Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
The Military IT Politics

Ukraine's IT Brigade Supports the Troops 140

An anonymous reader sends this story from BusinessWeek: Eight months ago, David Arakhamiya was running a small IT company in the southern Ukrainian city of Mykolayiv. Today, as an adviser to Ukraine’s defense minister, he oversees a massive crowdfunding effort that since March has raised about $300 million from ordinary citizens. The money is being used to equip Ukraine’s army with everything from uniforms, water, and other basic supplies to high-tech gear such as reconnaissance drones. Yaroslav Markevich, another IT entrepreneur with a small company in Kharkiv, once a Soviet hub for aviation technology, presented a plan to the commander of one Ukrainian battalion to create a drone unit after hearing stories about the efficiency of Russian drones. The commander said yes, and by the time his battalion was deployed early this summer, it was the only one in the army equipped with a fleet of short- and long-range drones. ... IT experts across Ukraine have been an important part of the volunteer effort to supply the army with equipment.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Ukraine's IT Brigade Supports the Troops

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward

    That would be the most successful Kickstarter ever. How much of this comes from "ordinary NGOs", noooot paid for by the west I wonder..

    • Kick starting a war is bound to be successful. It appeals to the most basic of nationalist, territorial instincts.

  • by Anonymous Coward

    It won't help them against the Russian military, the numbers speak against them. And the poison murderer Putin won't give up Eastern Ukraine easily. He'll continue to destabilize the country until he's found and installed a new Janukovych to wipe his ass.

    • Entrenched resistance will make this costly venture into the Ukraine more and more expensive just as the falling price of petroleum products hits Putin's budget. They could hold out long enough to make a difference.
    • by dunkelfalke ( 91624 ) on Saturday November 22, 2014 @01:39PM (#48440611)

      It is not just the numbers. Ukrainian army is a mess because Ukraine sold almost everything they have inherited from USSR during the last 20 years, the army is not trained, not equipped and the soldiers are often unwilling willing to die for corrupt politicians. The only reason why Ukraine is not overrun yet is that Putin is unwilling to use Russian army in this conflict because it might pull the deeply divided Ukrainian state together - policing a hateful, conquered population would be way too difficult.

      Right now it is enough to fund the separatists and occasionally help them out. Ukrainian government will help to do the rest by shelling civilians and generally behaving like a bunch of idiots.

      You see, that country is, in a way, similar to Pakistan in 1971. Has been a sovereign country for just about 20 years in its recent history, has artificially drawn borders by the former colonial power, is corrupt, piss-poor, divided inside and their neighbor tries to destabilise it even further. In 1971 these circumstances have lead to a bloody war and creation of Bangladesh. I just hope it won't end up as bloody this time.

      • "The only reason why Ukraine is not overrun yet is that Putin is unwilling to use Russian army in this conflict"

        That, and the threat of international action. Putin is willing to accept sanctions as the cost of conquest - or as he sees it, claiming back what is rightfully Russia's. But he would be foolish to invite sanctions if there is a way to achieve his goals without them. That's why he hasn't just outright invaded: Even a thin layer of deniability is enough to stay the hand of the EU, who are just as de

    • As opposed to a western sympathetic president who is also a Nazi?

      Ahhhh, a westerner's view of knowledge of world politics and history...........
    • It won't help them against the Russian military, the numbers speak against them.

      Numbers can be a tricky thing. The Russians send in 100 tanks, the Ukraine receives 600 FGM-148 Javelin man-portable anti-tank missiles. It attacks from above to go for thinner armor and it can defeat reactive armor. Both sides have invested about the same amount of money, the tanks are highly vulnerable, and more importantly Russia can't afford to lose many tank crews due to internal public opinion.

      • by dbIII ( 701233 )

        more importantly Russia can't afford to lose many tank crews due to internal public opinion

        With respect, if you knew anything about Russia you would know that their greatest historical heroes sacrificed large numbers of Russians to achieve their aims. That still applies in the modern day with things like the reaction to a school hostage situation a few years ago. They celebrate as a great victory the drowning of the Teutonic Knights by sinking them into a frozen river under the weight of Russian corpses F

        • by drnb ( 2434720 )

          more importantly Russia can't afford to lose many tank crews due to internal public opinion

          With respect, if you knew anything about Russia you would know that their greatest historical heroes sacrificed large numbers of Russians to achieve their aims. That still applies in the modern day with things like the reaction to a school hostage situation a few years ago. They celebrate as a great victory the drowning of the Teutonic Knights by sinking them into a frozen river under the weight of Russian corpses FFS. They don't mind a few dead heroes.

          You misinterpret history. Russians will endure great sacrifice to defend *Russian* soil. They won't tolerate the same to take over a part of the Ukraine. And if you had paid attention to news reports you would have heard about the protests by families of Russian paratroopers and news blackout the Kremlin imposed regarding paratroopers killed in action. The Kremlin is trying to minimize the perception of casualties for a very good reason, a very internal domestic reason.

          • You misinterpret history. Russians will endure great sacrifice to defend *Russian* soil. They won't tolerate the same to take over a part of the Ukraine.

            Thing is, a historical perspective on this that has always been present in Russia, and that has been enjoying a very strong resurgence lately, is that Ukraine is Russian soil.

            • by drnb ( 2434720 )

              You misinterpret history. Russians will endure great sacrifice to defend *Russian* soil. They won't tolerate the same to take over a part of the Ukraine.

              Thing is, a historical perspective on this that has always been present in Russia, and that has been enjoying a very strong resurgence lately, is that Ukraine is Russian soil.

              Maybe Crimea but not Ukraine. According to a recent survey over 50% of Russians surveyed approve of Crimea being returned to Russia. However when the question turned to whether they thought it worth it to send theirs sons to fight in the Ukraine for the the pro-Moscow militants over 60% said no. The attitude towards Ukraine is overwhelmingly that it is a "brother country" not Russian territory.

              • So the question that was asked wasn't whether it is Russian territory or not, but whether they were willing to send their children die to "return" it. I don't think you can reasonably make any conclusions from this. Especially given that a popular attitude in Russia today seems to be that Ukraine is a failed state in the making, and once it fails for good, Russia can just come in and pick up the pieces that it lays claim on (generally speaking, this is everything except for the parts that were in Austria-Hu

                • by drnb ( 2434720 )

                  So the question that was asked wasn't whether it is Russian territory or not, but whether they were willing to send their children die to "return" it. I don't think you can reasonably make any conclusions from this.

                  One absolutely can given that Russians have historically endured great sacrifice to protect **Russian** soil. So either Russians have changed their attitudes and will no longer make such sacrifices for Russian soil, very very doubtful, or they don't consider the Ukraine to truly be Russian soil requiring such a sacrifice.

                  Especially given that a popular attitude in Russia today seems to be that Ukraine is a failed state in the making, and once it fails for good, Russia can just come in and pick up the pieces that it lays claim on ...

                  That theory seems to fail given the level of active Russian interference in Ukrainian affairs. If it were truly on the path to failure such heavy handled Kremlin intervention would not be n

                  • One absolutely can given that Russians have historically endured great sacrifice to protect **Russian** soil. So either Russians have changed their attitudes and will no longer make such sacrifices for Russian soil, very very doubtful, or they don't consider the Ukraine to truly be Russian soil requiring such a sacrifice.

                    In case you haven't noticed, there are already thousands of Russian volunteers fighting in militia units in Donbass. And it keeps ramping up.

                    That theory seems to fail given the level of active Russian interference in Ukrainian affairs.

                    I was talking about a popular attitude of Russian citizens, which is not necessarily shared by the Russian government.

                    Also note that the heavy-handed intervention always seems to be stopping short of full-on invasion (which, let's face it, would have the country steamrolled in matter of weeks if not days). Right now it's arms and munitions supply, artillery strikes acr

        • They celebrate as a great victory the drowning of the Teutonic Knights by sinking them into a frozen river under the weight of Russian corpses FFS.

          If you mean the Battle of the Ice [wikipedia.org], there's nothing in the mainstream historiography about it that involves "weight of Russian corpses" or anything like that. Quite the opposite, the ice supposedly cracked under the weight of heavily armored Teuton knights, when they were trying to flee across the lake.

          • by dbIII ( 701233 )
            True or not that's how a popular retelling goes.
            • I have no idea where you've got the "popular retelling" from. I'm Russian, so I've heard about the Battle of the Ice a lot (it is a cultural icon, that much is true) - and that's the first time I hear about "weight of Russian corpses breaking the ice".

              • by dbIII ( 701233 )
                From a different Russian. I'm not Russian so for all I know they are pulling my leg, so I'm going to have to take your work for it until I can talk to him again.
                • You can run the Russian version of the Wikipedia article through a translator to see a reasonably complete modern historiographic take on it from the Russian perspective - it also mentions a bunch of associated mythology, correcting it as needed (e.g. the ice breaking under the weight of retreating Germans - it's a late addition, and wasn't in the primary sources). But you can also see what is not there.

  • Sell them stuff (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward

    The US has billions of dollars of unused military equipment just sitting in places like Afghanistan. I read an article on how it will all be turned into scrap metal at 1000th of the cost to build the damn things. The rest get shipped over here to be sold at an insane discount to our military police forces...

    Why can't we sell this junk to the Ukrainians and make a profit. It would kill three birds with one stone. (Reduce waste slightly, kill Russian troops, and stop militarizing our police forces.)

    • by umghhh ( 965931 )
      Selling is a good thing and various regimes of this planet engage in selling military toys to different (sometimes clearly very unpleasant) regimes. Yet in case of Ukraine there is a problem with selling because that involves paying for goods and services which Ukraine has difficulty with.
    • by rtb61 ( 674572 )

      The Ukraine government had huge amounts of military junk at one stage. It all 'er' disappeared, as various oligarch got 'er' rid of it, selling 'um' paying to dispose of it to supply various war lords around the world. Providing more weapons for free will just most likely enrich a free oligarchs and empower a few more African wars. Always have to take a long hard look at countries where diplomacy is considered far more expensive than war regardless of course how much less in reality, hint, hint, USA. Appar

    • by schnell ( 163007 )

      Why can't we sell this junk to the Ukrainians and make a profit

      Fair question but unfortunately the answer is:

      • We wouldn't make a profit. We might make slightly more than selling it for scrap, but it's not like battle-worn Humvees fetch anywhere near what they cost us... that's why the military is (inappropriately) giving them away to the cops in the US.
      • Ukraine is not exactly swimming in money to buy these things. Their economy has suffered 10% contraction in the past year and they can't even afford to subsidize the natural gas needed to keep their citizens alive thi
      • by Xest ( 935314 )

        "Selling arms to Ukraine (or fast tracking its entry into NATO) would be a major provocation to Russia and would set the stage for a potential full-on NATO vs. Russia regional conflict."

        How is invasion of a neutral nation by Russia not already a major provocation of us that deserves proper response? Appeasement of people like Putin has never worked.

        But regardless, Putin is on a knife edge as much as he likes to hide it.

        Sanctions are beginning to bite and discontent with the Russian leadership amongst the po

  • I'm inclined to say Scary Punk. How far off am I??

    • I'm inclined to say Scary Punk. How far off am I??

      Surprisingly, you are way off the mark. It is simply pronounced "Skrypnyk".

  • by rs79 ( 71822 )

    Russia didn't invade at all. It was a part of Russia and Russia *gave* it to Ukraine. There's a bilateral treaty between the two nations whereby Russia can have up to 25,000 troops there and Russia has had 16,000 troops there. They were there last month, they were there last year. Plus nearly everyone there is Russian. Who just gave a 96% mandate to rejoin Russia and GTFO of Ukraine which is in the middle of a Kosovo/Sarajevo style civil war with (hundreds of) Ukranians being killed by other Ukrainians - le

    • by mi ( 197448 )

      Russia didn't invade at all. It was a part of Russia and Russia *gave* it to Ukraine.

      False. USSR — of which Russia and Ukraine were both parts — took it from Russia and gave to Ukraine.

      Either way, that's not the claim Russia is making even now, so take your Moscow propaganda back to where Putin-TV is the source of truth.

      Here is a *partial* list of US invasions:

      Irrelevant.

      • Re:I call bullshit (Score:5, Interesting)

        by dunkelfalke ( 91624 ) on Saturday November 22, 2014 @05:38PM (#48441429)

        Well, and by the same law that has created an independent Ukraine in 1991, Crimea should have been an independent country [wikipedia.org] as well, given that they have declared their sovereignty almost a year earlier but were basically forced to remain in Ukraine by the military threat.

        This is not Moscow propaganda, just a little history lesson. It is interesting that you don't know it, given that you've previously mentioned being an Ukrainian yourself. Could it be that you are but a kid yet? That would fit the whole picture about you very well indeed.

        • by mi ( 197448 )

          Well, and by the same law that has created an independent Ukraine in 1991, Crimea should have been an independent country

          Which "same law" is that? There were no provisions in the Soviet Constitution for any entity other than one of the main 15 Republics to declare independence.

          given that they have declared their sovereignty almost a year earlier but were basically forced to remain in Ukraine by the military threat.

          Have you read your own link? The referendum of 1991 turned Crimea into an "autonomous republi

          • Soviet constitution which was the basic law of USSR.
            First, Crimea turning into an autonomous republic within Ukraine was already contrary to the referendum since restoring the Crimean ASSR would be restoring it as part of RSFSR.

            Second, even if we would let my first point slide, Soviet constitution clearly states that an autonomous republic can only exists within an union republic. If Ukraine is no longer a part of the union, this notion doesn't work anymore. This is what has caused the war in Abkhasia in 19

            • by mi ( 197448 )

              Soviet constitution which was the basic law of USSR.

              As I already taught you in our previous history lesson, there were no provisions for anybody other than the 15 main Republics to break away. Your first argument, once again, is nonsense.

              Soviet constitution clearly states that an autonomous republic can only exists within an union republic.

              Nonsense (again) Soviet Constitution stated nothing of the kind — because nobody writing it could ever imagine any of the republics to actually ever leave. Their ri

        • Cool propaganda post bro
    • by Anonymous Coward

      Russia didn't invade at all. It was a part of Russia and Russia *gave* it to Ukraine. There's a bilateral treaty between the two nations whereby Russia can have up to 25,000 troops there and Russia has had 16,000 troops there.

      Horseshit. Russia was allowed to have a fixed number of troops within Crimea, and their movement was restricted to their bases, and a few other areas. The annexation of Crimea was done by Russian troops who were stationed in Crimea, Russian troops who came over from Russia, Russian intelligence services (FSB, GRU), and criminal syndicates. Any aggressive action by foreign military or paramilitary forces is called an invasion.

      Here is a great article dealing mafia organizations' role in the Crimea annexation:

    • Wow. You really came into this prepared. How long did it take you to research all this since the article appeared on Slashdot? Did you have some help tovarisch? This is about Russia's current bad behavior, not the sins of the US. Nice try. The bottom line is that Crimea is a semi-autonomous territory that is part of Ukraine and has been since it was legally given to Ukraine in 1954. Russia's annexation of Crimea has absolutely NO legal basis at all. The referendum was a farce, and everybody knows it. Cr
  • since March has raised about $300 million from ordinary citizens

    That's how it would cost Pentagon to build temporary barracks in Eastern Bumfuck.

    That Ukraine — a country promised protection [wikipedia.org], when it gave up nuclear weapons, and one of America's allies (such as in Iraq [army.mil]) want of anything, when they now need to defend their own country is a shame.

    Obama would not supply them with weapons [washingtonpost.com]. Even getting some blankets and helmets — a puny quantity of the so called "non-lethal" supplies — was d

  • by Dunbal ( 464142 ) * on Saturday November 22, 2014 @06:25PM (#48441645)
    Can't feed their army or pay the pensions of their citizens but they managed to get $300mln for this. I wonder if this $300 mln was at all voluntary or simply taken from their bank accounts.
  • I feel that this is just Ukrainian propaganda and has no place in Slashdot.

    Paai

Truly simple systems... require infinite testing. -- Norman Augustine

Working...