NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.
So apparently the Russian attack on the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant was worse than what the IAEA said it was.
A thorough review of a four-hour, 21-minute security camera video of the attack reveals that Russian forces repeatedly fired heavy weapons in the direction of the plant's massive reactor buildings, which housed dangerous nuclear fuel. Photos show that an administrative building directly in front of the reactor complex was shredded by Russian fire. And a video from inside the plant shows damage and a possible Russian shell that landed less than 250 feet from the Unit 2 reactor building.
The security camera footage also shows Russian troops haphazardly firing rocket-propelled grenades into the main administrative building at the plant and turning away Ukrainian firefighters even as a fire raged out of control in a nearby training building.
The evidence stands in stark contrast to early comments by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), which while acknowledging the seriousness of the assault, emphasized that the action took place away from the reactors. In a news conference immediately after the attack, IAEA Director-General Rafael Mariano Grossi made reference to only a single projectile hitting a training building adjacent to the reactor complex.
"All the safety systems of the six reactors at the plant were not affected at all," Grossi told reporters at the March 4 briefing.
In fact, the training building took multiple strikes, and it was hardly the only part of the site to take fire from Russian forces. The security footage supports claims by Ukraine's nuclear regulator of damage at three other locations: the Unit 1 reactor building, the transformer at the Unit 6 reactor and the spent fuel pad, which is used to store nuclear waste. It also shows ordnance striking a high-voltage line outside the plant. The IAEA says two such lines were damaged in the attack.
"This video is very disturbing," says Edwin Lyman, director of nuclear power safety at the Union of Concerned Scientists. While the types of reactors used at the plant are far safer than the one that exploded in Chernobyl in 1986, the Russian attack could have triggered a meltdown similar to the kind that struck Japan's Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant in 2011, he warns.
On March 11 2022 17:17 PoulsenB wrote: A quick note on Poland - PiS has been steadily eroding democratic standards in our country since it took power a few years ago, first they made our constitutional tribunal into a subservient body full of yes-men, they they began trying to take over our judicual system (still in progress afaik). They are anti-EU, anti-lgbt and anti-choice, and under their rule groups like Ordo Iuris (which is a group of an anti-choice religious fundamentalists who are widely suspected of being funded by russia) gained a lot of influence. Poland has been under EU scrutiny because of all that for some time now. So these "sanctions" are nothing new, and I don't think have anything to do with the whole fighter jet debacle.
I personally often get a feeling that while PiS might not be actual russian agents trying to destabilize and isolate our country, a lot of things they do is just good news for Russia, who I'm sure would love if our country did a "Polexit". Yes, this term has already appeared in our media last year, and I don't think Poland leaving the EU for some asinine made up reason is impossible.
I hope people here will understand that it is only your opininon and won't make any conclusions about our country as a whole based just on this post.
Duly noted.
I’ve read murmurs of these broad trends for quite some time, although generally tacked on to analyses of Hungary.
They don’t seem to align with the views of expatriate Poles I know, nor the Poles who post on TL, but I don’t know a huge amount about Poland’s internal culture and politics.
The current crisis has rather illustrated that individual countries are rather limited in what they can do, and collective action and solidarity is really quite important.
On March 11 2022 05:03 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote: If you have any military bases, there are a lot of shelters there that can be used since each barracks is a minimum 1ft thick. There's a lot of other places as well that would serve. But more than likely, you're going to need something underground. I don't know how many places around the world are capable of providing enough space to all of the people, but some is better than none. Ukraine is holding out and I think unless Putin commits far more troops, he's going to be forced to withdraw.
I watched an interesting video recently that broke down why Russia realistically cannot occup Ukraine. Basically, even if Russia defeats the Ukrainian government and occupies the country, they do not have the manpower or the economy necessary for a successful occupation of a country putting up minimal resistance, and Ukraine is putting up more than just minimal resistance. In a study conducted by the Rand Corporation, it was found that 20 soldiers per 1,000 people in a geographical region were needed to successfully occupy said region, and Russia's current troop to population ratio is nowhere near that. Also, Russia does not have enough troops in their armed forces to realistically get that number to 20, nor do they have a good enough economy to support an occupation. Here's the link for those interested:
Russia doesn't have to. Their goal is destruction of the Ukrainian state, not occupation and nation-building. A fragmented failed state with several weak regional puppet regimes and continuous violence achieves that. Like I have said before, as long as no one else wins, Russia doesn't lose.
At this point I think it is open whether the forces Russia has committed are sufficient to destruct the Ukrainian state. But if achieved, Russia has no need to occupy the whole country.
I honestly fail to see how that won't require an occupation. A fragmented state with several puppet regimes in conflict with each other will have to be propped up by Russia with money, supplies, and troops. Because if Russia doesn't provide that support, there is nothing stopping Ukraine from being taken over by one of the factions right after Russia leaves.
I fail to see how the Russian economy will be able to support Russia, let alone an occupation of Ukraine. The sanctions are the economic equivalent of a WMD. Probably significantly more destructive than having a few major cities wiped out. Russia will need to rebuild its entire economy to be self sufficient but that’s not something that can actually be done.
Somewhat connected to what's happening in Ukraine, both Sweden and Finland say that now is not the time to join NATO. As much as I would want us to join, it makes perfect sense but oboy are (some)people up in arms about it. It's the same one-dimensional thinking that you hear from people saying the West is just standing by letting the killings happen.
On March 12 2022 01:05 Longshank wrote: Somewhat connected to what's happening in Ukraine, both Sweden and Finland say that now is not the time to join NATO. As much as I would want us to join, it makes perfect sense but oboy are (some)people up in arms about it. It's the same one-dimensional thinking that you hear from people saying the West is just standing by letting the killings happen.
I'd argue the opposite. The best moment to join NATO is now. Russia's invasion in Ukraine is going poorly and they don't have the resources for a second front. Yes it's escalatory but Russia can't stop it.
On March 12 2022 01:05 Longshank wrote: Somewhat connected to what's happening in Ukraine, both Sweden and Finland say that now is not the time to join NATO. As much as I would want us to join, it makes perfect sense but oboy are (some)people up in arms about it. It's the same one-dimensional thinking that you hear from people saying the West is just standing by letting the killings happen.
I'd argue the opposite. The best moment to join NATO is now. Russia's invasion in Ukraine is going poorly and they don't have the resources for a second front. Yes it's escalatory but Russia can't stop it.
Do you realize that even if you discount the Russian forces in Ukraine, they still have probably over ten times more active military than Finland and Sweden combined? I am not taking a stance on NATO here, but saying "they cannot afford resources on second front" is not really true.
On March 12 2022 01:05 Longshank wrote: Somewhat connected to what's happening in Ukraine, both Sweden and Finland say that now is not the time to join NATO. As much as I would want us to join, it makes perfect sense but oboy are (some)people up in arms about it. It's the same one-dimensional thinking that you hear from people saying the West is just standing by letting the killings happen.
I'd argue the opposite. The best moment to join NATO is now. Russia's invasion in Ukraine is going poorly and they don't have the resources for a second front. Yes it's escalatory but Russia can't stop it.
Do you realize that even if you discount the Russian forces in Ukraine, they still have probably over ten times more active military than Finland and Sweden combined? I am not taking a stance on NATO here, but saying "they cannot afford resources on second front" is not really true.
This is one of those paper things you need to discount the evidence of your own eyes to believe. Russia is, on paper, a military power. Russia is, on the ground, unable to decisively engage Ukraine.
Russia lacks the military power to effectively win the conflicts it is already in. Not only does it have no military resources to spare for a second conflict, it has fewer that it needs for the first one. When the paper does not match the evidence it must be dismissed.
Well after seeing the video(s) of the assault on Russian armored battalion and some other videos of their tactics in Ukraine, it looks like it doesn't really matter if their (RUS) army has any commanding officers and strategists or not... :D
EDIT:
On March 12 2022 02:18 KwarK wrote: Russia lacks the military power to effectively win the conflicts it is already in. Not only does it have no military resources to spare for a second conflict, it has fewer that it needs for the first one. When the paper does not match the evidence it must be dismissed.
Yeah, you're right. That however imo doesn't mean they believe it themselves (see above).
Also again a reminder that Finland is part of the EU mutual defence treaty. Its not on its own without NATO and Putin deciding to open a 'second front' would put him in a war with the EU. Not quite as scary now without UK and US but based on the evidence we have sofar, probably still more then Russia could handle. And from there it would be a very short stop to getting the entirety of NATO involved.
The size of Russia is massive and hard to grasp. They're not going to commit too many forces on Ukraine while they have to account for a defensive scenario at the same time. From what I've seen, they're trying to cut off the opponents from supplies and just wait them out after taking the thinly defended positions outside of the cities. Nothing new strategy wise when you aim at keeping casualties low, but certainly disastrous for civilians remaining there.
On March 12 2022 02:43 Vivax wrote: The size of Russia is massive and hard to grasp. They're not going to commit too many forces on Ukraine while they have to account for a defensive scenario at the same time. From what I've seen, they're trying to cut off the opponents from supplies and just wait them out after taking the thinly defended positions outside of the cities. Nothing new strategy wise when you aim at keeping casualties low, but certainly disastrous for civilians remaining there.
What defensive scenario? No one in the world is thinking about actually attacking Russian soil.
On March 12 2022 02:43 Vivax wrote: The size of Russia is massive and hard to grasp. They're not going to commit too many forces on Ukraine while they have to account for a defensive scenario at the same time. From what I've seen, they're trying to cut off the opponents from supplies and just wait them out after taking the thinly defended positions outside of the cities. Nothing new strategy wise when you aim at keeping casualties low, but certainly disastrous for civilians remaining there.
What defensive scenario? No one in the world is thinking about actually attacking Russian soil.
No one who plans on counterattacking you is going to admit it. They wouldn't tell the public either. Seems like the rational play to me.
On March 12 2022 02:43 Vivax wrote: The size of Russia is massive and hard to grasp. They're not going to commit too many forces on Ukraine while they have to account for a defensive scenario at the same time. From what I've seen, they're trying to cut off the opponents from supplies and just wait them out after taking the thinly defended positions outside of the cities. Nothing new strategy wise when you aim at keeping casualties low, but certainly disastrous for civilians remaining there.
What defensive scenario? No one in the world is thinking about actually attacking Russian soil.
No one who plans on counterattacking you is going to admit it. They wouldn't tell the public either. Seems like the rational play to me.
Russia has nuclear ICBMs and an economy smaller than Italy. Nobody wants to pick a fight and they have nothing worth fighting over.
The Russian strategy you’re describing fails to explain why they attempted rapid encirclements and took such large losses on the attempt. If they meant for a slow inexorable advance then why all the aerial deployments, amphibious assaults, and armoured columns? Why the advances beyond supply lines? Why use and lose all these assets that have nothing to do with that strategy?
I think it much more likely that they intended a rapid seizure of the capital, a decapitation of the Ukrainian government, and the creation of a puppet regime. To present the world with a fait accompli before it could react. That would be the smartest approach, without an organized national government resisting them there would be nobody to request western arms and nobody for the west to give them to. They just failed.
On March 12 2022 02:43 Vivax wrote: The size of Russia is massive and hard to grasp. They're not going to commit too many forces on Ukraine while they have to account for a defensive scenario at the same time. From what I've seen, they're trying to cut off the opponents from supplies and just wait them out after taking the thinly defended positions outside of the cities. Nothing new strategy wise when you aim at keeping casualties low, but certainly disastrous for civilians remaining there.
What defensive scenario? No one in the world is thinking about actually attacking Russian soil.
No one who plans on counterattacking you is going to admit it. They wouldn't tell the public either. Seems like the rational play to me.
Russia has nuclear ICBMs and an economy smaller than Italy. Nobody wants to pick a fight and they have nothing worth fighting over.
The Russian strategy you’re describing fails to explain why they attempted rapid encirclements and took such large losses on the attempt. If they meant for a slow inexorable advance then why all the aerial deployments, amphibious assaults, and armoured columns? Why the advances beyond supply lines? Why use and lose all these assets that have nothing to do with that strategy?
I think it much more likely that they intended a rapid seizure of the capital, a decapitation of the Ukrainian government, and the creation of a puppet regime. To present the world with a fait accompli before it could react. That would be the smartest approach, without an organized national government resisting them there would be nobody to request western arms and nobody for the west to give them to. They just failed.
I don't know about the numbers or who's actually winning and I try not to look for it. It's likely manipulated information wherever I look.
But considering the amphibian attacks it seems likely it's a two headed offensive that aims at encirclement. Once Kiew is encircled the Russians can just control the supply flows. My local newspapers speak of humanitarian corridors being shot at and the like so it's not unlikely they already reached that point. You don't need corridors when your army is in control.
EPT
