×

Announcing: Slashdot Deals - Explore geek apps, games, gadgets and more. (what is this?)

Thank you!

We are sorry to see you leave - Beta is different and we value the time you took to try it out. Before you decide to go, please take a look at some value-adds for Beta and learn more about it. Thank you for reading Slashdot, and for making the site better!

Russians Take Ukraine's Last Land Base In Crimea

samzenpus posted about 9 months ago | from the in-soviet-russia dept.

The Military 551

An anonymous reader writes "Firing shots in the air and using stun grenades, Russian troops captured the last Ukrainian military base in Crimea today. From the LA Times: 'Meanwhile, Ukrainian and Russian officials were carrying on talks on evacuating Ukraine's loyal servicemen and families from the peninsula, a top Ukrainian military official said during a briefing Monday in Kiev. "About 50% [of Ukraine servicemen stationed in Crimea] joined the Russian side," said Olexandr Razmazin, army deputy chief of staff, the UNIAN news agency reported. The decision has been made to carry out the evacuation, he said, "but we need to work out a legal way to do it."'"

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

thanks (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46566015)

thank you
www.lebanonwindow.net

Simple (0)

sunking2 (521698) | about 9 months ago | (#46566051)

Just like Last of the Mohicans. Magua knows how to get things done.

At this point, just take their territory from them (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46566059)

Try hitting Konigsberg and Karafuto.

I dont get it (0, Troll)

JustNiz (692889) | about 9 months ago | (#46566079)

I don't get why the obviously loyal Ukrainian military didn't defend their bases with firepower against the invading Russians?
Were they just too scared?

Re:I dont get it (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46566109)

Although fighting for something on principle isn't always a bad thing, doing so in a hopeless situation is foolish.

Re:I dont get it (-1, Flamebait)

etash (1907284) | about 9 months ago | (#46566463)

There is no point in fighting for land that doesn't belong to you. Crimea was and is Russian (60% of the population is Russian and most of the rest are russian-friendly), nikita chruschtschow transferred it to ukraine in 1954 in a time that it didn't really matter because it was simply USSR land.

Re: I dont get it (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46566541)

I dont like racist reasoning. Thats like saying most of America should belong to Africa/South&Central America. With your reasoning you can basically start WWIII if you look around the worlds demographics.

Re:I dont get it (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46566665)

Yes I guess the Ukranians should have added "no backsies" to the 1994 Belgium memorandum. But I guess that piece of international law was "more like guidlines".

I guess we should watch out for Mexico reclaiming parts of Texas real soon now because "it is Mexican". After all they over 60% are Mexican and they speak "Mexican" and a scant 160 years ago they did rule the place.

Hell why we are at the Russians should take back Alaska too. After all what are borders when Russians get bored of the current borders. Never mind that the reason that the Crimea is mostly russian is that only 25% of the Tatars repatriated after Stalin kicked them out. And also that Russian soldiers were given free apartments and cars when they "decided" to retire to Yalta.

Re:I dont get it (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46566769)

> I guess we should watch out for Mexico reclaiming parts of Texas real soon now because "it is Mexican". After all they over 60% are Mexican and they speak "Mexican" and a scant 160 years ago they did rule the place.

You should wait until Russia stages a coup in Mexico and installs some pathetic local chumps as the new rulers. Oh, and when you do invade, try not to kill anyone. It's possible, even though you're not used to it.

Re:I dont get it (4, Insightful)

bellers (254327) | about 9 months ago | (#46566117)

Because it would have been A> futile, and B> converted this into a full-scale shooting war, which no one, but particularly Ukranians, want to see in their country. Ukraine cannot, as a practical matter, do anything about Russia.

Re:I dont get it (4, Insightful)

dlt074 (548126) | about 9 months ago | (#46566173)

to finer tune your point, the Ukranians stand alone and will lose even more if/when this escalates.

Re:I dont get it (1)

cold fjord (826450) | about 9 months ago | (#46566429)

Ukraine cannot, as a practical matter, do anything about Russia.

The Ukrainians also remember what happed to them [youtube.com] the last time Moscow was really unhappy with them. And oddly enough Putin is a former career KGB secret police officer.

Re:I dont get it (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46566473)

That's why Ukrainian Khrushchev became the number one in USSR and gave Crimea to his Ukrainian wife in 1954.

Bullshit (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46566443)

Finland mauled the Soviet Union's ass in the Winter War. There's no reason a properly-trained Ukranian force couldn't do the same.

Re:Bullshit (4, Informative)

cold fjord (826450) | about 9 months ago | (#46566511)

There were many reasons for Finland's relative success that don't apply today to this conflict, and if you don't understand that you are in the realm of magical thinking. I will also point out that as glorious as Finland's resistance was, Finland actually lost that war and had some of its territory taken by the Soviet Union and added to the Russian Soviet Republic.

Re:Bullshit (1)

bob_super (3391281) | about 9 months ago | (#46566601)

Canada burnt down the White House. Your point?

Re:Bullshit (1)

jayveekay (735967) | about 9 months ago | (#46566789)

During the War of 1812, more than 50 years before the country of Canada was created, British forces raided Washington DC.

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

Britain at the time was the naval superpower and had just helped defeat Napoleon so had some free troops to play with which made this attack possible. To say that "Canada" burnt down the White House is silly.

Re:Bullshit (1)

Gavagai80 (1275204) | about 9 months ago | (#46566607)

Finland was united. A large percentage of Ukraine would rather the Russians win, as evidenced by the 50% defection rate here.

Re:I dont get it (1)

Assmasher (456699) | about 9 months ago | (#46566733)

That worked out well in Sudetenland, eh? God let's hope it doesn't come to that...

Re:I dont get it (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46566129)

Did you mean that sarcastically? The majority of people in Crimea were loyal to Russia before any of this unrest began a few months ago. The last elected Ukranian president was a Russian loyalist. He was a deposed by a moltov-throwing mob with west-leaning sympathies, so we support them. But that doesn't change the feelings of the majority there.

Re:I dont get it (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46566143)

I myself have been to combat more than once.

I'm not sure how much I would like to fight a Russian MRR on the offense.

These guys use recoilles rifles (modern bazookas) to rescue children. They killed 1 out of every 13 Afghans in the Soviet-Afghan war (no shit). Look how Chechnya looked after the battles.

Re:I dont get it (5, Insightful)

BitZtream (692029) | about 9 months ago | (#46566181)

Because they'd get walked over. They are nothing compared to the red army.

Some of the commanders on bases were publicly BEGGING the Ukrainian leadership to give them the order to leave, because until they got that order, they were going to stand their ground ... and they knew what the result would be. They were more than willing to die for their country if that was what they were supposed to do, but not for a cause they weren't going to win.

Re:I dont get it (3, Insightful)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 9 months ago | (#46566183)

Maybe they are following orders of the elected government, not the coup leaders.

Re:I dont get it (2)

EmagGeek (574360) | about 9 months ago | (#46566195)

Because if Ukrainian soldiers fired a single shot on a Russian soldier, Putin would march directly to Kiev and just take all of Ukraine as new Russian territory.

Re:I dont get it (5, Insightful)

Kenja (541830) | about 9 months ago | (#46566197)

It's the same reason you give your wallet to the mugger with the gun and the crazy eyes.

Re:I dont get it (5, Informative)

sabri (584428) | about 9 months ago | (#46566449)

It's the same reason you give your wallet to the mugger with the gun and the crazy eyes.

And this is exactly what it is. Putin is a mugger with a gun and crazy eyes. Too bad he also has nuclear weapons so nobody can do anything about. The only thing that can be done is to isolate Russia the same way as we isolate North Korea. Nazdrovje!

Re:I dont get it (2)

amorsen (7485) | about 9 months ago | (#46566689)

Russia is not getting isolated. That would mean tens of millions of Poles and Germans getting very cold next winter.

The big question is whether giving up Sudetenland^WCrimea will be enough to placate the dictator.

Re:I dont get it (5, Insightful)

FuegoFuerte (247200) | about 9 months ago | (#46566217)

Well, according to the OP, about 50% joined the Russian side, so even without the outside forces you'd have most people dead, assuming equal training and weaponry (which if they're all from the same base, is pretty likely). Also, most of these guys would have served together for years, so it's likely they didn't relish the idea of killing (and being killed by) their comrades when the alternative was "pack up your shit and go home to be with your families."

Now add in the outside Russian forces, and anyone who fought back would have been quickly destroyed. Ukrainians aren't stupid, but they can be pretty pragmatic. The ones from Crimea were likely Russian heritage or at least had Russian sympathies, and the ones who were just stationed there likely didn't give much of a rat's arse about losing the peninsula after most of the people there voted to leave Ukraine. So rather than dying, they went home.

There's a lot to be said for living to fight another day, and it seems like these people "get it" in that regard. Why die for a lost cause that you may not really believe in? Why defend a peninsula that doesn't really seem to want to be defended? Russia takes what it wants, the "allies" of Ukraine have made it clear they have no intention of doing more than a bit of posturing in response, why stay and fight?

Re:I dont get it (5, Insightful)

Nidi62 (1525137) | about 9 months ago | (#46566221)

I don't get why the obviously loyal Ukrainian military didn't defend their bases with firepower against the invading Russians? Were they just too scared?

Because they don't want to give Russia a casus belli for a war with Ukraine. Without being directly fired upon, if Ukrainina soldiers shoot at the Russians the Russians can rightfully claim Ukraine as the agressor and invade. Also the Ukrainian soldeirs have been given express orders not to shoot except in cases of self defense. If a Ukrainian soldier shoots a Russian "peacekeeper" (where's a sarcasm tag when you need one?) Russia won't stop until they have tanks parked on the streets of Kiev.

One other thing: look at all the pictures that have been taken over the past few weeks regarding the standoff between the Russians and Ukrainians. The Russians have been posturing with armored vehicles and the Ukrainians have not been seen deploying any heavy weapons in any type of defensive fortifications. This would indicate that these troops are armed with nothing more than light weapons, with heavier weapons probably stored in depots elsewhere, if at all. No sane soldier is going to try to stand against amored vehicles with nothing heavier than a light machine gun. It's not fear. It's realism and following orders.

Re:I dont get it (1)

Bill_the_Engineer (772575) | about 9 months ago | (#46566401)

Without being directly fired upon, if Ukrainina soldiers shoot at the Russians the Russians can rightfully claim Ukraine as the agressor and invade.

1) The Russians never let facts get in the way of propaganda.

2) Russians can not rightfully claim anything if they are already inside Ukraine, threatening a base, and being fired upon within Ukraine. That is utter bullshit.

This is just a situation of Ukraine not being in a position to defend their own sovereignty and the last thing they want is to make the crisis worse.

Re:I dont get it (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46566717)

1) The Russians never let facts get in the way of propaganda.

Neither do the Americans, and increasingly, no other country on Earth.

Tell us again why Iraq was invaded in 2003?

2) Russians can not rightfully claim anything if they are already inside Ukraine, threatening a base, and being fired upon within Ukraine. That is utter bullshit.

Ahhh, but in the world of political double speak -- they were in Crimea, which belongs to them and the Ukranian guys were there illegally.

International politics is so much bullshit as to be impossible to make sense of. Us here on Slashdot can try all we want to explain it in a nice, neat way. But that's about as far removed from reality as you'll ever get.

Re:I dont get it (3, Insightful)

Valdrax (32670) | about 9 months ago | (#46566223)

I don't get why the obviously loyal Ukrainian military didn't defend their bases with firepower against the invading Russians?

They didn't have the firepower necessary to hold off even an immediate attack, much win the conflict they would have started when things escalated. All they could accomplish would be to get themselves and possibly others killed. Worse, the example of Georgia has shown that the Russians will use any violent resistance as an excuse to just seize even more territory.

Some of the bases personnel essentially chose to engage in nonviolent protest, marching with flag and no guns (despite getting warning shots from the Russians). It's been a really weird conflict so far, from this distance. [dailymail.co.uk]

Re:I dont get it (1)

HornWumpus (783565) | about 9 months ago | (#46566259)

Better question? Why are the Russians taking known traitors into their military?

Every military will take information from traitors. But I thought they all knew to never trust them afterwards.

Re:I dont get it (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | about 9 months ago | (#46566477)

Every military will take information from traitors. But I thought they all knew to never trust them afterwards.

You think the military trusts privates? No more than they trust unstable high explosives. Like explosives, you compartmentalize them, you treat them with appropriate caution, and then you point THIS END TOWARDS ENEMY before you release them.

No more than a handful of the defectors, those they have some reason to trust, will ever be able to advance significantly. But all of them are available for use as cannon fodder, something Russia knows more about than perhaps any other nation on the planet.

Re:I dont get it (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 9 months ago | (#46566565)

Traitors? How? To whom? Those who led the coup are the traitors...

Re:I dont get it (1)

Gavagai80 (1275204) | about 9 months ago | (#46566649)

These "traitors" will no doubt say they're loyal to the constitutional president of Ukraine who was deposed in a coup and himself went to Russia. Why wouldn't Russia like that? I'm sure if protests overthrow Putin they'll be happy to have soldiers who stay loyal to Putin.

Re: I dont get it (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46566263)

The republicans didn't allow them to in attempt to make President Clinton look bad. Clinton promised the US would protect them if they gave up nuclear weapons. Republicans strongly support Putin because he makes Clinton look weak.

Re:I dont get it (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46566293)

Thank $DEITY they didn't. What good could possibly have come from a shooting war? Ukraine was in shambles long before Russia took Crimea. While I am particularly opposed to any "this was ours, it should be ours again" kind of argument with regard to territorial conflicts, the opposite isn't much better. Getting killed for a nation state isn't honorable, especially not for one that was as run-down as Ukraine.

Re:I dont get it (1)

wired_parrot (768394) | about 9 months ago | (#46566301)

This is like asking why a battered wife doesn't defend herself against her abusive husband.

The Russian military is much larger than the Ukrainian military, and the Ukrainians knew they didn't stand a chance in any conflict. Additionally, having a tumultuous change of government at the same time which paralyzed decision making didn't help. The Russians, on the other hand, had been preparing for this for weeks, moving additional troops into the Crimea before the opportunity presented itself. It didn't help that Ukrainian military equipment is antiquate soviet holdovers, with very little equipment upgrades in the last 25 years.

On top of it, the majority of the Ukrainian navy was in the Crimea, which enabled the Russians to easily bottle it up. Ukrainian policy allowed servicemen to be based near their hometowns - which would have made the army more pliable to local pressures. Finally, the Ukrainians also have to worry about the Russian-speaking eastern part of the country separating at the moment.

There was very little the Ukrainians could do, and shooting back would have been a pointless loss of lives and only provided an excuse for Putin for even further aggression.

Re:I dont get it (2)

DarthVain (724186) | about 9 months ago | (#46566339)

Three reasons:

1) They are basically countrymen or close to it, and probably didn't feel like shooting their own.
2) Half your brothers in arms defected to the other side, probably really don't feel like shooting them either.
3) This is the Russian armed forces who have come in strength and prepared, given situation how wise to provoke?

To my mind this is a lot like Canada and Quebec relations.

It would be like Canada deciding Trade options between France and England, where it is likely that Canada might decide to go with England. France with a lot to lose might invade Quebec. Within Quebec there are those that identify with one or the other, but most with France and are French speaking. Quebec has also talked about independence in the past, and also had its own referendum which much of Canada called into question its validity. The Canadian Armed Forces stationed in Quebec might be put in a similar situation. Odds are they are not going to want to fight their brothers in arms.

The difference with Ukraine which would make it even harder to do so, is close physical location with Russian counterparts, in that it is just across the border, not across an entire ocean. Also while Ukraine has a storied history, it was part of the Soviet Union along with Russia in the very recent past (comparatively speaking). I don't think being a coward really enters into it.

Many are probably like "Fsck it, let the politicians figure it the hell out, I'm going home."

Re:I dont get it (0, Troll)

etash (1907284) | about 9 months ago | (#46566471)

There is no point in fighting for land that doesn't belong to you. Crimea was and is Russian (60% of the population is Russian and most of the rest are russian-friendly), nikita chruschtschow transferred it to ukraine in 1954 in a time that it didn't really matter because it was simply USSR land.

Re:I dont get it (1)

amorsen (7485) | about 9 months ago | (#46566623)

It would be the perfect excuse for Russia to let the war escalate to the rest of Ukraine.

Re:I dont get it (1)

Phil-14 (1277) | about 9 months ago | (#46566777)

Well, this is what I see forwarded to me from a Russian friend here in the West:

http://maidantranslations.com/... [maidantranslations.com]

If this is true, the takeovers are being done in such a manner that a) it generates a lot of bad publicity for the Ukranians if they resist ("They're shooting civilians!") and giving Russia a pretext to take away the Eastern part of the country, which is mixed Ukranian and Russian.

An intercepted communiqué from Russia to Ukra (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46566087)

"All your base are belong to Rus'"

Not a single casualty (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46566127)

They conquered Crimea almost without firing shots, and without casualties on either part, in less than a month. And they didn't piss on corpses. Careful planning, cold blood, no surprises. Russian armed forces have definitely proven that they are far more professional than americans.

Re:Not a single casualty (0)

EmagGeek (574360) | about 9 months ago | (#46566153)

There was at least one casualty [www.cbc.ca] on the Ukraine side.

Re:Not a single casualty (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46566231)

OK fine, one casualty. Iraq: at least ONE HUNDRED THOUSANDS.

Again, they have proven they are far more professional.

Re:Not a single casualty (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46566243)

What does the illegal Russian invasion of Ukraine in direct violation of Treaty have to do with Iraq?

Re:Not a single casualty (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46566373)

Probably the fact that the american invasion of Iraq is illegal too. That's one thing that they have in common.

The result is completely different instead: one was a mess, the other a very clean and professional job.

Re:Not a single casualty (2)

MightyMartian (840721) | about 9 months ago | (#46566465)

There is, of course, the fact that whatever the legal status of the Iraq invasion, Iraq was not annexed.

Re:Not a single casualty (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46566519)

But Kosovo was stolen from Yugoslavia and Serbia.

Re:Not a single casualty (1)

MightyMartian (840721) | about 9 months ago | (#46566563)

By stolen, you mean liberated from genocidal fascists...

And Kosovo was not annexed either, but became a sovereign state.

Re: Not a single casualty (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46566579)

It's much more convenient to just steal all natural resources, and leave the population to their own means...

Re: Not a single casualty (1)

MightyMartian (840721) | about 9 months ago | (#46566587)

You mean there's no oil left in Iraq?

Re:Not a single casualty (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46566545)

> invasion of Iraq is illegal too.

I hate you Republican trolls that lie to try to make sensible people look stupid. It was not an illegal war. Iraq broke the terms of their cease fire. Bush is horrible for deciding to murder hundreds of thousands of children, but it was not an illegal war. Please stop trying to get us to ignore murder by ranting incorrectly about a detail that doesn't have anything to do with the Republican's plan to kill children. You Republicans are all alike.

Re:Not a single casualty (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46566567)

Invasion of Iraq (like bombing of Yugoslavia and other examples of US foreign politics) was illegal from the international law point of view for 100%

Re:Not a single casualty (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46566641)

they have proven they are far more professional.

Professionalism has little to do with it.

The difference is that in Iraq we thought we'd be greeted with flowers as liberators.

In Crimea, Russia was greeted with flowers as liberators.

If they tried this on Iraq the result probably would be the same.

Re:Not a single casualty (1, Insightful)

shutdown -p now (807394) | about 9 months ago | (#46566723)

The comparison of Crimea with Iraq is utterly moronic. Iraq didn't have a 65% American population, with a good half of the remaining 35% also expressing support for US.

Re:Not a single casualty (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46566215)

That is because we need to make sure our friends in the military industrial complex get their kick backs and profits. So we must first bomb them to oblivion and back and then rebuild it in our broken image.

Re:Not a single casualty (2)

MightyYar (622222) | about 9 months ago | (#46566291)

I think this is flame bait, but just in case...

To compare to America, I think you'd do better to look at Afghanistan or Chechnya. "Capturing" an island (peninsula?) that wants to be captured is not exactly the best example. You'd have to go back to the annexation of Texas, Hawaii, or something else in the 19th century to get a good analog on the US side.

And that is the point, the 19th century kind of sucked for all sorts of reasons, and it would be nice if Russia didn't take us back there.

Re:Not a single casualty (1)

jklovanc (1603149) | about 9 months ago | (#46566527)

Comparing the overthrow of a far inferior professional force by a far superior professional force is very different than dealing with an ongoing insurgent war. Ukraine did not have ongoing tribal warfare where everyone is happy to shoot anyone not of their tribe. In Ukraine combatant can be identified by being in uniform. In Iraq anyone could be a combatant. In the Ukraine all combatants were on military bases. In Iraq combatants could be anywhere. In the Ukraine the soldiers knew that they would be killed if they resisted and for no good. In Iraq death in battle means martyrdom and a place in paradise. In Ukraine both sides are professional. In Iraq only one side was professional. It takes two sides to fight and the Ukrainians did not because they knew it was futile. The Iraqis have been fighting and dying for decades. The Ukraine and Iraq are very different situations.

Re:Not a single casualty (1)

Amtrak (2430376) | about 9 months ago | (#46566751)

To further this argument it only took 1 month for the US to defeat the Iraqi army. April 19 to March 20th. It was the unconventional insurgent war that caused so many casualties.

This is all Bush's fault! (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46566133)

Once Obama takes office, our respect and standing with the world will be restored!

Re:This is all Bush's fault! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46566157)

It's funny because I see people complain about people blaming Bush far more than I actually see people still blaming Bush.

Re:This is all Bush's fault! (0, Troll)

HornWumpus (783565) | about 9 months ago | (#46566281)

At least you know you are wearing blinders. You do know you are wearing blinders?

Re:This is all Bush's fault! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46566367)

Nope. I assumed things that I notice when traversing the internet is a good indicator of public opinion.

Re:This is all Bush's fault! (1)

MightyYar (622222) | about 9 months ago | (#46566435)

You must have missed a decade here at Slashdot. For 8 years even a discussion about particle physics would have several people blaming Bush for something or another. It mostly evaporated when Bush III was elected (twice) and the same policies and problems persisted, though sometimes you see some anti-Obama madness substituted instead.

Re:This is all Bush's fault! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46566599)

I'm not seeing how what you said is incompatible with what I said.

Re:This is all Bush's fault! (2)

MightyYar (622222) | about 9 months ago | (#46566791)

The post you replied to clearly was poking fun at how we are basically right back to where we were when we elected Obama. His "reset" does not seemed to have worked. It's all Bush's fault that Russia invaded Georgia and effectively annexed a small pro-Russian part. Obama will do better. And Georgia earned it by being too aggressive with Russia. Hopefully other former Soviet republics will learn and be more passive - that should head off any future annexations of territory.

History Lesson:German occupation of Czechoslovakia (5, Insightful)

RichMan (8097) | about 9 months ago | (#46566141)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G... [wikipedia.org]
At the time Germay was "reoccupying land dominated by Germans". The League of Nations stood by and actually there were negotiated terms, the Munich Accord which spelled out what would happen.

However, Germany was emboldened by the success of expansion. And the occupation was far from the end of the aggression.

Re:History Lesson:German occupation of Czechoslova (1)

Brama (80257) | about 9 months ago | (#46566279)

Germany had a decent chance at the time, having a very advanced military and being technologically superior. This is definitely not in the cards for Russia right now. Sure they have enough firepower to destroy a continent, but it's also a guaranteed mutual destruction. Sure, Putin may try to nab a few more regions here and there that are relatively low-risk, but a world conquest is out of the picture.

Re:History Lesson:German occupation of Czechoslova (2)

gman003 (1693318) | about 9 months ago | (#46566721)

Your argument is flawed in that it assumes people are rational and make logical decisions.

Re: History Lesson:German occupation of Czechoslov (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46566303)

With the US (both red/blue) and Europe, we have lots of Chamberlains and no Churchills.

I would not be surprised to see Russian tanks knocking at West Germany's door soon. Yes... West Germany. The WWII treaty says the eastern part is Russia's.

Re: History Lesson:German occupation of Czechoslov (1)

Impy the Impiuos Imp (442658) | about 9 months ago | (#46566461)

That's all part of NATO now. Russia won't do anything to Germany or Poland or Lithuania.

Ukraine's goof was in voting to not seek Nato membership a few years back. While that was partly Russian influence, oh well.

Other remaining, non-NATO former Soviet bloc countries might wanna step on the gas.

Re: History Lesson:German occupation of Czechoslov (1)

MightyMartian (840721) | about 9 months ago | (#46566549)

Germany is a member of NATO. While everyone may sit around dithering about what to do about a former Russian satellite being carved up, to invade Germany would enact NATO's mutual assistance clauses (ie. an attack on one member is an attack on all members). No matter what Russian demagogues may say, Russia does not have the military capacity to invade Germany, which still hosts US nukes.

Putin is bold, but not insane.

Re: History Lesson:German occupation of Czechoslov (1)

shutdown -p now (807394) | about 9 months ago | (#46566729)

The WWII treaty says the eastern part is Russia's.

The WWII treaty has long been concluded, with Russia (well, USSR) signature among others.

Re:History Lesson:German occupation of Czechoslova (5, Interesting)

Nidi62 (1525137) | about 9 months ago | (#46566365)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G... [wikipedia.org] At the time Germay was "reoccupying land dominated by Germans". The League of Nations stood by and actually there were negotiated terms, the Munich Accord which spelled out what would happen.

However, Germany was emboldened by the success of expansion. And the occupation was far from the end of the aggression.

I have found it the height of irony that Putin has been essentially mirroring the beginning of a conflict that killed millions of Russians (not to mention millions of people from other countries as well) in the name of protecting "Russians". Putin is playing a very dangerous game, especially when you consider that, for the last few weeks, whether or not Russia and Ukraine went to war was essentially dependent on some panicked soldiers not giving in to fear or uncertainty and pulling the trigger.

Re:History Lesson:German occupation of Czechoslova (3, Insightful)

RichMan (8097) | about 9 months ago | (#46566453)

Unfortunately we are in the very dangerous point of really needing lots of people to die to stop Putin. I am sure he knows this and knows that until he encounters a country
a) willing to commit to the loss of lives
and
b) expecting to be able to "win" should a) occur
Putin is going to be able to do whatever he wants.

After the interventions in Iraq and Afghanistian it is clear that the west is highly resistant to (a) and is uncertain if (b) is even possible. With those massive levels of innertia Putin is going to be able to march all over the Ukraine and likely several other "Soviet" regions as well.

Re:History Lesson:German occupation of Czechoslova (-1)

Charliemopps (1157495) | about 9 months ago | (#46566515)

I've found it Ironic that he's mirror nearly every US conflict since the Vietnam war and we're getting pissed about it.

Re:History Lesson:German occupation of Czechoslova (1)

cold fjord (826450) | about 9 months ago | (#46566631)

Could you refresh me about which conflict it was that the US invaded a peaceful neighbor and annexed some of its territory to itself by force of arms? I can't think of any examples.

Re:History Lesson:German occupation of Czechoslova (3, Insightful)

MightyMartian (840721) | about 9 months ago | (#46566489)

The actual beginning of the end for the League of Nations as a meaningful quantity was when it stood by and let Italy seize Abyssinia without question. Once it became clear to Hitler that there were no real repercussions to forced annexations, he felt quite free to begin plotting his own.

Re:History Lesson:German occupation of Czechoslova (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46566493)

The League of Nations stood by and actually there were negotiated terms, the Munich Accord which spelled out what would happen.

At the time France and England were both agreeing with Hitler that the Sudeten Germans were being oppressed by Czechoslavakians, unlike the current situation where the international community does not think the Russians in Crimea are being oppressed by the Ukranians. This time round the international community is doing nothing that should make the Russians feel emboldened as the Germans were pre WWII. I would think it would be unwise of Russia to make further claims given the account of history.

ukraine is weak! (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46566149)

the internet told me so it must be true

And history once again repeats itself ... (4, Interesting)

BitZtream (692029) | about 9 months ago | (#46566229)

Here we go again. I thought this ended when I was a kid and that when my father and his generation passed away, that WWII would finally be over as though he was a good man, the death of that generation means the end of suffering for all those who not only fought in the war ... but had to come home and live with what they had done. Fighting a war, even for 'the good guys and reasons' still means you have to do things that no civilized man should be able to do in a healthy frame of mind, and none of them come up the same as they left. The winners are still losers.

Alas it looks like Russia doesn't want it to be over and wants to rekindle its 'former glory'.

Is my son now going to have to suffer the life of a soldier like my father because of some assholes half way around the planet can't just fucking leave well enough alone with his rich life of being a political prick?

I'm beginning to wonder if my father and his cold war hate weren't that unjustified.

Re:And history once again repeats itself ... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46566347)

Russia causes problems to its neighbors.

The US goes abroad and murders brown people wherever the fuck they want, and then make movies about how they save the world.

I prefer Russia over the US 30 fold.

Re:And history once again repeats itself ... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46566411)

Is my son now going to have to suffer the life of a soldier like my father because of some assholes half way around the planet can't just fucking leave well enough alone with his rich life of being a political prick?
 
I hate to put it this way but there are a lot of people half way around the world who feel the same about the US/UN dickering in their affairs. There are people who will die in conflicts today because of US/UN policies that they never had a say in. The worst cases of this are ones where the US/UN don't have boots on the ground but the people are dying all the same for reasons beyond the consideration of the combatants.
 
And I'm not saying this just to bash the US. As a citizen I have many more reasons to bash them that would appeal more to the audience I have. I say this because there are no easy solutions and the reasoning of what happens on the international level can't always be as easy as pointing out to one "side" or another and making a choice the one is clearly wrong and the other is clearly right.
 
I don't believe the Russian motivations in this case are as noble as they try to make it out to be but at the same time I know my influence overseas, via my tax dollars, isn't as noble as what my leadership makes it out to be either. We're pretty complacent considering how unquestionable as things have become in some circumstances under the banner of We The People.

Re:And history once again repeats itself ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46566437)

Then you should condemn Kiev coup d'état and ask them to bring democracy back.

Re:And history once again repeats itself ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46566475)

I'm beginning to wonder

Took you long enough.

Re:And history once again repeats itself ... (1, Interesting)

Charliemopps (1157495) | about 9 months ago | (#46566503)

Is my son now going to have to suffer the life of a soldier like my father because of some assholes half way around the planet can't just fucking leave well enough alone with his rich life of being a political prick?

The only Political pricks that can send your son to war are right here in the good old USA. Careful who you vote for, and keep the camper full of gas... you just might be moving to Canada in the middle of the night.

Re:And history once again repeats itself ... (1)

nblender (741424) | about 9 months ago | (#46566741)

...and leave your gun alone, because we don't like them thar things up here ...

This (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46566517)

The human race needs to eliminate its tendency to allow dictators to rule over us. Until we solve that issue, this will happen over and over again.

Re:And history once again repeats itself ... (4, Insightful)

TubeSteak (669689) | about 9 months ago | (#46566615)

Alas it looks like Russia doesn't want it to be over and wants to rekindle its 'former glory'.

This has nothing to do with glory and everything to do with geopolitics/spheres of influence.

Russia might be wrapping their activity in patriotism and nationalism, but that's just an easy way to sell militarism to the Russian people.

The real issue is that Europe has been slowly encroaching on Russia's borders and Putin isn't about to allow a buffer state with a warm water port used by the Russian Navy to align itself with Europe.

Re:And history once again repeats itself ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46566701)

some assholes half way around the planet can't just fucking leave well enough alone with his rich life of being a political prick?

I'm beginning to wonder if my father and his cold war hate weren't that unjustified.

Give me a break. Just because Putin didn't bend over for the western financed, violent coup which replaced the elected Ukrainian government with neo nazis, now he's the bad guy that we're all justified in hating? What a load.
The west use their usual tactics to set up yet another puppet regime to gain control of a high value tactical region...Putin says "fuck off idiots" and takes back control...The west act all butthurt because their bullshit plan failed so dismally...The sheeple lap up the propaganda as usual.

OMG! (4, Funny)

Charliemopps (1157495) | about 9 months ago | (#46566483)

Where on earth did Russia get the idea they could stir up political descent with spys, attack a countries network infrastructure then invade after there was a coup and have the people hold questionable votes for a new government that violate that sovereign nations constitution all while at gunpoint? Oh wait... that's right, we did. Shit.

Re:OMG! (3, Insightful)

iggymanz (596061) | about 9 months ago | (#46566577)

please, the Russian's and other european countries were doing such things long before the USA existed, just substitute older methods of communication for your "network infrastructure" phrase

Re:OMG! (1)

cold fjord (826450) | about 9 months ago | (#46566711)

Where? That doesn't describe Iraq. That doesn't describe Afghanistan. Your statement is false.

Re:OMG! (1)

Charliemopps (1157495) | about 9 months ago | (#46566785)

Where? That doesn't describe Iraq. That doesn't describe Afghanistan. Your statement is false.

It doesn't? I think your view and my view on those 2 invasions may differ slightly. We were the benevolent helper country that "Freed the people" right? lol

Re:OMG! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46566727)

We? You must be either british, french, spanish, or russian. You know the original imperialists.

Re:OMG! (1)

Assmasher (456699) | about 9 months ago | (#46566749)

Aaah, the "two wrongs make a right" theory...

opinion (3, Funny)

bitt3n (941736) | about 9 months ago | (#46566793)

As Latvian, I not give two potato about situation in Crimea.

I give one potato, but only because is very important issue.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?