Repair Plan Underway to Restore Power at Ukrainian Nuclear Plant (go.com) 161
Repair Plan Underway to Restore Power at Ukrainian Nuclear Plant
The Associated Press reports:
Work has begun to repair the damaged power supply to Ukraine's Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant, the head of the U.N.'s nuclear watchdog said Saturday. The repairs are hoped to end a precarious four-week outage that saw it dependent on backup generators.
Russian and Ukrainian forces established special ceasefire zones for repairs to be safely carried out, said the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, Rafael Grossi... "Both sides engaged constructively with the IAEA to enable the complex repair plan to proceed," Grossi said in a statement...
The Zaporizhzhia plant, Europe's largest nuclear power station, has been operating on diesel back-up generators since Sept. 23 when its last remaining external power line was severed in attacks that Russia and Ukraine each blamed on the other. The plant is in an area under Russian control since early in Moscow's full-scale invasion of Ukraine and is not in service, but it needs reliable power to cool its six shutdown reactors and spent fuel, to avoid any catastrophic nuclear incidents.
Russian and Ukrainian forces established special ceasefire zones for repairs to be safely carried out, said the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, Rafael Grossi... "Both sides engaged constructively with the IAEA to enable the complex repair plan to proceed," Grossi said in a statement...
The Zaporizhzhia plant, Europe's largest nuclear power station, has been operating on diesel back-up generators since Sept. 23 when its last remaining external power line was severed in attacks that Russia and Ukraine each blamed on the other. The plant is in an area under Russian control since early in Moscow's full-scale invasion of Ukraine and is not in service, but it needs reliable power to cool its six shutdown reactors and spent fuel, to avoid any catastrophic nuclear incidents.
Curious (Score:1)
“That is a war that’s dying to be settled. I will get it settled before I even become president,”
-Donald Trump
https://www.nbcnews.com/politi... [nbcnews.com]
Are the problems of mankind man-made? (Score:2)
Why does the mainstream capitalist system keep producing such irrational real-world outcomes?
Re: Are the problems of mankind man-made? (Score:2)
What the fuck does economics have to do with people being dicks to each other. Nothing.
And being a dick is entirely rational if you reject the golden rule and go with what feels good. That's just evil. Not helping someone being attacked by a dick is also entirely rational, and evil, and not having fuck-all to do with capitalism either way.
Do you want a longer lesson on what evil looks like? Yes it's man-made, you moron.
Re: Are the problems of mankind man-made? (Score:2)
If prices are man-made and subject to dickery as you describe, why continue the myth that inflation is a sign of scarcity because prices are rational signals of real physical resource levels?
Re: (Score:2)
Greed, stupidity, arrogance. I mean there are demented fuckups that call for more nuclear even now.
Re:Are the problems of mankind man-made? (Score:5, Insightful)
It takes quite the contortionist to put any of the blame for this on Ukraine.
Russia invaded a sovereign country. This issue would not have occurred if that hadn't occurred.
Re:Are the problems of mankind man-made? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: Are the problems of mankind man-made? (Score:3, Informative)
This is a lie and contrary to hard evidence. The way of Moscow is to repeat such lies ad nauseum until everyone gives up.
Re: (Score:3)
No, Ukraine invaded the independent states of Donetsk and Luhansk, which after eight years of fighting and over 14,000 dead civilians requested assistance from Moscow. If Kosovo can declare its independence and request aid from another country than so can Donetsk and Luhansk.
No, Russia funded paramilitary terror groups and had them take over Donetsk and Luhansk by force. And after eight years of fighting, Moscow invaded to make it easier to provide weapons for their proxy army.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Iraq invaded Kuwait and was forced out of Kuwait a decade before America invaded Iraq. Everyone knew that the WMDs the West provided to Iraq had either been used, destroyed or rotted away in storage, and even people on the ground in Iraq looking for the supposed WMDs said there weren't any. Bush invaded because he wanted to, not because there was any sane reason to.
None of the 9/11 hijackers were Afghans. I don't believe Bin Laden had Afghan citizenship either, but I may be wrong. Bush could have justified
Re: (Score:2, Offtopic)
Re:Are the problems of mankind man-made? (Score:4)
Your memory isn't very good, the US invaded Iraq even though it knew for a fact that there were no WMD. Hussein's son-in-law had been in charge of the program to destroy any weapons, and defected to the US with all the documentation showing that the project was complete. The UN inspectors were receiving full cooperation and were reporting that they were over 95% complete in their inspections when Shrub instructed them to leave because he was going to bomb their compound with all the records they had accumulated (fortunately unknown to Washington most of them were stored off-site). Colin Powell has admitted that knew that he was lying in front of the UN with his presentation claiming weather balloon inflation trailers were "mobile bio-weapons labs". The project had the most transparent acronym ever, Operation Iraqi Liberation (O.I.L.)
Afghanistan and the Taliban had no part in the attacks on the US, and we knew it. Although Osama Binladdin was a national hero of the fight against the Soviets they still offered to hand him over FOUR TIMES if the US would just provide some minimal amount of evidence of his involvement in the attacks. Of course Shrub declared that the only evidence needed was that he was the Presidiot and he said so. On the other hand the White House was very much in a hurry to remove all the Saudi royals from the country after the attack and provided escorts to ensure that they were not intercepted by law enforcement on the way to their plane.
BTW, Iraq invaded Kuwait because 1) they were slant-drilling under the border and extracting Iraqi resources without paying for them and had been for years, and 2) US Ambassador April Glaspie told them that the US wouldn't interfere. The Emir was quite annoyed when Bush the Competent wouldn't hand over his palace until he had agreed to free his slaves.
Re: (Score:2)
When did the US attempt to invade Cuba again?
OHHHHH Maybe you shouldn't have drawn attention to that.
Re:Are the problems of mankind man-made? (Score:4, Interesting)
Ukraine wasn't threatening their neighbours. Ukraine hadn't invaded or attacked their neighbours. Ukraine hasn't fought a 10 year war with one of its neighbours. Ukraine hasn't fired the equivalent of Scud missiles at an innocent third country like Iraq did with Israel. Ukraine hasn't used WMD against ethnic groups of its own population. Unlike Iraq, Ukraine wasn't developing WMD and in fact, voluntarily gave them up. Ukraine was on a peaceful path towards EU membership. The US lead invasion of Iraq was in a response to all of this and stop them threatening and attacking everybody, and then left, which is the opposite of Putin's aim which is genocide and the extinguishing of a separate culture and sovereign nation. You simply can't compare the two.
Re: Are the problems of mankind man-made? (Score:3)
The history and genocide of the Circassians by the Russians is easy to research and verify- just one example of many. The simple fact is that anyone non-Russian is committing acts of aggression against Russia simply by not being Russian. Even more damning for Ukraine is that the Kievian Rus were the origin of the Rus, an inconvenient history that Putin's Muscovites would love to erase.
Re:Are the problems of mankind man-made? (Score:4, Insightful)
Ukraine has done nothing BUT threaten its neighbors as long as it has existed, that was the point of the 2014 coup and the prospective membership in NATO, for it to be a launching ground into the heart of Russia.
That's some pretty seriously messed up propaganda you're spewing there. In the entire history of NATO, it has engaged in non-defensive, non-peacekeeping wars how many times again? And you think it is going to suddenly start now because...
The Donbass had declared its independence and had resisted invasion from Ukraine for eight years before they finally requested assistance from Moscow
Horseshit. Russia sent people into the Donbas to rile them up and stoke anti-government sentiment after Ukraine's previous Russian puppet leader got ousted. Russia provided money and weapons for paramilitary groups (otherwise known as "state-sponsored terrorists") to rise up against the government of Ukraine and divide the country.
The Donbas region had not done anything to separate from Ukraine even one day before they requested assistance from Moscow. Russia funded and supported the DPR and LPR secession attempt from the very beginning.
the far right militias which were leading the invasion openly declared that their aims were to "cleanse" the territory of ethnic Russians (the majority in the region) and replace them with "pure" Ukrainians (just read some of their literature).
What invasion? It was their country. The closest thing that region had to invaders were the Russia-backed terrorists who took over part of the country. They were a fringe group that took control of the territory at gunpoint and caused most of the population to flee. Were some of the people fighting for a right of return for those refugees bad people? Maybe. Do I care? No.
There's a right way to secede in the modern era, and it isn't with a violent overthrow of the government. See Brexit for an example. As far as I'm concerned, anyone who took money and/or weapons from a foreign government and used them to overthrow their own government gave up any claim to moral high ground long ago.
If "Putin's aim is genocide" then he's the most incompetent barbarian ever,
You said it, not me.
between the two combatants the death toll among civilians after three years of war is still lower than the death toll of civilians in Gaza in the first month.
Only because Ukraine wiped out all of Russia's tanks right off the bat, shot down a large percentage of their missiles and drones, etc. Russia had more soldiers, but their technology is so far behind that Ukraine has basically been holding them back with a relatively tiny force, and at this point, Russia has lost so many troops that they're having to borrow some from other countries in bulk just to keep the war going.
Russia hasn't killed many civilians because they have basically lost rather badly, despite dogged determination to turn it into a win, no matter how pyrrhic.
If the US were actually interested in stopping a country from attacking its neighbors, firing weapons into innocent third countries, using WMD against civilians, and committing genocide then we'd be invading Israel today rather than shipping them all the weapons we can produce.
The U.S. should have done that a long time ago, IMO. There should have been a U.N. peacekeeping force in Gaza and the West Bank for the last thirty years, and then we wouldn't be dealing with any of this s**t over there.
But although the best time to do that would have been decades ago, the second best time is now. It's not too late to fix that mistake.
Re: (Score:2)
Wow, Ukraine had a "tiny force"? It was the second-largest military in Europe (and much of the Russian military was stationed in the East building infrastructure).
In comparison with Russia, yes, it's tiny. Russia's military was somewhere around 3 million including reservists, versus 980k for Ukraine. And Russia has almost five times the population, which means almost five times as many people who could potentially be conscripted.
Russia never had more than 150,000 soldiers in the Donbass for the first full year of the conflict
The part you're conveniently omitting is that the number is that low only because so many of them died. Russia has *lost* over a million troops since the war began three years ago. The fact that only 150k were in the battlefield at any gi
Re: Are the problems of mankind man-made? (Score:2)
The only peaceful way to exist in the shadow of Moscow is to either be subservient to Moscow or to not exist. There is no peaceful way to divorce from Moscow, and there is little benefit to remaining under the oppressive and inhumane yoke of Moscow. This is well understood by all former Soviet States, and why they've joined NATO if at all possible. Ask the Chechens, Georgians, or what's left of the Circassian refugees mostly taking refuge in Turkey.
sure thing uberbah, everyone believes you. (Score:1)
The U.S. and NATO pushed right up to Russia's borders, breaking promises not to expand eastward after the Cold War
sure thing uberbah, everyone believes you.
Just all the evidence was lost to history. maybe a big dog ate everyone's homework?
No point reading the rest of your russian propaganda. It's always the same lies and nonsense.
Re: (Score:3)
Then you'll have no problem pointing directly to that evidence that comes as some sort of official statement from the NATO organization itself or a joint statement of all of its members. I ask because it looks like you missed a perfect opportunity to do so in your original post.
Re: sure thing uberbah, everyone believes you. (Score:3)
Not true. NATO not expanding was never negotiated or discussed, and such claims are based on one comment taken out of context. Also, Finland joining NATO without Moscow even batting an eye negates your claim as well.
Re: (Score:2)
And also because the Magna Carta has spelling mistakes (from a time before standardization) actually there's no basis to American law and actually the western world doesnt' exist it's just a big ruse and everyone is fooling themselves that they made all these technological discoveries.
I think a lot of that depends on whether the flags in the court have gold fringing or not... Or I might be mixing up Russian propaganda with plain old home grown US disinformation... Of course, there does seem to keep being more and more evidence that a lot of that actually is planted by Russia in the first place, so who knows.
Re:sure thing uberbah, everyone believes you. (Score:5, Insightful)
If its Russian propaganda some of it is nonetheless true. James Baker, the Secretary of State at the time, admitted American diplomats had "gotten out over our skis" and made assurances about NATO not expanding and then found that President George H. Bush disagreed with them. The complaints from Russia about NATO expansion started almost immediately under Boris Yeltsin.
So, in other words, your first sentence is false and it is, in fact not true since the rest of that paragraph makes it clear that there was no promise from NATO. For there to be a promise from NATO, it would have to be more than just some blather from some diplomats for just one of the countries in NATO. A few diplomats do not actually get to make official binding promises for their countries. They talk and they can develop agreements, but those agreements then have to be made official by official acts at multiple levels in the government of their country. For multi-nation organizations like NATO, there is then a framework for the multiple members of the organization to make formal statements, etc.
The rest of your ridiculous contortions are just yet more Russian propaganda. The dumbest thing about it is that, even if it weren't full of misrepresentations, absolutely none of it would justify Russia's invasion, yet you're still trying.
Re: (Score:3)
The fact is that responsible officials made verbal assurances that the NATO would not expand into former Soviet States. And Russian officials relied on those assurances.
What a load. That is simply not how diplomacy or government really work and you know it. Non-binding schmoozing by diplomats is just that and nothing more. You're basically calling the Russians either liars or morons or both.
I don't see how anyone can argue it wasn't with NATO supplied missiles raining down on Russia.
Then you're a liar or a moron as well.
Re: (Score:2)
. We all know that this is all just pathetic excuses for Russian imperial expansionism.
You mean everyone in your propaganda bubble knows it. People who actually know the history of the Ukraine conflict understand its a lot more complicated than that.
Which is not so say that Russian imperialism isn't a factor. That almost 20% of Ukrainians were/are ethnic Russians was partially a result of Russian imperialism. And clearly the anti-Russian hostility of Ukrainian nationalists is a product of that imperialism.
Re: (Score:2)
You mean everyone in your propaganda bubble knows it. People who actually know the history of the Ukraine conflict understand its a lot more complicated than that.
People like myself have a very good idea of the history of the Russian invasion of Ukraine and understand it quite well. From an understanding of both sides of the issue, it is quite clear that Russia is in the wrong and the whole thing is about Russian imperialist expansionism.
Which is not so say that Russian imperialism isn't a factor. That almost 20% of Ukrainians were/are ethnic Russians was partially a result of Russian imperialism. And clearly the anti-Russian hostility of Ukrainian nationalists is a product of that imperialism.
Not even clear what you think you're trying to say here, but I'm just going to interpret this as saying that, yes indeed, most of Russia's close neighbors think that the Russians are a dangerous, imperialistic threat for good reason.
Re: (Score:2)
the whole thing is about Russian imperialist expansionism.
So Russia overthrew the Ukrainian government in order to justify taking Crimea. It organized the uprising in Donbass and then it waited 8 years to recognize as independent countries the separatist Republics that resulted. Their army sat by while
Re: (Score:2)
As we have discovered, a lot of the world sees the United States, Europe and NATO as an imperialistic threat and our complaints about Russia's war in Ukraine hypocritical at best. Our expectation that Russia would be economically isolated and collapse didn't happen.
"Our", right... In any case, sure, the US is imperialistic and pushy and obnoxious on the international stage. Prominent European nations also have a lot to answer for in the history of imperialism. So what though? Two rights don't make a wrong. I can simultaneously think that Russia is wrong to do something while thinking the US was/is wrong to do other things. For example, US occupation of Guantanamo Bay? Completely illegal with no valid justification. National sovereignty is not some gift bestowed by the
Re: (Score:2)
All of which is flat out irrelevant if Russia considers NATO expansion into Ukraine a threat to its security.
Ah, but here's the thing. NATO is a defensive organization. In approximately every NATO military action, either the legitimate ousted leadership of a country asked for NATO's help, NATO was acting defensively, NATO was acting to stop mass genocide, or NATO was providing peacekeeping forces to stabilize a region. NATO is not a military force that goes out and attacks other countries unprovoked, and it never has been.
So the only reason Russia should consider NATO expansion to be a threat is if they intend
Re: (Score:2)
NATO is not a military force that goes out and attacks other countries unprovoked, and it never has been.
Serbia, Bosnia, Kosovo, Libya, Afghanistan and Iraq ... there are probably others but that list alone makes your argument silly.
Re: (Score:2)
Let's see:
Care to try again?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No. You aren't disputing that NATO attacked other sovereign countries. You are just accepting the propaganda claims for why it was justified. Calling the bombing of Libya "peace keeping" is like claiming Russia is "peace keeping" in Ukraine.
The United Nations overwhelmingly said it was justified, and more to the point, was authorized by the U.N. Security Council, and one of the two resolutions was unanimous; the other had 5 abstentions (the usual suspects). The United Nations overwhelmingly said Russia's invasion of Ukraine was unjustified. These are not the same.
Afghanistan never attacked the United States
Afghanistan provided material support to and knowingly harbored a terrorist organization that hijacked aircraft and flew them into the World Trade Center, killing thousands of Ameri
Re: (Score:2)
Again, if Russia is doing nothing wrong, Russia has no reason to fear NATO.
With "wrong" being in the eyes of NATO.
was authorized by the U.N. Security Council
Russia voted to authorize it. Then the authorization was used to justify regime change. A process which has plunged Libya into a war zone for the last decade.
Russia isn't afraid of NATO attacking it.
Russia thinks NATO is attacking it.
Re: (Score:2)
A rational person would say that it has been in their interests for many years. Russia has continually attacked its neighbors on so many occasions that I've lost count. And Russia's tendency to buddy up with the most tyrannical world leaders and support them against international punishment for crimes against humanity has made the world a far worse place on an ongoing basis almost continuously since World War II. The world would almost certainly be better off if Russia's current leadership were buried under a ton of rocket rubble. Yet the U.S. has not attacked.
But Russia has nothing to worry about?
Re: (Score:2)
was authorized by the U.N. Security Council
Russia voted to authorize it. Then the authorization was used to justify regime change. A process which has plunged Libya into a war zone for the last decade.
I'm not saying the military action was handled well, but the fact that even Russia, with its long history of defending dictators who mass murder civilians, said that Libya's government was doing something bad is quite telling. And there's still hope that Libya might end up with a stable, reasonable government at some point.
The thing is, you're going to have chaos almost any time a totalitarian regime falls. Gaddafi wasn't going to live forever, and it wouldn't matter if he died from natural causes or from
Re: (Score:2)
Russia thinks NATO is attacking it.
To be clear, NATO likely *is* attacking Russia's *political power* because of the way Russia has repeatedly abused that power, but NATO is not attacking Russia's land, people, military, or buildings. And NATO would stop doing that if Russia would stop threatening its neighbors.
Re: (Score:2)
A rational person would say that it has been in their interests for many years. Russia has continually attacked its neighbors on so many occasions that I've lost count. And Russia's tendency to buddy up with the most tyrannical world leaders and support them against international punishment for crimes against humanity has made the world a far worse place on an ongoing basis almost continuously since World War II. The world would almost certainly be better off if Russia's current leadership were buried under a ton of rocket rubble. Yet the U.S. has not attacked.
But Russia has nothing to worry about?
Clearly. If NATO wanted to attack Russia, they could have done it ten thousand times by now.
Re: (Score:2)
Remind me which of those countries were subsequently annexed by NATO countries?
Re: (Score:2)
Clearly. If NATO wanted to attack Russia, they could have done it ten thousand times by now.
Not successfully.
Re: (Score:2)
there's still hope that Libya might end up with a stable, reasonable government at some point.
Yep. At some point when NATO lacks the capacity to prevent it. You can point to the US and Europe as responsible for almost all the chaos in the middle east. Its mostly about oil, not human rights.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Clearly. If NATO wanted to attack Russia, they could have done it ten thousand times by now.
Not successfully.
Define successfully. A few hundred Tomahawk cruise missiles launched from subs off the coast, and the war with Ukraine would have been over years ago. Russia's military tech is decades behind at this point, and although they might get off a lucky shot or two, they are hopelessly outmatched by NATO.
Their war with Ukraine made this obvious to the general public, but you can bet the spooks at various three-letter agencies knew it many years earlier, if not decades.
The only real threat Russia poses comes from
Re: (Score:2)
The only definition of success that they probably can't achieve is taking out all of Russia's nuclear launch sites before they can launch.
Which is the only definition that matters isn't it? And having missiles stationed in Ukraine along with air defense missiles would be one step toward overcoming that problem wouldn't it?
you can bet the spooks at various three-letter agencies knew it many years earlier, if not decades.
No actually. During the cold war, the incompetent US intelligence agencies consistently over-estimated the Soviet Union's military strength along with its stability because that is what their bosses wanted to hear to justify defense spending.
Russia's military tech is decades behind at this point,
Which is a ridiculously ignorant claim as Russian arms sales, even to some NATO coun
Re: (Score:2)
The only definition of success that they probably can't achieve is taking out all of Russia's nuclear launch sites before they can launch.
Which is the only definition that matters isn't it?
Depends on whether you think they will launch them knowing that it means annihilation rather than mere regime change. It's a huge gamble.
And having missiles stationed in Ukraine along with air defense missiles would be one step toward overcoming that problem wouldn't it?
Not even slightly. America has nuclear-capable cruise missiles with a range of up to 1550 miles. There is not a single target anywhere in Russia that could not be reached by those missiles when fired from out in the ocean.
Either the cruise missiles are capable of evading Russia's air defense systems and taking out the silos or they aren't. If they are detected first (a
Re: (Score:2)
Not even slightly. America has nuclear-capable cruise missiles with a range of up to 1550 miles. There is not a single target anywhere in Russia that could not be reached by those missiles when fired from out in the ocean.
On that note, lets end this conversation since you obviously don't know what you are talking about. Because while what you say is accurate, your conclusion contradicts every lesson of the cold war.
Re: (Score:2)
Not even slightly. America has nuclear-capable cruise missiles with a range of up to 1550 miles. There is not a single target anywhere in Russia that could not be reached by those missiles when fired from out in the ocean.
On that note, lets end this conversation since you obviously don't know what you are talking about. Because while what you say is accurate, your conclusion contradicts every lesson of the cold war.
My conclusion that there's no reason NATO needs Ukraine is backed up by the fact that NATO hasn't let Ukraine in. If it were a meaningful strategic military advantage, it would have happened long ago. NATO doesn't want Russia to be its enemy, and is wary of taking on countries that are actively at war with Russia. Committing arms in a proxy war is one thing. Outwardly engaging Russia except in defense is quite another.
At the same time, a lot of countries near Russia often want to be in NATO because they
Re: (Score:2)
We don't even think about the possibility of that outcome, because we know that they know that nobody in Russia would survive if they tried.
Again, you are ignorant of the reality and there is no point in this discussion.
Re: (Score:2)
We don't even think about the possibility of that outcome, because we know that they know that nobody in Russia would survive if they tried.
Again, you are ignorant of the reality and there is no point in this discussion.
The reality is that if Russia launched nuclear missiles at the U.S., the U.S. would wipe them off the map. If you honestly think otherwise, I have a bridge to sell you. And if you're really that detached from reality, you're right. There's no point in this discussion.
Re: (Score:2)
The reality is that if Russia launched nuclear missiles at the U.S., the U.S. would wipe them off the map.
What appear ignorant of is that during the cold war the US/NATO defense of Western Europe depended on immediately using nuclear weapons against a conventional invasion by the Warsaw Pact. Despite the fact that the Soviet Union could wipe the US off the map. That is why when Gorbachev and Reagan agreed that "a nuclear war cannot be won and much never be fought", they also acknowledged that a conventional war involving the Soviet Union and NATO was equally unacceptable. Reagan was not agreeing we wouldn't us
Re: (Score:2)
That's not the point... I was about to add "and you know it", but maybe you actually don't. The point is that there is a big difference between those events and Russia's invasions. Russia invades and takes the land and people as its own. In the events you pointed to, the territory was not annexed and the people were not forced to change their nationality.
Re: (Score:2)
The reality is that if Russia launched nuclear missiles at the U.S., the U.S. would wipe them off the map.
What appear ignorant of is that during the cold war the US/NATO defense of Western Europe depended on immediately using nuclear weapons against a conventional invasion by the Warsaw Pact. Despite the fact that the Soviet Union could wipe the US off the map. That is why when Gorbachev and Reagan agreed that "a nuclear war cannot be won and much never be fought", they also acknowledged that a conventional war involving the Soviet Union and NATO was equally unacceptable. Reagan was not agreeing we wouldn't use nuclear weapons to defend Europe against a conventional attack.
Lets be clear, Russia using nuclear weapons in Europe is not "suicidal". As De Gaulle allegedly pointed out when the US complained about France developing their own nuclear capacity, "Are you going to sacrifice Washington to punish an attack on Paris? If De Gaulle was uncertain of the answer then, Russia is likely willing to take the risk that the answer is "No" if the stakes are high enough. But if US unsuccessfully responded by attempting to "wipe Russia off the map" before it could launch its missiles, that would be all but suicidal.
I was explicitly talking about what would happen if Russia launched nuclear weapons specifically at the United States, not an arbitrary non-nuclear NATO country.
NATO would still be obligated to retaliate in an attack on other NATO countries, whether nuclear or otherwise, and Russia's military would still almost certainly lose very badly and very quickly, given their current levels of force depletion, but I do agree that it would probably not involve a nuclear response. It wouldn't need to.
Re: (Score:2)
Zelinsky himself is a native Russian speaker, and campaigned in that language promising to implement the Minsk accords and bring peace.
Re: (Score:2)
campaigned in that language promising to implement the Minsk accords and bring peace.
He campaigned on a peace agenda, but he opposed the Minsk accords. That, combined with his celebrity, made him acceptable to the Ukrainian nationalists who controlled the government.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
everyone with a brain knows Ukraine has been deliberately attacking a nuclear power plant because the Russians would have to be literally insane to be attacking a nuclear power plant that they control.
Russia has a history of deliberately doing dumb shit. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re:Are the problems of mankind man-made? (Score:4, Insightful)
You are so ridiculously full of it. So, to be clear, Denis Pushelin, a card carrying member of the United Russia party, with a government full of Russian politicians from the independent Republic of Donetsk and Leonid Pasechnik from the independent Republic of Luhansk, also a card carrying member of the United Russia party, just begged for help from their completely neutral neighbor Russia to defend them from the wicked Ukrainians? Those completely independent leaders of completely independent Republics who totally, totally were not installed by Russia just needed help? Sorry, but that garbage doesn't play so well in places where people can get information from places other than Russian state TV and the walled-off Russian corner of the Internet.
Re: (Score:2)
You mean: Ukraine was defending itself in the Donbas after Russia supplied weapons and manpower to the separatist militias and agitated the situation? Asking for Russian peacekeepers to help was just part of the little man in the Kremlin's disinformation and subterfuge campaign.
Re: (Score:2)
Around half of the Ukrainian army was assembled on the border of the Donbass states when Russia stepped it, it was more than just shelling. It's likely that the armored column that drove towards Kiev was a feint to divert that invasion force.
Re:Are the problems of mankind man-made? (Score:4, Interesting)
Then you won't mind posting any evidence?
Re: (Score:2)
That's what they've done, or did you miss that those oblasts joined the Russian Federation?
Re: (Score:2)
Neither Russia nor Ukraine are capitalist?
Why do you think that? If you're serious, that's a very odd thing to believe.
Re: Are the problems of mankind man-made? (Score:2)
What if supply and demand of real things is but a tiny factor in price-setting, and the main factor is noise (cf. Fischer Black)? How would that change our approach to inflation? If inflation is noise upon noise, not a signal of scarcity, why not index it away, as Israel did successfully for many decades?
Re: (Score:2)
Was this reply meant for me? I think maybe you meant to reply to someone else.
Re: Are the problems of mankind man-made? (Score:2)
Did you just say capitalism is helpless against violence and whimsically-set prices by the equivalents of dictators in private markets?
If prices are arbitrary and set capriciously by powerful individuals, why operate the Fed under the assumption that supply and demand of real widgets sets prices?
If prices are noise, why not print the budget and use indexation to maintain real purchasing power no matter how arbitrary prices may get?
Re: Are the problems of mankind man-made? (Score:2)
If Putin is irrational, does that mean that prices get contaminated by irrationality (oil prices for example)? If prices are arbitrary, why fear inflation when it can be easily indexed away?
Bugs and Elmer (Score:2)
Trump said this war would be done. (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:1)
Trump's problem is that because of Democracy he needs Graham and the other Neocons to not impeach him. And they want war with Russia.
He could have ended the war on day one by cutting off US aid and intelligence information to Ukraine, but then the Republicans in Congress would have blocked everything he wanted to do and impeached him.
Your problem is that you appear to believe that politics is about telling the truth, when it's one of the most corrupt endeavours in human history. Only Boomers think "OMG The
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
The smart people look at what Trump does rather than what he says.
Which is the wise way to treat any political leader of any country.
But people may be mistaken in claiming Trump is lying. I think it may be more likely that he is delusional. He actually believes whatever suits his interest and will help him construct a narrative that serves him. He actually believes his insistence that he got more votes than Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden. He actually believes Portland is under violent siege.
Re: (Score:2)
He actually believes his insistence that he got more votes than Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden. He actually believes Portland is under violent siege.
Nobody knows what he actually believes, because he lies as naturally as breathing. He went from "I don't know anything about Project 2025" to "Russ Vought is a great guy who is helping me save money" without any transition at all. Trump's supporters are all for him lying because they think everyone else lies so it's okay. Well, statistically everyone else does lie. It's stupid to think that makes it okay, but it's understandable when there's so much lying going on.
Re: (Score:2)
It's stupid to think that makes it okay
No, what's stupid is thinking it has any importance. I don't care whether Trump lies. It just means I can't trust what he says. I do care about the stuff he is doing. The "he's a liar" stuff is just part of the celebrity contest. That its somehow important how attractive Trump's personal character is. Its not except to the extent it effects what he does.
Re: (Score:2)
The "he's a liar" stuff is just part of the celebrity contest. That its somehow important how attractive Trump's personal character is. Its not except to the extent it effects what he does.
It's relevant in that you cannot trust anything he says, and anyone who does is a big dumbfuck, and their opinion should never be considered valuable on any subject ever again without exemplary evidence to go with it because they have proven that they are willing to believe stupid shit that nobody should believe.
Re: (Score:2)
It's relevant in that you cannot trust anything he says
You can trust what Trump says to the extent it serves his interests. Which is true for every politician.
Re: (Score:2)
You can trust what Trump says to the extent it serves his interests. Which is true for every politician.
Your attempt to equate all politicians is facile and weak, just like Trump's mind.
Re: (Score:2)
Your attempt to equate all politicians is facile and weak, just like Trump's mind.
I think its your trust in your favorite political celebrities that is facile and weak. Not really any different than people who want to believe Trump. The problem with Trump as President isn't his character, his mind or his lies, its his policies and actions. The rest is just like discussing Taylor Swift or the Kardashians.
Re: Trump said this war would be done. (Score:2)
"Not really any different than people who want to believe Trump."
Trump lies more than any three of them combined, and that is different. The difference may be only one of degree, but it's still different, and your accusations of sycophancy are a poor disguise for yours and based on unfounded assumptions. Run along and preach false equivalence on behalf of a fascist traitor dictator rapist elsewhere if you must, I'm not buying.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not buying.
No, and you aren't doing anything about it either other than whining. The moral high ground is easy when there are no consequences to you. But in reality there is some very bad stuff happening to people and whining about Trump lying isn't going to stop it.
Re: (Score:2)
The moral high ground is easy when there are no consequences to you.
You have no idea what consequences I'm facing.
Re: (Score:2)
So after Ukraine gives up land to Russia do you think Russia will stop?
Re: (Score:2)
Who the frack would WANT Galicia? (Well, maybe Poland, no one else does.)
Re: (Score:2)
He tried to cut off "US aid and intelligence information to Ukraine" when he entered office. And he partially succeeded, which didn't really lead to anything buy destroying US goodwill, and US export rates.
I don't think it matters as much as you think it does, but it would mean effectively severing the military industrial complex completely from European buyers. Which I agree 100% with you, that would not be acceptable to the Neocons and a lot of congresscritters once the orders would dry up.
There are sever
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I have to question why smart people would support a person who lies to them?
I have never voted for someone who didn't. Not even Jimmy Carter can make that claim. People don't want to hear unwelcome truths and a politician who insists on telling everyone "the truth" all the time will lose in a landslide. In part because most "truth" is not really universal.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Trump said this war would be done. (Score:5, Insightful)
elites have run America for a long time
I think there is an inevitablity to that isn't there. The definition of elites is that they are the ones that run things. I think the problem is we have a very very narrow and parochial elite.
MAGAs send this message that they are different somehow, but all they do is divide people such that they elites stay in power.
I think that is right. People are unhappy with the way things are and MAGA promised change. Its important to remember Trump got votes from less than a third of the eligible voters. The biggest group didn't vote for either candidate.
There is a reason for that. You can run through a list of things that are most important to our lives and which bathroom transvestites use is nowhere on it. Frankly, neither is people sneaking across the border to make beds and mow lawns. Secure retirement, good quality health care at a reasonable cost, not getting trapped in debt to get an education or pay medical bills, affordable housing, good wages, a tax system that doesn't reward the rich, safe streets, clean air, healthy food ... the list goes on of things that we should expect in the richest country on earth but don't have. I think most people agree we want those things, but there is no real discussion of how to move forward together to get them. Its not that we can't agree, although that is likely. We aren't even able to talk about them over the media din.
Re: (Score:2)
Trump got votes from less than a third of eligible voters. The biggest group didn't vote for either candidate.
As someone here on SlashDot said in 2016, "If two people are cutting off my legs why do you think I should vote for the one who's doing it slower?"
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I have to question why smart people would support a person who lies to them?
Your question contains the answer, they aren't smart. They think they are, which is only possible because they aren't. Trump is against everything they stand for except for hurting brown people and owning the libs, and they are willing to cut off any parts of their faces to accomplish those things. They claim to be against pedos, but Trump is chief child molester. They claim to be in favor of small government, but Trump doesn't want to shrink it, he wants to make it all military and secret police. They clai
Re: (Score:3)
Trump lies an average of 5 times a day
I don't believe this for a moment, it seems ridiculously low.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Trump said this war would be done. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
You really think the genocide is over? Not according to the Israeli leadership it isn't.
Re: (Score:2)
You really think the [war] is over?
No. I even put a smiley there so slow people might understand.
Re: (Score:2)
Ah, I missed it. :-(
Hoping for an Strong Easterly Wind (Score:2)