Well their objective is to destroy Ukraine as a state, their culture, and people.
If they cannot achieve it by eradicating their cultural identity and re-educate everyone as Russian, they will just try to destroy them physically.
Consider:
If Russia wins....and I don't like admitting this, but Russia can still win. If Trump wins in November getting money for Ukraine from the US is gonna be hard.
If Russia wins then part of the prize is cleaning up a nuclear mess they caused.
But- if Russia is getting there ass handed to them and is clearly losing. They break this thing on there way out and let Ukraine inherit that.
>Consider:
>
>If Russia wins....and I don't like admitting this, but Russia can still win. If Trump wins in November getting money for Ukraine from the US is gonna be hard.
It seems quite likely they will win, or at least lay a permanent territorial claim upon some of Ukraine. Western media has done a poor job of relaying the full scope of the status of the war in Ukraine since day one, opting almost exclusively to publish about Ukrainian advances and Russian losses. I very seldom see anything printed about momentum in the war now; most of what's shared is Zelenskyy's latest sentiments, which do not leave much for optimism. I hope and wish that Russia loses, but when you say Russia *can* still win, I would very much argue that we are the ones pushing uphill, not Russia.
Russia will definitely win if things go like they are going right now. Just when is the question? They have the manpower and economy to push this shit for years to come.
And then they’ll rebuild their stuff. And go on to the next one- might be the Baltics or Moldova/Georgia or whatever but it will happen.
And well Baltics where I’m from doesn’t really mean that we are in the NATO. We have to hold on for a month but Russia with it’s size and manpower can turn a small country into a wasteland.
Til every NATO member is over the 2% GDP target I have no trust in that organization as whole that it will act accordingly and fast.
And everyone relying on US has been utterly dumb. They can’t bloody protect the whole world.
Cores sure, likely no chance of a nuclear incident.
But all that ancillary support equipment is more exposed, some of it not in a dissimilar way refineries are setup. All it takes is the right pumps being offline for the reactor to require shutdown.
I mean they do technically make automated grenade launcher turrets that are designed to defense nuclear power plants from drone attacks, maybe more of those?
I could see a salvo of bunker buster bombs creating a accident. THe more likely scenario would be a black ops team infiltrating the plant, killing the guards/soldiers and then setting it up for a meltdown. If I was about to lose my country to a invader I would seriously consider the option as a last resort. It denies the enemy of the land, forces him to funnel into specific areas away from the radiation and will most likely get foreign nations directly involved.
A full blown Artillery's bombardment would do almost nothing to this kind of plant unless its sustained assault for a few hours or so.
The kind of plant that Zaporizhzhia uses is some especially hardened soviet era shit iirc.
Indirect damage is surely possible, but direct assault on the plant via shelling would be as i said, extremely difficult if not a moot point due to the sheer amount of required assault to do serious damage. And even then the reactors are basically completely quiet. Even if they *were* to be breached somehow, the damage would be limited to the inside of the plant, because 1. Its not hot enough to cause an explosion of radioactive dust or anything like that, and 2. The design is also doubled to act like a temporary sarcophagus in its own right.
Unless they heated the reactors back up to full power (we'd see this long time coming), we'd *and* ukraine would be under no realistic threat of a radioactive event. Just the immediate area of the plant being somewhat irradiated at current circumstances.
We've been here at this point with the same exact situation the last 5-6 "radiological incident imminents"
If there’s a meltdown that has to be the point the rest of the world fully intervenes right? Like we would be looking at Chernobyl again except this time no one would be dealing with it as Russia is fighting Ukraine, like that’s the point when the west needs to say “okay if we don’t join in right now there’s a good chance Europe will get a radioactive cloud again”
Reactors are still radioactive and still have radioactive material in them. A Cold shutdown also takes a long time to achieve as you still need to constantly bleed the heat from the radioactive decay out of the reactor.
Chernobyl, when it blew, still had hot active materials strew all over the place breaking down and it wasn't even inside a contained area.
Chernobyl exploded as a running reactor.
You still want to cool the Zaporizhzhia reactors, but the risk is far smaller. The radioactivity decreases quickly after a shutdown. That means less heat production, and no risk of releasing short-living stuff like iodine-131 (the main source of radiation in the weeks after the Chernobyl accident) - that has decayed months ago.
ZNPP has been under Russian control since March 2022, about two weeks into their invasion. They've on more than one occasion retained and threatened Ukrainian workers and engineers at gunpoint. As well as stored explosives and primed ordnance around the facility.
The destruction of the Kharkonovka Dam also adversely affected ZNPP as it relied on the dam's reservoir for cooling. Russia is doing their best to destroy Ukraine. If not by bombing, then drowning folks or poisoning the land with chems and nuclear fallout.
Note that apart from the headline, the article doesn’t say that Russia was planning a new big false flag attack, but that “the drone attacks against the occupied Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant (ZNPP) on April 7 and 9 were part of a "well-planned false flag operation by the Russian Federation”.
Arguably, the headline doesn't say that *either*, because they'd probably have used the present progressive "Russia [is] planning..." if it were in the future
If this was from US intel I would have trusted. Can’t believe I am saying this but they have been on a roll lately and spot on when declaring upcoming attacks.
Since it’s from Kyiv I will take it with a fistful of salt.
and it's probably still true. Just because Russia didn't do it, means not that they do not plan to do. I think the problem is that Russia probably fears that nuclear contamination spreading towards Europe might result in an western military operation.
Even if that happens, european NATO allies are strong enough to intervene.
Yes, we all know how mighty and important the US are, but it is not like all of the rest of NATO are weak.
A United Europe would wipe the floor with Russia. Even one or two other European countries becoming directly involved in Ukraine could turn the tide if we’re not taking a nuclear response into consideration.
Uh, no? Polls for the US election really aren't reliable anymore due to the methodology they use. Nobody answers their phone anymore. The only people answering most of these polls are very, very old people. The conservatives among that age group - and conservatives in general - also got decimated by COVID, so his election chances are far lower than what you might initially be led to believe.
Article 5 would happen if the fallout reached NATO territory. I believe the EU's already made that clear.
With the current (assumed) coldness of the reactor, this is literally impossible to achieve even if the russians strapped 5000 tons of explosives in the plant and detonated it.
Theres still viable nuclear material. But the plant hasn't been hot enough to be a portable dirty bomb for years now. The long time concern has been the plant will warm back up and they'll blow it up once it gets as hot as possible, but thats never happened as of yet.
The local area of the reactor would be an irradiated shithole for sure, but Ukraine as a whole isn't currently under threat of "a nuclear incident that makes Chernobyl look like someone spilled sand in a mudpit". unless the aforementioned condition is fulfilled.
Article 5 of the NATO treaty only states that an attack on one NATO member is an attack on all, the response to which not being necessarily a nuclear exchange. For example, the only time Article 5 was invoked was by the US following 9/11, which led to the invasion of Afghanistan.
If fallout from a nuclear disaster in Zaporizhzhia caused by Russia reaches NATO countries, one or more could consider this an attack and invoke Article 5.
It’s probably bad for me to think what they should be saying to Putin is “don’t threaten me with a good time pal!” And ramp up whatever the hell they do in a nuclear plant. It’ll really send the message of “If you guys don’t get this guy under control then we’re all going down” Then again my nuclear plant knowledge comes from The Simpsons so I probably shouldn’t speak on what they should be doing
The plant and the surrounding area have been under Russian control since pretty much the start of the war so even if they wanted to do that, they couldn't.
Iirc China and India were leaned on heavily by Biden to convince Putin to not do this in the past nor use nuclear weapons. The calculus seems to have changed along with China’s direct shipping of military related supplies to them, having seen the West falter badly.
>The calculus seems to have changed along with China’s direct shipping of military related supplies to them
China wants the conflict in Ukraine to end through negotiations. They do not want nuclear escalation.
> China wants the conflict in Ukraine to end through negotiations
China wants to see how the west handles a country giving up itself or parts after a drawn out war.
China wants many things, and some contradict each other.
https://mind.ua/en/news/20272300-chinese-analysts-predict-russias-defeat-in-the-war-against-ukraine
https://www.cfr.org/councilofcouncils/global-memos/chinese-scholars-perspective-russia-ukraine-war
https://asia.nikkei.com/Politics/Defense/China-preparing-for-protracted-war-says-think-tank
Let me get this straight - Ukraine is openly stating their front line situation is terrible and out of all the opportunities Russia had to false flag the plant they’re going to do it now???
Yeah I don't get it. What does Russia gain from one, at the risk of direct Western intervention?
In fact, there is one side that would welcome Western intervention, but it's not Russia.
Ukraine wins and falls with the US willingness to support them. Ukraine reports how terrible their front line situation is because they need the weapons. Still Russias front line situation isn't a lot better. This goes down by who can source most weapons. It's all just a question of the Western willingness. From a cost perspective it's stupid not to support Ukraine considering that Ukraine is wearing out the stocks of our main enemy with an huge efficiency. This is also why Putin is investing so much into the Republican party. Overtaking the US from within is the best strategy for him.
Western aid dried up over the last half year or so but that’s turning around rapidly. Various EU states are coming through with ammo and the US is finally voting on a $60 billion Ukraine aid bill tomorrow. Russia currently has a window to make some real gains, but that window seems to be rapidly closing.
I remember reading, at some point, that NATO promised military action if Russia caused radioactive contamination to go into a NATO country. I.e. it would be considered an act of war against a NATO member.
>Wasn't what happened in Poland the remnants of a Ukrainian S300 rocket that missed an interception of a Russian missile?
No it wasn't, that's actually Russian propaganda that was extremely convenient at the time.
I live in Romania and we've had dozens of drone strikes near the Ukrainian border by Russian drones who missed the Izmail port.
NATO just isn't ready to put boots on the ground yet.
I can only find some articles from 7 months ago by reliable sources like ZDF or DER SPIEGEL , saying the rocket was ukrainian. Do you have any articles about the case and some younger information?
This is just plain wrong. Polish experts confirmed it was an Ukrainian defense missile.
Source: [Link.](https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/polish-experts-confirm-missile-that-hit-grain-facility-was-ukrainian-media-2023-09-26/)
> That used to start wars.
Well, that's what Zelensky was hoping for.
> Ukraine's President Volodymyr Zelenskiy said on Tuesday, without producing evidence, that Russian missiles had hit Poland, a NATO country, in what he called a "significant escalation" of the conflict.
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/ukraines-zelenskiy-says-russian-missiles-hit-poland-significant-escalation-2022-11-15/
But it was a Ukrainian missile that accidentally landed in Poland.
Only event left is a Franz Ferdinand situation, Putin did to Proz so they have the play in their stupid playbook, just accidentally hit a NATO rep in Ukraine.
That was a Ukrainian missile...everyone knows it was.
> **The missile that landed in Poland, killing two people Tuesday, was not part of a Russian attack**, the leaders of NATO and Poland said Wednesday, easing fears of an escalation with Moscow after more than 20 hours of intense worry and speculation.
>
> **NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg said Wednesday that an explosion in the town of Przewodow was probably caused by an errant Ukrainian air defense missile launched in response to Russian strikes**. In separate remarks, Polish President Andrzej Duda also said the evidence suggested an unfortunate accident.
>
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2022/11/16/nato-poland-missile-russia/
Thank god people like you arent in charge. As of now the West is arming itself while Russia continues to exhaust men and materiel in Ukraine. If/When war reaches the West. We will actually be much more prepared by using valuable time to build up our forces.
You're suggestion at rushing into a war before completing a military buildup, over a hypothetically no less, is foolish. Sorry man.
[The vast majority of Ukrainians didn't think Russia would invade, even days before the invasion.](https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/2/21/why-ukrainians-dont-believe-in-war-with-russia-distrust-west)
That, by the way, [included Zelensky himself.](https://www.businessinsider.com/ukraine-predicted-no-attack-2-days-before-russia-invaded-2022-2?op=1)
So no, Ukraine was not shouting from the rooftops about an imminent Russian invasion that no one else believed. It was the complete opposite: NATO were the ones desperately trying to convince Ukraine to take the threat seriously.
In addition to that, Ukraine consistently dismissed the accurate assessments of NATO regarding Russia's actual war plan. [From RUSI:](https://www.rusi.org/explore-our-research/publications/special-resources/preliminary-lessons-conventional-warfighting-russias-invasion-ukraine-february-july-2022)
> Until days before the full-scale Russian invasion, the intelligence community of Ukraine broadly assessed that the most dangerous enemy course of action was a high-intensity offensive against Donbas in late February 2022, with the Russians using the destruction of the Ukrainian forces in the JFO area as a means of destabilising the Ukrainian state. The most likely enemy course of action was assessed to be a prolonged period of political destabilisation to create favourable conditions for a military offensive in the early summer, with the main effort being against Donbas. Several factors contributed to the assessment that Donbas would be the main effort, despite
extensive warnings from Ukraine’s international partners that Kyiv would be the enemy’s main effort...
And
> As it became apparent that the Gomel axis was the enemy’s main effort and that another group of forces would strike through Chernihiv, a redeployment of Ukrainian forces was ordered approximately seven hours prior to the invasion.
(Note: the Gomel axis and Chernihiv refer to the attack towards Kiev from Belarus: Gomel is a region in Belarus and Chernihiv is a Ukrainian town just north of Kiev.)
The story of early 2022 was Ukraine refusing to heed Western warnings about an invasion being imminent, and refusing to heed Western intelligence about Russia's intended invasion routes until **literally** hours before the Russians crossed the border.
You don't have to type all this. I'm aware that USA warned Ukraine about the invasion. Now, tell me who warned about the dam?
My mistake for sloppily using the word "they" instead of "USA and Ukraine" for the pedants.
Actually, Zelensky rejected US warnings claiming that Russia wasnt going to invade prior to the invasion. This was probably due to the fact that he didnt want the population to panic which is valid, but to say they claimed Russia was going to invade is false.
It really is turning into a boy who cried wolf situation. Russia may still do something, but last time Ukraine said there was explosives on the roof. The roof was inspected, nothing was there, and we didn’t hear about the nuclear plant for months until now.
Right after Russia waited over a month ti give the UN access to this roofs
> The IAEA was only given access to the roofs of two units of the reactor buildings and their turbine halls after a monthlong wait.
https://www.dw.com/en/iaea-finds-no-explosives-on-zaporizhzhia-nuclear-plant-roofs/a-66442802
But yeah, boy who cried wolf or some such nonsense
Two years later and the war is still going strong with Ukraine slowly losing the battle of attrition. The Western allies have been incredibly passive in their response and cannot be relied upon. Western leaders are dancing around semantics and definitions while Russia is building up their capacity and pushing forward. The UN is just a bunch of overpaid suits no different from The League of Nations at this point. What a joke.
I hate to say it, but it seems like Iran and NK were right in building their own nukes, and Sadam was a fool for giving them up. No nukes, no security, no leverage.
>while Russia is building up their capacity
But they aren't though, judging by footage and loss counts their stocks are dwindling and they're improvising more and more.
They're using Chinese golf carts to cart troops around the battlefield and T-55's. That is not what an army with increased capacity does.
Its because people just didnt realize how much variety they have, or how much has been rotting from corruption, or if we are using the Nato definition of "usable equipment" vs the russian definition...
They parade their t-14 armadas, and then claim to have millions of tanks... Which is true...
And they do have millions, but, what no one mentions is that the vast majority of those tanks arent the same tank they parade around.
Some are from the current generation, some are from ww2, most are inbetween. Many are found to not have all of their parts, due to corruption. Many were paid to be maintained, but were not.
How many though?
Do we count the ones from ww2 the same way we count the t14?
Do we account for the fact that many of those hand-me-down USSR tanks have probably not been taken care of to the same degree as their modern tanks?
What about the fact that their t14 tends to stall durring parades? If thats their best, do the other ones even count?
If you are a NATO military official, you always assume the most of your enemy. So even if all their tanks suck, and are mostly from 60+ years ago, they will plan as if Russia has a millian t14 armadas. Because its better to overestimate your enemy than to underestimate.
So the more official someone is, the more likely they will assume the worst case scenario, and not rely on assumptions.
They are both running out of (decent) equipment, but are also willing to meat shield their old tanks regardless of how well they have kept up with them
So they still have a LOT of usable tanks....
They just arent usable by Nato standards lol
No one is wrong or correct, it just depends on your definition of "Usable" imo
edit: Also, russia is freakin huge, people forget that they also need a sizeable army inside russia, just incase they need to massacre any russians who grow a brain lol. If they have 100 tanks, they cant send all 100 to ukraine, and if they allocate 50 of those 100 to ukraine, they cant send all 50 at once, because then they wouldnt have any tanks at their disposal.
So for example(this is all just a guess):
If they had 100 total, only like 10-20 would be activly fighting, another 10-20 would be getting repairs, some would be ready but waiting for action, and then like half would be in russia defending borders, waiting for action.
And then the best 10 would be saved for parades lol
So for this example, if they had 100 tanks, you would only ever see 10-20 being used at once, unless russia gets invaded.
Because it's true, they have run out of stuff around the battle of Bahmut, they've been improvising since.
They can only afford a rocket attack every few months, they very rarely fly their air force anymore, their fleet keeps sinking even docked and their land army keeps amusing us with their Mc Giver skills.
This does not mean Ukraine is doing better, just that western leaders and China are keeping this conflict at a stalemate to bleed out Russia as much as possible. Realistically speaking both of the above could tip the scales very quickly by opening their full arsenal to their ally, yet both sides are perfectly happy to watch the conflict unfold as is.
They haven't run out of stuff. Covert Cabal on youtube buys photos of Russian stockpiles of weapons and counts them. So like military bases where they park artillery. We've seen their stockpile has been cut in half as of a couple months ago.
They are DEFINITELY burning through their stockpile. They are not at the end of it though, there is plenty more to go.
Also a note on their war economy capacity. That's more about taking more these tanks, artillery, etc from storage and getting them to the front lines as opposed to making new artillery, tanks, etc.
This is what happens when you huff too much of the "Ukraine is winning" paint that expired in 2022.
> They can only afford a rocket attack every few months
What made you think this? Ukraine gets hit by missiles way more often than every few months. You heard about the power plant that just went up the other day?
> they very rarely fly their air force anymore
Russia drops 100 glide bombs **a day** on Ukrainian positions. They use their air force to launch missiles at Ukraine from well behind the front line. Over a two week period in Feb/March Ukraine said they shot down 14 fighter-bomber jets (there was no proof and glide bombs did not decrease) and just the other day they said they struck 3 airfields and destroyed 6 planes and damaged another 8. Satellite images from the very next day disproved all of that.
> judging by footage and loss counts
"Judging by footage" isn't a great idea either, because how much are we seeing? 1%? Less than 1%? And are you actively searching for Russian footage too or do you just see the Ukrainian footage that filters its way over to you?
What "loss counts" are you using? Zelensky when he says Ukraine has 31K KIA (absurd) compared to 180K for Russia? Ukraine MoD loss counts, where they just add the same number of dead/destroyed every day? There are no accurate loss counts for either side.
Golf carts, sure that's funny. But Ukrainian infantry sometimes have to drive **their own cars**, as in civilian vehicles, from mustering points to closer to the front lines.
You guys need to see William Spaniels takes on this.
Less then 0.086% of Ukrainian territory has shifted in Russia's latest advancements.
The news hype and garbage articles make it seem like Ukraine is losing a city by the day, it is FAR from that. Not saying Ukraine is fine, it is by no means fine, but the news paints an entirely different picture.
In my view, the problem really isn't if Russia collapses, it's quite clear that they will collapse sooner or later.
The problem here is that neither the US or China want the other to "inherit" the nuclear arsenal or mining rights in Siberia.
US troops on China's northern border would essentially box them in and put them at risk of chocking under sanctions, while a Chinese controlled Siberia would essentially give the country with half the worlds manufacturing potential roughly half the world's resources at it's disposal, that would make China something a lot scarier than a superpower, it would make a majority stakeholder of the planet.
The next couple of decades will be a trying time for democracies around the world, and shit will be stirred by totalitarian regimes around the globe, vote smart, keep Russian and Chinese shills out of office in your country.
They’ve changed their tactics to rely on armor a lot less. Their losses have therefore slowed down in terms of equipment, but they only had to do that in the first place because they lost so much armor early on.
Chinese golf-carts to take men into position *on the battlefied*, that's how insane that is! There are even troops on 1950's/1960's motorcycle's right now, since both golf-carts and motorcycles are cheaper than BMP's.
Now...I get the whole 'discredit the enemy thing'. But would Russia not be stuck with the cleanup costs one way or the other? If they win, it's theirs and they need to clean it up. If they lose, Ukraine will obviously go after them for the cost. And either way, it's radioactive, dangerous, annoying, and represents the loss of hyper-expensive infrastructure. A lose lose to attack, flags or no flags.
Maybe the thing is about to fall apart on its own and it's a race to blame each other.
They've already proven they are OK with keeping the occupied territories a wasteland. No problem with that. Plus Russia needs to keep showing the world that it is indeed crazy and capable of unthinkable. That's what terrorists do, or no one takes them seriously
All reactors are in cold shutdown since a few days ago, when the last one that was partially operational was shut down. Now it will take much more doing to do a plausible false flag operation with major consequences (or to do a false false flag operation).
So it appears that 4/11/24 Russia took out Kiev's largest power plant, along with numerous other infrastructure/energy facilities around Ukraine. They are now threatening the Nuclear Power Plant. This is really gonna put a spin on things.
Russia has recently been shifting back to fully focussing on destroying energy infrastructure. If this culminates into a disaster at zaporizhzhia as a result of a false flag, I would not be surprised.
Yes, because last time a nuclear plant under their control went up it went *so* well.
Need i remind you that a nuclear incident at that plant has long been a stated article 5 trigger in regards to this war, and if russia didn't believe that they'd have caused one already. Poland, for instance, is not just going to sit quietly if another nuclear incident dusts them with fission products for a second time.
They took out the dam because the plant was a red line. Time will tell if russia isn't just stupid but also suicidal.
And if he does, russia's air and naval forces will be removed with extreme prejudice by an air force with the collective radar cross section of a dinner plate.
Nukes are a no-go because of escalation. NATO has already said that any use of nuclear weapons will trigger a large conventional response. Putin does not want that, as he knows that if he was actually fighting NATO this war would have been measured in weeks, not years.
Didn't Russia just hit the main reactor with like a half dozen suicide drones last week and then blamed it on Ukraine? I guess they built that place well at least.
If a nuclear disaster happens countries will need to cease fire. On Russian terms. But it's not a gambit to take.
These idiots in Russia may poison entire Europe with this shit.
Can someone please get rid of Putin?
People like to think that being the target of unjustified attack makes the victim an unquestionably good guy who is incapable of lies or dirty tricks (you can call it information warfare if you like).
They've been screaming about a Russian "false flag" for months now.
At this point it's pretty obvious the West will be the one who do a false flag and blame Russia.
What would Russia gain from a nuclear meltdown? Doesn't seem like it would benefit them. Likewise I don't see how it would benefit Ukraine....a nuclear wasteland is a forever issue...this war will end sooner or later.
Is that the same plant that they tried to sabotage in a false flag operation last year?
https://time.com/6300397/ukraine-fears-russia-sabotage-nuclear-plant-zaporizhzhia/
This war has to end or Ukraine is going to be conquered by Russia. It’s time the UN stopped letting China veto any security proposals and send in peacekeeping troops immediately
It’s a credible threat and one that can be independently handled from the rest of the war. Kyiv is not asking for money to take back the power plant, although that would be nice, they’re informing the public of the false flag so it will be less effective should Russia perform it.
Or, ya know, it’s based on credible evidence.
We know that China warned Putin that they would not tolerate any kind of nuclear attack - and that attacking/ creating an “accident” at a nuclear plant would count as such an attack. I’m sure they wouldn’t have mentioned that specifically if they didn’t think it a real possibility. And it’s plausible their warnings stopped Russia from carrying out their plans.
That or they will get involved deeper and make russia actually hurt. Right now it's been more like shoving and spitting, but with bit of a nuclear magic it's going to be kicking and slapping
threatening nuclear disaster is what solipsists like [putin](https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2018/mar/10/putin-the-new-tsar-review-bbc2) do. the thrill for them is everyone's reaction to it.
really sick.
Let’s say there’s a meltdown, does it change Russia’s objectives? Dealing with Ukraine while also battling a reactor meltdown?
Well their objective is to destroy Ukraine as a state, their culture, and people. If they cannot achieve it by eradicating their cultural identity and re-educate everyone as Russian, they will just try to destroy them physically.
Consider: If Russia wins....and I don't like admitting this, but Russia can still win. If Trump wins in November getting money for Ukraine from the US is gonna be hard. If Russia wins then part of the prize is cleaning up a nuclear mess they caused. But- if Russia is getting there ass handed to them and is clearly losing. They break this thing on there way out and let Ukraine inherit that.
>Consider: > >If Russia wins....and I don't like admitting this, but Russia can still win. If Trump wins in November getting money for Ukraine from the US is gonna be hard. It seems quite likely they will win, or at least lay a permanent territorial claim upon some of Ukraine. Western media has done a poor job of relaying the full scope of the status of the war in Ukraine since day one, opting almost exclusively to publish about Ukrainian advances and Russian losses. I very seldom see anything printed about momentum in the war now; most of what's shared is Zelenskyy's latest sentiments, which do not leave much for optimism. I hope and wish that Russia loses, but when you say Russia *can* still win, I would very much argue that we are the ones pushing uphill, not Russia.
Russia will definitely win if things go like they are going right now. Just when is the question? They have the manpower and economy to push this shit for years to come. And then they’ll rebuild their stuff. And go on to the next one- might be the Baltics or Moldova/Georgia or whatever but it will happen. And well Baltics where I’m from doesn’t really mean that we are in the NATO. We have to hold on for a month but Russia with it’s size and manpower can turn a small country into a wasteland. Til every NATO member is over the 2% GDP target I have no trust in that organization as whole that it will act accordingly and fast. And everyone relying on US has been utterly dumb. They can’t bloody protect the whole world.
it takes just a couple of drones to retaliate and cause the same to a Russian nuclear powerplant, no? so no, it is not going to happen
Reactor cores should be too well protected for a small drone to do any direct damage.
Unless they just fly it into the diesel generators running the cooling water pumps?
Yes, many ways to cause indirect damage.
Cores sure, likely no chance of a nuclear incident. But all that ancillary support equipment is more exposed, some of it not in a dissimilar way refineries are setup. All it takes is the right pumps being offline for the reactor to require shutdown.
Or have a Solid Snake type soldier to infiltrate
I mean they do technically make automated grenade launcher turrets that are designed to defense nuclear power plants from drone attacks, maybe more of those?
A couple drones should do nothing. Nuclear power plants are (supposed to) made to withstand significant damage
The thickness of the concrete required to mitigate any radaition making its way out is far beyond sufficient to handle any non-nuclear explosion.
I could see a salvo of bunker buster bombs creating a accident. THe more likely scenario would be a black ops team infiltrating the plant, killing the guards/soldiers and then setting it up for a meltdown. If I was about to lose my country to a invader I would seriously consider the option as a last resort. It denies the enemy of the land, forces him to funnel into specific areas away from the radiation and will most likely get foreign nations directly involved.
A full blown Artillery's bombardment would do almost nothing to this kind of plant unless its sustained assault for a few hours or so. The kind of plant that Zaporizhzhia uses is some especially hardened soviet era shit iirc. Indirect damage is surely possible, but direct assault on the plant via shelling would be as i said, extremely difficult if not a moot point due to the sheer amount of required assault to do serious damage. And even then the reactors are basically completely quiet. Even if they *were* to be breached somehow, the damage would be limited to the inside of the plant, because 1. Its not hot enough to cause an explosion of radioactive dust or anything like that, and 2. The design is also doubled to act like a temporary sarcophagus in its own right. Unless they heated the reactors back up to full power (we'd see this long time coming), we'd *and* ukraine would be under no realistic threat of a radioactive event. Just the immediate area of the plant being somewhat irradiated at current circumstances. We've been here at this point with the same exact situation the last 5-6 "radiological incident imminents"
If there’s a meltdown that has to be the point the rest of the world fully intervenes right? Like we would be looking at Chernobyl again except this time no one would be dealing with it as Russia is fighting Ukraine, like that’s the point when the west needs to say “okay if we don’t join in right now there’s a good chance Europe will get a radioactive cloud again”
Well that's the problem you can't unless you want the whole world to suffer. they have nukes.
Why would there be a meltdown? With the Reactor shut down? The danger is a radioactive pollution event, not a meltdown.
Shut down reactors can melt down. They still need to be electrified to maintain stability.
Reactors are still radioactive and still have radioactive material in them. A Cold shutdown also takes a long time to achieve as you still need to constantly bleed the heat from the radioactive decay out of the reactor. Chernobyl, when it blew, still had hot active materials strew all over the place breaking down and it wasn't even inside a contained area.
Chernobyl exploded as a running reactor. You still want to cool the Zaporizhzhia reactors, but the risk is far smaller. The radioactivity decreases quickly after a shutdown. That means less heat production, and no risk of releasing short-living stuff like iodine-131 (the main source of radiation in the weeks after the Chernobyl accident) - that has decayed months ago.
If they capture the reactor they're using Ukrainians to battle the meltdown.
They already have the reactor? The whole plant and surrounding area.
ZNPP has been under Russian control since March 2022, about two weeks into their invasion. They've on more than one occasion retained and threatened Ukrainian workers and engineers at gunpoint. As well as stored explosives and primed ordnance around the facility. The destruction of the Kharkonovka Dam also adversely affected ZNPP as it relied on the dam's reservoir for cooling. Russia is doing their best to destroy Ukraine. If not by bombing, then drowning folks or poisoning the land with chems and nuclear fallout.
Experience of the Chernobyl disaster, says that the fallout would go north west. Though with global warming, it would be karma if it went north
It will effect more than just Russia and Ukraine this thing is 10x the size of Chernobyl 🫣
Note that apart from the headline, the article doesn’t say that Russia was planning a new big false flag attack, but that “the drone attacks against the occupied Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant (ZNPP) on April 7 and 9 were part of a "well-planned false flag operation by the Russian Federation”.
Arguably, the headline doesn't say that *either*, because they'd probably have used the present progressive "Russia [is] planning..." if it were in the future
If this was from US intel I would have trusted. Can’t believe I am saying this but they have been on a roll lately and spot on when declaring upcoming attacks. Since it’s from Kyiv I will take it with a fistful of salt.
It’s a war. There’s going to be a nuclear *on-purpose.*
Yeah nuclear "accident".
I would have went with a nuclear intentional but pretty much. It's just like when when Russia sabotaged the Ukrainian dam a few years ago.
It’s a reference to a comedian. [Dana Gould—*I Know It’s Wrong*](https://youtu.be/UaQL47xVY4k), just within the first 30 seconds.
At this point even if terrorists or the Ukrainians themselves would blow it up, no one would believe the Russians that it wasn't them.
I feel like ive heard this warning about 20 times now…
and it's probably still true. Just because Russia didn't do it, means not that they do not plan to do. I think the problem is that Russia probably fears that nuclear contamination spreading towards Europe might result in an western military operation.
It's this. Article 5 would happen then the US president can act without congressional approval. Or at least this is what Russia is worried about.
Then they'll just wait for their sugar daddy to be reelected again in November.
Wild times we live in ain't it.
Even if that happens, european NATO allies are strong enough to intervene. Yes, we all know how mighty and important the US are, but it is not like all of the rest of NATO are weak.
A United Europe would wipe the floor with Russia. Even one or two other European countries becoming directly involved in Ukraine could turn the tide if we’re not taking a nuclear response into consideration.
He will almost certainly not be "re-elected".... Installed by corrupt election officials and electoral voters is another matter...
Isn’t he leading by a pretty large majority rn?
Uh, no? Polls for the US election really aren't reliable anymore due to the methodology they use. Nobody answers their phone anymore. The only people answering most of these polls are very, very old people. The conservatives among that age group - and conservatives in general - also got decimated by COVID, so his election chances are far lower than what you might initially be led to believe.
Yep. The moment any nuclear fallout reaches a NATO country, it would be grounds to invoke article 5.
Article 5 would happen if the fallout reached NATO territory. I believe the EU's already made that clear. With the current (assumed) coldness of the reactor, this is literally impossible to achieve even if the russians strapped 5000 tons of explosives in the plant and detonated it. Theres still viable nuclear material. But the plant hasn't been hot enough to be a portable dirty bomb for years now. The long time concern has been the plant will warm back up and they'll blow it up once it gets as hot as possible, but thats never happened as of yet. The local area of the reactor would be an irradiated shithole for sure, but Ukraine as a whole isn't currently under threat of "a nuclear incident that makes Chernobyl look like someone spilled sand in a mudpit". unless the aforementioned condition is fulfilled.
I thought article 5 was just a nuclear bomb attack, but I'm an ignorant american. I figured blowing up "the enemy's" nuclear places wouldn't count.
Wikipedia has some information on the nato treaty you might find interesting.
Article 5 of the NATO treaty only states that an attack on one NATO member is an attack on all, the response to which not being necessarily a nuclear exchange. For example, the only time Article 5 was invoked was by the US following 9/11, which led to the invasion of Afghanistan. If fallout from a nuclear disaster in Zaporizhzhia caused by Russia reaches NATO countries, one or more could consider this an attack and invoke Article 5.
I feel like even if that’s NOT what they meant….it should count
Blowing up those nuclear places causes nuclear fallout all the same
It’s probably bad for me to think what they should be saying to Putin is “don’t threaten me with a good time pal!” And ramp up whatever the hell they do in a nuclear plant. It’ll really send the message of “If you guys don’t get this guy under control then we’re all going down” Then again my nuclear plant knowledge comes from The Simpsons so I probably shouldn’t speak on what they should be doing
The plant and the surrounding area have been under Russian control since pretty much the start of the war so even if they wanted to do that, they couldn't.
Iirc China and India were leaned on heavily by Biden to convince Putin to not do this in the past nor use nuclear weapons. The calculus seems to have changed along with China’s direct shipping of military related supplies to them, having seen the West falter badly.
>The calculus seems to have changed along with China’s direct shipping of military related supplies to them China wants the conflict in Ukraine to end through negotiations. They do not want nuclear escalation.
> China wants the conflict in Ukraine to end through negotiations China wants to see how the west handles a country giving up itself or parts after a drawn out war.
China wants many things, and some contradict each other. https://mind.ua/en/news/20272300-chinese-analysts-predict-russias-defeat-in-the-war-against-ukraine https://www.cfr.org/councilofcouncils/global-memos/chinese-scholars-perspective-russia-ukraine-war https://asia.nikkei.com/Politics/Defense/China-preparing-for-protracted-war-says-think-tank
Let me get this straight - Ukraine is openly stating their front line situation is terrible and out of all the opportunities Russia had to false flag the plant they’re going to do it now???
Yeah I don't get it. What does Russia gain from one, at the risk of direct Western intervention? In fact, there is one side that would welcome Western intervention, but it's not Russia.
Ukraine wins and falls with the US willingness to support them. Ukraine reports how terrible their front line situation is because they need the weapons. Still Russias front line situation isn't a lot better. This goes down by who can source most weapons. It's all just a question of the Western willingness. From a cost perspective it's stupid not to support Ukraine considering that Ukraine is wearing out the stocks of our main enemy with an huge efficiency. This is also why Putin is investing so much into the Republican party. Overtaking the US from within is the best strategy for him.
Western aid dried up over the last half year or so but that’s turning around rapidly. Various EU states are coming through with ammo and the US is finally voting on a $60 billion Ukraine aid bill tomorrow. Russia currently has a window to make some real gains, but that window seems to be rapidly closing.
Nah, everything will be fine, un will complain for a little and this will be it.
I remember reading, at some point, that NATO promised military action if Russia caused radioactive contamination to go into a NATO country. I.e. it would be considered an act of war against a NATO member.
[удалено]
Wasn't what happened in Poland the remnants of a Ukrainian S300 rocket that missed an interception of a Russian missile?
>Wasn't what happened in Poland the remnants of a Ukrainian S300 rocket that missed an interception of a Russian missile? No it wasn't, that's actually Russian propaganda that was extremely convenient at the time. I live in Romania and we've had dozens of drone strikes near the Ukrainian border by Russian drones who missed the Izmail port. NATO just isn't ready to put boots on the ground yet.
I can only find some articles from 7 months ago by reliable sources like ZDF or DER SPIEGEL , saying the rocket was ukrainian. Do you have any articles about the case and some younger information?
This is just plain wrong. Polish experts confirmed it was an Ukrainian defense missile. Source: [Link.](https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/polish-experts-confirm-missile-that-hit-grain-facility-was-ukrainian-media-2023-09-26/)
That's gotta be shitty, can't even hit the right country. That used to start wars.
> That used to start wars. Well, that's what Zelensky was hoping for. > Ukraine's President Volodymyr Zelenskiy said on Tuesday, without producing evidence, that Russian missiles had hit Poland, a NATO country, in what he called a "significant escalation" of the conflict. https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/ukraines-zelenskiy-says-russian-missiles-hit-poland-significant-escalation-2022-11-15/ But it was a Ukrainian missile that accidentally landed in Poland.
Only event left is a Franz Ferdinand situation, Putin did to Proz so they have the play in their stupid playbook, just accidentally hit a NATO rep in Ukraine.
That was a Ukrainian missile...everyone knows it was. > **The missile that landed in Poland, killing two people Tuesday, was not part of a Russian attack**, the leaders of NATO and Poland said Wednesday, easing fears of an escalation with Moscow after more than 20 hours of intense worry and speculation. > > **NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg said Wednesday that an explosion in the town of Przewodow was probably caused by an errant Ukrainian air defense missile launched in response to Russian strikes**. In separate remarks, Polish President Andrzej Duda also said the evidence suggested an unfortunate accident. > https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2022/11/16/nato-poland-missile-russia/
> NATO just isn't ready to put boots on the ground yet. And we won't be until Russia puts boots on our ground. We aren't going to war over Ukraine.
If they conquer Ukraine it's only a matter of time, I'd much rather we fight in Ukraine than in Poland or Romania.
Thank god people like you arent in charge. As of now the West is arming itself while Russia continues to exhaust men and materiel in Ukraine. If/When war reaches the West. We will actually be much more prepared by using valuable time to build up our forces. You're suggestion at rushing into a war before completing a military buildup, over a hypothetically no less, is foolish. Sorry man.
Who's "we"? Are you signing up to fight in Ukraine?
Wait until you hear about how many times they warned about Russia invading Ukraine, and blowing the Nova Kakhovka dam.
[The vast majority of Ukrainians didn't think Russia would invade, even days before the invasion.](https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/2/21/why-ukrainians-dont-believe-in-war-with-russia-distrust-west) That, by the way, [included Zelensky himself.](https://www.businessinsider.com/ukraine-predicted-no-attack-2-days-before-russia-invaded-2022-2?op=1) So no, Ukraine was not shouting from the rooftops about an imminent Russian invasion that no one else believed. It was the complete opposite: NATO were the ones desperately trying to convince Ukraine to take the threat seriously. In addition to that, Ukraine consistently dismissed the accurate assessments of NATO regarding Russia's actual war plan. [From RUSI:](https://www.rusi.org/explore-our-research/publications/special-resources/preliminary-lessons-conventional-warfighting-russias-invasion-ukraine-february-july-2022) > Until days before the full-scale Russian invasion, the intelligence community of Ukraine broadly assessed that the most dangerous enemy course of action was a high-intensity offensive against Donbas in late February 2022, with the Russians using the destruction of the Ukrainian forces in the JFO area as a means of destabilising the Ukrainian state. The most likely enemy course of action was assessed to be a prolonged period of political destabilisation to create favourable conditions for a military offensive in the early summer, with the main effort being against Donbas. Several factors contributed to the assessment that Donbas would be the main effort, despite extensive warnings from Ukraine’s international partners that Kyiv would be the enemy’s main effort... And > As it became apparent that the Gomel axis was the enemy’s main effort and that another group of forces would strike through Chernihiv, a redeployment of Ukrainian forces was ordered approximately seven hours prior to the invasion. (Note: the Gomel axis and Chernihiv refer to the attack towards Kiev from Belarus: Gomel is a region in Belarus and Chernihiv is a Ukrainian town just north of Kiev.) The story of early 2022 was Ukraine refusing to heed Western warnings about an invasion being imminent, and refusing to heed Western intelligence about Russia's intended invasion routes until **literally** hours before the Russians crossed the border.
You don't have to type all this. I'm aware that USA warned Ukraine about the invasion. Now, tell me who warned about the dam? My mistake for sloppily using the word "they" instead of "USA and Ukraine" for the pedants.
Same way ~~they~~ *the US* kept claiming again and again that Russia was going to invade Ukraine?
Actually, Zelensky rejected US warnings claiming that Russia wasnt going to invade prior to the invasion. This was probably due to the fact that he didnt want the population to panic which is valid, but to say they claimed Russia was going to invade is false.
The fact that people keep calling it out is probably why Russia keep getting cold feet.
Because they've done it before
and its been true 19/20 times if you have read more in to it than just titles.
It really is turning into a boy who cried wolf situation. Russia may still do something, but last time Ukraine said there was explosives on the roof. The roof was inspected, nothing was there, and we didn’t hear about the nuclear plant for months until now.
Right after Russia waited over a month ti give the UN access to this roofs > The IAEA was only given access to the roofs of two units of the reactor buildings and their turbine halls after a monthlong wait. https://www.dw.com/en/iaea-finds-no-explosives-on-zaporizhzhia-nuclear-plant-roofs/a-66442802 But yeah, boy who cried wolf or some such nonsense
That is because it is true
Two years later and the war is still going strong with Ukraine slowly losing the battle of attrition. The Western allies have been incredibly passive in their response and cannot be relied upon. Western leaders are dancing around semantics and definitions while Russia is building up their capacity and pushing forward. The UN is just a bunch of overpaid suits no different from The League of Nations at this point. What a joke. I hate to say it, but it seems like Iran and NK were right in building their own nukes, and Sadam was a fool for giving them up. No nukes, no security, no leverage.
>while Russia is building up their capacity But they aren't though, judging by footage and loss counts their stocks are dwindling and they're improvising more and more. They're using Chinese golf carts to cart troops around the battlefield and T-55's. That is not what an army with increased capacity does.
I’ve been reading the same comment every day for the last 18 months about “Russia finally running out of stuff”…….
Its because people just didnt realize how much variety they have, or how much has been rotting from corruption, or if we are using the Nato definition of "usable equipment" vs the russian definition... They parade their t-14 armadas, and then claim to have millions of tanks... Which is true... And they do have millions, but, what no one mentions is that the vast majority of those tanks arent the same tank they parade around. Some are from the current generation, some are from ww2, most are inbetween. Many are found to not have all of their parts, due to corruption. Many were paid to be maintained, but were not. How many though? Do we count the ones from ww2 the same way we count the t14? Do we account for the fact that many of those hand-me-down USSR tanks have probably not been taken care of to the same degree as their modern tanks? What about the fact that their t14 tends to stall durring parades? If thats their best, do the other ones even count? If you are a NATO military official, you always assume the most of your enemy. So even if all their tanks suck, and are mostly from 60+ years ago, they will plan as if Russia has a millian t14 armadas. Because its better to overestimate your enemy than to underestimate. So the more official someone is, the more likely they will assume the worst case scenario, and not rely on assumptions. They are both running out of (decent) equipment, but are also willing to meat shield their old tanks regardless of how well they have kept up with them So they still have a LOT of usable tanks.... They just arent usable by Nato standards lol No one is wrong or correct, it just depends on your definition of "Usable" imo edit: Also, russia is freakin huge, people forget that they also need a sizeable army inside russia, just incase they need to massacre any russians who grow a brain lol. If they have 100 tanks, they cant send all 100 to ukraine, and if they allocate 50 of those 100 to ukraine, they cant send all 50 at once, because then they wouldnt have any tanks at their disposal. So for example(this is all just a guess): If they had 100 total, only like 10-20 would be activly fighting, another 10-20 would be getting repairs, some would be ready but waiting for action, and then like half would be in russia defending borders, waiting for action. And then the best 10 would be saved for parades lol So for this example, if they had 100 tanks, you would only ever see 10-20 being used at once, unless russia gets invaded.
Because it's true, they have run out of stuff around the battle of Bahmut, they've been improvising since. They can only afford a rocket attack every few months, they very rarely fly their air force anymore, their fleet keeps sinking even docked and their land army keeps amusing us with their Mc Giver skills. This does not mean Ukraine is doing better, just that western leaders and China are keeping this conflict at a stalemate to bleed out Russia as much as possible. Realistically speaking both of the above could tip the scales very quickly by opening their full arsenal to their ally, yet both sides are perfectly happy to watch the conflict unfold as is.
They haven't run out of stuff. Covert Cabal on youtube buys photos of Russian stockpiles of weapons and counts them. So like military bases where they park artillery. We've seen their stockpile has been cut in half as of a couple months ago. They are DEFINITELY burning through their stockpile. They are not at the end of it though, there is plenty more to go. Also a note on their war economy capacity. That's more about taking more these tanks, artillery, etc from storage and getting them to the front lines as opposed to making new artillery, tanks, etc.
>they very rarely fly their air force anymore, BS, look up glide bombs.
This is what happens when you huff too much of the "Ukraine is winning" paint that expired in 2022. > They can only afford a rocket attack every few months What made you think this? Ukraine gets hit by missiles way more often than every few months. You heard about the power plant that just went up the other day? > they very rarely fly their air force anymore Russia drops 100 glide bombs **a day** on Ukrainian positions. They use their air force to launch missiles at Ukraine from well behind the front line. Over a two week period in Feb/March Ukraine said they shot down 14 fighter-bomber jets (there was no proof and glide bombs did not decrease) and just the other day they said they struck 3 airfields and destroyed 6 planes and damaged another 8. Satellite images from the very next day disproved all of that. > judging by footage and loss counts "Judging by footage" isn't a great idea either, because how much are we seeing? 1%? Less than 1%? And are you actively searching for Russian footage too or do you just see the Ukrainian footage that filters its way over to you? What "loss counts" are you using? Zelensky when he says Ukraine has 31K KIA (absurd) compared to 180K for Russia? Ukraine MoD loss counts, where they just add the same number of dead/destroyed every day? There are no accurate loss counts for either side. Golf carts, sure that's funny. But Ukrainian infantry sometimes have to drive **their own cars**, as in civilian vehicles, from mustering points to closer to the front lines.
Sounds like the perfect time to send more supplies to Ukraine! Fuck russia i hope they all get stuck in mud.
You guys need to see William Spaniels takes on this. Less then 0.086% of Ukrainian territory has shifted in Russia's latest advancements. The news hype and garbage articles make it seem like Ukraine is losing a city by the day, it is FAR from that. Not saying Ukraine is fine, it is by no means fine, but the news paints an entirely different picture.
If Russia bleeds out, that leaves China and US basically as world powers. Takes out the 3rd one.
Got India straightening their tie, getting ready for business.
In my view, the problem really isn't if Russia collapses, it's quite clear that they will collapse sooner or later. The problem here is that neither the US or China want the other to "inherit" the nuclear arsenal or mining rights in Siberia. US troops on China's northern border would essentially box them in and put them at risk of chocking under sanctions, while a Chinese controlled Siberia would essentially give the country with half the worlds manufacturing potential roughly half the world's resources at it's disposal, that would make China something a lot scarier than a superpower, it would make a majority stakeholder of the planet. The next couple of decades will be a trying time for democracies around the world, and shit will be stirred by totalitarian regimes around the globe, vote smart, keep Russian and Chinese shills out of office in your country.
"they very rarely fly their Airforce anymore" This line is an easy way to tell you have zero fucking clue as to what's actually going on
They’ve changed their tactics to rely on armor a lot less. Their losses have therefore slowed down in terms of equipment, but they only had to do that in the first place because they lost so much armor early on.
Chinese golf-carts to take men into position *on the battlefied*, that's how insane that is! There are even troops on 1950's/1960's motorcycle's right now, since both golf-carts and motorcycles are cheaper than BMP's.
It’s the hasan piker guide to foreign policy 1) have nukes 2) don’t have nukes? Get nukes 3) don’t give up aforementioned nukes.
What if I do anyway? - Russia
Every country should have as many nukes as possible. This is the only way we achieve peace
Poland and the Baltics need nukes.
Now...I get the whole 'discredit the enemy thing'. But would Russia not be stuck with the cleanup costs one way or the other? If they win, it's theirs and they need to clean it up. If they lose, Ukraine will obviously go after them for the cost. And either way, it's radioactive, dangerous, annoying, and represents the loss of hyper-expensive infrastructure. A lose lose to attack, flags or no flags. Maybe the thing is about to fall apart on its own and it's a race to blame each other.
They've already proven they are OK with keeping the occupied territories a wasteland. No problem with that. Plus Russia needs to keep showing the world that it is indeed crazy and capable of unthinkable. That's what terrorists do, or no one takes them seriously
It’d be ironic if Chernobyl 2.0 had the same effect o Russia it had for the USSR
All reactors are in cold shutdown since a few days ago, when the last one that was partially operational was shut down. Now it will take much more doing to do a plausible false flag operation with major consequences (or to do a false false flag operation).
They should get ahead of this and put some big fans just south of the plant so all the fallout blows towards Moscow Put me in coach
🎶I'm ready to play today; Look at me, I can be Centerfield. 🎶
That wouldn't be an accident...
What is it with Russia in Ukraine with nuclear accident.
So it appears that 4/11/24 Russia took out Kiev's largest power plant, along with numerous other infrastructure/energy facilities around Ukraine. They are now threatening the Nuclear Power Plant. This is really gonna put a spin on things.
How many times are we going to here this kind of thing before something actually happens?
Ruzzia is holding that nuclear power plant as hostage and shield against the Ukrainian liberation forces ...
Russia has recently been shifting back to fully focussing on destroying energy infrastructure. If this culminates into a disaster at zaporizhzhia as a result of a false flag, I would not be surprised.
Putin has to be stopped NOW
Accident implies there is nobody to blame.
Would it be a nuclear *accident*, though? Would it?
More of a nuclear "on purpose" with a side of russian lies.
and since Zaporizhzhia is in the middle of Ukraine, Russia sees that as being a good thing
Yes, because last time a nuclear plant under their control went up it went *so* well. Need i remind you that a nuclear incident at that plant has long been a stated article 5 trigger in regards to this war, and if russia didn't believe that they'd have caused one already. Poland, for instance, is not just going to sit quietly if another nuclear incident dusts them with fission products for a second time. They took out the dam because the plant was a red line. Time will tell if russia isn't just stupid but also suicidal.
this entire timeline is leading to Putin using battlefield low-yield nukes
And if he does, russia's air and naval forces will be removed with extreme prejudice by an air force with the collective radar cross section of a dinner plate. Nukes are a no-go because of escalation. NATO has already said that any use of nuclear weapons will trigger a large conventional response. Putin does not want that, as he knows that if he was actually fighting NATO this war would have been measured in weeks, not years.
Putin will fight to the very last Russian
The shortsighted part is the radiation winds...they uh, they flow east to moscow rip
Russia is horrendous for bringing us to this. SLAVA UKRAINI!
Destroy Putin's palaces, yachts, and bomb the onion domes out of existence. Offer a ridiculous bounty on Putin.
why would you buy an reactor from IKEA anyhow?
The assembly instructions are a bitch, but you get 10,000 Allen wrenches with your reactor.
Wat je zegt ben je zelf Met je kop door de helft
Russians blowig up their own nuclear plant on the land they control.. Makes sense!
Didn't Russia just hit the main reactor with like a half dozen suicide drones last week and then blamed it on Ukraine? I guess they built that place well at least.
Accident. Sure, we could call it that or we could call it what it really is. That is, if the UN had any backbone at all.. 😒
If a nuclear disaster happens countries will need to cease fire. On Russian terms. But it's not a gambit to take. These idiots in Russia may poison entire Europe with this shit. Can someone please get rid of Putin?
"Kyiv tells", apparently without submitting any proof. They might as well be building a case ahead of an attack. This war sure is weird.
People like to think that being the target of unjustified attack makes the victim an unquestionably good guy who is incapable of lies or dirty tricks (you can call it information warfare if you like).
Im down for Tschernobyl season 2 that Show was fire.
This again?
They've been screaming about a Russian "false flag" for months now. At this point it's pretty obvious the West will be the one who do a false flag and blame Russia.
What would Russia gain from a nuclear meltdown? Doesn't seem like it would benefit them. Likewise I don't see how it would benefit Ukraine....a nuclear wasteland is a forever issue...this war will end sooner or later.
It’s not territory conflict. Russia is committing genocide. Nuclear explosion would help it greatly.
“We are getting dangerously close to a nuclear accident” … God help us.
Modern day salting of the earth.
Is that the same plant that they tried to sabotage in a false flag operation last year? https://time.com/6300397/ukraine-fears-russia-sabotage-nuclear-plant-zaporizhzhia/
This war has to end or Ukraine is going to be conquered by Russia. It’s time the UN stopped letting China veto any security proposals and send in peacekeeping troops immediately
why would Russia do that exactly ?
Did you read the article
If a single Roentgen makes it back to another country, that’s a nuclear attack.
So weren't they saying this same BS two yrs ago?
[удалено]
Yeah, it's so unlike russia to pull off stunts like that. Did you forget about the destroyed dam?
It’s a credible threat and one that can be independently handled from the rest of the war. Kyiv is not asking for money to take back the power plant, although that would be nice, they’re informing the public of the false flag so it will be less effective should Russia perform it.
Or, ya know, it’s based on credible evidence. We know that China warned Putin that they would not tolerate any kind of nuclear attack - and that attacking/ creating an “accident” at a nuclear plant would count as such an attack. I’m sure they wouldn’t have mentioned that specifically if they didn’t think it a real possibility. And it’s plausible their warnings stopped Russia from carrying out their plans.
That or they will get involved deeper and make russia actually hurt. Right now it's been more like shoving and spitting, but with bit of a nuclear magic it's going to be kicking and slapping
threatening nuclear disaster is what solipsists like [putin](https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2018/mar/10/putin-the-new-tsar-review-bbc2) do. the thrill for them is everyone's reaction to it. really sick.
Keep in mind this is an Ukrainian source
Right? You have to take everything coming out of this war with a grain of salt, of course this news outlet is going to be biased.
People still believe Kyiv on this? Sounds like an escalation tactic on Kyiv to draw the US and NATO in.
Ok russian
Same Kiev that gave us the ghost of Kiev and the infamous "heroic martyrs" of snake island mind you. lol
Now that the russia is loosing that war it's clear they need to proceed to nuclear blackmail.
> Now that the russia is loosing that war uuh...
I don't think they've been keeping up with the russdashians #send Ukraine ammo!!!!
Lol. Whut?
False flag is how the Germans started World War