They are not Russian troops. They are Russian private contractors: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/02/28/exclusive-r...

Also, there are only several hundred of them. The 6,000 you are referring to are troops the Russians brought in yesterday. These troops are not appearing "with all identification hidden".

The commenter may have implied they were troops of the Russian Army, but did not outright say it. Since these few hundred are mercenaries (might as well call them that, not 'private contractors'), they are still an extension of a sovereign nations armed forces.

Yep, just like Blackwater, etc were an extension of American might in Iraq. Unless the parent wants to go down teh path of saying that American PMCs in Iraq had nothing to do with American might and power?

Just a note, Blackwater changed their name to Xe in 2007 and Academi in 2011. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academi

I don't think the parent commenter was implying that, either. At the face of it, it is simply minor quibbling over details.

The Russians have this kind of force prepared because of their naval base at Sevastopol.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Sea_Fleet

Without logos on uniforms, carriers or tanks?

Did they think people would not know?

wow, they are starting to sound like the police here in the US, showing up without markings and knocking doors down.

As to who, most like Russian special forces, no identification is case it goes tits up

I would avoid this "can you imagine if US" thing. US has done all sorts of things, maybe even that one, I don't know. Most of the time, US has done so without any repercussion. Let's hope things go for the best this time in Ukraine, as Candide would say.

> I would avoid this "can you imagine if US" thing

That, unfortunately, is simply not possible. "For each and every internet discussion of a political event somewhere in the world, someone will attempt to drag the US into it, and probably point out how the US is actually worse than the situation being discussed".

Rightly so.

I think the strange/comical part of this is that Russia thought that "we'll just take off our logos" was a good strategy for keeping a secret or saving face.

I think it was actually a brilliant FUD strategy to buy the Russians time and stop the West from intervening in a timely (from their perspective) fashion.

As if somebody would be intervening. EU bureaucrats plan to hold "emergency meeting" on Monday - because occupation of a foreign country and potential war near their borders is not a reason to work on Sunday, you see. One can be sure nothing would come out of it on Monday either but empty "we are very worried" declarations.

> As if somebody would be intervening. EU bureaucrats plan to hold "emergency meeting" on Monday - because occupation of a foreign country and potential war near their borders is not a reason to work on Sunday, you see.

Or because the actual work to develop options and brief on the facts prior to the emergency meeting of decision makers is going to happen through Sunday.

Most of the work related to any meeting of decision-makers, even an emergency meeting, happens before the meeting.

They must prepare a lot of briefings if it takes 2 days. Even UN is moving faster.

> They must prepare a lot of briefings if it takes 2 days.

Not really.

> Even UN is moving faster.

Yeah, but all the UN would do in even an ideal (in terms of ability to decide on approach) situation would be to declare broad principles and call on other countries to take action of broadly-specified types to acheive them (with Russia's veto on the UNSC and role in the current crisis, there's about zero chance of even that happening unless Russia's rep gets lost on the way to the chamber.)

OTOH, the EU is more likely to need to evaluate not just what it wants to achieve, but what it can actually concretely do with its real actual resources to achieve its goals, which mean that there is, in practical terms, a lot more substance for the EU to address than the UNSC.

I suspect it's just a formality so they can increase the security around their base, without yet having formally requested authorization from their parliament. In both international law and the law of many countries, there are substantial distinctions made between troops in uniform wearing their country's flag and those not.

I don't think that there was any intent of being secret or saving face, just that because formal authorization from parliament hadn't yet been made, they couldn't move in under Russia's flag.

My guess is it's just to give them short-term deniability. By the time anyone proves who they are it'll be too late.

You mean like the thousands of mystery troops that showed up without any logos in Kiev, took over government buildings, the airport, etc. without any identification, simply guns to insist "do as we say"?

Which means they had this kind of force all prepared.

You think those were European or US troops? Are you serious? Quit spreading the FUD. A violent revolution happened in the Ukraine, sure, but there is no indication that Europe or the US sent in any people to instigate or help with that.

You can think about this as a fashion thing: on one side you had people wearing all sort of clothes and weapons, on the other you have people wearing exactly the same clothes and weapons. So, while you might have a point, it's much harder to not identify the second group as an official army not showing who's leading them.

These forces are no mystery, they are obviously Russian troops. We do not know which branch of the military they belong to, but who cares? And Russia now moved to open military invasion, thus removing all doubt completely.