Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by LaminatorX on Tuesday April 22 2014, @10:46AM   Printer-friendly
from the New-New-Model-Army dept.

If it wasn't already clear, the face of warfare has changed. The Russian anexation of Crimea is a case in point according to the New York Times.

From the article:

Secretary of State John Kerry has accused Russia of behaving in a '19th-century fashion' because of its annexation of Crimea. But Western experts who have followed the success of Russian forces in carrying out President Vladimir V. Putin's policy in Crimea and eastern Ukraine have come to a different conclusion about Russian military strategy. They see a military disparaged for its decline since the fall of the Soviet Union skillfully employing 21st-century tactics that combine cyberwarfare, an energetic information campaign and the use of highly trained special operation troops to seize the initiative from the West.

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 4, Insightful) by VLM on Tuesday April 22 2014, @11:20AM

    by VLM (445) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday April 22 2014, @11:20AM (#34311)

    Just to head it off at the pass, the summary above doesn't mention where the article explains that its 21st century strategy for the Russians, but in the west we'd call it 20th century strategy. New for the Russians but aside from new buzzwords we'd call it traditional psyops and special forces.

    • (Score: 3, Funny) by Jeremiah Cornelius on Tuesday April 22 2014, @07:41PM

      by Jeremiah Cornelius (2785) on Tuesday April 22 2014, @07:41PM (#34551) Journal

      The use of such behavior is a COPYRIGHT feature of the US, as demonstrated by PRIOR ART!

      Libya
      Iraq
      Afghanistan
      Kosovo
      Sudan
      Jugoslavia
      Panama
      El Salvador

      Shall I continue to iterate the US claim for exclusivity?

      --
      You're betting on the pantomime horse...
      • (Score: 3) by VLM on Tuesday April 22 2014, @07:58PM

        by VLM (445) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday April 22 2014, @07:58PM (#34563)

        The British commandos in WWII have prior art before the Americans on the special forces/psyops thing.

        The British scouts as special forces in the Boer Wars led more or less directly to the Boy Scouts organization, which is at least somewhat interesting. So you can make a pretty good argument the Brits have prior art from the 1800s which the USA didn't bother copying very well until post WWII. In typical American fashion, once they decided to start copying they really went all out.

        The Germans with Skorzeny pulled off some crazy special forces / psyops stuff against the allies in WWII, interesting to read about. He'd probably make a novel WWII FPS, given that about 99% of those games cast the bad guys as Germans it would be interesting to see a turnabout. They would do crazy things to screw up logistics convoys, not blow them up but redirect them until they were lost, doesn't matter so much why supplies don't reach the front lines, just matters that they don't...

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 23 2014, @10:23AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 23 2014, @10:23AM (#34778)

      Your bitterness and your spasmodic attempt to act sarcastic is the microscopic reflection of the macrocosm: the fact that Russia scooped everybody, swiftly drawing the carpet under NATO's nose made the US (and everybody else) realize that US of A is absolutely not the superpower that it used to be, and it is dropping to third place really fast now.

      And you are STILL making the same mistake, which is to "be surprised" in how the Russians did it: " .. but .. but .. USSR was BANKRUPT! Their military is OUTDATED!"

      That's right, this is what happens when you underestimate people and situations. Now suck it up, or take your whining elsewhere.

  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by bradley13 on Tuesday April 22 2014, @11:56AM

    by bradley13 (3053) on Tuesday April 22 2014, @11:56AM (#34322) Homepage Journal

    Even Russia-skeptics seem to agree that the vast majority of the Crimean population wanted to join Russia. Watching the US and much of Europe foam at the mouth over Crimea, I wonder: why is it any of their business? Why do they want to prevent a region from seceding, when that's what the population really wants? Maybe they're worried about their own restless provinces? Catalonia? Scotland? Flyover country in the USA?

    The fact is that many parts of the world contain relics of empire that are really artificial constructs, combining disparate cultures that never wanted to be together (e.g., Afghanistan). In other places, formerly independent groups were annexed, but haven't lost their identity and desire for independence (e.g., Kurds in Turkey). Or, perhaps, diverging opinions have made a formerly peaceful union uncomfortable?

    The international community should draw up guidelines to allow secession. Given certain constraints on geography and population, any area should be able to declare its independence. The process should be overseen by neutral observers to ensure fairness.

    Of course, this would be a huge threat to established political power. Can't have that, can we...

    --
    Everyone is somebody else's weirdo.
    • (Score: 4, Insightful) by VLM on Tuesday April 22 2014, @12:53PM

      by VLM (445) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday April 22 2014, @12:53PM (#34348)

      "I wonder: why is it any of their business?"

      They're the new opposition. Or at least trying to create an opposition. Watch the antics where anything political party A does will be criticized, as a standard policy, by party B. This does not end at borders. No matter what Russia did they'd be criticized, and no matter what they did we would do nothing other than criticize, so they may as well do whats best for them. Which they more or less did.

      Another problem is the long trend of federal over states rights is not just local, its a long human story of ever greater power at ever higher levels. And combine that with individual empire building. You'll see the Ukraine leadership, who by definition must be power mad psychopaths because all leaders are like that, and the higher up they are the more diseased they are, and they will not be amused at having their power chopped in half by someone else taking half their country. Even if they don't really want that half and the half doesn't like them, its still naked raw power they've lost.

      Remember that Russia needs that southern warm water port in the Crimea. That doesn't mean the Ukraine wouldn't like a nice handy southern warm water port. Its not a worthless slab of dirt. It would be very interesting to contemplate if the Russians simply offered the Ukraine some money or some natgas instead of the .mil thing. It might, or might not, have even been cheaper.

      Also we as the west need to butt out. The Russians are somewhat xenophobic, more than the USA even, and they really, really, really want a neutral to friendly buffer ring around them. We should not be forcing NATO and EU right up against their borders, we're not going to like the results when that really pisses them off as opposed to now when they're merely mildly annoyed. If we had just left the Ukraine alone and independent and not meddled in it, then the Russians wouldn't have reacted against us by taking half of it over to regain their buffer. What we're watching today is very much like the boomer's Cuban missile crisis, except its on the Russian's doorstep not ours. This kind of brinksmanship is pretty stupid to participate in, especially when there's no outcome imaginable that is productive or positive.

      • (Score: 5, Funny) by emg on Tuesday April 22 2014, @05:10PM

        by emg (3464) on Tuesday April 22 2014, @05:10PM (#34452)

        Come, now. It's not as though America would have been upset if Mexico joined the Warsaw Pact.

      • (Score: 3, Insightful) by captain normal on Tuesday April 22 2014, @05:10PM

        by captain normal (2205) on Tuesday April 22 2014, @05:10PM (#34454)

        Russia has a navy port on the black sea at Novorossiysk. Ukraine has the large sea port at Odessa. Sevastopol is the only large sea port on the Crimean Peninsula. So the warm water port motive makes little sense
        And in any event, the only way out of the Black sea is through the narrow Bosphorus. Which only leads into the Mediterranean and is firmly controlled by NATO.
        The only motive that makes any sense is control of the Natural Gas pipeline that passes through Ukraine. Unless of course, Putin and the Russian military brass have gone crazy and think they can take back all the Eastern European countries that split away. Or maybe they just want control of the party at the Kazantip Festival.

        --
        When life isn't going right, go left.
        • (Score: 1) by tftp on Tuesday April 22 2014, @11:34PM

          by tftp (806) on Tuesday April 22 2014, @11:34PM (#34643) Homepage

          Novorossiysk cannot offer enough protection in times before the conflict. Just compare the geography of Novorossiysk and Sevastopol on Google Earth.

          And in any event, the only way out of the Black sea is through the narrow Bosphorus.

          Then I wonder why the USA keeps sending warships [military.com] into the Black sea if Black sea is such a useless thing. (The USA has to rotate those warships every 21 day per the treaty, or whenever their Captains damage their ships [nbcnews.com].)

          Unless of course, Putin and the Russian military brass have gone crazy and think they can take back all the Eastern European countries that split away

          They will not be taken back because that would be pointless and technically impossible. A full scale war between major combatants is not likely, unless they both love the adorable nuclear winter. A proxy war, on the other hand, is not only nearly certain - it is ongoing, with the new Ukrainian dictators carrying water for NATO and with Eastern Ukrainians doing the same for Russia. Those are actions of pawns... but a chess player cannot ignore opposition's pawns just because they look small.

          narrow Bosphorus. Which only leads into the Mediterranean and is firmly controlled by NATO

          It's not "controlled" if the controlling entities cannot impose their will onto the controlled entity. Turks know perfectly well which side their bread is buttered on, so they won't make any unwise moves. Once in the Med, do you think NATO ships can stop a Russian ship in neutral waters and order it around? Well, outside of war they cannot do that. This means that their control is not effective. Russian ships can go wherever they need to go - to Syria, to Africa, to Cuba, to China, to Brazil, etc. The only thing that can stop them is the absence of said ships. Removal of Sevastopol as a viable base would be one step in that direction. As a second step, one can imagine a false flag attack of frogmen in the wide open harbor of Novorossiysk, using Iranian-made explosives. Maybe even, for a good measure, a dead Iranian national will be found, drowned because of a totally accidental malfunction of his breathing apparatus.

        • (Score: 2) by unitron on Wednesday April 23 2014, @07:26AM

          by unitron (70) on Wednesday April 23 2014, @07:26AM (#34746) Journal

          I'm pretty sure the Russian motto has been the same ever since they discovered boats--"You can never have too many warm water ports."

          As for the majority wanting to be part of Russia, that's what you get when you pack enough Russians into a place that didn't used to be part of Russia.

          --
          something something Slashcott something something Beta something something
          • (Score: 1) by tftp on Thursday April 24 2014, @01:42AM

            by tftp (806) on Thursday April 24 2014, @01:42AM (#35305) Homepage

            As for the majority wanting to be part of Russia, that's what you get when you pack enough Russians into a place that didn't used to be part of Russia.

            That alone would be still not enough to prompt Crimeans to act like they did. The scales were tilted by the Ukrainian government that practiced irresponsibility, corruption, and non-stop theft for the last 20 years. The decision became final when the elected government (good or bad) was overthrown in a violent revolt by a mob of unknown origin and the new leaders started talking about forced Ukrainization and genocide. The Right Sector and their fellow travellers were the first; but soon larger figures joined in. As an example, listen to Yulia Timoshenko phone call where she expresses desire to kill Russians with nuclear weapons. It is pretty clear that nobody wants to live in an unstable, sub-3rd world banana republic without bananas and be ruled by homicidal clowns. People would be OK to live under an administrative control of any sane country. But Ukraine's government made sure that Ukraine does not meet even such a simple qualification.

            Ukraine is a failed state. It was formed from several dissimilar nations, during many conquests of European and Asian Kings, Sultans, Czars, and First Secretaries. Those nations were not always happy, but largely content to live together - and they did, from 1945 to 1995. There were a few attempts at nationalism, Bandera's OUN being the most prominent after the war, but they were suppressed by the police. The rest of the people preferred to live in peace. However after 1995 this peace ended, as politicians started exploiting nationalism of different areas of Ukraine to gain personal power. This culminated in 2014, when a paid (and unpaid) mob, largely from Western Ukraine, controlled by the Right Sector, was able to overthrow the elected government of Yanukovich. (He was facing new elections within a year anyway.) Use of force - stones, Molotov cocktails and firearms - was not missed in the Eastern Ukraine. As result, they got this. Now poor finances of Ukraine will be fueling the separatist tendencies, as the last province that still carries the name of Ukraine will be stuck with the bill. Russia is standing ready to accept the refugee provinces, forgive their debts, double the social assistance, create jobs, and so on. This is already happening with Crimea - airlines are flying there without charging the VAT, the military service is deferred, Russian banks are rushing in with credits in hand, new bridges and new power lines are being designed, a large movie studio (Lenfilm) is moving in, and new vacation packages are offered at very competitive prices. What can Kiev offer that would compare, let alone compete, with this package? They have nothing; they aren't even in firm control of the country, and Ukrainian army is in no hurry to shoot anyone or be shot at. Western credits are being offered... but they always come with light years of strings attached. Ukraine has nothing to offer to the EU simply because EU doesn't need anything. Perhaps some dirty, dangerous manufacturing can be done in Ukraine, like Union Carbide did in India. Outside of that, EU is using Ukraine as an expendable tool to prod the bear with. It is *not* done to help Ukrainians.

    • (Score: 3, Interesting) by bucc5062 on Tuesday April 22 2014, @12:54PM

      by bucc5062 (699) on Tuesday April 22 2014, @12:54PM (#34350)

      As this is more of an opinion topic then tech, let me give a slightly differing opinion. I would start off with an agreement to your thoughts on a more...structured?...method of secession. If there comes a point where/when a body of people, and I would feel it needs to be more then a simple majority, want to splinter, then by all means let us have some rules. It needs to be a super majority though for otherwise, it is a matter of one slightly great group out voting another. I also think more information should need to be given to regions that want autonomy and that "supporting" countries not be allowed to provide economic support. Bluntly put, if you want to be on your own, stand on your own.

      Your comment on Crimeia is a little fuzzy. The population spread in that region was not reflective of the voting results. Ethnic Russians may have been a greater number, but not 97% of the population. There are people living in Crimeia who maybe did not want to be Russian, but now their only choice is to move or give up their out country. It is clear the Russia owns the airwaves in eastern Ukraine so they can get their message out and control the populations well before Kiev. Generally these people had lived their lives, day in day out not thinking of things like secession, Neo-Nizi's, and the glory of Russia. In short order it is Kiev bad, Europe bad, US bad, Russia is our saviour. I wonder how loudly they would cheer if they were told they could not be a part of Russia, but had to make it on their own for some time.

      We all know Russia is winning the publicity war. Kiev had sat on it's fat ass and done nothing to counter the propaganda coming from Moscow. They cry to the US and Europe and say "Do something" when Kiev could roll in the hospitality wagon and show these folks a different story. That they don't indicates that Russia may be right and that the government of Kiev is not fond of Ethnic Russians, they don't really care about those regions, but just make noise to save face to the west (and get money), or they are incompetent.

      At this point the West should concede eastern Ukraine, and leapfrog to Russia's next target and start its own propaganda war now. Throw beer parties, open contract negotiations for business, send folks to Disney World Europe (if its still open), but start winning the hearts and minds of those people. Russia is running the Fox News playbook (lie often, lie loud, discredit the truth till they believe) so it is time the West does the same. Otherwise, to the US, shut the fuck up. Drawing lines, roaring like a kitten is just embarrassing.

      --
      The more things change, the more they look the same
      • (Score: 3, Informative) by quacking duck on Tuesday April 22 2014, @01:21PM

        by quacking duck (1395) on Tuesday April 22 2014, @01:21PM (#34366)

        It needs to be a super majority though for otherwise, it is a matter of one slightly great group out voting another. I also think more information should need to be given to regions that want autonomy and that "supporting" countries not be allowed to provide economic support. Bluntly put, if you want to be on your own, stand on your own.

        Closer to the US, in Canada we have to contend with the issue of Quebec sovereignty. They want to become their own country, but the leaders are wildly delusional in what it actually means. In last month's provincial election there, the ruling separatist party not only made noise about keeping the Canadian dollar, but having a seat at the Bank of Canada to dictate policy. They also want to keep the billions in annual federal-to-provincial transfer payments Canada currently gives them, while taking on none of their share of the debt.

        In other words, they want independence but none of the financial responsibilities that go with it, the total opposite of standing on their own.

        Fortunately, normal Quebecois saw through this (and other, more immediate) BS and decisively kicked their asses out of office.

        • (Score: 2) by Nerdfest on Tuesday April 22 2014, @02:54PM

          by Nerdfest (80) on Tuesday April 22 2014, @02:54PM (#34407)

          I found it a little sad that the human rights violations pushed by the PQ (language rights, religious rights, etc) seemed to be fine with much of the populace, but as soon as the talk of ending transfer payments started, support dropped quickly.

    • (Score: 2, Insightful) by RedBear on Tuesday April 22 2014, @12:54PM

      by RedBear (1734) on Tuesday April 22 2014, @12:54PM (#34351)

      There is quite a large difference between secession and annexation, for one thing. And doing such things unilaterally and outside the bounds of established national and international laws could be rightly referred to as "anarchy". There are established legal frameworks for secession. There was absolutely nothing legitimate about the unilateral Crimean "vote" to secede from the Ukraine nor the Russian "vote" to annex Crimea. You may have noticed that very few of the ethnic minorities in Crimea bothered to vote because it was an unrecognized sham with no official legal standing.

      The primary reason that this Russian BS is still going on is that the new government of the Ukraine is still weak and in transition from the ousting of whatsisname the Russian puppet guy. But they're supposed to be having a general election soon and then we'll see what we'll see once a new government that is fully recognized by the international community is in place. If they then officially request military aid from NATO this could get very ugly very quickly. Somehow I doubt however that Putin really wants to start an actual shooting war. But he's already freaking out the entire EU and nobody understands what he thinks he's doing, so it's anybody's guess as to how this will all turn out.

      I do love the way the conservatives keep going on about how we should be sending in troops or something and doing our best to start a war with Russia from the other side of the world. But this situation is complicated with many different layers and it's really up to the legitimate government of the Ukraine how they wish to deal with it.

      --
      ¯\_ʕ◔.◔ʔ_/¯ LOL. I dunno. I'm just a bear.
      ... Peace out. Got bear stuff to do. 彡ʕ⌐■.■ʔ
      • (Score: 4, Insightful) by bradley13 on Tuesday April 22 2014, @01:16PM

        by bradley13 (3053) on Tuesday April 22 2014, @01:16PM (#34361) Homepage Journal

        You say that there are "established legal frameworks" for secession? I know of none. I would be genuinely interested if you could post some links.

        --
        Everyone is somebody else's weirdo.
      • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Rune of Doom on Tuesday April 22 2014, @03:24PM

        by Rune of Doom (1392) on Tuesday April 22 2014, @03:24PM (#34413)

        Don't forget the example of Kosovo, which the United States supported. I don't think what Russia did in Crimea is right, but because of casually aggressive idiocy from the United States in the immediate post-Cold War period, there are lots of cases where something should be condemned under international law, but those doing it (Russia, China, really, pick any country that doesn't see eye to eye with America) can point and say, "but the U.S. did it first!" Clinton, Bush, and Obama have cost America its moral authority. (Such as it had in the first place.)
         

      • (Score: 1) by tangomargarine on Tuesday April 22 2014, @06:27PM

        by tangomargarine (667) on Tuesday April 22 2014, @06:27PM (#34497)

        once a new government that is fully recognized by the international community is in place

        HAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAA

        --
        "Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
    • (Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 22 2014, @12:54PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 22 2014, @12:54PM (#34352)

      Actually in part, secession works. You will have a referendum in Scotland later this year in September. Btw, Venice in Italy wants to do the same and just completed a test run a couple of weeks back. It only works if two facts are given: a) a majority can be found prior to the referendum and b) it does not interfere with "Western" interest (although it's mostly the US).

      Ukraine is all about influence. Kerry is a hypocrite or he forgot that the US invested 5bn for destabilization and is directly responsible for the escalation in Kiev. They installed the current puppets there and eastern EU is really none of the US' business! I know many people in Europe and they're all against the western stand there. But European politicians (still) bow to the wishes of the US for some reason.

      More interestingly however, in all the current conflicts it appears Obama wants escalation at all costs. Just this week they try again in Syria with ridiculous claims of chemical weapons use by Assad (which makes no sense whatsoever). They take over the UN investigation, WHY? Were the results of the UN investigation not in US interests? Will they show us some forged prove again like they did in Irak?

      They even send warships into the black sea and blame Russia when a plane comes too close. What would happen if Russia had some warships in the Gulf of Mexico for military drills, the US would be furious.

      Seriously Washington, this is a European matter and we actually do a lot of successful business with Russia and would like to keep doing so if you don't interfere. So F*CK off!

      • (Score: 2) by Taibhsear on Tuesday April 22 2014, @02:18PM

        by Taibhsear (1464) on Tuesday April 22 2014, @02:18PM (#34393)

        Seriously Washington, this is a European matter and we actually do a lot of successful business with Russia and would like to keep doing so if you don't interfere. So F*CK off!

        Agree with most of your points but people need to remember Russia's border is 50 miles from Alaska (at the narrowest portion of the Bering Strait). Anything that happens with Russia is essentially along our border as well. When they start getting itchy trigger fingers in one direction people get nervous they might try it on the opposite side of their territory as well.

      • (Score: 4, Insightful) by bucc5062 on Tuesday April 22 2014, @02:52PM

        by bucc5062 (699) on Tuesday April 22 2014, @02:52PM (#34405)

        I'm doubting the statements of an AC t his time around without some actual meat to back it up. Much of what you say fits too nicely into the same propaganda package being tossed to the people of EAstern Ukraine. Europe is quite worried over the actions of Russia and while they differ [telegraph.co.uk], there is a general agreement that Russia needs to stop its actions.

        I looked around for the 5 Billion you speak of, but found only one side banging that drum. From this site [dailykos.com] I found a more reasoned statement

        However, when she talks of the $5 billion, it is money that the US has spent since 1991 aiding Ukraine since they became independent building up its democratic institutions. This includes plenty of administrations that were pro-US.

        which would seem to be more plausible then spending 5 billion of overthrowing a petty russian stooge. You got actual proof that is not right wing or Russian propaganda by all means, put it out there for regard.

        the incident you mentioned with the airplane is also one that you twist out of context. A Russian naval ship has as much right to be in the gulf of Mexico (via international waters) as a US ship can be in the Black Sea. It was Russia that decided to buzz a Navy ship and you have to give some props to the Captain for not firing on the jet. He could have had any right to take action to protect his ship. Had the US sent a fighter jet to buzz a Russian naval ship that captain would have just as much right. The stupidity was in action of the pilot and or the commanding officers. There was no need other then postering.

        Finally, there seems to be a legitimate claim that Syria used Chlorine gas to attack rebels. The US has mainly asked for an investigation which would be normal in this situation.

        I all for people posting AC, but when you do and start spouting propagandized statements with little to back it up it makes you look and sound like a troll/tool for someone else's agenda.

        --
        The more things change, the more they look the same
        • (Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 22 2014, @08:26PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 22 2014, @08:26PM (#34575)

          There was hard prove that the US funded the protests back in November. I suppose you wouldn't believe independent media so I here is mainstream media linking to other sources: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/wp /2014/03/03/glenn-greenwald-pandodaily-tussle-over -ukraine-editorial-independence/ [washingtonpost.com] linking to here http://pando.com/2014/02/28/pierre-omidyar-co-fund ed-ukraine-revolution-groups-with-us-government-do cuments-show/ [pando.com]

          Just to restate a fact, the US government was directly involved in funding the protests.

        • (Score: 1) by urza9814 on Tuesday April 22 2014, @10:27PM

          by urza9814 (3954) on Tuesday April 22 2014, @10:27PM (#34614) Journal

          the incident you mentioned with the airplane is also one that you twist out of context. A Russian naval ship has as much right to be in the gulf of Mexico (via international waters) as a US ship can be in the Black Sea. It was Russia that decided to buzz a Navy ship and you have to give some props to the Captain for not firing on the jet. He could have had any right to take action to protect his ship. Had the US sent a fighter jet to buzz a Russian naval ship that captain would have just as much right. The stupidity was in action of the pilot and or the commanding officers. There was no need other then postering.

          Yeah, we wouldn't buzz those ships with aircraft -- we'd institute a full naval blockade like we did during the Cuban Missile Crisis. We had missiles on their doorstep, but we sure as hell wouldn't let them do the same to us. So now here we are trying to put missiles on their doorstep again, but this time they've decided they don't like it all that much. Who can blame 'em?

    • (Score: 5, Insightful) by starcraftsicko on Tuesday April 22 2014, @02:33PM

      by starcraftsicko (2821) on Tuesday April 22 2014, @02:33PM (#34401) Journal

      Even Russia-skeptics seem to agree that the vast majority of the Crimean population wanted to join Russia.

      Yup. How it was done troubles "us" quite a bit. Yes there was a referendum - - but it was held under the eyes of an occupying foreign army (that was well drilled and trained but had forgotten where they put their uniform patches that week) and produced a result that was more lopsided than demography led anyone to expect (I think that 60/40 or 70/30 was expected). In spite of this, I think that the 'west' would accept the outcome after grumbling for a few years.

      With additional territories now following the same path, Russia starts to look more and more like Germany in 1938. "The West" still remembers how that turned out.

      Read [THIS] [wikipedia.org] then [THIS] [wikipedia.org] for background. There really are quite a few comparisons to be made even if Godwin is looking on with interest.

      Why do they want to prevent a region from seceding, when that's what the population really wants? Maybe they're worried about their own restless provinces? Catalonia? Scotland? Flyover country in the USA?

      That's part of it. Everybody could secede from everyone else whenever they had a disagreement. I suppose that every cluster of houses could be a petty nation state. With a tank. That'd be fun.

      Better add Chechnya, Dagestan, Tibet, and maybe even Hong Kong or XinJiang as places that could probably sustain a secession 'vote', at least regionally. Why should some places get to secede and others not?

      This is a case of clear Russian colonial-style (IE territory seeking) imperialism. I'm not saying that it is worse or better when Russians do it instead of Americans or French or Chinese... but lets call it what it is.

      --
      This post was created with recycled electrons.
      • (Score: 2) by bradley13 on Tuesday April 22 2014, @06:43PM

        by bradley13 (3053) on Tuesday April 22 2014, @06:43PM (#34511) Homepage Journal

        You are arguing my point for me: There need to be international guidelines "this is how you can secede". Without such guidelines we cannot effectively argue either for or against any particular secession. What happened in Yugoslavia was also a mess, and that was "managed" more or less by the West. At least in terms of lives lost, it was a lot uglier than what is happening in the Ukraine.

        Without guidelines, every situation is new, and nobody quite knows how to react. If we had international guidelines, then the international community could apply pressure to see those guidelines followed:

        - A define process: referendum with supermajority, or whatever...

        - Neutral supervision of the process

        - A minimum, sustainable size: geographic, economic and population

        You ask "Why should some places get to secede and others not?" Again, I agree entirely! This option should be open to any - absolutely any - region that meets the criteria defined in the agreed process.

        The one area where we disagree is that lots of small countries would somehow be a bad thing. Look at the really egregious power abuses in the world. Many (I am tempted to say most) involve big nations like the USA, Russia or China. Big concentrations of political (and military) power, once established, are impossible for their electorates to control. The Russians cannot vote out Putin. The US is no better: they pick their president from a short-list of candidates approved by the political elite. Establishing the EU as a political entity (instead of just an economic union) was a stupid mistake - in a generation, at most two, it will be as politically corrupt as the USA and Russia. Peacefully breaking up these concentrations of power is the best thing that could happen.

        --
        Everyone is somebody else's weirdo.
        • (Score: 2) by starcraftsicko on Tuesday April 22 2014, @08:28PM

          by starcraftsicko (2821) on Tuesday April 22 2014, @08:28PM (#34576) Journal

          The one area where we disagree is that lots of small countries would somehow be a bad thing.

          I don't think that you'd enjoy living in such an arrangement. I know I wouldn't.

          The historic reference would be early- middle ages Europe where every decent sized valley was ruled by some manner of warlord or 'duke' or king or whatever. Since very places would have all of the resources needed for an idyllic lifestyle at hand, they squabbled over land and resources. "Nations" were temporary (though increasingly permanent) allegiances of those warlords and princes to some 'king'.

          The modern reference would be Afghanistan-- where every valley and town has a local strongman.

          Your argument seems to be that large nations sometimes do bad things, so let's encourage only small nations to exist so that they can do NO things. Even my inner libertarian is troubled by this.

          --
          This post was created with recycled electrons.
    • (Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 22 2014, @02:56PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 22 2014, @02:56PM (#34408)

      The international community should draw up guidelines to allow secession.

      They did, for Yuguslavia and Kosovo under pressure from NATO.
      Now Crimea (and Russia) are using that same playbook and suddenly it's illegal, the referendum was unconstitutional and bla bla bla.

    • (Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Tuesday April 22 2014, @06:20PM

      by tangomargarine (667) on Tuesday April 22 2014, @06:20PM (#34490)

      Or--and I know this is a really crazy idea--we could stop being assholes to ethnic minorities. Shock!

      We've already got the better part of 200 countries on Earth. If we let everybody who wanted to secede do so, I bet that number would double. Particularly in the Balkans and Middle East-to-Central Asia area.

      And if the number of countries went up that sharply, I bet we would get a bunch of wars instantly.

      --
      "Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 22 2014, @01:14PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 22 2014, @01:14PM (#34359)

    has two N's.

    • (Score: 2) by unitron on Wednesday April 23 2014, @07:34AM

      by unitron (70) on Wednesday April 23 2014, @07:34AM (#34749) Journal

      Funny, looks like 3 of 'em from here.

      --
      something something Slashcott something something Beta something something
  • (Score: 5, Informative) by Geezer on Tuesday April 22 2014, @02:37PM

    by Geezer (511) on Tuesday April 22 2014, @02:37PM (#34403)

    Not quite. The Russian Army is still built very much as it was during the Cold War: a small cadre of career officers leading a horde of short-enlistment (12-month)conscripts, with an inadequate NCO corps. They have always had excellent cointel/psyops capability in the GRU and KGB/FSB forces as well as spetznaz special operations forces under GRU and KGB/FSB control.

    One thing that has changed at the troop level is an incremental modernization of equipment and better C3I in the form of more field radios. That's about it.

    What has changed the most is a national leadership (Putin) that is a bit more adept at reading his opposition and using his assets to better effect than we have been accustomed to. I grudgingly admire Putin for his ability to sit back, laugh at NATO, and basically give President Droneseverywhere the finger.

  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Boronx on Tuesday April 22 2014, @07:53PM

    by Boronx (262) on Tuesday April 22 2014, @07:53PM (#34560)

    "to seize the initiative from the West."

    That's an interesting way to put it. Let's recap what happened. Putin had his puppet installed in Kiev. The West engineered a revolution to overthrow the puppet. He fled Ukraine, and in response Putin launched a military operation so he could at least retain control of some key naval ports. This is a rearguard action. It's a firming up of the lines, but much closer to Moscow than they used to be.

  • (Score: 2) by aristarchus on Wednesday April 23 2014, @05:37AM

    by aristarchus (2645) on Wednesday April 23 2014, @05:37AM (#34725) Journal

    Listen, this is not the new face of war, mostly because it is not war. It is the Great Game, where whoever controls Ukraine will will the game! But do not underestimate the importance of Inner Mongolia and Tibet, and of course Kamchutka!!

    But this is actually realpolitik from the 19th Century, played most notably by the UK. That whole Commie thing, just a distraction. Really, strategic geo-politics is just as meaningless as it always has been, for the common person.