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.
Yah, sure (Score:1)
That would be the most successful Kickstarter ever. How much of this comes from "ordinary NGOs", noooot paid for by the west I wonder..
Re: (Score:1)
Kick starting a war is bound to be successful. It appeals to the most basic of nationalist, territorial instincts.
Re: (Score:2)
Situation is pretty bad for Russia, because it took wild turn with enormous lie, cheating and aggression campaign. No happy ending in exchange for these. I am very sorry for all those frank folks, there are, that are doomed by bravado of one KGB tsar and his fool believers. Pity.
Re: (Score:1)
Even then, extent of corruption and theft of resources in Russia itself remains unsurpassed, while not anybody else has been role model for Ukraine's oligarchy in modern times. Finally, people of Ukraine started looking at other neighbors, and understood that they can do in very similar ways. This is precisely when Russia started poorly hidden war on Ukraine, openly annexing Crimea. It is going to be extremely expensive adventure for Russia.
Still they are underpowered (Score:1)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Still they are underpowered (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:1)
They don't appear to have any enemies over here.
Local history doesn't contain any episodes of invasion by Ukraine.
Invasions by Russia? Let me start counting...
Re: (Score:3)
Well, that might be because Ukraine has existed as a nation for only 23 years. There was simply not enough time.
Ukrainians had a history of raiding neighboring villages, pillaging, raping and burning, though. Sort of wanna-be vikings, just without ships and wearing silly ottoman inspired costumes. Polish still think that an Ukrainian national hero was a bandit and a war criminal and that is, in fact, not far off the mark.
Re: (Score:1)
You are comparing enemies of Ukrainians vs enemies of Russians over the globe, seriously?!! You are seriously nuts.
Re: (Score:2)
Why should Putin be afraid of the West? Everybody knows that since the 90s, the West has been busy disarrming, even as they get involved in stupid wars like Bosnia, Kosovo, as well as nationbuilding projects in Afghanistan & Iraq. If he marches troops into even a NATO member, say Latvia, NATO will be exposed for being as feckless as it is.
Real reason is that Russia has been a weakening power, and incurring huge casualties in Afghanistan and Chechnya did nothing for their confidence. If they lose th
Re: (Score:1)
You don't get it right. They don't need these parts of Ukraine to be part of Russia, doesn't make most of the sense. Crimea was it, nice souvenir to get army of fools as supporters for a national hero, bringing lands back. And that's it. Chunks of Ukraine with influence of Russia need to obtain special confederation status, while remaining part of Ukraine, so retaining control over Ukraine. Just like Moldova is kept in halt trough Transnistria.
Putin is not afraid of the West at all, but he does not like the
Re: (Score:2)
Crimea was a legitimate claim of Russia - historically, it had always been a part of Russia, even after Brest-Litovsk made Ukraine independent. It was given to Ukraine on Nikita Krushchev's whim, when few in Russia or Crimea could protest about it.
It's different in the rest of the Ukraine, where people - whether Russian speaking or Ukrainian, don't wanna be Russians. Since the 1990s, there has been a lot of migration b/w the former Soviet republics - Kazakhs returning to Kazakhstan, Uzbeks to Uzbekista
Re: (Score:2)
"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
Re: (Score:1)
You first. Meaning economy of Russia. Europeans can cope with hardships for a good reason, and can continue trading without Russia very well, while it is opposite, that is going to be pretty hard. Watch ruble to get better idea meanwhile.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And the West is supporting a side in this civil war, a side that is ready to resort to dubious tactics of targeting civilian population.
Re: (Score:1)
The fact that you are saying this is a testament to the success of the Russian propaganda campaign. Russia's Chechen, Ossetian, and Russian mercenaries shell civilian populations on a regular basis, under the belief that the locals will blame the Ukrainian army (most of them watch Russian state-owned TV channels, which promote the notion that Ukraine is responsible for the shelling). For example, Russia's forces just shelled the town of Debaltseve: http://goo.gl/rsgmF2 [goo.gl]
Ukrainian media are, well, meh. NYT, however, is a more reputable source: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10... [nytimes.com]
Re: (Score:3)
Ahhhh, a westerner's view of knowledge of world politics and history...........
Go asymmetric -- tank vs anti-tank rocket (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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".
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: who needs them when NATO is there? (Score:2, Interesting)
Well, you might wake up to the fact that russia is a more humane civilization than the criminals who are in charge of nato. Just look at how they conspire with the mohammedanic evil all the time. Next to greece they recently allowed the ethnic cleansing of serbs by the kosovar mohammedanics. I have seen a presentation by a german officer myself where he showed the pictures of a burnt down serb monastery. That whole conflict was paid and ideologized by the wahabist menace of saudi arabia. US and UK nurture t
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
No actually, I think it had something to do with the massacre of 10,000 civilians by the Serbs that after 3 years of indifference finally made the West put an end to yet another evil Russian backed bunch of fascist murderers.
Or were you letting your own anti-Islamic hatred turn a blind eye to the fact that by far the worst atrocities and largest massacres in that conflict were committed by the Serbs you're trying to pass off as innocent victims of the West?
The West helps moderate muslims yes, just like it h
Sell them stuff (Score:2, Interesting)
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.)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
Why can't we sell this junk to the Ukrainians and make a profit
Fair question but unfortunately the answer is:
Re: (Score:2)
"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
How do you pronounce the name Skrypnyk? (Score:1)
I'm inclined to say Scary Punk. How far off am I??
Re: (Score:2)
I'm inclined to say Scary Punk. How far off am I??
Surprisingly, you are way off the mark. It is simply pronounced "Skrypnyk".
Re: (Score:2)
My fellow slashdoters sometimes amazingly lack a sense of humor.
I call bullshit (Score:1, Troll)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Irrelevant.
Re:I call bullshit (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:1)
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.
Have you read your own link? The referendum of 1991 turned Crimea into an "autonomous republi
Re: (Score:3)
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
Re: (Score:1)
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.
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
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
First of all, the transfer made no sense. Crimea has NEVER been a Ukrainian territory.
Second, at the time of transfer Crimea had been a USSR tourist hub, well known throughout the country and with a good infrastructure. Billions of Soviet roubles were spent to construct water supply and build reliable infrastructure on the Crimean peninsula.
Third, Ukraine's population has pretty much recovered by the time of the Crimean transfer. It was more deeply damaged by the
Re: (Score:1)
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:
Re: (Score:1)
Puny American help is a shame (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
If this were true, Putin would've found actual proof of it in the materials Snowden delivered to him. Have you heard anything material, anonymous coward?
Nobody has... Because you are lying, Kremlin troll.
Amazing (Score:3)
no propaganda at slashdot (Score:1)
I feel that this is just Ukrainian propaganda and has no place in Slashdot.
Paai
Re: (Score:1)
The conflict with Russia will never truly end. Even if Ukraine can take back all the lands that it has lost, and expel all Russian troops and sympathizers among the local populace, there will always be a looming threat of a repeat so long as Russia exists as the state that is inherently imperial, land-gathering in nature.
Re: (Score:2)
So what are the odds in your opinion that if the Russian economy keeps suffering from sanctions and the Russian body count keeps increasing that Putin's regime falls that Russia as a nation will turn away from that mindset?
Do you think there's any hope of that from the Russian people or do you think it'd merely buy us another 20 years until they build themselves up and start looking to conquer again?
Re: (Score:1)
I think that for things to to truly change, Russia needs to undergo the same experience that Germany had, basically. It has to very explicitly, clearly and unambiguously denounce its past actions, and the imperial ideology behind them. This never happened so far, not even in 1993 - it was always token nods and apologies, but always with "... but" tackled at the end. We had gulags, but we crushed the Nazis, that sort of thing.
So long as that remains, it keeps being used again and again as a basis of national
Re: (Score:2)
I didn't make any proposals - merely stated an objective fact. Historical track record has shown time and again that Russia is inherently a land hungry empire, and will expand unless and until stopped by force. Hence, any countries bordering Russia always have to contend with the fact that they may be the potential next target for that expansion. This is doubly true for any country that has been previously occupied, because of all the drivel along the lines of "this land is ours because it is washed by the