.

Re:Riiiight (1)

Lumpy (12016) | about 8 months ago | (#46448093)

That means they dont need a nuke. they just need a very large explosion and some spent fuel. The big boom is not as effective as heavy radiation poisoning of the enemy forces. load it all in a plane and blow it up upwind from the enemy... the wind will spread it the rest of the way.

Re:Riiiight (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46447501)

You do understand that Ukraine has enough expertize and know-how to make nukes within a few months? You do realize that Ukraine power supply is 50% nuclear?

There are nations in this world that can build nuclear weapons within months, if they wanted to. They simply choose not to. I would name Ukraine as one of these nations.

http://www.world-nuclear.org/i... [world-nuclear.org]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N... [wikipedia.org]

Re:Riiiight (1)

Sponge Bath (413667) | about 8 months ago | (#46447535)

It does seem a silly statement, and a gift to Putin. He can use that as a replacement for the equally silly current justification for the invasion.

Re:Riiiight (2)

roc97007 (608802) | about 8 months ago | (#46447797)

Or... maybe they didn't give them all up?

Re:Riiiight (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46447977)

Well, they won't have any problem getting the weapons grade material, what with all the Soviet-era nuclear generating stations still operating there, which were built dual-purpose.

That's the hard part. The rest is just math, and I'll bet they have a few guys left that can crunch the numbers.

Re: Riiiight (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46448011)

You do know that Plutonium is way easier to build a bomb with than heu, right? Also it is present in spent nuclear fuel and can be extracted chemicaly, not physically. And Ukraine has lots of reactors..

Liberals will call this another Obama victory (-1, Troll)

gelfling (6534) | about 8 months ago | (#46447371)

Keeping in mind of course that Obama gets most of his foreign policy advice from Walt and Mearshiemer, both of who are staunch advocates of 'neo realism' and who both lobby for the ideas of neo realism developed by their mentor the father of neo realism Dr Ken Waltz. And what is one of the foundational beliefs of neo realism you ask? It's that nuclear proliferation is a GOOD and stabilizing force in the world. The more countries have atomic weapons the better. Waltz had a 4 part debate series with Dr Scott Sagan on this very topic where over and over he comes out in favor of nuclear arms for all nations no matter how unstable they appear to be.

Boring (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46447515)

You're tired, stale, and repetitive. Continue wasting your time... not sure what this has to do at all with Obama, but continue nonetheless retard!

Re:Liberals will call this another Obama victory (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46447525)

And what is one of the foundational beliefs of neo realism you ask?

No. No one asked that. What everyone is asking is "did you forget to take your meds?"

Putin - Rusputin (1)

cold fjord (826450) | about 8 months ago | (#46447375)

Russian President Vladimir Putin said that the commitments in the agreement are not relevant to Crimea because a 'coup' in Kiev has created 'a new state with which we have signed no binding agreements.'

Pay no attention to that signature on the dotted line.

Re:Putin - Rusputin (2)

bkmoore (1910118) | about 8 months ago | (#46447547)

Russian President Vladimir Putin said that the commitments in the agreement are not relevant to Crimea because a 'coup' in Kiev has created 'a new state with which we have signed no binding agreements.'

Pay no attention to that signature on the dotted line.

It's almost as good as Putin's quote about "local security forces" buying Russian uniforms at any local military surplus store. So in order to protect law and order in my own country, I'm supposed to don the uniform of a foreign country? Now where did I put that old French Foreign Legion ensemble?

Sure... (1, Offtopic)

tgv (254536) | about 8 months ago | (#46447379)

Sure, give 'm nukes. What could possibly go wrong?

OTOH, why is this on Slashdot? It's only a Ukranian MP with a wacko idea, probably meant to show his supporters that he's the strong man they seek. Wikipedia sums up his party, Udar, as "UDAR tends to avoid sensitive and polarising subjects and focuses instead on popular topics".

Re:Sure... (1)

Katatsumuri (1137173) | about 8 months ago | (#46448019)

Exactly. This is just one MP talking out of stress. It only shows how hot the situation is in the internal discussions. Most likely, he will be disciplined, and if the news catches on, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs might release a rebuttal to the effect of "misinterpreted / not our official position". Non-story.

A bit late (2)

Hognoxious (631665) | about 8 months ago | (#46447401)

Don't think they could do it in time. Sad though it is, the sensible thing would probably have been not to get rid of them in the first place.

Re:A bit late (0)

NotDrWho (3543773) | about 8 months ago | (#46447543)

No, the sensible thing would have been to have gotten rid of them ALL on BOTH SIDES in the heady years right after the Wall fell. Now a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity has passed, all because some people refused to let go of the Cold War. Now we're stuck with the fucking things, and more and more countries are desperate to get them because they see them as their only defense against a U.S. or Russian attack.

Re:A bit late (1)

Stormy Dragon (800799) | about 8 months ago | (#46447845)

Even if everyone had completely eliminated nuclear weapons in the 90s, how would that have stopped Russia from invading Crimea with its conventional forces?

Re:A bit late (1)

NotDrWho (3543773) | about 8 months ago | (#46448071)

It wouldn't have. But it might have stopped a nuclear holocaust one day when WWIII begins.

Just start the war already! (0, Flamebait)

gman003 (1693318) | about 8 months ago | (#46447415)

I think the main reason other countries aren't intervening is that right now, Ukraine isn't defending itself. Military outposts in Crimea are surrendering without a fight to the Russians. It's hard to justify sending our troops over there when Ukrainian troops aren't willing to fight.

I can understand it on a personal level - I wouldn't want to start a gunfight with Russian soldiers when I'm outnumbered and cut off from reinforcements. And even at a higher level, I can see why just giving Crimea to Russia might hurt less in the short term, because Ukraine cannot fight off Russia alone, particularly when it's been politically divided as it has been.

But fuck, even Poland at least tried to fight back when the German blitzkrieg rolled in. If Ukraine actually fights this war (which it has every right to - Russia is blatantly trying to conquer territory in contravention of every principle of peace), it will be a hell of a lot harder for other countries to just wait on the sideline.

Re:Just start the war already! (5, Insightful)

Darth Snowshoe (1434515) | about 8 months ago | (#46447519)

We should all be thankful that people in the relevant positions in Ukraine have shown much restraint so far and trusted or hoped that diplomatic and economic means would be brought to bear. Once a shooting war starts in the Ukraine, the casualties will quickly accumulate. There's a large civilian population there, several large cities. The population is very polarized. Oh and Russia is pushing more soldiers, armor, mines, etc into the Crimea by the hour.

"Just start the war already?" Because you are bored? What a horrendous sentiment.

Re:Just start the war already! (4, Interesting)

EverlastingPhelps (568113) | about 8 months ago | (#46447617)

Not because we are bored. Because the war has already started on the Russian side, and all the Ukraine is doing now is losing. There is no way to avoid the war any longer. The invasion has happened. The only question is when Ukraine is going to fight -- when it can be confined to Crimea and the east, or when they are fighting an existential fight in the west?

Re:Just start the war already! (1)

ThatsDrDangerToYou (3480047) | about 8 months ago | (#46447971)

Not because we are bored. Because the war has already started on the Russian side, and all the Ukraine is doing now is losing. There is no way to avoid the war any longer. The invasion has happened. The only question is when Ukraine is going to fight -- when it can be confined to Crimea and the east, or when they are fighting an existential fight in the west?

I'm guessing you are not in the military. This isn't CoD. No sanctions have even been enacted yet. You can bet military planners are planning and war gaming as always, but who is going to fight this war? Are you signing up?

Re:Just start the war already! (1)

EverlastingPhelps (568113) | about 8 months ago | (#46448055)

America, the UN, and the EU are not going to sanction Russia. They simply aren't. They are no more sanctionable than America is.

Not only can they easily get around pretty much any sanction, the act of sanctioning them is still an Act of War under international law, which would give Putin a casus belli to invade even more countries, which he is obviously itching for.

The troops are on the field. The question is simply how well dug-in does Russia get to be in Crimea before they launch their attack.

Re:Just start the war already! (2, Informative)

Mr. Slippery (47854) | about 8 months ago | (#46448109)

There is no way to avoid the war any longer. The invasion has happened.

You are oversimplifying to a dangerous degree.

There is at the moment no legitimate Ukrainian government. Putin is a vile authoritarian asshole, but he is right about one thing: Yanukovych's de facto removal from office was a coup [wordpress.com] .

Yanukovych can still make a claim of legitimate legal authority to invite Russian troops in.

And some part of the population in Crimea wants them there.

So, an "invasion"? Not clear.

As for "an existential fight in the west", it's doubtful that Putin wants to absorb all of Ukraine. Keep in mind that Ukraine is a synthetic state, based on the "Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic" set up by the USSR...which was created with a bunch of ethnic Russians exactly to keep Ukrainian nationalism in check. All in all, letting Crimea go back to Russia might be in everyone's best interest...but only if it's handled in a legitimate way. Right now, nothing happening over there has any legitimacy.

Re:Just start the war already! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46448223)

Oh wonderful, civilian uprisings are coups now.

Re:Just start the war already! (1)

gman003 (1693318) | about 8 months ago | (#46447995)

Is it going to be bloody? Absolutely, and that's terrible.

But, as has often been said, all that it takes for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing. Russia, under Putin, is a threat to the fragile world near-peace we currently have, as demonstrated by their words and by their actions. Their aggression cannot go unchecked, because otherwise we're looking at a full-blown world war in a decade's time or so. And Russia still has enough nuclear weapons to do some absolutely massive damage.

So which is better? A shooting war in Ukraine, or a global nuclear war? Peace would be far preferable to both, but I do not see a diplomatic solution working. Even an independent (non-Ukrainian, non-Russian) Crimea doesn't seem a possibility, with the way Russia is preparing to fake the votes.

And once Crimea flies the Russian flag, what do you think will happen next? Will Putin be satisfied with one conquest? Or will he keep waiting for the next opportunity to seize a bigger empire for himself?

I'm not saying this because I'm bored, but because I can see where things are headed. The path before us is littered with bodies no matter which path we take. I just want us to look at the long game - a war now would be violent but short, while waiting just makes the near-inevitable war bigger.

I hate to Godwin these things, but there are far too many similarities to 1938 to avoid at least bringing it up.

Re:Just start the war already! (1)

Lumpy (12016) | about 8 months ago | (#46448191)

If someone throws nukes I can tell you what will happen.

Iran will nuke the shit out of Israel and Iraq. N korea will nuke S korea. China will nuke N korea and a few areas that have been bothing them some even in their own country. Israel being nuked will also start a couple of other countries to decide that throwing something at europe is a good idea. Putin will wipe the Ukrane off the map, as well as afganastan just for good measure, and maybe even throw one at japan because of that old "we hate japan about those tiny islands they claim" disagreement.

Obama will go on TV stating that everything is ok, and he will talk to Putin. within 30 days we will be living in caves, eating our neighbors, and fighting in thunderdome for gasoline.

Re:Just start the war already! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46447563)

> when Ukrainian troops aren't willing to fight.

They are willing to fight. Why keep spreading the Republican lie that they aren't? The Republicans just want more Russians on enemy soil to kill. That is why they have ordered the Ukrainian troops to allow as many targets into their country. They want to fight. The Republicans just won't let them. By doing this, as you know, the US is escalating the conflict which is exactly what the Republicans want. Of course you know that already since you're spouting their nonsense talking points.

Re:Just start the war already! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46447817)

I was not aware that the Republican party is in command of the Ukrainian military.

Re:Just start the war already! (1)

gman003 (1693318) | about 8 months ago | (#46447831)

I have not listened to a single report from American media on Ukraine - I use local sources, primarily the Euromaidan groups, but also Ukrainian newspapers/sites and even Russian ones (RT is horribly, horribly biased, but by looking at what propaganda they're spreading you can figure out what Russia is trying to do). The Maidan sources are biased as well, but you would think "our troops are fighting to the death against the Stalinist invaders!" would make better agitprop than "our troops are surrendering their weapons uncontested".

So if I'm somehow reproducing Republican propaganda, well, a broken clock is right twice a day. I also have a very hard time believing that the Republican Party has any measure of control over a foreign country's military, particularly at an outpost level. And I think there's some serious flaws with assuming the Republicans want more Russians in the country to kill - with the way things are currently going, it seems most likely to end with strong diplomatic sanctions and jack shit else, which is at odds with your supposed Republican desire to kill a bunch of Russians.

If we attack *now*, while Russia is still claiming that they have not sent troops and that the forces in play are merely "pro-Russian activists", there's at least a chance to resolve this without starting a war directly with Russia, and without just letting them take land just because they want it. But we cannot justify military action while Ukraine does not defend themselves - and to be honest, Ukraine may not be able to justify fighting unless they have allies willing to join in the fight.

Re:Just start the war already! (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46448089)

> If we attack *now*
Does the "we" include you?

Re:Just start the war already! (5, Informative)

Princeofcups (150855) | about 8 months ago | (#46447713)

But fuck, even Poland at least tried to fight back when the German blitzkrieg rolled in.

"Even Poland?" What does that mean? Poland had a huge military, which is why Germany had to take them out before tackling France. They fought back very well. They were just not of the same caliber as the German officer corps, and were slightly behind in the tech race. The "horses verses tanks" scenario is highly overblown. Poland's infantry and artillery were adequate for the time, but no one really expected Blitzkrieg to work as well as it did. If Poland had a Guderian, it could have turned out very different.

Re:Just start the war already! (2, Informative)

MouseTheLuckyDog (2752443) | about 8 months ago | (#46447779)

Don't forget Poland was fighting a two front war. Germans on one side, Russians on the other.

Re:Just start the war already! (0)

m1ndcrash (2158084) | about 8 months ago | (#46447885)

You are an idiot. Read a history book.

Re:Just start the war already! (1)

radarskiy (2874255) | about 8 months ago | (#46447979)

The Soviet Union invaded Poland on September 17, 1939: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S... [wikipedia.org]

Re:Just start the war already! (1)

Lumpy (12016) | about 8 months ago | (#46448205)

I suggest you also read history books, as it seems you know absolutely nothing about WW-II... let me guess, American public education?

Re:Just start the war already! (1)

Cigarra (652458) | about 8 months ago | (#46447835)

...Poland had a huge military, which is why Germany had to take them out before tackling France.

This statement doesn't make any sense, and unfortunately nullifies your entire argument. Invading Poland was the plan all along (to reach the USSR eventually). Why would Hitler start by invading France if the lebensraum was on the East?

Re:Just start the war already! (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46448141)

Germans planed blitzkrieg on Poland and then wanted move on France. It didn't go as fast as planned. Poland surrender after 27 days fighting Germans on one front and Russians on the other. France for comparison give up after 44 days (10 May - 22 June) . Poland before WWII had a pact with UK and France to support Poland in case of invasion. They did not do a thing except to declare war on Germans and a couple naval blockades. "United States, Great Britain and Russia agreed in a pact 'to assure Ukraine's territorial integrity'" - I hope I am wrong but there are similarities. Now it is up to US and UK to act.

Re:Just start the war already! (2)

cold fjord (826450) | about 8 months ago | (#46448153)

You're missing some history.

Invasion of Poland, Fall 1939 [ushmm.org]

In September 1938, after signing away the Czech border regions, known as the Sudetenland, to Germany at the Munich conference, British and French leaders pressured France's ally, Czechoslovakia, to yield to Germany's demand for the incorporation of those regions. Despite Anglo-French guarantees of the integrity of rump Czechoslovakia, the Germans dismembered the Czechoslovak state in March 1939 in violation of the Munich agreement. Britain and France responded by guaranteeing the integrity of the Polish state.

German forces moving into Poland was an act of war to France and Britain so France had to be neutralized before German forces moved into Russia.

The Crimea is the new Sudetenland, and it is Russia that is accumulating territory.

Re:Just start the war already! (1)

gman003 (1693318) | about 8 months ago | (#46448133)

They were never going to win the war. They were outnumbered, outclassed, outmanuevered even before the USSR got involved. It wasn't a Civilization-style cavalry-versus-tanks thing, but it was still not a war that they could reasonably expect to win.

They fought anyways. And even once the standing army had fallen, they fought a resistance.

Yes, if Germany had ignored them, they would have been a threat on their flanks. And given some time, they could be a pretty tough opponent. But Germany was geared up for war, and Poland was not.

Re:Just start the war already! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46447717)

You are giving much older example of WWII before nuclear powers, and forgetting much more relevant ones.

Afganistan was willing to fight in the 80s and all they got was weapons from US which created a taliban...
Chechnia was willing to fight (twice, in the 90s) and didn't receive any help from western world.
George was willing to fight as recently as 2008 and look how that turned out.
If Ukraine would roll the army into the Crimea, Russia would turn to intervene "officially" and might as well cut of part of the eastern Ukraine... so it's a loose loose situation for Ukraine, and good learning excercise for the rest of the world (N. Korea, Iran). Once you have nukes, the only way you're getting them from me is in missile form. Never, never give up your nuclear weapons kids, nevermind what are the promises.

Re:Just start the war already! (1)

kabaju42 (959652) | about 8 months ago | (#46447725)

Actually some Ukrainian posts have fought back. There's not much more they can do since they largely disarmed themselves at the urging of the US (and a guarantee that we would defend them). The US has broken its side of the agreement, why would Ukraine keep it's side?

Also, was Poland disarmed like this before Germany invaded?

Re:Just start the war already! (1)

maccodemonkey (1438585) | about 8 months ago | (#46447737)

I think the main reason other countries aren't intervening is that right now, Ukraine isn't defending itself. Military outposts in Crimea are surrendering without a fight to the Russians. It's hard to justify sending our troops over there when Ukrainian troops aren't willing to fight.

The other more fundamental issue is that sending troops into the Ukraine will basically be the start of WWIII, and this war would be between powers that are nuclear states. The literal and figurative fallout could be on a scale yet unseen.

That doesn't mean we always let Russia get away with whatever they want to do. If they continue to seize territory from other nations we have to put our foot down at some point. But is Crimea important enough to risk what could devolve into a nuclear war? No, probably not. But we also have to watch and make sure that they don't continue grabbing small territories.

Re:Just start the war already! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46448173)

I think the main reason other countries aren't intervening is that right now, Ukraine isn't defending itself. Military outposts in Crimea are surrendering without a fight to the Russians. It's hard to justify sending our troops over there when Ukrainian troops aren't willing to fight.

The other more fundamental issue is that sending troops into the Ukraine will basically be the start of WWIII, and this war would be between powers that are nuclear states. The literal and figurative fallout could be on a scale yet unseen.

That doesn't mean we always let Russia get away with whatever they want to do. If they continue to seize territory from other nations we have to put our foot down at some point. But is Crimea important enough to risk what could devolve into a nuclear war? No, probably not. But we also have to watch and make sure that they don't continue grabbing small territories.

Russia will not start a shooting war with the U.S. (there's no winning that war, your best case scenario is to take the U.S. down with you).

If the U.S. took the stand that failure to withdraw would be considered an act of war against the United States. Russia would back down.

The problem is taking that stand would probably start a new Cold War and the U.S. doesn't care enough about the Ukraine to risk that so chances are the U.S. will not give the ultimatum.

Why a war? (4, Insightful)

Runaway1956 (1322357) | about 8 months ago | (#46447749)

Something else to keep in mind, is the area under dispute. The Autonomous Republic of Crimea. See, it's not exactly "Ukrainian" at all. It is an autonomous republic. The demographics? 50% Russian, 25% Ukrainian, and the balance are mostly Tatars. How and when did Crimea become "Ukrainian" anyway? Oh - that was an administrative move, made by the old Soviet, which stuck Crimea in with the Ukraine. Administrative. Crimea never has been "Ukrainian". So, if an AUTONOMOUS Republic wishes to remove itself from association with a nation that only has administrative ties to it - why not?

I stand with Crimea and Russia on this issue. The current regime in the Ukraine are a bunch of racist assholes. Among their first actions upon assuming power, was to outlaw the Russian language in any formal or official documents. Crimeans speak Russian, not Ukrainian. Screw the president, and screw the capital - Crimeans decided that they don't want to be "Ukrainian" any longer.

Not very many nations are willing to assist another nation in the suppression of an AUTONOMOUS REPUBLIC.

Re:Why a war? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46447859)

Idiot, Russians are there because Stalin put them there and moved Tatars away. I hope that one day you get treated same way.

Re:Why a war? (4, Insightful)

daem0n1x (748565) | about 8 months ago | (#46448103)

You mean, like in Kosovo? Wasn't the West's main excuse to steal Kosovo from Serbia that most of the population was of Albanian origin? I fail to see how the West, having set such a precedent, can justify that Crimea is such an integral part of Ukraine, when most of its inhabitants are Russian.

But this is not about justice, fairness or anything. This is just hardcore geopolitics. Done in the same childish and short-sighted way as always. Putting fanatics in power in a Russia-satellite country to piss off the Russians... when have you last heard of such a move? Let me give you a hint, it usually blows right back in your face.

Re:Just start the war already! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46447839)

People say "Ukraine" as if it was a unified country. It isn't. Half the population welcomes Russia and half the population hates them. Most of Crimea wants Russia to come in and calm things down.

The Ukrainians have been fighting amounst themselves and the country is split 50-50 and they can't solve their own problem. As soon as one side gets political power they start hurting the other side. Probably the only way out of this is to create two separate countries.

Re:Just start the war already! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46447941)

Poland fought back because there was no reason not to - Germany was going to take it all.
Russia only want Crimea, a region predominately inhabited by Russians that actually want to become part of Russia, the rest of Ukraine has much more to lose by fighting than by surrendering.

Re:Just start the war already! (1)

Lumpy (12016) | about 8 months ago | (#46448111)

"I wouldn't want to start a gunfight with Russian soldiers when I'm outnumbered and cut off from reinforcements. "

Why? it worked out so well for Napoleon and Hitler.... oh wait....

Re:Just start the war already! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46448209)

Military outposts in Crimea are surrendering without a fight to the Russians.

Where do you find this crap? The day the government was thrown out in Kiev, Crimea turn over their local Government to a Russian Citizen and requested Russian protection. The same day! They also started building up civilian militias because they were worried about the protestors coming down and taking over Crimea after overthrowing Kiev.

The majority of Russians don't see Russia as evil you realize, in fact many of the old Easter countries see them as the lesser of the two evils between the US/EU and Russia. The majority of Russians realize Russia has corruption, but don't see themselves as more corrupt than the west. The US keeps trying to prove that correct to boot.

This is why the hypocrisy of the US is biting them in the ass! Or did you get about Syria and the US arming rebels there, the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan, no criminal punishment for bankers or politicians, the whole NSA thing, etc...

It's good to be patriotic, but it's not good to be an ignorant patriot.

Nuke Store (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46447437)

I guess he's just going to walk down to the corner nuke store, then? Maybe while he's out he can pick up an aircraft carrier or two.

The best bet for Ukraine at this point is to cut its losses and relinquish Crimea. Otherwise, there'll just be decades upon decades of ambiguity and bickering which will effect trade and traffic and complicate international agreements--new and old. For example, Ukraine could never join NATO (not that it should) if it claimed Crimea, because NATO requires member states to be in complete control of their territory.

Re:Nuke Store (1)

michael021689 (791941) | about 8 months ago | (#46448047)

Yeah, if the Ukrainians just cut their losses like the Czechs did under the guidance of France and the UK, things could work out even better this time.

Of course they do (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46447475)

The Ukraine is weak, it's feeble.

The importance of a strong military (0)

mysidia (191772) | about 8 months ago | (#46447529)

It seems Ukraine's people are powerless to restore order to their country and expunge the Russians.

If they had a stronger military, they could have defended their sovereignty.

As is, they will probably lose their independence.

Re:The importance of a strong military (1)

EverlastingPhelps (568113) | about 8 months ago | (#46447627)

You fucked up, Flounder -- you trusted us!

Re:The importance of a strong military (3, Informative)

Runaway1956 (1322357) | about 8 months ago | (#46447775)

I already posted this above:

Something else to keep in mind, is the area under dispute. The Autonomous Republic of Crimea. See, it's not exactly "Ukrainian" at all. It is an autonomous republic. The demographics? 50% Russian, 25% Ukrainian, and the balance are mostly Tatars. How and when did Crimea become "Ukrainian" anyway? Oh - that was an administrative move, made by the old Soviet, which stuck Crimea in with the Ukraine. Administrative. Crimea never has been "Ukrainian". So, if an AUTONOMOUS Republic wishes to remove itself from association with a nation that only has administrative ties to it - why not?

I stand with Crimea and Russia on this issue. The current regime in the Ukraine are a bunch of racist assholes. Among their first actions upon assuming power, was to outlaw the Russian language in any formal or official documents. Crimeans speak Russian, not Ukrainian. Screw the president, and screw the capital - Crimeans decided that they don't want to be "Ukrainian" any longer.

Not very many nations are willing to assist another nation in the suppression of an AUTONOMOUS REPUBLIC.

Re:The importance of a strong military (1)

radarskiy (2874255) | about 8 months ago | (#46448083)

" So, if an AUTONOMOUS Republic wishes to remove itself from association with a nation that only has administrative ties to it - why not?"
Theoretically interesting, but not entirely representative of the current situation, since:
a) In the past, the Crimean Tatars had been forcibly deported and Russians moved in, and
b) The presence of foreign Russian military has a non-zero effect on what the autonomous republic "wishes", in particular the scuttling of a ship to block a port and military personnel removing identification from their uniforms.

"The current regime in the Ukraine are a bunch of racist assholes."
The Crimean Tatars are familiar with the concept.

Ukrainian AA defense rockets went missing a while (1)

Still beliving I am Anonymous (3571217) | about 8 months ago | (#46447557)

Timoshenko is from Lviv Mafia. Yanukovich was from Donetsk mafia. In the current Ukrainian government there are 2 mafia Oligarchs. Couple of years ago Ukraine sold Kiev AA defense rockets to Georgia, leaving Kiev without AA defenses. Ukrainian military thought they just went missing. I am sure nothing like that will happen to their Nukes - right?

Ask a Native American about US "agreements"... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46447567)

That is, if you can find one. I've no idea why any nation thinks an agreement with the US is binding beyond how it benefits the US.

Re:Ask a Native American about US "agreements"... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46447657)

Maybe you missed the news flash, but it was RUSSIA that invaded Ukraine, not the US.

Why would you think that countries would sign an agreement that wasn't to their benefit in some way??

Re:Ask a Native American about US "agreements"... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46447701)

As in- why would Ukraine think the US would help? It doesn't benefit the US to help, and that's how agreements/treaties are routinely regarded by the US.

Re:Ask a Native American about US "agreements"... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46448005)

It isn't a defence treaty. There is nothing in that agreement that obligates any country to come to the military aid of Ukraine. Ukraine isn't part of NATO.

Question - why are you harping on the US when it is Russia that invaded and is preparing to annex the territory? Do you have any hard feelings for them?

They won't (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46447593)

If they try to even think about it seriously they will be invaded. I am just not sure if the East or West will do it first...

All in all, this will probably go one of two ways. (1)

bwcbwc (601780) | about 8 months ago | (#46447613)

1) Rollback Ukraine to previous "territorial integrity", possibly with some bargaining over the structure of a new government.
2) Russia annexes Crimea after their puppets declare independence and the remainder of Ukraine joins EU (and possibly NATO), starting a new cold war. Ukraine gets screwed over in this case because they don't really have any guarantee that NATO would back them up any more than the current coalition fails to.

Well then... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46447653)

If that is the case we would be under no obligation to defend their sovereignty and Putin can have at them.

Nuclear weapons don't actually work better (1)

WillAffleckUW (858324) | about 8 months ago | (#46447681)

A more sane alternative would be millions of armed drones - cheaper, faster, mobile, able to strike fear anywhere in nearby Russia and destroy their entire fleet by wave skipping (you lose about half of those, but they still hit at the waterline and sink the ship).

Nuclear weapons are so last century.

Reminds me of Star Wars: Eposide I (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46447699)

This whole thing reminds me of reminds me of Star Wars: Episode I.

Nute Gunray: [on view screen] Yes, of course. As you know, our blockade is perfectly legal and we'd be happy to receive the ambassadors. ...
Darth Sidious: This turn of events is unfortunate. We must accelerate our plans. Begin landing your troops.
Nute Gunray: My lord, is that... legal?
Darth Sidious: I will make it legal.
Nute Gunray: And the Jedi?
Darth Sidious: The Chancellor should never have brought them into this. Kill them immediately!

Good. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46447723)

It's about time. They have been pushed around and abused for so long and just taking it. They are like saints compared to other 'nations' that never let anyone forget.

Ukraine is right (3, Insightful)

cowwoc2001 (976892) | about 8 months ago | (#46447811)

This isn't the first time that international bodies have promised to protect a country's borders in return for it withdrawing from some territory, or giving up arms... but when it is time for those same international bodies to act they do not.

Another recent example is when Israel withdrew from Lebanon in 2000 to UN sanctioned, internationally-recognized borders. A short while later, Hezbollah started threatening Israel again, claiming it was occupying some fictitious piece of land that was never part of Lebanon. Instead of the UN and international bodies backing Israel's claim that it had fully withdrawn from all of Lebanon, they publicly referred to this piece of land as "disputed territory". This taught us two things:

1. All it takes is one idiot to claim ownership of some land, and regardless of the facts that land becomes "disputed".
2. International guarantees are utterly meaningless.

Countries are better off retaining their weapons and enforcing the peace themselves. Regardless of how much political pressure you're under, ignore it, because at the end of the day you cannot outsource your citizens security.

And on the flip side: the international community should shut the !#@ up until they gain a record of walking the walk instead of talking the talk. It's criminal to play with other people's lives in this way.

Re:Ukraine is right (4, Informative)

NoImNotNineVolt (832851) | about 8 months ago | (#46448129)

Another recent example is when Israel withdrew from Lebanon in 2000 to UN sanctioned, internationally-recognized borders.

Israel hasn't been limited to its UN sanctioned, internationally-recognized borders since 1948. The pre-1967 borders include territory annexed in previous military conquests. Not just Shebaa farms, but also a little town called Jerusalem. The UN certified in 2000 that Israel had complied with Resolution 425, which did not have the explicit requirement of a withdrawal to its original legal borders, but merely from newly-annexed territory. Of course, all these "details" just don't agree with your "facts on the ground", so it's best that we leave them swept under the rug. That Shebaa farms was "never part of lebanon", as you say, shouldn't have anything to do with this, since it was a part of Syria, and sure as shit not a part of Israel. But I guess it should be okay for Israel to annex Syrian territory, because it's not Lebanese? I suppose it wouldn't have been a problem if the US just annexed Iran after we went into Iraq, since we'd still be withdrawn from Iraq, right?

Why would anyone sign a treaty... (1)

bluegutang (2814641) | about 8 months ago | (#46447821)

with security guarantees from a Western power, when those guarantees are broken so easily?

This has implications for many other conflicts. For example Israel/Palestine - the US offered Israel security guarantees due to the vulnerable borders it would have after a withdrawal, and I'd expect the Palestinian leaders want some protection from extremists who reject peace with Israel and would assassinate any leader who agreed to it (as happened in Egypt after it signed a treaty with Israel). Now, I can't imagine either side respecting such a guarantee, which makes a peace agreement that much further away.

The same is true with regard to India/Pakistan (another nuclear weapons situation), Bosnia, Kosovo, and many other areas of crisis.

The lesson is, don't make promises if you (and all your successors in office) don't plan on keeping them.

Ah, ha (0)

LifesABeach (234436) | about 8 months ago | (#46447861)

Isn't it about time everybody throttle back? The Crimea was going independent after the May elections anyway. All Captain Putt-putt had to do was sit and wait. Captain Putt-putt offered 15 billion for Ukraines' 37 billion dollar need. Why not have the Ukraine go the EU and ask for the rest? As for Captain Putt-putt, ya, he's a hard ass. But can Russia really afford anymore of his antics? And I guess if Kiev wants to turn Moscow into a glass lined lake, China is going to care?

Pot, kettle (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46447867)

I in no way condone Putin's actions. However, he was trampled over by the US, the EU and the Ukranian rebels, and he is determined to demonstrate that Russia takes care of its interests just as the US does. He is not letting a ragtag rebel gang annex the Ukraine to the Western sphere of interests. He has ceded Serbia, Bulgaria, the Baltics, Georgia, and now he has put a stop to it.

The rebels don't represent the "Ukranian people" any more than Yanukovych did. Nobody elected them. They just chased away their loathed, elected president. And the moment they took "power," they cried for the West to come and help them.

Putin isn't interested in Crimea. He wants a non-Western Ukraine. If he can't get it, he'll make the government in Kiev suffer by stirring all kinds of unrest around the country. Putin is still preferring the option where Russia's dominance over Ukraine is recognized.

Yes, it's bullying but the EU and the US have been behaving at least equally badly in this farce.

Re:Pot, kettle (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46447997)

How are you doing comrade?

As a Brit who lives in Kyiv (Ukraine) (1)

creslinux (468199) | about 8 months ago | (#46447915)

Im quite stunned, that I can still be stunned, by the general american disconnect from the world.

Uranium is mined in Ukraine, space rockets are made and launched in Ukraine.
When you think Soviet Union and Nuclear missiles, think that this was tech from the Ukraine arm of the Soviet Union.

Yellow Waters - never used to be listed on the map - you may find it now.
The comments it'll take 15-20 years to re-arm is a nonsense.

The Ukrainian people are hugely ingenious engineers --- those rockets that took apollo to the moon. You think that rocket motor was an American design?

That the Ukrainians managed to stand in peace to pull parliament out the clutches of nigh on dictatorship, their old, young, couples got out of bed in the dead of night and cold to stand before armed police is testament to their resolve calm and control.

Only a fool would consider their capacity to not pick up a gun as a lack of commitment.

Re:As a Brit who lives in Kyiv (Ukraine) (1)

iggymanz (596061) | about 8 months ago | (#46448101)

nope, making nuclear fuel from Ukraine's uranium was and is done by TVEL in Russia. The reactors are TVEL's also.

Re:As a Brit who lives in Kyiv (Ukraine) (1)

iggymanz (596061) | about 8 months ago | (#46448219)

and let's hear about those foreign designers of the Rocketdyne F-1 engine, let's see if it matches my list of americans who managed, designed, built and refined the design of that engine

bloody idiots (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46447927)

I doubt they have necessary materials let alone engineers for that.
On other hand, they have 4 operating nuclear plants and infamous Chernobyl plant under their full control.
Using nuclear plant burn-outs, they're 100% ready to produce "dirty bombs". They're far faster to produce and far nastier than "usual" atomic bombs.

I'm living in Belarus - neighbour country. News like this urge me to ask politicians I know about steps we're going to take.

Where words fail, blows must follow (1)

jd.schmidt (919212) | about 8 months ago | (#46448059)

-Aesop Russia has been far too ham fisted and has massively overreacted, however valid their concerns.

Rock Paper Nuke (2)

jayveekay (735967) | about 8 months ago | (#46448105)

Assume "Paper" is a treaty guaranteeing "Territorial Integrity". Then:

Rock beats Paper
Nuke beats Paper
Nuke beats Rock
Nuke loses to Nuke (MAD)

Who would ever play Paper?

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?