SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
wantkitteh writes:
"The BBC is reporting that Russia has given Ukrainian military forces in Crimea a deadline of 3AM Tuesday morning to surrender or face assault. Moscow claims the position is to protect Russian civilians in Crimea following what it describes as the illegal coup in the past weeks. The Ukrainian Prime Minister has denounced Russia's actions as totally illegal and has called on it's allies to put pressure on Moscow. Russian military readiness in the area is very high with a blockade in place at Ukraine's naval headquarters and pre-positioned air and ground forces already in central locations around Crimea. Ukrainian forces are outnumbered and unprepared to face the threat. Demonstrations in the largely Russian-speaking area have supported Moscow's position while outside the area civilians are scared of what the future holds."
Russia's military has given Ukrainian forces in Crimea until dawn on Tuesday to surrender or face an assault, Ukrainian defence sources have said. The head of Russia's Black Sea Fleet Aleksander Vitko set the deadline and also threatened two warships, Ukrainian officials said. However, Interfax news agency later quoted a fleet spokesman who denied that any ultimatum had been issued. Moscow has said its troops are needed in Crimea to protect civilians. The Kremlin says people in Crimea have come under threat from "ultra-nationalists" since pro-Russian President Viktor Yanukovych was ousted last month. Russia is now said to be in de facto control of the Crimea region.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 03 2014, @07:19PM
1. Russia claims "defending Russian population"
2. Russia provokes other party into shooting them
3. Russian forces shoot back
4. Profit.
No need for ??? It all depends now whether Ukraine's army starts shooting.
Maybe it was better to have kept the old president and do a trade deal with Russia instead of punching them in the nose, 2nd time? Remember the "Orange Revolution"? There is a large portion of the population that does not like what Kiev protesters want. Remember, the president was *elected* by the people!
Ukraine is bankrupt and the Russian deal would have allowed it to pay its bills. That's why it needed that deal and no the pro-European deal. This is something that protesters forgot? Now, all that is off the table and the table is upside down.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday March 03 2014, @07:27PM
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by wantkitteh on Monday March 03 2014, @07:39PM
My thought was that the outgoing Ukrainian President claimed it was an illegal coup to give Russia the excuse it needed to "defend" the eastern/southern areas of Ukraine with the high population of Russian nationals. Having manufactured an excuse to be there in force, the mere proximity of the protagonists is highly likely to cause some kind of incident that can be spun into a reason for Russia to keep those areas at least, expand further into Ukraine preferred.
In paranoid mode, I'm looking at the pipeline running from Belgerod on the Russian border through towards Moldova and Romania. That'll increase Russia's direct access to the European gas market, as well as it's control
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Angry Jesus on Monday March 03 2014, @07:49PM
In any successful revolt the loser always claims it was illegal.
It's usually technically true too.
(Score: 1) by wantkitteh on Monday March 03 2014, @07:58PM
True, Putin probably put his plans in motion as soon as it looked like the Ukrainian president might get ousted. Such a statement is pretty obvious in hindsight and Ukraine was in no position to increase military readiness as a preemptive defensive measure in that event. Russia have always been pretty savvy when it comes to seeing things like this coming.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Monday March 03 2014, @09:53PM
Also pretty savvy about tamping it down until just AFTER the Olympics.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 04 2014, @08:55AM
The "Russians" in Ukraine are largely not nationals. They are Ukranian citizens who are ethnically Russian. Russia's "defense" is based on ethnicity.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by frojack on Monday March 03 2014, @07:40PM
If Ukraine is bankrupt it is by Russian design. Ukraine is one of the richest farming areas in the region, and has a large industrial base.
If Bankruptcy is a reason for invasion then perhaps the Russians would do the world a favor and invade North Korea while the US invades Cuba, and the EU Invades Greece.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 4, Informative) by VLM on Monday March 03 2014, @07:56PM
"US invades Cuba"
Yeah I'll be "that guy" who points out you typed that in backwards... Cuba's in pretty good financial shape at this time.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by edIII on Monday March 03 2014, @09:34PM
Was about to say....
I was going to ask who was going to invade the US. Not complaining or anything, just want to know what money will be used in my wallet so I can start converting.
God knows the US economy is just a worthless piece of shit being managed by cronyism.
Personally, I'm hoping Canada. I like real Maple Syrup and Tim Horton's.
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by VLM on Monday March 03 2014, @10:47PM
WRT Canada I like their health care system. Cheaper than ours by half yet people live longer and get better treatment.
And WRT their cuisine, I've eaten this poutine thing and I'm convinced its just like Haggis, as long as no one tells me whats in there, I'll enjoy eating it.
Remember the neocons before WWIII in the middle east or Vietnam-II or whatever its called where they claimed the locals would throw rose petals at us the whole time when we invaded (although it turned out to be IEDs and grenades rather than rose petals...) Well I'm convinced that if Canada invaded and took over about 99% of the population would be like "Eh? Cool!". Just don't F with the sports, the Bubba's down here love their football and baseball and no one in Florida is going to take up ice hockey anyway.
(Score: 2) by edIII on Monday March 03 2014, @11:32PM
Health care is why Obama is the biggest idiot on the planet.
You don't fix a product or service by forcing more people to buy it. You fix that product or service by fixing the product or service.
The US is 46th in the world in terms of health care performance, and we are only around 30% for effectiveness. The top performers are in the 90's and I don't think a single reputable country is really less than 70. It's an ugly ugly fact that not all Americans can have health care. We simply don't have the money to satisfy that much demand for inefficiency via corruption and expensive middle men.
OTOH, if you just work on the efficiency part of it, the US has so much room to grow in that regard.
If Canada announced they were going to invade with their health care, I might start to sob as it would benefit us all so much more than the idiotic horror show the politicians have put on.
Ohhh, poutine. I'm totally with you on that. But DON'T forget Tim Horton's. Seriously. America has no idea how to donut. I figured that out with one trip to Vancouver.
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 1) by bearhouse on Monday March 03 2014, @10:46PM
Whaaat? Tell that to the poor "citizens" who are prostituting themselves - in all kinds of ways - to earn a buck.
Sorry, but you're either delusional, never been there, or both.
It's depressingly similar to Russia - great people, awful system.
Who the fuck modded parent up?
(Score: 2) by VLM on Monday March 03 2014, @10:59PM
OP was talking about invading a nation because its fedgov was AFU and incorrectly claiming the government of Cuba was worse off financially than the government of the USA.
Its true that Cuba is immensely smaller, but all the important ratios are better. Their expenses vaguely equal their income rather than being totally outta whack like the USA, and their ratio of debt to income is better than the USA. You're more likely to see a T-Bill default than a cuban bond default.
This has nothing to do with how much rice they grow per capita or whatever. .gov never cares much about citizens.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by combatserver on Monday March 03 2014, @10:42PM
"If Bankruptcy is a reason for invasion ..."
It is. If you think I'm wrong, look at how many homes here in the US were invaded by banks when the owners couldn't handle the the bills.
I hope I can change this later...
(Score: 5, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 03 2014, @07:44PM
Part of why Ukraine is Bankrupt is because Yanukovych has been moving the money of the nation into his own and his friend's accounts. There is a paper trail in he hoards of documents [yanukovychleaks.org] found at his property. The Swiss have frozen his assets and are performing their own investigations [swissinfo.ch]. Of that $15B Russia was offering, how much more of it should have gone to Yanukovych and his friends? How would that have made anything better?
You seem to be the one forgetting the "Orange Revolution". It was Yanukovych that caused that and LOST after the wide spread corruption of the election was displayed. I can't speak to the validity of his last elections as I have my feelings, but no proof of anything. That said, in light all he has done to maintain power in Ukraine, I completely understand why no-one would believe that there would be fresh and fair elections in December.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by marcello_dl on Monday March 03 2014, @07:46PM
A bankrupt Ukraine can still seek the EU "help", I guess that one more market would be worth some table update at banking databases (that's what money has become, at those levels, db fields). The protesters should have stressed immediately that if Crimea people want autonomy they should get it with a referendum (or maybe they did, I am not all that informed on the subject). It would have not changed anything, Russians would have put people in Crimea nonetheless, but it would have made the russkies look more evil.
And Russia is making a big mistake in opposing the EU infiltration, given enough crisis and gas they could be the EU leaders themselves in the long run (JK, my opinion is that most nations are already all under one system, if they clash with each other is to tighten the control over the people with social and economic distress).
(Score: 2, Interesting) by VLM on Monday March 03 2014, @08:00PM
"they could be the EU leaders themselves in the long run"
The purpose of the EU was to let the Germans take over non-violently this time, rather than the strategy from the last couple world wars. I'm thinking the Russians taking over the EU wouldn't work out so well.
As the EU is rapidly falling apart, I wonder how the Germans are going to react?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 03 2014, @08:09PM
I wonder how the Germans are going to react?
by calling in the loans and freezing assets is my guess
(Score: 2) by VLM on Monday March 03 2014, @10:55PM
And then the natgas exports to .eu accidentally on purpose get shut off during winter. Maybe get away with it in June, maybe. UK's pumped out, they're a net natgas importer now. Gonna be a cold spring in .eu if they try that.
Might at most be a PR move, like before they do it, they make a deal where the west gets to make a dramatic speech doing nothing, but the finances are all opened back up by the fall, maybe along with penalties.
This would be an excellent way to push the .ru into the arms of the Chinese, who never met a bad loan they wouldn't gleefully underwrite for political purposes. So now you've got China and Russia united against NATO, what could possibly go wrong?
(Score: 1) by Hartree on Tuesday March 04 2014, @02:52AM
"The purpose of the EU was to let the Germans take over non-violently this time"
Tell that to the French who were one of the main proponents of not only the EU, but the Common Market before it. I think Valerie Giscard D'Estaing (former French President who practically wrote the Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe) would get quite a chuckle out of that.
The situation we have now, with the German checkbook giving such influence, only started to emerge when the Germans were the only ones with enough cash to bail out the various failing economies after the economic downturn.
(Score: 1) by Dachannien on Monday March 03 2014, @08:29PM
Ukraine is bankrupt and the Russian deal would have allowed it to pay its bills.
I'm totally sure that Yanukovich wouldn't have kept any of that $15 billion for himself.
(Score: 2, Informative) by darinbob on Tuesday March 04 2014, @04:48AM
I find it ironic that Russia is accusing new Ukraine leaders as "fascist", given the very strong parallels to the Sudetenland. Ie, any Russians anywhere are considered worth invading to protect (there were reports of people handing out Russian passports last week).
"Fascist" and "Nazi sympathizers" are Russia's go-to terms for former USSR members that prefer to look west. Also added this week was "anti-Semite". Over the top rhetoric, but common. One the one hand, there were some Nazi sympathizers, 75 years ago, but this makes sense given that Stalin was greatly feared and countries stuck between the two dictatorships were more apt to be friendly to whichever indomitable army crossed the borders first. On the other hand, Russia does have a very touchy and sensitive spot about this; one of their biggest points of pride is that they helped win WWII at great cost to themselves and so they see their subjugated neighbors as ingrates if they don't prefer to remain subjugated.
On the third hand, this may be an ongoing problem for some time. The USSR, and Russia before that, had a policy of Russification, or sending in Russians to live in the neighboring regions, promoting the use of Russian language and churches, and so forth.
As for the old president and the bills. Reports are that $billions are missing during Yanukovich's rule, and maybe $70 billion taken out of the country. This makes the $13 billion loan from Putin seem tiny. Certainly you can't trust all these numbers any more than you can trust the lies coming from the other side. But it's highly likely that Yanukovich was a thief, highly likely that Putin knows this and approves. Maybe the new Ukrainian government is corrupt but that still needs to be proven unlike the near certainty about Yanukovich.
Ukraine is essentially two countries, and neither side likes each other. Crimea used to be a third region (neither Ukrainian nor Russian, but Stalin put an end to that).