Ukraine's Nuclear Plant Reconnected to Grid. Russia Accused of Intentional Shelling (theguardian.com) 124
Thursday Ukraine's largest nuclear power plant was cut off from the country's electricity grid, causing "widespread power outages across southern Ukraine," according to the New York Times. Friday afternoon it was reconnected to Ukraine's national power grid, the Times adds — "but its time offline renewed concerns about the safe operation of the plant..."
The Guardian notes it's the first such disconnection in nearly 40 years. Three other power lines connecting the reactors to the grid "had already been taken out during the war," though when the fourth and final line went out, "the plant still received supplies of electricity from one remaining backup line connected to the nearby conventional power plant." (Though two other lines to that power plant were already also down.) "Disconnecting the plant from the grid is dangerous because it raises the risk of catastrophic failure of the electricity-run cooling systems for its reactors and spent fuel rods.... If all external connections go down, it must rely on diesel-fuelled generators for power. If they break down, engineers only have 90 minutes to stave off dangerous overheating." (Ukraine's president Volodymyr Zelenskiy pointed out that during the break in power, back-up diesel generators did indeed immediately kick in to ensure continuous power supply, according to Reuters.)
But is Russia executing a larger strategy here? Earlier, Russian engineers informed plant workers that the nuclear plant would be switched to Russia's power network in the event of an emergency, according to the head of Ukraine's atomic energy company. Speaking to the Guardian, he adds that the plant's workers were told that "The precondition for this plan was heavy damage of all lines which connect Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant to the Ukrainian system" — and he worries that Russia is now attempting to create those preconditions.
He's not the only one thinking that. Voice of America interviewed a nuclear engineer at the plant who claims that Russian troops have several times "bombed places that cannot affect the safe operation of the power plant. I think that the Russians are trying to discredit the armed forces of Ukraine for the purpose of propaganda.... At the same time, the Russians deliberately damaged the high-voltage power lines that connect the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant with the Ukrainian power system.... [T]he Russians want to arrange a small accident and stop Zaporizhzhia for a short time, then supply us with electricity from Crimea and automatically switch the nuclear power plant to the Russian energy system."
He also claims to have seen Russian military equipment stored in the plant. For example, "Different types of Russian artillery and missile installations are located both inside the territory of the nuclear power plant and around it, on the perimeter, near the Kakhovka Reservoir."
The last power line connecting the reactors to the grid was disconnected by fires "caused by shelling," the Guardian reported.
The New York Times reports on the aftermath: Ukrainian engineers were able to restore damaged external power lines after repeated shelling on Thursday, ensuring the facility was able to meet its own power needs and continue to operate safely, according to Ukrainian and international officials, but efforts to reconnect it to the grid took longer. With fires raging around the plant, new shelling in and around the facility on a near daily basis and an exhausted and stressed team of Ukrainian engineers tasked with keeping the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant running safely, however, calls for international intervention grew louder.
Negotiations with Ukraine and Russia to allow safety experts from the International Atomic Energy Agency to visit and inspect the plant appeared to be making progress, as U.N. officials indicated they expected an agreement soon. "We are in active consultations for an imminent I.A.E.A. mission," a spokesman for the agency said.
The stakes are high.
"Nowhere in the history of this world has a nuclear power plant become a part of a combat zone, so this really has to stop immediately," Bonnie Denise Jenkins, the State Department's under secretary for arms control and international security, told reporters in Brussels on Thursday. Russian actions, she said, "have created a serious risk of a nuclear incident — a dangerous radiation release — that could threaten not only the people and environment of Ukraine, but also affect neighboring countries and the entire international community."
Here's the opinion of that nuclear engineer at the Ukrainian nuclear plant (interviewed by Voice of America). "The expectation is that after the [International Atomic Energy] agency's conclusion, international pressure on Moscow will intensify, and Russia will be required to withdraw heavy weapons and troops from the nuclear power plant.
"I think this is unrealistic. The Russians will not leave here by their own will. Without a war, it is impossible."
The Guardian notes it's the first such disconnection in nearly 40 years. Three other power lines connecting the reactors to the grid "had already been taken out during the war," though when the fourth and final line went out, "the plant still received supplies of electricity from one remaining backup line connected to the nearby conventional power plant." (Though two other lines to that power plant were already also down.) "Disconnecting the plant from the grid is dangerous because it raises the risk of catastrophic failure of the electricity-run cooling systems for its reactors and spent fuel rods.... If all external connections go down, it must rely on diesel-fuelled generators for power. If they break down, engineers only have 90 minutes to stave off dangerous overheating." (Ukraine's president Volodymyr Zelenskiy pointed out that during the break in power, back-up diesel generators did indeed immediately kick in to ensure continuous power supply, according to Reuters.)
But is Russia executing a larger strategy here? Earlier, Russian engineers informed plant workers that the nuclear plant would be switched to Russia's power network in the event of an emergency, according to the head of Ukraine's atomic energy company. Speaking to the Guardian, he adds that the plant's workers were told that "The precondition for this plan was heavy damage of all lines which connect Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant to the Ukrainian system" — and he worries that Russia is now attempting to create those preconditions.
He's not the only one thinking that. Voice of America interviewed a nuclear engineer at the plant who claims that Russian troops have several times "bombed places that cannot affect the safe operation of the power plant. I think that the Russians are trying to discredit the armed forces of Ukraine for the purpose of propaganda.... At the same time, the Russians deliberately damaged the high-voltage power lines that connect the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant with the Ukrainian power system.... [T]he Russians want to arrange a small accident and stop Zaporizhzhia for a short time, then supply us with electricity from Crimea and automatically switch the nuclear power plant to the Russian energy system."
He also claims to have seen Russian military equipment stored in the plant. For example, "Different types of Russian artillery and missile installations are located both inside the territory of the nuclear power plant and around it, on the perimeter, near the Kakhovka Reservoir."
The last power line connecting the reactors to the grid was disconnected by fires "caused by shelling," the Guardian reported.
The New York Times reports on the aftermath: Ukrainian engineers were able to restore damaged external power lines after repeated shelling on Thursday, ensuring the facility was able to meet its own power needs and continue to operate safely, according to Ukrainian and international officials, but efforts to reconnect it to the grid took longer. With fires raging around the plant, new shelling in and around the facility on a near daily basis and an exhausted and stressed team of Ukrainian engineers tasked with keeping the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant running safely, however, calls for international intervention grew louder.
Negotiations with Ukraine and Russia to allow safety experts from the International Atomic Energy Agency to visit and inspect the plant appeared to be making progress, as U.N. officials indicated they expected an agreement soon. "We are in active consultations for an imminent I.A.E.A. mission," a spokesman for the agency said.
The stakes are high.
"Nowhere in the history of this world has a nuclear power plant become a part of a combat zone, so this really has to stop immediately," Bonnie Denise Jenkins, the State Department's under secretary for arms control and international security, told reporters in Brussels on Thursday. Russian actions, she said, "have created a serious risk of a nuclear incident — a dangerous radiation release — that could threaten not only the people and environment of Ukraine, but also affect neighboring countries and the entire international community."
Here's the opinion of that nuclear engineer at the Ukrainian nuclear plant (interviewed by Voice of America). "The expectation is that after the [International Atomic Energy] agency's conclusion, international pressure on Moscow will intensify, and Russia will be required to withdraw heavy weapons and troops from the nuclear power plant.
"I think this is unrealistic. The Russians will not leave here by their own will. Without a war, it is impossible."
Re: (Score:1)
So we should link to RT instead ?
Re: (Score:2)
well... (Score:3)
"...Without a war, it is impossible."
I guess it's good we have one, then?
I'm not taking Russia's side here, but this is objectively stupid.
If one is willing to pursue a goal seriously enough that one commits ACTUAL WAR, you know, killing people (and not just depersonalized enemies) of *course* basically all the marbles are on the table.
Of COURSE they are doing this deliberately. Their intent is to WIN, or had it been so long since the west actually, you know, tried with all its effort to win, that we've forgotten what that is like?
Re: (Score:2)
What wins you are talking about? Of russky to become Ukrainian? Tell them go home, where their vodka longs for their return.
Though, for one muscovite there are about thousand of national minorities sent to Ukraine.
Re:well... (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:1)
Re:well... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:well... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
What are you talking about? My ENTIRE COMMENT was worded from the point of view of Russia...you know, 'willing to commit to war'?
Ukraine's the victim here, I thought that was obvious.
Quick history lessons (Score:1)
"Russia" in the broadest definition (the czars, Soviets, etc) is a state that has never been free in the western sense or accountable to its citizens. They never gave a fuck and they don't now.
Re: (Score:2)
That's difficult for many inoculated by decades of disinfo to absorb.
Re: (Score:2)
When it is made punishable by up to 15 years in jail to call an invasion of another country a war, you at that point know that all official state media has the integrity of a wet paper towel. It is not remotely difficult.
a proper cause for an anti terrorist action (Score:1)
If ever there was a good reason to use seal team 6 (or whatever the number), here is a very good one - quietly descending upon the place and silently removing every ruzzian terrorist from the vicinity of the nuclear power plant with extreme prejudice.
Re: (Score:2)
If ever there was a good reason to use seal team 6 (or whatever the number), here is a very good one - quietly descending upon the place and silently removing every ruzzian terrorist from the vicinity of the nuclear power plant with extreme prejudice.
Forgetting the escalation risks of a western nation engaging Russian troops directly. There's a big difference between attacking a house filled with a few terrorists in the middle of the night and attacking a Nuclear power plant filled with dozens (hundreds?) of traine.... err, ok, well arme....., hmm, ok deployed soldiers who are actively fighting and expecting to be attacked though all matter of means including special forces.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Clearly, you are no military strategist. The size of the plant, its distance from friendly lines and the fact that airspace is actively contested (as opposed to passively monitored) in the east all make this a very difficult mission to plan and execute in any relevant timeframe, I think. Yeah, USSOC has some top-drawer capabilities but the impossible does take longer.
Oh, and don't forget the tiny fact that you're asking to insert NATO combat troops, under orders, into this conflict. The Bulletin of the Atom
Re: (Score:2)
I am pointing out that the reason Russian troops and equipment are stationed where they are is to keep them far enough away from the nuclear plant to avoid an accident but close enough that they can't be safely counter-attacked while the plant is running. That's why the workers are kept hostage
Re: (Score:1)
they have plenty of weapons there, so they are armed and they are probably barricaded and guarding the place and they have heavy weapons, tanks, howitzers, rocket launchers and such.
However because of that they are probably also feeling fairly comfortable there and wouldn't be ready for a quick nerve gas attack for example, the question is how to deliver it, that is when you need people with training in special tactics and weapons.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
so is an illegal war, so is nuclear blackmail. Quick acting chemical attack is what is needed in this case - it would not damage any structures in the power plant and would take everyone out in moments.
Re: (Score:2)
so is an illegal war, so is nuclear blackmail. Quick acting chemical attack is what is needed in this case - it would not damage any structures in the power plant and would take everyone out in moments.
Including the Ukrainian technicians?
Re: (Score:1)
If they can be notified, that would be ideal. The other choice is to wait until the ruzzian terrorists cause a meltdown and the nuclear fallout destroys thousands of square kilometers of livable land, possibly contaminating more than just Ukraine but also many other countries. If such a disaster happens, there could be a strike on ruzzian territories by NATO members, this could lead to further escalation up to and including nuclear strikes. Those are the options. Also those technicians are being torture
Chernobyl (Score:2)
The story is scaring, because a nuclear plant is supposed to have the abiility to run isolated, producing at minimum to cool itself. Why the loss of power lines would be dangerous?
They are even supposed to perform periodic isolation tests. This is during such a check that the Chernobyl accident happened. Not that the situation is especially dangerous, the problem was poor worker training, a failed design and a lack of documentation about it.
Re: (Score:3)
Fukashima is instructive here. These plants all have large on-site generators (diesel or natural gas) as the 3rd layer of safety. Fukashima failed because their generators and switchyard were swamped by seawater.
My fear is that looting Russians are taking parts, diesel, and anything else they can unbolt, cut or pump from the plant. That plant is going to look like an old wood frame house after a 10-year termite infestation.
Re: (Score:2)
Fukashima is instructive here. These plants all have large on-site generators (diesel or natural gas) as the 3rd layer of safety. Fukashima failed because their generators and switchyard were swamped by seawater.
Those generators only have enough fuel for days of operation, not weeks. The idea is that you can ride out short outages, or shut down gracefully for longer ones. A controlled shutdown takes somewhere between hours and the better part of a day.
Putin is basically... (Score:2)
...out there yelling " Somebody try and stop me, you bunch of pansies!! "
--and nobody has the guts to take the necessary action to do so - so far.
Re:Some friends are worse than enemies (Score:5, Interesting)
The shelling they are accused of isn't on the plant, they shelled a target near the town and caused a fire which took out the power line quite incidentally.
The more I see poor reading comprehension making people disbelieve stories based on things which weren't actually said, the more dread I feel for the days to come...
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
"many sources" is code word for "I treat all shit said on the internet equally". Precisely no sources that have any credibility have suggested Russia would use a nuclear meltdown as a weapon.
All credible news agencies were reporting two things:
a) Russia *was* shelling the reactor when it was under Ukraine control not when it was under their own control.
b) Now that Russia controls it it is using reactor meltdown as a nuclear deterrent, which is self evident considering they turned the power plant into a weap
Re: (Score:2)
agreed, and it's a powder keg!
Re: Some friends are worse than enemies (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: Some friends are worse than enemies (Score:4, Informative)
One way you can tell that NATO is not involved is because Russia is still able to continue. Prior to the start of fighting in Ukraine, it was estimated that the Russian military could last a full six hours against the US. Now the estimate is six minutes. It's easy to tell that NATO is not involved. Does the Russian military still exist? That's all the proof necessary.
NATO is such a strongly defensive alliance that Poland wouldn't even send a bunch of rusty old Soviet era jets because they could be used in offensive operations.
Re: (Score:2)
No it's not that everybody is defending themselves. Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait. Russia is i
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Some friends are worse than enemies (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They aren't. A meltdown *is* possible and they are worried. Not just Ukraine, but the IAEA as well. There's a difference between a stupid suggestion that Russia will meltdown the plant on purpose, and what Ukrainians and everyone else is actually saying: A power cut risks a nuclear meltdown (it does, which is also why power was quickly restored), and Russia is using the possibility of meltdown as a deterrent since they've converted the plant to a large depot (which is very much a risk given what a sizable e
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
If power is lost the control rods are automatically lowered and the fission chain reaction is stopped.
Only the chain reaction is stopped not radioactive decay of fission products. Without active cooling the reactor is fucked.
Re: (Score:2)
Without commenting on the specifics of the situation being discussed, it IS possible to design a nuke plant that doesn't require active cooling. It's not even new technology.
Whether that particular plant was designed that way I don't know. I'd be willing to bet that "it requires active cooling", what with it having been designed by Russians, but it's certainly possible to design a nu
Re: (Score:2)
Without commenting on the specifics of the situation being discussed, it IS possible to design a nuke plant that doesn't require active cooling. It's not even new technology.
No such thing presently exists even in modern plants currently under construction. Reasonable designs have NTCs for the chain reaction and will go for some time without incident without any active controls yet there is always a buffer tank of some kind involved that eventually boils off if left unattended typically in less than a day. It takes years for a reactor to cool to the point after it is scramed to where it can no longer overheat without active measures.
Re: (Score:2)
Then why the Ukrainians are fearmongering about a possible meltdown?
Mere presence of ordinance onsite including tanks and mines in the same buildings as nuclear fuel storage and in close proximity to reactor buildings.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
But the fact that we can't figure out what type of irresponsible behavior they are engaging in with this round of shelling doesn't mean that it isn't irresponsible
Re: (Score:1)
Only Nazi Russian Trolls can believe what Nazi Russia says
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re:Some friends are worse than enemies (Score:5, Insightful)
Besides the fact they weren't shelling the plant directly but nearby areas with their characteristic inability to accurately direct their shells, what gives you any reason to believe the Russian military doesn't consider some of its troops expendable? This was standard fare during WW II under Stalin and the Soviet Union. Russian military doctrine has not advanced beyond Soviet military doctrine, they'd have to re-write the manuals...boring.
The Russian military doesn't give a flying rat's ass about human life, their own or their enemy's.
Where are the complaints about "dupe"? (Score:2)
As regards your [gtall's] substantive (but currently third) comment, it deserves the Insightful moderation, though I think you are quite aware that you are replying to trolls. (I actually suspect partners or a troll and his sock puppet.) Sometimes provocations can lead to good ideas, but I still think you should have changed the Subject. The more clever trolls (possibly paid pros?) can greatly influence and even color the discussions through BS Subjects, especially from the advantageous FP position.
As regar
Re: (Score:1)
Pay attention and you won't be so confused - we're talking about the Russian military, their actions now, and the way they behaved in WW2.
Since what they're doing now isn't even _in_ Russia, having been to Russia or not is irrelevant.
Re: (Score:1)
Exaggerated? Debatable but on the balance of probabilities, most likely not. "Greatly Exaggerated"? Almost certainly not - it's a matter of historical record.
What isn't debatable is that Russia currently give a rat's about how much damage they're doing to Ukraine - they're aiming for indiscriminate maximum damage. All because Putin's pride is hurt that Ukraine, having seen the direction Russia is heading, wants no part of it.
Re:Some friends are worse than enemies (Score:5, Insightful)
expect gobs of misinformation coming from all sides, but especially Ukraine and NATO who really want to control the narrative.
OK, Ivan. The idea that Russia doesn't "really want to control the narrative" is a fucking stupid one. Thanks for tipping your hand there, amateur troll.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
In case anyone is interested in who does the narrative management, not just in the US/Europe, but around the world, take a look at this recent article from the Stanford Internet Observatory:
https://stacks.stanford.edu/fi... [stanford.edu]
It makes it pretty clear who is trying to manipulate public opinion in many places, and it isn't Russia or China. For more historical background on propaganda and its evil twin, advertising, look into the life and times of Edward L. Bernays, the nephew of Sigmund Freud. The US invented mo
Re: (Score:2)
I don't really know if he's Russian or not. Probably not, frankly. But it's a good jab anyway at anyone who so blatantly strokes Russia. The idea that anyone involved in a war doesn't want to control the narrative is so obviously false that any thinking person immediately questions the motives of anyone who promotes it.
Re: Some friends are worse than enemies (Score:5, Insightful)
He did not say Russia did not want to control the narrative, he said that NATO and Ukraine REALLY wanted to control it. This is true.
It's true, and yet it doesn't mean anything, and also still doesn't differentiate them from Russia.
The propaganda is outrageous from the beginning. Remember Ghost of Kiev and snake island, et Al?
I remember that Ghost of Kiev was described as a myth while it was being reported. Snake Island seems to have mostly happened. Both sides' final public accounts of the incident are generally compatible.
Those are all crafted to get the west to choose a side so that the weapons manufacturers can sell weapons using YOUR TAXPAYER money.
If you're suggesting that the whole thing was orchestrated for the purpose of profit by puppet masters behind the scenes, I'm sympathetic to the idea but still require proof as much as the next guy. Otherwise, I'm not sure what we're supposed to do with a Russia engaging in empire-building activities except stop it. And if you're working with capitalism, then by definition every activity is going to involve money changing hands. If we weren't going to take the job seriously enough to do it by any means necessary, we shouldn't have been fucking around in Afghanistan. We could have saved more than enough money to, for example, pay for every student loan. I could write a whole comment about the problems with that idea (while still supporting loan forgiveness) but I'm not going to do it now — suffice to say that I don't support every American military adventure, or even most of them.
With that said, again, what do you do when Russia invades Ukraine? Just not spend the money to stop them? History suggests that's a very bad idea. Why do you think NATO was founded in the first place? When Russia describes it as an anti-Russia alliance, they're not wrong. But when they invade their neighbors and massacre them with specious and ever-shifting excuses, they conclusively justify that alliance.
Re: (Score:2)
If Russia invades Ukraine you let them do it.
Well, I knew you were a piece of shit already, but I guess confirmation of biases is always comforting.
We should have sanctioned Russia (and China) for decades and Europe should not have bought their energy and then Russia would not have had the money to invade anywhere.
So to be clear, because we created this monster, we should let it rampage? You're a double piece of shit.
Re: Some friends are worse than enemies (Score:2)
So what are you proposing? You have shared what you are against, so what are you for? What outcome do you seek?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Also, we are not fighting the Russians, we are helping Ukraine fight the Russians. Nonetheless, Russia is the enemy of the entire civilized world. We crushed the Soviets once without having to fight them directly, and we are going to do it again.
Re: (Score:2)
We will crush the Soviets again? What decade are you typing from?
Re: (Score:2)
We will crush the Soviets again? What decade are you typing from?
Ronald Reagan says hi. Putin wants the glory of the Soviet Union (LOL) back. We are giving him the Soviet economy back, but he will not get Eastern Europe this time. Now just a matter of waiting for them to collapse. We have lots of time.
Re: Some friends are worse than enemies (Score:2)
We shouldn't buy their energy, but we shouldn't let Russia and China take over the world either. Unfortunately the US has lost a lot of its power to counter that.
Re: (Score:1)
Bullshit. He is a literal fucking ACTOR. He is controlled by oligarchs. He is a fucking figurehead.
Well, he was an actor - before. Then he was the President of Ukraine by a massive popular vote. And yes, the oligarchs did have way too much sway in Ukraine prior to the war, but other than wild handwaving and "that's how Eastern Europe largely works" comments by people who are trying too hard, there's no convincing evidence that Zelensky's adminstration or he was a front.
Before the war you did not even know who was the leader of Ukraine, because you did not even think about Ukraine at all. Now all of the sudden you are willing to fight the Russians over it? What the fuck?
Speak for yourself bozo, I was well aware of who the Ukrainian president was and the trend towards the West and away from Russian infl
Re: (Score:2)
Ukraine is a democracy in name only. It is corrupt and run by oligarchs.
Then it's a perfect match for the USA, which has literally always been an oligarchy, whatever it says on the box.
You are right: Russia is the enemy of the civilized world. Always has been. Same with China. SO WHY DOES EUROPE KEEP BUYING THEIR ENERGY?
Same reason the world threw money at China. Capitalism. Capital controls the means of production, which is what capitalism means — nothing more or less. There are lots of kinds of Capitalism, but without adequate controls the dominant type is always "crony".
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Odysee is a far right Nazi website
Re:History channel is full of nazi stuff (Score:1)
The history channel if full of Hitler/nazis 247 constantly.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
I wonder how pro-Russian propagandists get paid. By the hour. By the click? By the number of times misinformation is repeated? It has to be a pretty depressing job as the propaganda isn't even any good.
I often wonder about this too. The problem with the world right now is the internet and the problem with the internet is you can't tell what's real and what is not. Under those terms, at best, the internet is useless as an information medium. At worst, it does what it is doing now: polarizing people, spreading lies and half-truths through unknown entities, real or fake, paid or enticed through zealotry, individual, corporation, or state, all hidden under the mask of anonymity. It is run much the same as
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Use common sense, Be critic (Score:5, Interesting)
Why Russia would shell its own positions?
Incompetence, which they have broadly demonstrated throughout this conflict.
However, the argument is not in fact that they have shelled their own position, it was that they shelled near their own position. Maybe you should understand the argument before attacking it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Use common sense, Be critic (Score:4, Interesting)
The closest territory controlled by Ukraine is like 10 km away, across the Dnieper river.
That's quite some distance, and yet, closer than you're managing to get to the point.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm as real as anyone you're ever going to see, and far more than most.
If you have an objection, make it. If you have a point to raise, do so. Otherwise you're just wasting space and time, even if both or either of them are infinite.
Re: (Score:1)
Kotin says rockets have landed only 20 metres from the spent fuel containers
Look at the Russian's positions, look at where the rockets have landed.
Re: (Score:2)
Look at how they're holding the area and can set off whatever they want
Look at how many of their people don't even believe they're at war and tell me again who's using more deceptive propaganda
I'm not for a second suggesting anyone in this conflict isn't utilizing propaganda. That would be dumb. That's my fucking point.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re:Use common sense, Be critic (Score:5, Insightful)
Why Russia would shell its own positions?
The explanation given in the article is really unbelievable and the sources are just opinions.
a) Because when you're using old poorly maintained artillery to fire old poorly maintained shells they sometimes misfire a hit not far from where you shot them.
b) As a false flag attack. Because the Ukrainians can safely hit stuff close to the plant if you then shell some stuff around the plant the Ukrainians not only need to confirm it wasn't their shells that did it, but they might have to stop firing altogether to ensure they don't get blamed.
c) As a pretext. If you're talking about the shelling of power lines the explanation makes sense. Russia has been targeting civilians and stealing stuff all along. Just like the stole the grain they also want to steal the power and "safety measures to avoid a meltdown" is a better excuse than simple theft.
Remember snake island where all of the Ukrainian soldiers die heroically? Weeks
later they were alive and returned to Ukraine.
I don't understand why pro-Russia trolls think that's an example of Ukrainian disinformation.
The Ukrainian soldiers stood up to the Russian warship (which "mysteriously" caught fire and sank months later), there was a battle and then no one ever heard anything more. Why wouldn't Ukrainians assume they'd been killed and not captured?
I'll admit I was surprised the Russian's traded them back (they were undeniably heroic), but given how often I see it pop up I assume the Russians did it because they thought they could spin it as "Ukrainian disinformation" and they're still pushing that narrative through their outlets.
What about Bucha? Why no one is still talking about it?
Because Russian troops going around raping and murdering and committing horrific crimes is sadly old news.
I mean just a few days ago the Russian government was literally bragging about how they were giving stolen Ukrainian children to Russian families [newsweek.com] (it's unclear whether they orphaned them first or not).
Re: (Score:2)
A) It must be VERY poorly maintained artillery and shells because the nearest Ukrainian controlled territory is like 7 miles away, across the Dnieper river.
It doesn't matter what you shoot at, a misfired shell might only go a few meters.
B) Too many false flag accusations. It's starting to get boring. And the Ukrainians don't need to confirm anything. They can just say "it wasn't us" and the western media will report it as a fact. The Ukrainians aren't afraid to get blamed because they know they will not be blamed. And they don't care about the non-western media. It's not China they are getting support from.
Well Russia carries out a lot of false flag attacks. And one of the reasons you keep hearing about them is they plan a false flag attack, western intelligence finds out and then they publicize it, and this often discourages the attack.
But the thing with false flag attacks is they're an effective tactic if you control your media ecosystem as extensively as the Russian's do. They can ensure the attacks are reported as intended in
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Remember snake island where all of the Ukrainian soldiers die heroically? Weeks later they were alive and returned to Ukraine.
And the Moskva is now on the bottom of the Black Sea, so it is all good.
What about Bucha? Why no one is still talking about it?
We'll talk about it again when the war crimes indictments start.
Re: (Score:2)
Why Russia would shell its own positions?
Why did Soviet Union position NKVD (State Security) troops with heavy machine guns behind frontline soldiers during World War 2? To ensure those frontline troops did not "retreat by accident" during the heat of battle.