Parts of Europe's Largest Nuclear Plant 'Knocked Out' By Russia-Ukraine Fighting (cnn.com) 202
On Thursday the International Atomic Energy Agency's director "warned that parts of the Zaporizhzhia nuclear plant had been knocked out due to recent attacks, risking an 'unacceptable' potential radiation leak," according to CNN:
"IAEA experts believe that there is no immediate threat to nuclear safety," but "that could change at any moment," Grossi said.... Ukraine's nuclear agency Energoatom said 10 shells landed near the complex on Thursday, preventing a shift handover. "For the safety of nuclear workers, the buses with the personnel of the next shift were turned back to Enerhodar," the agency said. "Until the situation finally normalizes, the workers of the previous shift will continue to work."
Energoatom said radiation levels at the site remained normal, despite renewed attacks.
Several Western and Ukrainian officials believe that Russia is using the giant nuclear facility as a stronghold to shield their troops and mount attacks, because they assume Kyiv will not return fire and risk a crisis.
Later CNN added: Ukraine and Russia again traded blame after more shelling around the plant overnight on Thursday, just hours after the United Nations called on both sides to cease military activities near the power station, warning of the worst if they didn't.
"Regrettably, instead of de-escalation, over the past several days there have been reports of further deeply worrying incidents that could, if they continue, lead to disaster," UN secretary general, António Guterres, said in a statement....
Energoatom, Ukraine's state-run nuclear power company, accused Russian forces on Thursday of targeting a storage area for "radiation sources," and shelling a fire department nearby the plant. A day later, the company said in a statement on its Telegram account that the plant was operating "with the risk of violating radiation and fire safety standards."
Ukraine's Interior Minister, Denys Monastyrskyi, said Friday that there was "no adequate control" over the plant, and Ukrainian specialists who remained there were not allowed access to some areas where they should be.... Last weekend, shellfire damaged a dry storage facility — where casks of spent nuclear fuel are kept at the plant — as well as radiation monitoring detectors, making detection of any potential leak impossible, according to Energoatom. Attacks also damaged a high-voltage power line and forced one of the plant's reactors to stop operating.
Tonight the BBC reported on a response from Ukraine's president. In his nightly address on Saturday, Volodymyr Zelensky said any soldier firing on or from the plant would become "a special target" for Ukraine. He also accused Moscow of turning the plant into a Russian army base and using it as "nuclear blackmail"...
Zelenskiy added that "every day" of Russia's occupation of the plant "increases the radiation threat to Europe"....
A BBC investigation revealed earlier this week that many of the Ukrainian workers at the site are being kept under armed guard amid harsh conditions.
UPDATE (8/14): "Ukraine's military intelligence agency said that on Saturday, Russian artillery fire hit a pump, damaged a fire station and sparked fires near the plant that could not be immediately extinguished because of the damage to the fire station," reports the New York Times: Engineers say that yard-thick reinforced concrete containment structures protect the reactors from even direct hits. International concern, however, has grown that shelling could spark a fire or cause other damage that would lead to a nuclear accident.
The six pressurized water reactors at the complex retain most sources of radiation, reducing risks. After pressurized water reactors failed at the Fukushima nuclear complex in Japan in 2011, Ukraine upgraded the Zaporizhzhia site to enable a shutdown even after the loss of cooling water from outside the containment structures, Dmytro Gortenko, a former plant engineer, said in an interview....
"Locals are abandoning the town," said the former engineer, who asked to be identified by only his first name, Oleksiy, because of security concerns. Residents had been leaving for weeks, but the pace picked up after Saturday's barrages and fires, he said.
Energoatom said radiation levels at the site remained normal, despite renewed attacks.
Several Western and Ukrainian officials believe that Russia is using the giant nuclear facility as a stronghold to shield their troops and mount attacks, because they assume Kyiv will not return fire and risk a crisis.
Later CNN added: Ukraine and Russia again traded blame after more shelling around the plant overnight on Thursday, just hours after the United Nations called on both sides to cease military activities near the power station, warning of the worst if they didn't.
"Regrettably, instead of de-escalation, over the past several days there have been reports of further deeply worrying incidents that could, if they continue, lead to disaster," UN secretary general, António Guterres, said in a statement....
Energoatom, Ukraine's state-run nuclear power company, accused Russian forces on Thursday of targeting a storage area for "radiation sources," and shelling a fire department nearby the plant. A day later, the company said in a statement on its Telegram account that the plant was operating "with the risk of violating radiation and fire safety standards."
Ukraine's Interior Minister, Denys Monastyrskyi, said Friday that there was "no adequate control" over the plant, and Ukrainian specialists who remained there were not allowed access to some areas where they should be.... Last weekend, shellfire damaged a dry storage facility — where casks of spent nuclear fuel are kept at the plant — as well as radiation monitoring detectors, making detection of any potential leak impossible, according to Energoatom. Attacks also damaged a high-voltage power line and forced one of the plant's reactors to stop operating.
Tonight the BBC reported on a response from Ukraine's president. In his nightly address on Saturday, Volodymyr Zelensky said any soldier firing on or from the plant would become "a special target" for Ukraine. He also accused Moscow of turning the plant into a Russian army base and using it as "nuclear blackmail"...
Zelenskiy added that "every day" of Russia's occupation of the plant "increases the radiation threat to Europe"....
A BBC investigation revealed earlier this week that many of the Ukrainian workers at the site are being kept under armed guard amid harsh conditions.
UPDATE (8/14): "Ukraine's military intelligence agency said that on Saturday, Russian artillery fire hit a pump, damaged a fire station and sparked fires near the plant that could not be immediately extinguished because of the damage to the fire station," reports the New York Times: Engineers say that yard-thick reinforced concrete containment structures protect the reactors from even direct hits. International concern, however, has grown that shelling could spark a fire or cause other damage that would lead to a nuclear accident.
The six pressurized water reactors at the complex retain most sources of radiation, reducing risks. After pressurized water reactors failed at the Fukushima nuclear complex in Japan in 2011, Ukraine upgraded the Zaporizhzhia site to enable a shutdown even after the loss of cooling water from outside the containment structures, Dmytro Gortenko, a former plant engineer, said in an interview....
"Locals are abandoning the town," said the former engineer, who asked to be identified by only his first name, Oleksiy, because of security concerns. Residents had been leaving for weeks, but the pace picked up after Saturday's barrages and fires, he said.
Obvious culprit is obvious (Score:5, Insightful)
Russia has no right to be there. Fuck Putin.
Re: Obvious culprit is obvious (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Most nuke stations in Central and Eastern Europe were built, fueled and maintained by Russia
So what? What do you imagine that proves?
Re: (Score:3)
Russia knows how to run that power station.
Knew how to.
Russia has suffered a massive brain drain due to sanctions. Anyone smart who can get out of the country is doing so.
They built it, they fueled it and they maintain it.
?
They built it, they fueled it, and they maintained it. Now they are abusing it.
So all the complaints about Russia endangering the Ukraine nuke power plants are not exactly true.
The fact they're both shelling them and also hanging out around them during a war makes it exactly true.
There are also Russian nuke plants in Slovakia for example (where I live) - about a dozen reactors at two sites it seems (judging from driving past them).
I'm sorry to hear that.
So the whole situation is complicated.
Complicated yes, as complicated as you're making it out to be no.
The only responsible thing to do is for all sides to leave the nuke plants out of it. If you want to "disable" o
Re: (Score:2)
And they have soldiers there, not engineers, the soldiers don't know how to run things.
Re: (Score:2)
Most nuke stations in Central and Eastern Europe were built, fueled and maintained by Russia
This is the standard mistake of treating Russia and the USSR as the same thing. Lots of the universities and experts in the USSR were based in Ukraine, for example. Sure, Moscow was pretty dominant but Kyiv, for example, was also an important centre.
Re: (Score:2)
I belive that's what you were told. You should learn that Russian disinformation agents lie about everthing. Just assume that anything you hear about Russia is a lie and check before you forward the information.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Nuclear power stations in Ukraine were, up until the war, staffed by Ukrainians. Including the Chernobyl site.
Re:Obvious culprit is obvious (Score:4, Insightful)
Blowing the place up accomplishes what?
They are hoping that threats of intentionally blowing a nuclear power plant up to cause Chernobyl-like disaster would force Ukraine to negotiate. The current situation - Russian advance complete stalled and Ukraine starting to retake captured territory - is very unfavorable to Russia. Cease-fire, even if temporary, would allow Russians to rebuild supply lines, rotate troops, and build up fortification points.
Re: (Score:2)
But they know Ukraine will not negotiate a complete surrender, or relinquish land. What would Putin think a negotiation would accomplish? He thinks Ukraine would say "oh, we didn't realize you were an all powerful army intent on rebuilding the USSR, let us just surrender." Because negotiation to Putin means they surrender. But this is their home, they don't have somewhere else to go and they're not going to allow this new Hitler who thinks that they are subhumans to control them. This is a badger backe
Re: (Score:2)
What would Putin think a negotiation would accomplish?
Any delay during which Putin isn't losing troops is good for Putin, because the longer he draws all of this out, the more it hurts everyone else. (Russia is in the shitter no matter what.)
Re: (Score:2)
Blowing the place up accomplishes what?
Shitting up Ukraine seems to be a goal in general, destroying power generation that competes with their oil is always profitable...
Re: (Score:2)
What is the choice? Attack back, or surrender. Is there a third option you are referring to? And Ukraine is not blowing up its own nuclear plant, it's obvious that this is Russia.
Re: (Score:2)
Ukrainian forces will surround them and will cut supply lines, they don't need to shell the pieces of garbage who are using this power plant for nuclear blackmail, so they will either surrender or will blow the place up.
When the Ivans get desperate enough, offer them suitcases full of cash taken from Russia's frozen money in the western banks and a passport to places unknown. Given the kleptocratic nature of Russian society where everybody is whoring for bribes they'll jump at the chance. Beats cannibalising T-72 tanks for spares and flogging them off to a mafia contact.
Re: (Score:2)
Ukrainian forces will surround them and will cut supply lines,
Just like is being done in Kherson. Reports have come in stating Russian commanders are withdrawing across the river [twitter.com] to the East side, leaving behind most of their troops.
In addition, the Antonovsky bridge was again hit [twitter.com] last night, preventing any repairs from being done as well as not allowing any heavy equipment to move across the bridge.
This is on top of disabling the last remaining bridge [bbc.com] over the Dnieper river at the Nova Kakhovka dam. Cur
Re:Obvious culprit is obvious[ly essential] (Score:2)
I was searching for some mention of "essential" parts of the nuclear plant as in a joke about the "nonessential" ones. If this had been an actual joke that I was actually trying to write, I think it would have involved the warning sticker on powered hang gliders. Something like "If any part of this nuclear plant fails, then you may die."
As regards your comment about the progress of the war, I hope you're right. The Ukrainians need some major victories. And fairly soon. Putin doesn't care about attrition nor
Re: (Score:2)
Don't spread Russian propaganda (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Incorrect summary quote (Score:3)
In his nightly address on Saturday, Volodymyr Zelensky said any soldier firing on or from the plant would become "a special target" for Ukraine.
That's an incorrect summary of what he said. He said any Russian soldier. He doesn't care about the Ukrainian soldiers firing on the Russian soldiers sheltering at the nuclear plant, they're doing what he ordered them to, even though he baselessly claims it's the Russians firing on themselves.
That obviously makes no logical sense given that the Russians are using the nuclear plant as a shield to avoid being fired on by the new US weapons with longer range than the Russian artillery that were being used to suppress the Ukrainian army before. Zelensky can't admit that though or the international community would be outraged that he's shooting missiles and artillery - even high precision ones - very near a nuclear facility.
"Every Russian soldier who either shoots at the plant, or shoots under the cover of the plant, must understand that he is becoming a special target for our intelligence, for our special services, for our army," the president said.
Re:Why (Score:5, Informative)
False flag - try to discredit the Ukrainians over this and hope that they loose support elsewhere.
Re:Why (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
False flag - try to discredit the Ukrainians over this and hope that they loose support elsewhere.
Why even bother to shell themselves? If they want to blame the Ukrainians just have Russian army combat engineers plant some shells in places that won't cause a nuclear meltdown inf they are blown up, set the shells off remotely and blame the Ukrainians.
Re: (Score:2)
False flag - try to discredit the Ukrainians over this and hope that they loose support elsewhere.
Why even bother to shell themselves? If they want to blame the Ukrainians just have Russian army combat engineers plant some shells in places that won't cause a nuclear meltdown inf they are blown up, set the shells off remotely and blame the Ukrainians.
They've already got the artillery there and firing, easier just to aim at a non-critical structure and fire off a shot.
The other thing I suspect is these strikes are misfires. The Russian shells come from the time of the USSR, and the artillery guns aren't kept in the best of maintenance [forbes.com]. If those shells go haywire where do you think they're going to hit?
Re: (Score:2)
Also, Russian army is not well organized. They can be screwing up with no orders from the back, and then the Russian press will spin it trying to curry more Putin favor. The public is being told that everything is always going according to the plan.
Re: (Score:2)
Unlikely, since Ukraine badly needs the reactors intact assuming they can ever get rid of the Russians.
Re:Why (Score:5, Informative)
the comment above is the talking point used by putin's shills.
note: I was born in Zaporizhia, still have relatives there, not that it is relevant to what I am here to say..
putin is using the power plant to blackmail the West to attempt and force Ukraine to negotiate, which is something Ukraine must not do, otherwise this war will be stalled, just like it was stalled in 2014, allowing putin to annex the territories his marauders are occupying so far. putin doesn't have enough animals in the standing army right now, he also doesn't have enough weapons that are effective enough to win this war at the moment. His life pretty much depends on forcing Ukraine to surrender the territories he took at this point and to do that he needs to have an ace in his sleeve to use the West to do this dirty work.
Ukrainians do not fire at their nuclear power plants, they have Chernobyl in their country. russian pig dogs occupied Chernobyl earlier but left that territory once they dug up enough dirt and dust in the Red Forrest that they started falling sick with radiation poisoning 5 months back. Hopefully all of those have suffered enough before croaking.
In any case, putin will use this, he ordered his maniacs to shoot at the power plant with tanks when they were taking the place. They have mined the structure and they will blow it up if putin orders it so. putin doesn't give 1 millionth of a fuck who will die, how much land will be polluted, nothing matters, he will use this to his advantage if the West will buckle. The West has to take a solid, firm stance on it - no matter what, the responsibility for anything that happens at the power plant site is squarely on putin and his mad dogs. If anything happens, this is the same thing as a nuclear strike on Europe, so NATO will treat it as such.
russia is a terrorist country, this started over 20 years ago, when a kgb agent came to power there. Pollonium attacks in the middle of UK, Novichok attacks all over the world, sponsoring terrorist regimes, massive organized crime, etc. If putin falls, over half of all terrorist activity in the world will stop.
Ukraine must win and the West must be clear about their position on this matter.
Re: (Score:2)
If putin falls, over half of all terrorist activity in the world will stop.
Bold statement with 0 source. Every normal person knows putin was some kind of psychopath long before 2014, no need to make up a story like that. It won't help to convince brainwashed people.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I will just answer to this with a link to a petition to provide Ukraine with more weapons to end this war faster and with fewer Ukrainian deaths. [chng.it]
Re:Why (Score:4, Interesting)
I will just answer to this with a link to a petition to provide Ukraine with more weapons to end this war faster and with fewer Ukrainian deaths. [chng.it]
Petitions often really aren't effective. It's much better to get in touch with your member of congress, member of parliament (MP) or whatever you have locally, both by phone and by email and tell them to do better. Of course, nothing wrong with both doing a petition and contacting your MP but the contact with the politicians is more important.
We've spent all these billions of dollars on weapons to defend us against Russia and now, through late and slow delivery of weapons and training to Ukraine the Russians are being allowed to put everyone in Europe in danger. For once there's not so much to complain about for either the UK or USA governments. Much of the EU, on the other hand, could definitely be doing better. Germany is keeping back weapons that they could afford to send for their own defence and now we see that the consequence is that Russia puts them at risk of a nuclear disaster. Countries like Hungary that are even closer to the disaster have almost been helping Russia.
Re:Why (Score:4, Interesting)
Many modern weapons are worse than useless without a trained crew, and training can take months.
There is also the fact that many countries in Europe had a long-standing doctrine to not send weapons into active war zones. There are long and complex arguments for and against that, a whole discussion - but a discussion that was had and came to a conclusion. Most countries have already broken that old consensus for Ukraine, but are concerned about how much they can do before they become a party to that war - something nobody wants. The worst-case scenario is the whole thing setting Europe aflame again.
And in Germany, for example, a legal study was published that training Ukrainian soldiers can very well interpreted in the context of international law as Germany joining the war.
Yes, there is the intense desire to help Ukraine. Either because it feels good or because it's considered a kind of indirect self-defense. But there's also an intense desire to not make this war bigger and worse than it already is.
Re: (Score:3)
But there's also an intense desire to not make this war bigger and worse than it already is.
This is where the biggest problem comes in and where I think it's most important to criticise various people who claim to support peace such as Corbyn and Simon Jenkins in the UK and especially some parts of the SPD in Germany. We have already seen this process of "appeasment" and its consequences from 2014. Even just saying this, let alone following actions based on these ideas encourages Russia to believe that, if it just pushed a little bit harder, the west would back down and they could roll over Easter
Re: (Score:2)
> The real point I'm talking about is that there are weapon systems that have been delivered in small numbers that could have been delivered in big numbers.
In essence Toms comment points out that everyone wants to avoid escalation. The longer range missiles seem to be stopping Russia's advance.
Are you suggesting the west should escalate available firepower and hope Russia's military doesn't do the same, or do you think Russia's military is at its limit?
Re: (Score:2)
Are you suggesting the west should escalate available firepower and hope Russia's military doesn't do the same, or do you think Russia's military is at its limit?
In essence yes, Russia is at, in fact beyond, it's limits. Russian military effectiveness seems to be already falling and they are delivering fewer and less effective weapons than previously. The question of the Russian military's limits is a bit complex. There are different bottlenecks - e.g. logistics / stored supplies / supplies of trained troops and continued production. Each of those bottlenecks hits in different ways. E.g. modern precision weapons have to be produced having already been largely exhaus
Re: (Score:2)
> Only Russia wants to avoid escalation because it can't. Russia is losing and only nukes can possibly save it.
Curious why you think Russia doesn't have any military options between their current tactics and the use of nuclear weapons.
Re: (Score:2)
> Curious ...
Asked in the context of it's obvious it's not only Russia that wants to avoid escalation. Ukrainian civilians for starters.
Re: (Score:2)
> Why is it again that you want Russia to win?
I don't think Russia has a chance in hell of winning.
> Only Russian appeasers want to give Russia time to regroup rearm and resupply.
I don't know what they want. I'm also not about to trust your insight on that.
> Ukrainian civilians want the Russians dead as quickly as possible. Escalation is the best way to do that.
A lot of Ukrainian civilians just want all the killing to stop. Escalation sure isn't going to guarantee that.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, yes. Russia is going easy on Ukraine as a goodwill gesture.
Sinking their flagship. retreating from the North. Letting their Crimean airbase get blown up. Running out of weapons of all kinds. All part of Putin's plan to show the friendly side of Russia.
Only using Soviet era tanks. Putin is not using his best weapons. He's saving them for NATO
That's sounds dumb. Not sure what your point is.
Re: (Score:2)
> Then you should focus your efforts on getting Putin to surrender and go home. Anything else is just prolonging the suffering. Killing as many Russians as possible as quickly as possible would seem the smart choice then. The longer this drags on the worse it is for Ukraine and Ukrainians.
That's pretty clear, glad to know your opinion. I'm not going to argue with you.
Re: (Score:2)
> Of course non-Russia should escalate ... You'd have to be semi-retarded to not understand this. Or a Russian troll. In your case, both.
Of course there's a lot of different ideas on how to proceed, some include escalation.
But simplistic generalizations and calling me names isn't helping your point.
Re: (Score:2)
> Showing how stupid and simplistic your point of view is, and calling you names is the point.
I'm amazed at how sure you sound about knowing my point of view, and going by what you say in your comments, how much you really know nothing about me.
Re: (Score:2)
> Nothing about you personally no.
Nothing about me period.
I disagree with a lot of what you've said but I hope you're right when you say Russia's military is beyond its limit.
Re: (Score:2)
Appeasement is totally the wrong term here. While some shills push the notion that Putin is a new Hitler, there are almost no similarities between the two except that we're supposed to consider them bad guys.
There's no book Putin published where he clearly declared his intentions for world domination, no equivalent of Jew persecution, no "Lebensraum" doctrine, and no credible signs that Russia wants to invade Europe at large. If I were living in a baltic country - formerly part of the USSR - then I'd be qui
Re: (Score:2)
I see that, you are pushing for some reason what is effectively the Kremlin line for intelligent westerners. Picking through all things in detail would be pointless since it's a constructed reality designed more to confuse than even as a lie. However I'll take one point
anyone living in Poland, Germany, Denmark, France etc. who claims he's worried about Russia invading his country is stuck in the Cold War propaganda and nothing else
Members of the actual Russian government have explicitly threatened attack against both Germany and Poland. These comments are repeated over Russian media. The only credible way of ignoring and negating that is with the assumption that almost
Re: (Score:2)
correction for clarity, when I say "Czech republic" I mean Czechoslovakia 1938.
Re: (Score:2)
Members of the actual Russian government have explicitly threatened attack against both Germany and Poland. These comments are repeated over Russian media.
I haven't seen any reporting of that here. Do you have a link or two?
[...]"cultural genocide"[...]
I will accept that argument - if we agree that Ukraine did the exact same thing to its Russian minority after 2014.
There are plenty of similarities between the two
I do agree with about half of your list and in part with some more points. I maintain there's nothing indicating any desire on the Russian side to do any of the Hitler stuff - world domination, "Lebensraum" expansion, systematic extermination of a religious minority, etc.
I think that the comparison has much more to do with emo
Re: (Score:2)
Absolutely, exactly. Even if someone (including Russians) thought that Russia might attack and conquer Europe - it should be clear that this isn't a threat that needs to be seriously considered.
But we still hear propaganda every day about how our freedom is defended in Ukraine because the russian tanks will certainly roll straight past Kiev and into Paris the next day, definitely. And I call bullshit on that. Happy that you agree.
Re: (Score:2)
Did you seriously think Hitler was bad because of some book? And not the genocide and war bits?
No, I think everyone was an idiot who was surprised by what he did, because it was all written in that book of his.
Putin has said on TV and written in newspapers everything that Hitler wrote down in his book.
Do you even know what you're talking about? Let's test you: Hitler wrote that German couples without children should adopt a child and raise it to be a good German. Please point me to the place where Putin said the same thing.
Hitler wrote tons about the Jews being an inferior race. Again, point me to Putin saying the same.
You can't? Yeah, because what you write simply isn't true.
sending more weapons to Ukraine would seriously impact the fighting ability of the German army.
LOL. Just who do you think Germany will need to be fighting?
Make up your mi
Re: (Score:2)
Are you seriously denying that Putin is kidnapping Ukrainian children to raise them in Russia as Russians?
I'm not denying it, I am questioning it. This is the first time I've ever heard about it. But you certainly have a reputable source that has some actual evidence and just forgot to include it, right?
Putin has repeatedly asserted that Ukraine is not a real state and that the Ukrainians are not a real people,
Yes. He claims that they're actually RUSSIANS - not that they're an inferior race.
Hitler did the exact OPPOSITE - he claimed that Jews, even if they have German citizenship, were born in Germany, etc. are a different, inferior race and definitely NOT Germans.
Your hatred blinds you to the nuances. But nuances mat
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, that's actually a good point.
Except that Germany already paid an incredible price for underestimating Russia once - 75% of German casualties in WW2 were on the eastern front. Better to err on the side of caution.
Also, I'm not so sure about the celebration just yet. Russia attacked without the superiority in numbers that you would usually expect, and despite fighting a large country under full mobilization filled to the brim with modern western weapons and a decade of military aid and training by NATO
Re: (Score:2)
Of course he's not a new Hitler. He's far to incompetent for that.
ROTFL. You have too high an esteem for Hitler. He was massively incompetent as a war leader, and the generals of the Wehrmacht many times warned him many times about stupid decisions that led to disaster.
It's not too late to become educated, Google is but a mouse click away. I used the exact line from the part you quoted to show you how lazy or disingenuous you are. No effort required at all.
The only sources there that right out state it as fact are sites like the Daily Mail, the Sun and others that I would discount as "reputable".
All the reputable sources say that "Ukraine claims".
So unless you want to stay at the level of the Daily Mail, you need to cough up more than a quick Google.
Re: (Score:2)
Fuck off, I created that petition, I also spent over 300,000 USD of my own money so far to help Ukrainian armed forces, my position is clear.
Re:Why (Score:5, Informative)
the post above is a fucking blatant LIE with the capital L.
I listened to Zelensky in the video attached to that piece of shit comment, not a single word was said about attacking the plant.
What was said there? Zelensky promised that his diplomats are dealing with the matter and that every sungle mad dog occupying the power plant will be held personally responsible for this use of nuclear blackmail, that everybody will be found and brought to justice.
Re:Why (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Hitler once thought he can destroy Russia. Boy was he pissed when he understood how wrong he was. [wikipedia.org]
Baerbock, the current German minister of exterior for whatever fucked-up reason thought taking a page out of that guy's book was the right thing to do and publicly stated she hopes the sanctions will "ruin Russia".
Large countries don't get "ruined" so easily. Not when they have natural resources and an industrial sector. And most importantly, a population used to hardships. Right now, the sanctions are hitting E
Re: (Score:2)
Hitler once thought he can destroy Russia. Boy was he pissed when he understood how wrong he was. [wikipedia.org]
Standard mistake of those that know little of Eastern European history,. Hitler fought the USSR and most of the fighting was done on Ukrainian soil with big Ukrainian involvement. Russia was not a separate country at the time.
Re: (Score:2)
You yourself are differentiating between "Russia" and "the Russian Empire" for a good reason. Russia is not short for "the Russian Empire" any more than "Britain" is short for the "British Empire". To treat India as just an add on to Britain would be silly. The same applies to Ukraine and the other parts of the Russian Empire which are not Russia.
Re: (Score:2)
"Ruin Russia" as making the country piss poor, not destroying it. And when this is over, Russia will be ruined.
https://www.businessinsider.co... [businessinsider.com]
Baerbock is surprisingly correct on this one.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Google "baerbock russland ruinieren" and you'll find hundreds of sources for the quote I mentioned.
I do agree with your statement. But that wasn't the statement that was made.
Re: (Score:2)
And yet they lost in Afghanistan. Putin is just pissed off that the West has stopped rolling over every time he commits more atrocities.
Re: (Score:2)
afghanistan wasn't an existential threat. still, it took decades for them to let loose.
speaking of atrocities, want to know what's funny? how well all our dignitaries get along with bin salman, all of the sudden. what a fucked up world we live in ...
Re: (Score:2)
afghanistan wasn't an existential threat.
Ukraine isn't an existential threat. Hell, nor is NATO, which is why at one point (ironically, after the point he now pretends they agreed not to expand) Putin was trying to join. This war is about the fact that Ukraine has gas and oil which could have cut into Gazprom's/Putin's profits.
still, it took decades for them to let loose.
It took Russia 15,000 dead soldiers to cut loose in Afghanistan. They are already over three times that and climbing from the Russian army in Ukraine; there's no comparison. At that kind of rate it's quite likely Ukraine can
Re: (Score:2)
This war is about the fact that Ukraine has gas and oil which could have cut into Gazprom's/Putin's profits.
well, if that's the real reason then that's a bad business decision if i ever saw one.
i'm really skeptical but still curious, can you elaborate or link to any resource elaborating on this thesis?
Re:Why (Score:5, Informative)
This war is about the fact that Ukraine has gas and oil which could have cut into Gazprom's/Putin's profits.
well, if that's the real reason then that's a bad business decision if i ever saw one.
So far it's been a pretty profitable one. Natural gas prices increased and Russia has been selling more. There's obviously a long term plan for Europe to stop buying Russian gas and there has already been some reduction, but it's not over yet. N.B. Based on the past, Russia had assumed it would get away with invading Ukraine almost without consequences.
i'm really skeptical but still curious, can you elaborate or link to any resource elaborating on this thesis?
Reasonable coverage of Ukraine's natural gas from Wikipedia [wikipedia.org]
Forbes article about Russian exploitation of Ukrainian gas [forbes.com]
Siezure of pipeline during Georgian war [euractiv.com] - not unrelated.
Re: (Score:2)
So far it's been a pretty profitable one. Natural gas prices increased and Russia has been selling more. There's obviously a long term plan for Europe to stop buying Russian gas and there has already been some reduction, but it's not over yet. N.B. Based on the past, Russia had assumed it would get away with invading Ukraine almost without consequences.
thank you for the pointers!
dunno, prices have soared as a direct result of this crisis, and russia was bound to sell even more gas with nord-stream 2. also, even with its huge reserves ukraine is a net gas importer, they could hardly be a competitor for a long, long time. actually, ukraine has been consuming russian gas with prices heavily subsidized by russia well into the 2000s, and has been buying the exact same gas but at a markup from satellite countries since 2014, which meant that basically russia ke
Re: (Score:2)
And yet they lost in Afghanistan.
Yeah, but let's be honest: Can you name someone who ever WON in Afghanistan and their name doesn't start with "T" and ends with "aliban"?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
stop the us democratic party and the ukrainian fascist's plot in its tracks
- ding ding ding, the witch is dead... nothing uncovers the colours of a piece of shit as quickly as him or her referring to 'fascism' in Ukraine. Hopefully you are in russia right now and will remain there once this war is over.
Re: (Score:2)
yes, fascists. there are plenty of them around. of course you are obviously going to deny all fascist implication in the coup and subsequent developments. what a surprise!!! :-)
Re: Why (Score:2)
His country was invaded. Some of his friends and family growing up have been killed or are missing in God knows where since the invasion and a hostile foreign power is threatening his land and country with a Chernobyl style x5 event for their political gain.
Of course he is down right mad and enraged! He has a right to be and you would too if this happened to you. An old American Indian saying is to walk a mile in another man's moccasins before judging.
I got into some disagreements with Roman_mir awhile back
Re: (Score:2)
that signature and the link behind it has been there for 10 years or so, nothing will change my message - putin is a terrorist, russia is a terrorist state and must be defeated militarily in Ukraine, I spent over 300k USD of my own money to help the Ukrainian armed forces and will spend more and all putin shills will be held accountable for they are just as responsible for murder and atrocities.
Re: (Score:2)
Desperation.
Re: (Score:2)
another shill for putin. Ukrainians fire upon howitzers that fire at them, they use precision ammunition and drones, they do not fire at any nuclear power plants, this is their land and USSR already left them with Chernobyl to deal with for thousands of years to come. russian mad dogs at the power plant will be dealt with without firing any shells though, the will be surrounded and cut off the supply lines and they will surrender or die (and they may blow up the plant, but no Ukrainian shell will hit the
Re: (Score:2)
putin caused a terrorist attack in the middle of UK with nuclear materials, pollonium
An anonymous someone "has heard" that this murder was terrorism, that's what you mix it up with (https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-15293395).
While absolutely a murder, this was never classified as a terrorist act by anyone with a name or office, AFAIK. Feel free to cite a source proving otherwise and I'll change my mind.
novichok - weaponized chemicals to murder people opposing his regime,
Probably, yes. Again, murder, not terrorism.
supported terrorist regimes in the middle east
In a particular way that is not also true for the USA and most western countries?
he supports Assad in Syria, Maduro in Venezuela, Kim john un in North Korea
Again, not terrorism. I'm not saying "oh look, he's such a lovely guy".
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, this is rich, what are you, a russian? Are you getting paid by a russian? Some russian tick bit you?
Anyway, polonium 210 was not simply used as a murder weapon, it was used as a weapon of terrorism, it was discovered in 40 places in UK [wikipedia.org] after use. It was used to terrorize other possible political dissidents by putting this gruesome death on public display. I don't need someone to do my thinking for me, which you apparently need, so here is a thought - Novichok was just as available to the murderer as a
Re: (Score:2)
polonium 210 was not simply used as a murder weapon, it was used as a weapon of terrorism,
While "terrorism" doesn't have an ISO definition or something, if you look at how various countries define it: https://www.oecd.org/daf/fin/i... [oecd.org] - you will notice that spreading fear in the general population or variations of that has a fairly high consensus.
Targeted murder, while being abhorent, doesn't satisfy that criterium. The general public in the UK did not react with panic or became afraid that they could be next. Unlike, say, the Berlin or Nice truck attacks.
It was used to terrorize
Ah, there's the confusion. You mix "terr
Re: (Score:2)
yeah, you are 'an opposition" alright, standing up for the little guy, I mean putin is what, 5 feet maybe? Standing up for a terrorist who is murdering anyone that opposes his power, I am sure he will appreciate, ass.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm simply taking your signature and applying it.
If you want truth, the first thing you do is use the correct words to describe things. If we were discussing what the best breed of dog is, you would rightfully complain if I suddenly lump in a cat with the dogs. Not because the cat isn't cute, but simply because it's not a dog.
Same thing here. If you want to discuss that this war is wrong and should stop - I'm totally with you. But when you call it things that it's not, I'm pointing out that your words are f
Re: (Score:2)
Putin himself can't even call it a war. Why aren't you all up in his face protesting that?
Why should I? The US hasn't called most of its war a war, either. It's pretty standard procedure these days, unfortunately.
Is it maybe because telling the truth in Russia will have you (and probably your family) disappeared?
I don't live in Russia, so why would I think like that?
And the point remains that you make emotional statements without regards for their truth value. They simply FEEL right to you. But that's not how words work. I don't think you grasp the concept, so I guess further discussion is useless.
Re: (Score:2)
we've come to expect from Russians.
I'm not Russian. But hey, it's not like you care about true or false. ;-)
Re: (Score:2)
Targeted murder, while being abhorent, doesn't satisfy that criterium. The general public in the UK did not react with panic or became afraid that they could be next. Unlike, say, the Berlin or Nice truck attacks.
I've become interested in your take on Russian propaganda and this is a very interesting comment that hinges on the word "targeted" and kind of conflates a bunch of stuff in the background.
In a normal "targeted" state assassination it would either be done with the aim of not being discovered or it would be done in a way that it was very clear why one particular individual was targeted. In the Russian case the use of Novichok and Polonium, obscure weapons only available to Russia were very clearly designed t
Re: (Score:2)
It is typical for a war that the civilian population flees and becomes refugees. This happens all over the world in every war. That is war, not terrorism.
Likewise, "genoice" is another term you just throw in there. This term has an explicit UN convention defining it - https://www.un.org/en/genocide... [un.org] -
"enocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group"
Even the shrillest shills are not claiming that Russia has set u
Re: (Score:2)
Do you even listen to his interviews, speeches and plans?
Not really, no. Do you speak Russian well enough?
Why you feel the need to do that isn't hard to figure out.
Please elaborate.
Re: (Score:3)
Why would Russia be shelling themselves at a nuclear plant they need and have occupied/controlled since March.
There's two parts here, and Russia has reason to destroy things in both parts. First part, Russia targeted the fire station and then other parts of the power plant. This is a large power plant and so there's a lot of room to blow up something in one part with very little risk of damage to prevent power from being produced. Russia wanted control of the plant and to do so they sent their military to kill people and break things, like a military force does. In the second part Russia has control of the plan
Re: (Score:2)
True. There's a lot of lies and propaganda flying around. To me, Ukraine trying to retaliate against Russian troops making the plant a firebase make more sense -- more so than Russia shelling its own positions at a nuclear plant, given the mess they made at Chernobyl.
Re: (Score:2)
Because they don't plan on occupying the area permanently and would rather leave it in tatters when they leave?
As much fun as it is to be the "smartest guy in the room" and question the darling of the Western media, it's never a good idea to side with an obvious aggressor inspired by dubious motives (at best).
Re: (Score:2)
In this case, as the Zaporizhzhia nuclear plant has been under control of the Russian army for a while, it seems clear that Russians are using proximity to the nuclear plant as a shelter for their troops, in some kind of dirty game of chicken.
According to this report from Amnesty International, Ukrainian forces too have been playing dirty, launching attacks from populated civilian areas, including in proximity to schools and hospitals. So that Russians shooting back would cause civilian casualties, that we
Re: (Score:2)
No. No it is not 'true'. It's only true in the American "Alternative Facts" way.
Re: (Score:2)
Ukrainians are not shelling any nuclear power plants. russian mad dogs shelled this power plant from their tanks earlier, when they were taking it. Now they are shelling it to blackmail the West to force Ukraine to surrender, this will not happen, however the West must take a strong, firm stance on it - anything that happens in the power plant is putin's doing, this is the only way to make it clear to putin that blowing up the plant will not give him the win he is looking for, that this action will be seen
Re: Speculation (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
this war is so brutal and savage with war crimes all around
False, Ivan. The only onces committing war crimes are the Russians. Remember that Russian shown castrating captured Ukrainian soldiers? Or the heads of Ukrainian prisoners on poles? Or the mass rapes of girls and women [imgur.com]? That's all done by Russia.
Generally I make a notation so I can find an article again but at the time I did not because the allegation seemed so unlikely at the time.
That's because like your lie of war crimes being done all aroun
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
This Amnesty International report was written mostly by russians
None of the articles I read even claimed, much less showed evidence towards such a thing. Please go and post your supporting evidence for that claim.
Re: (Score:2)
I specifically said that both sides are NOT the same, one side usually is worse than the other. I'm saying that both sides are guilty of SOME war crimes, and if you seriously think you could have a major war without "your" side committing at least a couple war crimes, you should go play with My Little Pony and leave the real world to adults.
Re: (Score:2)
You're trying to imply There is some kind of equivalence.
Where, exactly? Which of my words convey the meaning "equal" to you?
One guy gets his arms, legs and head ripped off, the other guy stubs his toe.
Oh well these things happen in war, everyone gets hurt.
Ah, the usual reductio ad absurdum.
We have credible reports of serious war crimes committed by Ukrainians. That's a fact. Any crime is a crime. You don't get your murder case dropped in court just because they're having a serial murder in the next court room.
Your claim that only(!) the Russians are committing war crimes is FALSE. That's a fact. It in no way diminishes Russian war crimes.
Re: (Score:2)
are comparable
For the third and final time: I have never said that anywhere. I'm saying that both parties are in the same category of actions (war crimes). In the same way that a $2000 beat up Toyota and a $1 mio. Maserati are both in the category of "car". Calling them both a car doesn't mean they are the same. I don't know how it is possible to not get that simple point.
And "only" is a direct quote, and I honestly stop caring about your trolling.
Re: (Score:2)