Offsite Power Supply Destroyed. What Happens Next at Ukraine's Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Plant (france24.com) 124
"A vital offsite electricity supply to the Zaporizhzhia nuclear plant has been destroyed by shelling," the Guardian reported Friday, "and there is little likelihood a reliable supply will be re-established, the United Nations' nuclear watchdog chief has said."
Rafael Grossi, the director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), said shelling had destroyed the switchyard of a nearby thermal power plant. The plant has supplied power to the nuclear facility each time its normal supply lines had been cut over the past three weeks.
The thermal plant was also supplying the surrounding area, which was plunged into darkness. Local Ukrainian officials said work was under way to restore the connection, which has been cut multiple times this week....
When the thermal supply has been cut the plant has relied on its only remaining operating reactor for the power needed for cooling and other safety functions. This method is designed to provide power only for a few hours at a time. Diesel generators are used as a last resort. The constant destruction of thermal power supply has led Ukraine to consider shutting down the remaining operating reactor, said Grossi. Ukraine "no longer [has] confidence in the restoration of offsite power", he said.
Grossi said that if Ukraine decided not to restore the offsite supply the entire power plant would be reliant on emergency diesel generators to ensure supplies for the nuclear safety and security functions.
"As a consequence, the operator would not be able to restart the reactors unless offsite power was reliably re-established," he said.
NPR provides some context: Normally, the plant holds a 10-day reserve of diesel fuel, the agency says, and currently has approximately 2,250 tonnes of fuel available. If that fuel is depleted, or the generators are damaged in further fighting, it could trigger a meltdown.
But Steven Nesbit, a nuclear engineer and member of the American Nuclear Society's rapid response taskforce, which is tracking the current crisis, says that doesn't necessarily mean there would be a Chernobyl-like catastrophe. The meltdown at Chernobyl was due to a unique mix of design flaws and operator error that would be essentially impossible to replicate at Zaporizhzhia. And unlike the Fukushima nuclear disaster in 2011, some of the reactors at Zaporizhzhia have already been shut down for a while, allowing the nuclear fuel to cool somewhat, Nesbit says. Even in the worst case scenario, the reactors at Zaporizhzhia are a modern design surrounded by a heavy "containment" building, Nesbit says. "It's reinforced concrete, typically about three to four feet of that; it's designed to withstand very high internal pressures." That could allow it to hold in any radioactive material.
But the world's nuclear agency doesn't want to test any of this.
Meanwhile, the French international news agency AFP reports on what's been happening at the plant since it was captured by Russian troops in March: Russian forces controlling Ukraine's Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant have killed two staff at the facility and detained and abused dozens of others, the head of Ukraine's nuclear energy agency told AFP on Friday.
"We do not know where about ten people are now," Petro Kotin said. "They were taken (by the Russians) and after that we have no information about their whereabouts," Kotin said, adding about 200 people had been detained. He described the current situation at the plant as "very difficult," citing "torture" of staff and "beatings" of personnel. "The Russians look for pro-Ukrainian people and persecute them. People are psychologically broken," he said in an interview with AFP reporters in his office in Kyiv... "Two people on the territory of the plant were wounded during shelling — a woman and a man — on separate occasions," Kotin, clad in a military-style jacket, said.
"But people understand that the nuclear safety of the plant depends on them, so the employees return to Energodar and continue working at the facility," he added.
The thermal plant was also supplying the surrounding area, which was plunged into darkness. Local Ukrainian officials said work was under way to restore the connection, which has been cut multiple times this week....
When the thermal supply has been cut the plant has relied on its only remaining operating reactor for the power needed for cooling and other safety functions. This method is designed to provide power only for a few hours at a time. Diesel generators are used as a last resort. The constant destruction of thermal power supply has led Ukraine to consider shutting down the remaining operating reactor, said Grossi. Ukraine "no longer [has] confidence in the restoration of offsite power", he said.
Grossi said that if Ukraine decided not to restore the offsite supply the entire power plant would be reliant on emergency diesel generators to ensure supplies for the nuclear safety and security functions.
"As a consequence, the operator would not be able to restart the reactors unless offsite power was reliably re-established," he said.
NPR provides some context: Normally, the plant holds a 10-day reserve of diesel fuel, the agency says, and currently has approximately 2,250 tonnes of fuel available. If that fuel is depleted, or the generators are damaged in further fighting, it could trigger a meltdown.
But Steven Nesbit, a nuclear engineer and member of the American Nuclear Society's rapid response taskforce, which is tracking the current crisis, says that doesn't necessarily mean there would be a Chernobyl-like catastrophe. The meltdown at Chernobyl was due to a unique mix of design flaws and operator error that would be essentially impossible to replicate at Zaporizhzhia. And unlike the Fukushima nuclear disaster in 2011, some of the reactors at Zaporizhzhia have already been shut down for a while, allowing the nuclear fuel to cool somewhat, Nesbit says. Even in the worst case scenario, the reactors at Zaporizhzhia are a modern design surrounded by a heavy "containment" building, Nesbit says. "It's reinforced concrete, typically about three to four feet of that; it's designed to withstand very high internal pressures." That could allow it to hold in any radioactive material.
But the world's nuclear agency doesn't want to test any of this.
Meanwhile, the French international news agency AFP reports on what's been happening at the plant since it was captured by Russian troops in March: Russian forces controlling Ukraine's Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant have killed two staff at the facility and detained and abused dozens of others, the head of Ukraine's nuclear energy agency told AFP on Friday.
"We do not know where about ten people are now," Petro Kotin said. "They were taken (by the Russians) and after that we have no information about their whereabouts," Kotin said, adding about 200 people had been detained. He described the current situation at the plant as "very difficult," citing "torture" of staff and "beatings" of personnel. "The Russians look for pro-Ukrainian people and persecute them. People are psychologically broken," he said in an interview with AFP reporters in his office in Kyiv... "Two people on the territory of the plant were wounded during shelling — a woman and a man — on separate occasions," Kotin, clad in a military-style jacket, said.
"But people understand that the nuclear safety of the plant depends on them, so the employees return to Energodar and continue working at the facility," he added.
What is Happens? (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Of course when it is clear that the Russians are not only going to lose the war but lose the Crimean peninsula as well they will go scorched earth.
I suspect that this will happen long after it is clear that the Russians will lose the war and Crimea, for the simple reason that they will be unable to acknowledge their impending loss.
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed, "What's Happens" !
Came here to post the same, what's a retarded title! :)
Re: (Score:3)
Russians have been in control of the plant for a while now, right?
Anyone want to guess if the diesel fuel for the backup generators has been stolen or not? Forcing the plant to use diesel power would be a very cynical way of finding that out.
Re: (Score:2)
Freeze the Ruskies out (Score:1)
So basically a non-story (Score:2, Informative)
Basically this is a whole story about if a power plant in a war zone may have to shut down or not.
There's zero danger of and kind of radiation leak, so it really does not seem like it's that much of a story, even in the context of the larger war.
I will say I greatly admire the dedication of the workers at the plant who are still coming in despite it being occupied and them being mistreated horribly. It would probably be better for them if the plant is fully shut down, though not good for the surrounding re
Re: (Score:1)
Basically this is a whole story about if a power plant in a war zone may have to shut down or not.
There's zero danger of and kind of radiation leak, so it really does not seem like it's that much of a story, even in the context of the larger war.
You can't just turn off a power plant. It takes years for reactors to cool to the point where they no longer require active cooling (e.g. power) to avert a meltdown.
I will say I greatly admire the dedication of the workers at the plant who are still coming in despite it being occupied and them being mistreated horribly. It would probably be better for them if the plant is fully shut down, though not good for the surrounding region...
Two employees of the plant have been murdered by Russians.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes but as the article noted, even if for some reason they couldn't power the cooling the walls are designed to be thick enough to hold the pressure. And very probably they can just keep cooling it via generators. There's zero danger of any "meltdown" (it's not that kind of reactor) or nuclear release.
Without active cooling meltdown is guaranteed. What this actually means in terms of radioactive contamination I personally wouldn't want to stick around to find out.
I would agree with the premise the risk is presently low yet not zero.
If you are saying it's more of a story because some people were killed, were you aware that lots of people on both sides are dying all over? It is a war you know.
The voice in your head making shit up is YOUR problem. I'm not going to answer for something I never said.
Re: (Score:2)
The voice in your head making shit up is YOUR problem. I'm not going to answer for something I never said.
That is an eloquent response to someone putting words in your mouth! I may borrow that.
Re: (Score:2)
And very probably they can just keep cooling it via generators.
The diesel generators have 10 days of fuel. They are meant to be an *extremely* short term solutions while the grid supply is quickly restored. The current status of the plant is that it is running in "island mode" -- supplying its own cooling power. However the plant isn't designed to operate at such low output *indefinitely*, and keeping it within its safe operating envelope is extremely stressful on the operators -- in addition to being tortured and killed by the operators.
So while the chance of meltd
Re: (Score:2)
It takes years for reactors to cool to the point where they no longer require active cooling
This is not correct. It depends on reactor design and power history (the condition of the fuel, amount of time and power level it had been running,) prior to shutdown, but reaching a core temperature where no coolant circulation is required is at most a few weeks. Often it is considerably less.
Re: (Score:2)
but reaching a core temperature where no coolant circulation is required is at most a few weeks. That is wrong.
Often it is considerably less.
And this is so wrong it is just bullshit.
Depending on the amount of fuel spent: it is years!! Or why the funk do you think spent fuel rods are stored on site in water pools? Ah, just for fun ato see the blue glowing ...
Re: (Score:2)
There is a difference between sitting in a small pool of water utilizing natural convection, and active cooling. "Modern" reactors can achieve cold shutdown within 2-3 days, at which point backup power is not critical.
You wouldn't want to leave a spent rod sitting in open air, but a reactor that's been off for a while and depressurized won't just spontaneously melt. Such a design would never be used by anyone, even the USSR.
Re: (Score:2)
Modern" reactors can achieve cold shutdown within 2-3 days, at which point backup power is not critical. No one is operating such a reactor.
You wouldn't want to leave a spent rod sitting in open air, but a reactor that's been off for a while and depressurized won't just spontaneously melt. Such a design would never be used by anyone, even the USSR. Yes it would. Hint: TMI, Fukushima and various other places. Fukushima melted WEEKs after the power failure.
Re: (Score:2)
it is years!!
No, sorry, it isn't, no matter how many exclamation points you employ. A reactor running at full power can be stopped, cooled, refueled and restarted in 30 days. With active cooling it takes less than 48 hours to get below 1% operating temperature and a couple weeks to get to 0.1%. Soon after you can stop all active circulation and replace the fuel rods.
If active cooling were somehow necessary for "years" you couldn't perform that operation in an economically viable time.
In a full blackout even 0.1%
Re: (Score:2)
. A reactor running at full power can be stopped, cooled, refueled and restarted in 30 days.
Yes. And what hs that to do with needing cooling for several years for the waste?
Obviously you have no clue about what you are taking.
If active cooling were somehow necessary for "years" you couldn't perform that operation in an economically viable time.
Perhaps you could check how refueling works, facepalm. Obviously the "spent fuel" gets removed. And were do they put it? Up to you to figure, dumbass.
Re: (Score:2)
This is not correct. It depends on reactor design and power history (the condition of the fuel, amount of time and power level it had been running,) prior to shutdown, but reaching a core temperature where no coolant circulation is required is at most a few weeks.
No it isn't.
Re: (Score:2)
Zero risk of a nuclear disaster? They are shelling the area, and aren't renowned for their incredible accuracy. They are getting desperate too, as the war is going badly for them.
Remember it's not just the reactors, it's the waste storage. Spent fuel pools.
Re: (Score:1)
Zero risk of a nuclear disaster? They are shelling the area, and aren't renowned for their incredible accuracy.
Absolutely nothing major has been even damaged, and if you actually read the story you'd realize the containment walls are way too thick to be affected by shelling.
Remember it's not just the reactors, it's the waste storage. Spent fuel pools.
Shelling is designed to mostly throw out fragments to hurt people, but they dint really do much to structures, much less thick concrete or pools of water or e
Re: (Score:2)
The containment domes, if properly designed, are designed to take the full impact of a fully loaded airliner purposefully crashed into them at full speed. Without damage. Shelling isn't a consideration.
The main problem with a nuclear reactor isn't the strength of the containment dome, it's the fact that all the problems with nuclear power stem from human decisions.
When "properly run and managed" (no
Re: (Score:2)
Citation needed, Soviet era containment buildings were done on the cheap due to lack of resources and cost.
Re:So basically a non-story (Score:5, Interesting)
Only if you are clueless. Nuclear reactors need cooling power for several weeks after shut down. The story, without saying so clearly, is about that energy likely not being available. And then these reactors will have core a melt-down, potentially all six of them. And when that happens, the plant turns into an exceptionally expensive clean-up job in the best case, and a real disaster in the worst case namely if one or several of the containments do not hold. As a second danger, there very likely is also spent fuel stored there that needs cooling for years or it will catch fire. We can only hope that fuel is inside the containment, because burning nuclear waste is about the most dangerous thing known to man. Remember what effort the Japanese went to to keep their fuel from going up in flames in Fukushima. If it had, they may well have lost most of Japan for a long, long time. And they were doing this under much easier conditions with no war going on.
Re: (Score:2)
A little knowledge is a dangerous thing, and I think that saying applies to many layman's knowledge of nuclear plants. The basic sketch is presented to us as a core with control rods. The implication is that you can simply shut the reactor down by re-inserting all the rods.
I myself thought this until not too long ago. Turns out there are more details as you mentioned--lower grade heat is produced for a while even when the rods are fully inserted, and spent fuel still produces significant heat.
Dissipati
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, a little knowledge is often dangerous, especially if the people having it do not know that their knowledge is incomplete. What I find most telling for nuclear is that those most aggressively for it usually know the absolute least about it and are often incapable of accepting that there is a lot more to know before you can arrive at an informed opinion.
History seems to show that if it's possible, it'll happen to a nuke plant.
Pretty much. It does happen to all other forms of power-station as well, but with nuclear, the damage is typically excessive. The insane thing with nucle
Re: (Score:2)
Before I forget: Kudos for being willing to learn and to accept your previous knowledge was incomplete.
Re: (Score:2)
I will say I greatly admire the dedication of the workers at the plant who are still coming in despite it being occupied and them being mistreated horribly.
Yes, that really seems to be the case in every nuclear disaster we've had. Nuclear engineers seem to be willing to lay down their lives at risk of horrific, agonising deaths from radiation exposure in order to try to stop the worst from happening. Apparently, at the Fukushima disaster, the engineers defied orders from senior management to leave the plant, choosing instead to risk their lives to minimise the impact. These are the true heroes.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
It is a big deal. Even if a plant is shut down, you still need a reliable outside source of power to keep fuel in the reactor and spent fuel pool cool via pumps and heat exchangers. Turn off that cooling and the decay heat from the fuel assemblies is still hot enough to boil water. Boil off enough water and you expose the fuel to air. And then you really start to have problems.
Emergency diesel generators (roughly the size and horsepower of locomotive engines - which some are, but modified for stationary
Let It Melt. (Score:2)
The money made off of movies and video games from another nuclear disaster will be enough to build a new power plant somewhere else.
You folks need to look at the glass half full not half empty.
Wishing for Easterly Winds (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If there is a problem, I hope it looms over Russia.
I assume you mean Westerly winds, i.e. winds out of the west blowing toward the east?
They've (we've all) already got a problem. The occupying troops already "dug in" in the Red Forest (where most of the high-level radioactives settled out, turning the pine forest red), throwing the crud back up into the air.
Although I suppose a new meltdown or six could make things a whole lot worse.
china syndrome or Chernobyl 2.0! (Score:2)
china syndrome or Chernobyl 2.0!
Re: Russia is losing (Score:2)
Well, considering a few things:
1) Putin has been siphoning money from the Russian economy to pay off his cronies by the billions (USD) for decades
2) Suburban Moscow apartments are shit
3) 100 rubles isn't even a dollar
4) If you're Russian, you're so poor and destitute that you would gladly rent out your anus for a slice of bread
I'd say yeah, it's not beyond the realm of possibility.
Re: (Score:3)
2) Suburban Moscow apartments are shit
The average Moscow apartment isn't great but better than elsewhere in Russia.
3) 100 rubles isn't even a dollar
100 rubles is $1.63 USD.
4) If you're Russian, you're so poor and destitute
Russia's per capita GDP is three times that of pre-war Ukraine and about the same as Bulgaria, an EU member.
Re: Russia is losing (Score:4, Insightful)
Per capita GDP is a particularly silly thing to site to prove that the common citizen of a kleptocracy is well-off.
That's like saying, Russia represents less than 2% of the population, but 1/3 of all super yachts in the world are owned by Russians, your typical Russian must be *rich*.
Re: (Score:2)
That's like saying, Russia represents less than 2% of the population, but 1/3 of all super yachts in the world are owned by Russians, your typical Russian must be *rich*.
Well, they WERE owned by Russians. So now it's like saying that the Russian people have been impoverished by the western powers' seizure of the Russian super yachts.
Re: (Score:2)
GDP isn't a good measure of how wealthy a country is. In Russia's case there are some very rich oligarchs, but most people are not part of that group.
Re: (Score:2)
Russia's per capita GDP is three times that of pre-war Ukraine and about the same as Bulgaria, an EU member.
Bulgaria also has the lowest per capita GDP in the EU.
Re: (Score:2)
You can't exchange in any quantity at that rate. More like one tenth that in real life, so well below a dollar.
Re: (Score:2)
The average Moscow apartment isn't great but better than elsewhere in Russia.
Kinda like being the envy of the town because your Trabant is the luxury model that includes a fuel gauge.
100 rubles is $1.63 USD.
Officially yes, but in practice not even close.
Re:Russia is losing (Score:5, Informative)
As Tonto said... (Score:2)
Let's not complain about Putin being a "strongman" while we support so many just like him,
As Tonto said (after the Lone Ranger remarked that they were in trouble because they were surrounded by hostile Indians): "Who you calling 'we', white man?"
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
It is interesting though at a secondary level at how many people on the "right" seem to interested in a narrative where Russia is somehow winning.
This is an interesting part of the US's current politics. It's almost as if some of the most senior GOP politicians and their paymasters are beholden to Russia.
This post will probably be modded to hell by trolls with mod points, but I really think people need to pay attention to the support for Russia that we have seen.
Re: (Score:2)
It is interesting though at a secondary level at how many people on the "right" seem to interested in a narrative where Russia is somehow winning
Define winning. I'm as left as they come, and while I happy agree the entire campaign has been an utter failure for Russia in every way but one, that one success is often key when talking about the outcome of a war: Look at a map of currently occupied territory. https://twitter.com/War_Mapper... [twitter.com] there's a lot of red and purple on a map which should be all yellow.
I'll happily celebrate Russia's loss when they cease having soldiers on Ukraine soil, measured pre-invasion obviously. Until then they are winning
Re: (Score:3)
How many gains has Ukraine made in the last 48 hours?
There's literal video of Ukrainian soldiers in recognizable parts of Izyum, Kupiansk, Balaklya and other cities. A bit hard to fake. And even Russia has itself officially said they are pulling troops back from Kharkiv . Yes, controlling infrastructure can be helpful. No, controlling a nuclear power plant doesn't mean you are winning the war, and that's especially the case when they are losing ground almost everywhere else.
Re: Russia is losing (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
With Biden sending them billions of printed dollars and better military equipment than he gave the Taliban, Ukraine is sure to win.
That Biden guy never gives up. Soon he'll be demanding Russia pay him tribute for all the biolabs they destroyed.
Actually that deal with the Taliban for a US retreat from Afghanistan was negotiated by Trump, so it must have been the most amazing deal in the history of deals.
Re: Russia is losing (Score:5, Insightful)
Ukrainian soldiers in recognizable parts of Izyum, Kupiansk
Kupiansk was a big logistics base, and Izyum was a forward staging area for the northern pincer of a potential Russian offensive to encircle Donbas. The loss of these cities is very significant.
Ukraine talked for many weeks about retaking Kherson in the south. That was a ruse, with the real offensive planned for Kharkiv to the north, and the Russians apparently fell for it, shifting troops and supplies to the Kherson region and thinning their forces in the north. Ukraine benefits from interior lines of communication and can shift resources between the two fronts much faster than Russia can.
The risk for Ukraine is that they may outrun their logistics and artillery. That they took Kupiansk, which is well beyond the artillery range of their starting point, indicates they are managing logistics and fire support well, likely with plenty of preparation and western advice. As they say in the military, PPPPPPP*.
PPPPPPP = Proper Prior Planning Prevents Piss Poor Performance
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Ukrainian soldiers in recognizable parts of Izyum, Kupiansk
Kupiansk was a big logistics base, and Izyum was a forward staging area for the northern pincer of a potential Russian offensive to encircle Donbas. The loss of these cities is very significant.
Ukraine talked for many weeks about retaking Kherson in the south. That was a ruse, with the real offensive planned for Kharkiv to the north, and the Russians apparently fell for it, shifting troops and supplies to the Kherson region and thinning their forces in the north. Ukraine benefits from interior lines of communication and can shift resources between the two fronts much faster than Russia can.
The risk for Ukraine is that they may outrun their logistics and artillery. That they took Kupiansk, which is well beyond the artillery range of their starting point, indicates they are managing logistics and fire support well, likely with plenty of preparation and western advice. As they say in the military, PPPPPPP*.
PPPPPPP = Proper Prior Planning Prevents Piss Poor Performance
At the start of the counter-offensive I thought it might actually be a ruse with Kharkiv being the real target, but I don't think that was actually the case.
Kherson actually makes a lot of sense for the Ukrainians to target, the river creates major logistical headaches for the Russians allows the Ukrainians to strand a lot of Russian equipment and personnel on the wrong side if they break through. Not to mention they want to take Zaporizhzhia back before the Russians cause a meltdown.
But even while the main
Re: (Score:2)
Your use of the word ruse is particularly apt, because it wasn't a feint -- it was a meaningful attack that has delivered meaningful gains for Ukraine. It just wasn't the *most* meaningful attack, which came as you say in the north.
Re: (Score:2)
"How many gains has Ukraine made in the last 48 hours? How do you know? Are you part of the Ukrainian military command? No you are not."
Elon has the logs of every drone, bombing a Russian tank and every rocket launched and its destination.
We're good, thanks for asking.
Re: (Score:1)
Orwell wrote those books to remind us of the dangers of believing the propaganda of autocrats who tried to convince us that the world is not as it appears before our eyes. I have no doubt that were he alive today and standing in front of you, he'd curl his lip in disdain, grab one of the guns he used in the Spanish civil war, and shoot you in the bollocks. And I, along with many others, would cheer, you contemptible little shit.
Re: (Score:1)
I really, really wanna know what that silvergun-guy did to live rent-free between your ears.
Re: (Score:2)
That's what I meant. This troll here created a dozen or so sockpuppet accounts that have some kind of variant of that "rsilvergun" name, with the intention to impersonate and/or slander.
Ukraine scorecard (Score:5, Interesting)
Remember everyone: the official story is that Russia is losing the war. Do not notice that they have captured and control the largest nuclear power plant in Europe and key energy production areas of Ukraine and control energy supplies for most of Europe. The brave Ukrainians are on the counterattack and with the help of the Ghost of Kyiv (and billions in US taxpayer money) they will emerge victorious. Get those Ukraine flags on your twitter bios everyone! This is war and we have always been at war with Eastasia.
Here's a scorecard, in case anyone is keeping track. [ukrinform.net]
The Critical Threats [criticalthreats.org] website has the best ongoing tactical description of the Ukraine war.
For those who haven't been following the war in detail (I have), It's taken about this long (until Sept 1st) for the donated aid and arms to reach Ukraine, and for the Ukraine army to get trained on the various weapons systems. To be fair, the weapons systems come from various countries and probably have wildly different use cases, with instruction manuals printed in various languages. Some of the weapons systems are also really big, and it took some time to ship them from, for example, France.
Roughly Sept 1st Ukraine started their counteroffensive, and they stated explicitly that they would not be telling anyone their tactical goals or strategic moves - and they've largely adhered to this - with the result that the world press doesn't really know what they're up to and the best we can get is tactical analysis after-the-fact.
Despite this, Ukraine has also explicitly stated that their goal is *not* to recapture territory, but to attack the GLOC ("ground lines of communication") of the Russian army, and according to the tactical analysis they are a) doing exactly that, and b) doing it quite successfully. Attacking the opposing army is a tough proposition, but attacking the food, supplies, and communications lines multiplies your apparent force and allows for an easier win.
From the Critical Threats website, scroll down to the 3rd map and note that Ukraine has recaptured a strategically significant segment of the GLOCs, which essentially cuts off a fair bit of the Russian army all the way to Izyum: those Russian troops no longer have access to get more food, fuel, ammo, or orders.
Ukraine is taking their time while being methodical and smart with their resources.
Access to orders Re:Ukraine scorecard (Score:1)
those Russian troops no longer have access to get more food, fuel, ammo, or orders.
If only there was a way to securely communicate orders if you lose your "ground lines of communication."
Now, as for food, fuel, and ammo, yeah, cutting supply lines is a big win.
Re: (Score:2)
If only there was a way to securely communicate orders if you lose your "ground lines of communication."
Given the large number of high-ranking Russians killed, where the speculation is they had to move close to the front because of communications issues... it's not a given the Russians are capable of that.
Re: (Score:2)
If only there was a way to securely communicate orders if you lose your "ground lines of communication."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
The same contents from Critical threats can also be read at https://www.understandingwar.o... [understandingwar.org] in a static page format (not all kinds of images distractingly flying around).
Re: (Score:3)
Around Kharkiev, the Russians have been pushed back quickly, and Izyum is reported to have fallen into the hands of the Ukrainians already.
Re: (Score:2)
Worth mentioning that even Russian state TV is admitting there are problems [twitter.com]. Don't panic or Stalin will kill you!
Re: (Score:1)
Thus, the territorial map would resemble typical USA gerrymandering.
Re: (Score:2)
No website knows what the fuck is going on except the military and military intelligence.
We know.
Re: (Score:2)
When Russia is ultimately defeated and kicked out of ALL of Ukraine, including all of the eastern regions and Crimea, what will your excuse be?
And what will you say when Russia is forced to pay reparations for every last dollar worth of damage and theft, something it really can't afford, under penalty of continued sanctions until they do?
Re: (Score:2)
When Russia is ultimately defeated and kicked out of ALL of Ukraine, including all of the eastern regions and Crimea, what will your excuse be?
Didn't the poster predict the fall of Kyiv months ago?
Russian bots have to bot.
You're an even bigger moron than I thought (Score:1)
Do not notice that they have captured and control the largest nuclear power plant in Europe
So all you need to win a war is capture a nuclear power plant. Thanks for proving your stupidity with each post.
Re:Russia is losing (Score:5, Informative)
Remember everyone: the official story is that Russia is losing the war.
A) It's not a war. It's a "special military operation", remember?
B) Russia has lost the war. It lost as of Wednesday when Ukraine's counter-attack in the East got under way. Russian troops are fleeing anywhere Ukrainian troops come near, abandoning equipment and supplies left and right. The sheer number of pictures and videos coming from sources on the ground are undeniable. Even rusbots who were crowing for the past weeks about the "failed" offensive in Kherson are now either completely silent or weeping at the huge loss of territory [twitter.com] which thousands of Russians died for over the past six months being lost in the span of days.
The copium [yahoo.com] by the Russian MOD is truly pathetic. But then, that's the best they can come up with as thousands of Russian troops throw down their weapons and attempt to flee East, with many of them either being killed or captured.
In the end, the Russian military has shown itself to be incompetent beyond all comprehension as well as devoid of any meaningful professionalism. The terrors inflicted on the Ukrainian population will continue to come to light for years, though the stories of torture and mass rape are already well known. The great strategist has failed by any measure to accomplish a single goal other than that terror, and in turn has so weakened the Russian military that it will take, at a minimum, a decade to get back to the level it was prior to the onset of war. The sanctions in place will further degrade what's left of the Russian economy, inflicting ever-increasing pain on the failing economy. As others have pointed out, all the economic gains made over the past 3 decades in Russia have evaporated, and the country has fallen back to near 1980s level. Not a predicament one wants to be in when it's the 21st century.
Re: (Score:2)
B) Russia has lost the war. It lost as of Wednesday when Ukraine's counter-attack in the East got under way.
You seem to be confusing a battle with a war. The war is lost when Russia retreats and the Ukraine is happily it's own independent nation again with all of its land intact. I'm happy for the gains being made in this particular offensive and hope Ukrainian soldiers are teabagging the corpses of their aggressors, but to declare "Russia has lost the war" is dangerously premature.
I personally hope all I am reading and your post is true, but war is typified by one universal truth: There is no truth, only propaga
Re: (Score:2)
There is no truth, only propaganda and while the claim of many of the stories can't be verified the one key one which can is that Russia still currently occupies just shy of 20% of it's enemy's land.
Russia may have the land, but with the exception of Kherson and Donetsk they've devasated that land. It's not usable even to them. The cost to make things usable is beyond their capabilities so they've gained nothing. They're denuding the population through forced resettlement and conscription and as we've see
Re: Russia is losing (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
The reason, fuckface, that people are suddenly passionate about defending Ukraine, is that Russia invaded Ukraine, and those of us not mired in moral dogshit like you are capable of recognising that as a bad thing, and being outraged by it.
Re: (Score:2)
"Do not notice that they have captured and control the largest nuclear power plant in Europe "
There's no power going in and no going out, 'control' is something different.
"and key energy production areas of Ukraine and control energy supplies for most of Europe. "
There's no gas and oil coming in right now, the reservoirs are full, Russia burns-off gas for dozens of millions per day, because theirs are full too.
Re: (Score:3)
They captured the plant in March and have 500 troops there. That does *not* mean they are winning today (or the converse).
What you should be suspicious of is claims that they are shelling their own positions at the plant. That's obvious propaganda and NATO needs to stop that shit yesterday.
Pro-tip: everybody is lying; thinking caps required.
Re: (Score:2)
Putin and his army are thugs and invaders, and it is both right and necessary that they be stopped and contained. Otherwise, his false crusade of "de-Nazification" will never end. If you can't recognize that, then we can't take you seriously.