Is Ukraine about to have a war?
From what I've been reading, there's no damage to the nuclear power plant. The fire was in a training facility outside the boundary and has been extinguished.
The US Energy Secretary is saying that the plant is being safely shut down.
The US Energy Secretary is saying that the plant is being safely shut down.
Only half a speed-brake
Our best hope is China and India are getting close to unrestricted information flow from the NATO assets in the vicinity.
Deliberately shared, so their high command can make up their own mind.
Deliberately shared, so their high command can make up their own mind.
An opinion from a Russian who knows his game of chess.
to make it short: Putin will attack the west if he is not stopped now. Either it is done now and ukrainian lives are saved or it is done later with the addition of genocide in ukraine.
to make it short: Putin will attack the west if he is not stopped now. Either it is done now and ukrainian lives are saved or it is done later with the addition of genocide in ukraine.
I've seen some discussion of whether the aircraft leasing companies will be able to take a lien on the assets frozen by the West in the event of Russia seizing or nationalising aircraft without lease payments.
This of course raises the wider issue of who is going to pay to put Ukraine back together as Putin continues the current indiscriminate demolition of the country. If the West does indeed have those Russian billions, would it not be helpful to make clear that re-building every bit of infrastructure and equipment being destroyed and the care and compensation for every killed or injured civilian will be paid from those funds before they are ever returned? Seems only fair that it will be a cost to the Russian taxpayer and not those in the EU et al. I believe the U.S. has made a similar claim against the Afghan reserves on behalf of 9/11 victims, which of course is a far less black and white case.
This of course raises the wider issue of who is going to pay to put Ukraine back together as Putin continues the current indiscriminate demolition of the country. If the West does indeed have those Russian billions, would it not be helpful to make clear that re-building every bit of infrastructure and equipment being destroyed and the care and compensation for every killed or injured civilian will be paid from those funds before they are ever returned? Seems only fair that it will be a cost to the Russian taxpayer and not those in the EU et al. I believe the U.S. has made a similar claim against the Afghan reserves on behalf of 9/11 victims, which of course is a far less black and white case.
Thanks, the deliberate attack on a nuclear power station ups the ante and we are essentially on the precipice of a global catastrophe of biblical proportions. We have arrived at that position from not standing up to aggression in the past. Chechnya was an attempt at genocide, twice, Georgia was an abuse of a sovereign state, and Syria is disgraceful. The only counterpoint is that UK and US history is replete with their own share of outrages, but "what about" does not justify any genocide.
I would predict about a p=0.2 of Putin dropping a nuke somewhere in Ukraine in the next 14 days, to show the world that no one will stand up to him, the Trumpist "I can stand on a corner of 5th ave and shoot someone and no one will stop me..." And he is absolutely correct, no one will respond to a single nuke on a 3rd party outside of NATO territory. Hence the need for UN employing a unified ground intervention and no-fly zone at the soonest opportunity, to avoid one nuke being dropped on Ukraine, and then one on Helsinki, one on Malmo, etc... If he gets away with one with only handwringing that is not a big disincentive to making his fashion statement.
He has just made a bloody big one by smoking the nuke powerplant, his so-called new free republics are all downwind of that, as is lots of Russia, the whole of Kazakh, etc, and China... none of this is good. Hopefully he will not die of old age, and perhaps there really is a god. Right now, he should be pretty pissed off with us for proving there is no intelligent life in this part of the universe.
I would predict about a p=0.2 of Putin dropping a nuke somewhere in Ukraine in the next 14 days, to show the world that no one will stand up to him, the Trumpist "I can stand on a corner of 5th ave and shoot someone and no one will stop me..." And he is absolutely correct, no one will respond to a single nuke on a 3rd party outside of NATO territory. Hence the need for UN employing a unified ground intervention and no-fly zone at the soonest opportunity, to avoid one nuke being dropped on Ukraine, and then one on Helsinki, one on Malmo, etc... If he gets away with one with only handwringing that is not a big disincentive to making his fashion statement.
He has just made a bloody big one by smoking the nuke powerplant, his so-called new free republics are all downwind of that, as is lots of Russia, the whole of Kazakh, etc, and China... none of this is good. Hopefully he will not die of old age, and perhaps there really is a god. Right now, he should be pretty pissed off with us for proving there is no intelligent life in this part of the universe.
As soon as someone proposed such an event the Russians would veto it.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 32,974
Received 2,881 Likes
on
1,231 Posts
Then NATO needs to go in before we do have a nuclear disaster, there is now a risk either way you cut it.
Remember the Ukraine has 15 nuclear plants. I do wonder if the troops even knew what the place was.
Even if they didn’t hit the reactors, if they killed some of the staff it could be just as bad.
It’s not as if there is a running a nuclear plant for dummies book.
Trouble is NATO is still weak on the ground in comparison, but they need to issue a warning, desist and pull back or we will intervene ( and give Russia a deadline. )
Remember the Ukraine has 15 nuclear plants. I do wonder if the troops even knew what the place was.
Even if they didn’t hit the reactors, if they killed some of the staff it could be just as bad.
It’s not as if there is a running a nuclear plant for dummies book.
Trouble is NATO is still weak on the ground in comparison, but they need to issue a warning, desist and pull back or we will intervene ( and give Russia a deadline. )
Last edited by NutLoose; 4th Mar 2022 at 08:10.
The footage being shown on UK media described as "shelling" clearly shows an illumination flare. Doesn't mean there hasn't been shelling, but you'd expect people to pick this up.
And we come back to a European Army - sniffed at by so many - a force not constrained by the NATO construct and involved in its own territory rather than waiting for help from across the Atlantic.
Originally Posted by [email protected]
And we come back to a European Army - sniffed at by so many - a force not constrained by the NATO construct and involved in its own territory rather than waiting for help from across the Atlantic that would require the European nations to allocate sufficient funding to their defence instead of expecting the US to provide it and come to their aid if threatened.
This whole "Oh my God, the Russians just shelled a nuclear power plant!" is a beat up.
They set a training building on fire and had a firefight around the plant.
That's it.
Radiation levels did not increase - and the IAEA did not say it was a catastrophe.
All of the reactors but one were offline.
It was probably bone-headed stupidity and carelessness, rather than anything else.
Watch the evening news here in Australia and you'd think Chernobyl x10 had just happened!
Absolute drama-queenery by global media.
Here's a real expert - Tony Irwin, honorary associate professor at the Australian National University department of nuclear physics.“The reactor itself is actually quite protected against events,” said Professor Irwin, who worked at British nuclear reactors for many years and alongside Russian scientists after the Chernobyl disaster in 1986.
“The concrete container is so thick that it is proof against most bombs. If you have a heavy missile you would do damage but you would have to aim it directly at the reactor.”
Professor Irwin said Russia was more likely to want to control the facility rather than destroy it and send radiation over their own people.
The direction of fire was parallel to, and away from the reactors.
However - as I said earlier - the much scarier prospect in my view is that if that idiot Putin feels he's backed into a corner - I'm still convinced he'd be willing to detonate a small warhead.
This is a man who is literally on record as saying he sees no use for a planet without a Russia - direct quote.
Now that is pause for thought.
They set a training building on fire and had a firefight around the plant.
That's it.
Radiation levels did not increase - and the IAEA did not say it was a catastrophe.
All of the reactors but one were offline.
It was probably bone-headed stupidity and carelessness, rather than anything else.
Watch the evening news here in Australia and you'd think Chernobyl x10 had just happened!
Absolute drama-queenery by global media.
Here's a real expert - Tony Irwin, honorary associate professor at the Australian National University department of nuclear physics.“The reactor itself is actually quite protected against events,” said Professor Irwin, who worked at British nuclear reactors for many years and alongside Russian scientists after the Chernobyl disaster in 1986.
“The concrete container is so thick that it is proof against most bombs. If you have a heavy missile you would do damage but you would have to aim it directly at the reactor.”
Professor Irwin said Russia was more likely to want to control the facility rather than destroy it and send radiation over their own people.
The direction of fire was parallel to, and away from the reactors.
However - as I said earlier - the much scarier prospect in my view is that if that idiot Putin feels he's backed into a corner - I'm still convinced he'd be willing to detonate a small warhead.
This is a man who is literally on record as saying he sees no use for a planet without a Russia - direct quote.
Now that is pause for thought.
Last edited by tartare; 4th Mar 2022 at 09:09.
Europe alone currently spends c.3 times as much on defence as Russia. This multiple could rise to 4 or more given Germany's and others recent announcements, and Russia's economic travails.
Also, its become patently obvious that Europe has absolutely nothing to fear from Russia's conventional forces.
Also, its become patently obvious that Europe has absolutely nothing to fear from Russia's conventional forces.
How would you pass it off - an act of God or somesuch?
This of course raises the wider issue of who is going to pay to put Ukraine back together as Putin continues the current indiscriminate demolition of the country. If the West does indeed have those Russian billions, would it not be helpful to make clear that re-building every bit of infrastructure and equipment being destroyed and the care and compensation for every killed or injured civilian will be paid from those funds before they are ever returned? Seems only fair that it will be a cost to the Russian taxpayer and not those in the EU et al.
Then NATO needs to go in before we do have a nuclear disaster, there is now a risk either way you cut it.
Remember the Ukraine has 15 nuclear plants. I do wonder if the troops even knew what the place was.
Even if they didn’t hit the reactors, if they killed some of the staff it could be just as bad.
It’s not as if there is a running a nuclear plant for dummies book.
Trouble is NATO is still weak on the ground in comparison, but they need to issue a warning, desist and pull back or we will intervene ( and give Russia a deadline. )
..
Remember the Ukraine has 15 nuclear plants. I do wonder if the troops even knew what the place was.
Even if they didn’t hit the reactors, if they killed some of the staff it could be just as bad.
It’s not as if there is a running a nuclear plant for dummies book.
Trouble is NATO is still weak on the ground in comparison, but they need to issue a warning, desist and pull back or we will intervene ( and give Russia a deadline. )
..
NATO going in WOULD be a nuclear disaster!
Originally Posted by dead_pan,11194394
Also, its become patently obvious that Europe has absolutely nothing to fear from Russia's conventional forces.
What is absolutely certain is that there is a mobster with what appears to be a limited grasp on reality in charge in Moscow. He cannot (and will not) back down - there is no so-called off-ramp for him that Ukraine can live with. The only way out of this is to ramp up the pressure until eventually those around the Problem have to solve the Problem. Hopefully quickly - and painfully for the Problem.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 32,974
Received 2,881 Likes
on
1,231 Posts
Nuclear plants should have a 20 mile exclusion zone around them in times of conflict agreed by all nations.
I didn't say it was a perfect solution and would be absolutely reliant on the 27 countries actually pulling together and fronting up with cash. However such a force, were it to exist, would have the ability to intervene in Ukraine and other non-NATO countries bordering Russia to challenge Russian aggression and expansionist policies.
NATO is constrained by it's founding principle of defence of its member states.
NATO is constrained by it's founding principle of defence of its member states.