WhyLikeThis
Something, something, something
Still burning well into the evening
Ukraine and the Russian invasion, 2022-24
- Thread starter kebabking
- Start date
mojo pixy
...שלא נמצא בשמאל
OK so nobody said it then.
The39thStep
Urban critical thinker
please re read
Leighsw2
strictly off the record
That's an interesting euphemism for "NATO intervention to prevent a wholesale slaughter by Serbian ethnic cleansing that would have made Bosnia look like a kindergarten outing...." but each to his own I guess. Very 'telling'!
mojo pixy
...שלא נמצא בשמאל
You keep referring to a post you didn't make, that doesn't say:
In fact you're the only one to post that so far, so tbh it feels like you were trying to sneak in a little slur. If so then maybe just say it loud and proud?
David Clapson
Well-Known Member
Could be more aircraft in the shelters
David Clapson
Well-Known Member
WaPo has a huuuge article about intelligence "Russia’s spies misread Ukraine and misled Kremlin as war loomed"archive.ph
Plus "5 things you need to know about Russia’s intelligence failures ahead of the invasion of Ukraine" archive.ph
Plus "5 things you need to know about Russia’s intelligence failures ahead of the invasion of Ukraine" archive.ph
TopCat
Putin fanboy
Russian speakers in Latvia told to pick sides in test of patriotism
The war in Ukraine has prompted Latvia to crack down on support for the Kremlin.
www.bbc.co.uk
TopCat
Putin fanboy
So OK to discuss historical Ukrainian issues and antecedents to this war then?
TopCat
Putin fanboy
I would agree with your summary here. My point is after giving wholesale support, we let a country go without aid to the extent of them rationing electricity. It hardly implies that Ukraine will get long term support themselves.
steveseagull
Well-Known Member
Looks increasingly likely the air base was hit. I guess we will have to wait for sat images
www.theguardian.com
Fires and explosions reported at military targets in Russia and Crimea
A munitions depot blazed near Ukrainian border and explosions hit the occupied peninsula in latest apparent sabotage mission
Septimus Rufiji
🍺 🥴 🤮
The perpetrators have been identified
not-bono-ever
meh
The fallout - literally - from this conflict is going to be horrendous. Munitions aside, those trashed sov blok buildings and industrial sites are going to be packed with ropey stuff. It’s going to a massive clean up at some point .
mojo pixy
...שלא נמצא בשמאל
Post what you want obviously, just please try to be straightforward with the slurs against posters, if slurs against posters there must be.
elbows
Well-Known Member
As a result of that stuff yesterday I forced myself to go and find out exactly what the Russian propaganda about this said yesterday. Its available in text in English on the Russian militaries website and also somewhere on youtube with English subtitles. I dont much fancy linking to it or quoting it at length. So for now, unless something nasty happens there today, I'll just say that it included some insufficiently labelled plume modelling images, but at the end they also said that if the situation deteriorated further then they will consider taking the remaining couple of active reactors there offline.
I dont think that shutdown angle has received much attention in the English speaking press. But the implications of it do seem to tie in to the final sentence of something the BBC are reporting today, even though the general reporting is still looking more at the old 'Russia wants to disconnect it from the Ukrainian grid' prospects that Ukraine has repeatedly mentioned, rather than Russia actually shutting down the reactors:
From https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/wor...ff59124929d817e9777b66&pinned_post_type=share
Last edited:
TopCat
Putin fanboy
What are you referring to? Be specific? Quote?
steveseagull
Well-Known Member
elbows
Well-Known Member
The BBC finally felt the need to do a slightly more substantial piece that puts the nuclear risks in context. They may have been in a quandry about stating this stuff so explicitly because it inevitably ends up shitting on a load of the propaganda, including a lot of the rhetoric from Ukraine, a bunch of the stuff Russia has started spouting for its own purposes, and the various fears that international agencies have raised out of desperation more recently in an attempt to bring some sort of resolution to the situation.
Its not perfect, since even the rather reasonable opinions of various experts can easily wander over the line by becoming a bit too reassuring about the risks from loss of coolant incidents and suchlike. That subject gets a bit complex and wasnt even on most peoples radars before Fukushima. In the pre-Fukushima days most nuclear plant fears focussed more on run away chain reactions and big meltdowns and fires that could happen while the reactor was in full operation. The public were not made very aware of the extent to which decay heat needs to be dealt with for a prolonged period even after safe reactor shutdown, or the extent to which fuel moved to pools still needs to be cooled for ages. And reactions between melting fuel cladding and concrete that lead to hydrogen generation with explosive potential were certainly not drawn attention to until multiple explosions of that sort happened at Fukushima, causing much embarrassment to experts who had been promoting a low risk picture even as the fuel started to melt at Fukushima. An awkward adjustment to public communications were required once tv footage of the explosions was beamed around the world, but over a decade later it seems that such theoretical risks have been allowed to gradually fade from view again and stuff like hydrogen explosions do not feature explicitly in this article. But at least general attention to post-shutdown cooling of fuel is still well present in this article. Its much easier to dismiss fears of a Chernobyl-type event more neatly because of the design of that plant and the nature of what went wrong there and lack of containment at Chernobyl compared to most reactors. I suppose its normal enough that fears tend to focus on the detail of what went wrong in the last big nuclear accident the world experienced, even if any future one may end up involving a different angle that receives little attention until it happens. And the need to go for the maximum possible reassurances available involves both entirely reasonable, well balanced stuff, with a dollop of overly reassuring propaganda on top. That norm is why the propaganda that went in the opposite, maximum scare factor direction with nuclear issues has been a bit surreal to see in this war, its at odds with the normal establishment approach to downplaying nuclear fears in populations, and its hard to have it both ways. The UK has clear reasons not to want to shit on Ukrainian propaganda, but there are limits to how far they can let the spectre of nuclear doom be parroted without question.
Ukraine nuclear plant: How risky is stand-off over Zaporizhzhia?
International leaders warn of potential disaster at the Russian-occupied Zaporizhzhia plant.
www.bbc.co.uk
Its not perfect, since even the rather reasonable opinions of various experts can easily wander over the line by becoming a bit too reassuring about the risks from loss of coolant incidents and suchlike. That subject gets a bit complex and wasnt even on most peoples radars before Fukushima. In the pre-Fukushima days most nuclear plant fears focussed more on run away chain reactions and big meltdowns and fires that could happen while the reactor was in full operation. The public were not made very aware of the extent to which decay heat needs to be dealt with for a prolonged period even after safe reactor shutdown, or the extent to which fuel moved to pools still needs to be cooled for ages. And reactions between melting fuel cladding and concrete that lead to hydrogen generation with explosive potential were certainly not drawn attention to until multiple explosions of that sort happened at Fukushima, causing much embarrassment to experts who had been promoting a low risk picture even as the fuel started to melt at Fukushima. An awkward adjustment to public communications were required once tv footage of the explosions was beamed around the world, but over a decade later it seems that such theoretical risks have been allowed to gradually fade from view again and stuff like hydrogen explosions do not feature explicitly in this article. But at least general attention to post-shutdown cooling of fuel is still well present in this article. Its much easier to dismiss fears of a Chernobyl-type event more neatly because of the design of that plant and the nature of what went wrong there and lack of containment at Chernobyl compared to most reactors. I suppose its normal enough that fears tend to focus on the detail of what went wrong in the last big nuclear accident the world experienced, even if any future one may end up involving a different angle that receives little attention until it happens. And the need to go for the maximum possible reassurances available involves both entirely reasonable, well balanced stuff, with a dollop of overly reassuring propaganda on top. That norm is why the propaganda that went in the opposite, maximum scare factor direction with nuclear issues has been a bit surreal to see in this war, its at odds with the normal establishment approach to downplaying nuclear fears in populations, and its hard to have it both ways. The UK has clear reasons not to want to shit on Ukrainian propaganda, but there are limits to how far they can let the spectre of nuclear doom be parroted without question.
Last edited:
mojo pixy
...שלא נמצא בשמאל
You're not usually this dense, there must be something you're trying hard not to see.
I'll leave you to it.
Dogsauce
I’ve got Skol but I’m not a Scholar
It was reported yesterday that Russia had moved most of it‘s aircraft out of Crimea. Possible that this attack was a day or two late unfortunately. We’ll have to wait for decent satellite imagery.
existentialist
Tired and unemotional
A day or two late in terms of the number of aircraft it could destroy, but the big prize is the denial of safe airfields in Crimea to the Russian Air Force.
TopCat
Putin fanboy
Just an implied smear?
mojo pixy
...שלא נמצא בשמאל
It wasn't something you posted, and there's been no further explanation so it's probably not worth you and I getting into the weeds over.
TopCat
Putin fanboy
Well why post in relation to me a sort of warning about smearing people? What did you mean?
mojo pixy
...שלא נמצא בשמאל
I thought you were being disingenuous, but I was probably wrong. I'm sorry for being snarky, if it was really just a misunderstanding.
TopCat
Putin fanboy
I try and be upfront. I wasn’t attempting anything else.
mojo pixy
...שלא נמצא בשמאל
Fair enough.I try and be upfront. I wasn’t attempting anything else.
Last edited:
UnderOpenSky
baseline neural therapy
Winter is coming. It's interesting it's always been Russia's defense and yet and I wonder if this is what will end up hammering them with supply lines being hit so hard. Of course as they cut of gas it's going to hit us pretty hard as well.
Kaka Tim
Half Arsed and Slapdash till I Die
Doesn't october see the return of the mud as well? The war is looking more and more like an attritional grind now. At what point does russia cut its losses? When a bullet enters the back of putins head or before then?
UnderOpenSky
baseline neural therapy
Sadly I suspect after. He has to much invested and if he shows weakness he knows he won't last.
Similar threads
