You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
I am just pointing out that the sanctions are causing more damage to the the US and Europe than it is to Russia.
Why? Because we can't get cheap Baltic ply? Because you're going to have to show some numbers to back that claim up.
Russia is in no great rush, the sanctions which were suppose to cripple her economy and bring its collapse has harmed the US and Europe more than it has Russia.
Interesting use of the female pronoun there. You may as well hang your hat on the line and call it "Mother Russia".
It's undeniable that sanctions are damaging the Russian economy. That they might be also damaging Western economies is, in my opinion, irrelevant. It's the principle that you don't deal with war-mongering bullies if you can help it. And before you accuse me of hypocrisy, I'd quite happily sanction other backward countries like Saudi Arabia.
The sanctions could easily be taken further. I'd be tempted to deny Chinese airlines landing permissions at UK and European airports while they continue to overfly Russia; we shouldn't be buying laundered Russian oil from India, and frankly Belarus needs a good kick in the testicles too.
Why? Because we can’t get cheap Baltic ply?
I'm sorry I hadn't realise that it was even doubted that the sanctions were significantly hurting Europe's economies. I'm not sure why you think that Germany and the wider eurozone has gone into recession. And have you seen the state of Ukraine's economy?
Russia has simply redirected its oil sales to China and India. It's looking at closer economic links with South America and is undoubtedly getting advice on sanction busting from Iran, a country which despite over 40 years of sanctions is a growing industrial power.
The war appears to be currently boosting the Russian economy in a similar way that WW2 helped the United States out of the post 1930s economic doldrums.
Interesting use of the female pronoun there.
Oh ffs! How predictable! 😂
For whoever it was who denied that the sanctions were predicted to cause Russia's economic collapse:
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-60125659
Western leaders predicted Russia's economy would collapse. After the invasion of Ukraine and first sanctions, prices rose sharply and people took their money out of banks.
But the International Monetary Fund believes Russia's economy could grow by 0.7% in 2023.
I'm not sure if the BBC is considered an acceptable source.
Edit: Or the International Monetary Fund
I’d quite happily sanction other backward countries like Saudi Arabia.
Indeed, but nobody is going to . We'll keep selling arms or whatever to Saudi, and overlooking anything they do, basically because we need their resources and money.
If Saudi want to drop our bombs on Yemeni children, they will, and we'll look at that as an increased market to sell them some more
In fact when it comes to that we'll happily shake them by the hand and maybe send a head royal to invite them to a state dinner.
You may as well hang your hat on the line and call it “Mother Russia”.
Pathetic and hilarious at both the same time. Wave your flag, keep looking for those reds under the bed!
backward countries like Saudi Arabia.
WTF? I'm no fan of Saudi Arabia but I think you seriously need to question your apparently racist attitude towards countries with different cultures, social structures and traditions. Backward? FFS!
Interesting use of the female pronoun there. You may as well hang your hat on the line and call it “Mother Russia”.
TBF, giving countries a female pronoun is the convention in the English language, just like ships are usually female too.
Edit, I accept there are exceptions, such as the now-defunct use of 'Fatherland' for Germany.
Interesting update of timelines and the practicalities of fixing this problem longer term in the Guardian
Ihor Syrota, the head of Ukraine’s hydro power corporation Ukrhydroenergo, which oversees the Kakhova dam, said the left bank would have to be liberated before reconstruction work could begin, but plans were already being drawn up in anticipation.
“Water is continually flowing over it and destroying the foundation. Only when the water has calmed will we be able to see the extent of the destruction,” Syrota told the Guardian. He thought that would take 10 days.
He said the next step would be to build a 15 metre-high buffer dam upstream of the ruined hydroelectric station so that work could start on building a new one.
“It will take us four months to make the [buffer dam],” he said. “But we can start the work only after the liberation of this territory.”
In a later interview with Ukrainian media, Syrota, said the construction time for the new buffer dam could be halved to two months “provided that we work 24/7”.
Syrota dismissed suggestions that the dam could have been destroyed as result of partial damage that led to catastrophic structural failure, calling them Russian propaganda.
“The plant was designed to withstand a nuclear strike,” Syrota said. “To destroy the plant from the outside, at least three aircraft bombs, each of 500kg, would have had to be dropped on the same spot. The station was blown up from the inside.”
He added: “In October 2022, the Russians kicked all the workers out of the station, and from then the facility produced no energy. It became just a fortification for the Russian military. They brought hundreds of kilograms of explosives there. Ukraine reported last year that the station was mined. The Russians were just waiting for right day to blow it up.”
For whoever it was who denied that the sanctions were predicted to cause Russia’s economic collapse:https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-60125659
Western leaders predicted Russia’s economy would collapse. After the invasion of Ukraine and first sanctions, prices rose sharply and people took their money out of banks.
But the International Monetary Fund believes Russia’s economy could grow by 0.7% in 2023.
I’m not sure if the BBC is considered an acceptable source.
Edit: Or the International Monetary Fund
That was me, and your linked article doesnt actually have anyone claiming Russia would collapse, just an indirect assertion without anything to back it up.
Not trying to be funny, but I just (clickbait aside) never really saw much expectation that it would happen.
Russia has simply redirected its oil sales to China and India.
Apologies again, source for Russia sending the same volumes to China and India that was sent to the west?
The war appears to be currently boosting the Russian economy in a similar way that WW2 helped the United States out of the post 1930s economic doldrums.
Data for the Russian economy is either witheld, cherry picked or arguably fabricated. And its that data the IMF uses.
Apologies again, source for Russia sending the same volumes to China and India that was sent to the west?
According to the BBC link, which apparently you haven't read, Russia now exports more oil than she/it was before the invasion of Ukraine. Here is a fuller version of the earlier quote:
Western leaders predicted Russia's economy would collapse. After the invasion of Ukraine and first sanctions, prices rose sharply and people took their money out of banks.
But the International Monetary Fund believes Russia's economy could grow by 0.7% in 2023.
This is because Russia is exporting 8.3 million barrels of oil a day - the highest level since April 2020, according to the International Energy Agency (IEA). The biggest importers are India and China.
Obviously if you think they are unreliable sources just dismiss all that, it's obviously up to you.
Cheers Ernie, although this still reads like drama points for attention (by the WH admittedly)
On Tuesday, White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki called Russia’s financial system “near the brink of collapse” and said how soon Moscow begins defaulting on its debts depends on decisions the country makes in response to the results of sanctions."It is more and more difficult for President Putin to fund this war, every single day. That has an impact,” she added.
Asked by Bloomberg News if the White House has a specific timetable for when Russia might begin defaulting on its debts, Ms Psaki said the administration does not have a precise answer and that they’d be interested in hearing the financial news outlet’s suggested timeframe.
"I don’t have an assessment of that, I look forward to reading Bloomberg’s assessment of that, but I don’t have an assessment from here. It depends in part on what decisions they [Russia] make,” she said.
Which is basically "ooh soon, but dont really know when"
Even the US Treasury have much more realistic press releases but I guess theyre not trying to shift a message.
Obviously if you think they are unreliable sources just dismiss all that, it’s obviously up to you.
I actually just skimmed to the relevant content I was engaged with at the time.
However I respect your right to be condescending, I guess.
Edit, does anyone know where the IEA get their data from?
Which is basically “ooh soon, but dont really know when”
Well it's obviously up to you if you want to dismiss every link that I provide, it's not about me being "condescending", it's about you rejecting perfectly reliable sources - the BBC, the IMF, the White House, the Independent.
From the above link:
Press secretary Jen Psaki says inflation will lead to collapse of Russian economy
That was just over a year ago, today inflation in Russia is 2%, it is 8% in the EU, and it is 18% in Ukraine.
Do you reckon that sanctions are working as expected and that the Russian economy will collapse due to inflation and that only the timescale is uncertain?
I dont believe a WH press briefing was anything other than well presented political manoeuvring/propaganda and not an honest assessment of what the expected outcomes would be.
I have no idea on the effectiveness of the sanctions as no reliable data is coming out of Russia, including what the IMF have been using. This may have changed but if it has Ive missed it.
Although I would hedge my bets on no sanctions, and Russia still spending massively on the war effort would mean a Russia in an even stronger position than today.
From the above link:
I know, I quoted it too.
WTF? I’m no fan of Saudi Arabia but I think you seriously need to question your apparently racist attitude towards countries with different cultures, social structures and traditions. Backward? FFS!
I’d call public executions pretty backward, wouldn’t you? 🤷♂️🤦🏻♂️
The price for Russian oil and gas has plummeted though, hasn’t it.
But the International Monetary Fund believes Russia’s economy could grow by 0.7% in 2023.
this is only meaningful if you think that the Russian “economy” works like a normal country’s economy does. Given that Russia is a mafia state pretending to be a country renders any analysis of its performance moot.
I am just pointing out that the sanctions are causing more damage to the the US and Europe than it is to Russia.
The U.S. and EU economies are much, much stronger than Russia's and much less hurt by sanctions. If you accept the basic premise that free-trade benefits everyone, then sanctions will hurt everyone. However, Russia cannot easily replace the technology imports that it receives from liberal democracies, without imported technology, it will be unable to sustain manufacturing. On top of that, if you believe that the economic benefits of free-trade don't justify turning a blind eye to human rights abuses, then the same holds with sanctions - the costs of sanctions don't justify ignoring Russia's genocidal behaviour.
slowoldman
Full Member
So. About that dam…
I’ve seen video of people walking on the reclaimed land in the reservoir - ground looks firm, maybe this will backfire on Russia big time?
the costs of sanctions don’t justify ignoring Russia’s genocidal behaviour.
Eh? How is pointing out that sanctions haven't had the desired effect on Russia equal to ignoring 'Russia's genocidal behaviour'?
Sanctions haven't had the desired effect on Iran, does pointing that out equate with supporting the Iranian government?
You can't simply tailor facts to suit whatever your preferred narrative is.
How is pointing out that sanctions haven’t had the desired effect on Russia equal to ignoring ‘Russia’s genocidal behaviour’?
What's the point of complaining about the cost of sanctions to Western economies if you don't believe that should be a consideration?
ukraine says it has evidence it was russian sabotage.
Will wait to see it when released. I imagine some will discount as bias
Given those pictures up there from the beeb, I expect military satellites would have much better quality imagery and you'd be able to watch the exact moment the dam was breached
What’s the point of complaining about the cost of sanctions to Western economies if you don’t believe that should be a consideration?
Who is complaining about the "cost of sanctions to Western economies"?
Pointing out that sanctions haven't had the desired effect on Russia doesn't equate with "complaining" about the cost of sanctions to Western economies.
Stop these weird leaps of logic and instead how about getting back to the subject matter?
Who is complaining about the “cost of sanctions to Western economies”?
You might want to think about how this sounds. Maybe that's not what you meant, but it does sound like that's what you meant.
ernielynch
Full Member
No of course I don’t think that Russia is in a stronger financial position than the West. I am just pointing out that the sanctions are causing more damage to the the US and Europe than it is to Russia. And they are an absolute godsend to China.
I’ve seen video of people walking on the reclaimed land in the reservoir – ground looks firm, maybe this will backfire on Russia big time?
I suspect the weight of a loaded tank is going to be much higher than the weight of a person, so what will be firm for a human could very well be an utter quagmire for a tank...
You might want to think about how this sounds.
I reckon it sounds like I'm pointing out a fact. Why do you think Germany has gone into recession?
The greatest benefactor from the sanctions appears to be China. Whether that is a price worth paying is a topic for another discussion.
You can’t simply tailor facts to suit whatever your preferred narrative is.
Ernie I'm not sure you understand how discussion of the Ukraine war is supposed to happen on here. Let me summarise:
1. Everything Russia says or does is a lie or a false flag operation, any information about Russia, from whatever source is unreliable, and anyone seeking to understand the facts and history behind the war is a traitorous commie.
2. Everything the US/UK/EU/NATO and Ukraine says or does is completely true and cannot be questioned, and all actions associated with them cannot be questioned or criticised or else you're a traitorous commie.
So. About that dam…
Good luck with that, now that the argumentalists have entered the fray it'll be like plugging a ...
I’d call public executions pretty backward, wouldn’t you?
Yeah much more civilised if they do them behind closed doors with a watching select audience like happens in the US. 🙄
Well Daz I generally keep out of the main Ukraine thread because I realised a fair while back that attempting to have a serious discussion on the topic was going to be hard work.
But I am genuinely surprised that some people are apparently oblivious to the fact that sanctions have had little of the expected impact on Russia and that they have instead contributed significantly to the negative economic climate which the West is currently experiencing.
It's a dam thread........... 🙂
So. About that dam…
I tried a couple of hours ago but until the usual suspects get bored there will be no discussion about the thread
What’s the point of complaining about the cost of sanctions to Western economies on this thread when the first line in the original post says - I know there is a Ukraine thread, but this isnt about the politics.
The BBC is now reporting the seismic angle
Seismic signals recorded in Bukovina, Romania, 620km (372 miles) away from Nova Kakhovka, indicate an explosion took place at 2:54 on Tuesday.
Norsar, the Norwegian Seismic Array which analysed the signals, says the timing and location coincide with the collapse of the dam.
Furthermore, only a very large quantity of explosives could have produced the signal detected almost 400 miles away, says BBC World Affairs correspondent Paul Adams.
Keva
It's this post yesterday that sent the thread off on a tangent:
Putin would have to be mad to launch nuclear weapons, so why do think Zelensky should talk to a mad man? It seems to me that the one threat totally negates the usefulness of the other. If I was Zelensky I would only talk to Putin if he did a constructive act such as withdraw troops or show some other sign of seriously wanting to de-escalate the war. As long as Putin claims that he’ll launch nuclear weapons, I wouldn’t go anywhere near the negotiating table, what would be the point?
and govts and people on both sides are going to have to swallow some hard compromises.
What compromises do you think that Ukraine should make? It seems to me that they are just defending themsleves, the only compromises should be made by the Russians as they withdraw to their previous border
It gave the impression that Ukraine is holding all the trump cards and Russia is not in a position to carry on its military operations indefinitely.
I had no idea that some people had such an optimistic view of the situation.
Direct link here which will need translation https://www.jordskjelv.no/meldinger/seismic-signals-recorded-from-an-explosion-at-the-kakhovka-dam-in-ukraine?fbclid=IwAR3VPmBNZhv4IplUVmizn2Ohu9FPXeEJ43ACVeBOUd0mF4SEXmE02DEOez4
Ernie I’m not sure you understand how discussion of the Ukraine war is supposed to happen on here. Let me summarise:
1. Everything Russia says or does is a lie or a false flag operation, any information about Russia, from whatever source is unreliable, and anyone seeking to understand the facts and history behind the war is a traitorous commie.
2. Everything the US/UK/EU/NATO and Ukraine says or does is completely true and cannot be questioned, and all actions associated with them cannot be questioned or criticised or else you’re a traitorous commie.
If you can't give your tiresome shit stirring a rest, at least take it to the main Ukraine thread.
If you can’t give your tiresome shit stirring a rest, at least take it to the main Ukraine thread.
No, please keep it here where it's easier to ignore.
Aren't we missing the other resident crackpot to help derail this thread even more.
Im sure itll be along at some point
You have done your fair bit to derail the thread piemonster, or hadn't you noticed?
No, please keep it here where it’s easier to ignore.
And yet you don't appear to be able to ignore it.
.
Anyway back on topic:
The two men discuss the destruction of the dam, and one of them assumes it was carried out by Ukrainians but the other speaker corrects him, saying “our guys did it”.
“Our saboteur group is there. They wanted to cause fear with this dam. It did not go according to the plan. More than they planned,” the speaker said.
This is a surprise :
Ukrainian officials have expressed frustration that Kyiv’s account of the dam’s destruction, that it was blown up from inside by Russian forces, has not so far been confirmed by US, UK or other intelligence agencies.
And this is even a greater surprise!
The plant was designed to withstand a nuclear strike,” Syrota told the Guardian in an interview in Kyiv. “
Really? Something above ground was designed to withstand a nuclear strike?!?
You have done your fair bit to derail the thread piemonster, or hadn’t you noticed?
Me? No I hadnt noticed, do you have a source for that?
I know there is a Ukraine thread, but this isnt about the politics.
The politics of the war is pretty much banned on the main thread. You're only allowed to talk about military tactics, big guns and tanks on there else you're branded a traitorous commie.
It's very interesting though that no one seems remotely interested in discussing the politics of the war as that is surely the way out of it. 🤷♂️
Really? Something above ground was designed to withstand a nuclear strike?!?
Concrete structures will withstand nuclear strikes. If you go to ground zero in Nagasaki (yes, I've been there), there are the remains of a church, with much of the structure still standing. A concrete dam is designed to withstand immense pressure from water. An airburst nuclear bomb probably wouldn't trouble it because air is not good at transmitting shock. Bunker buster bombs are designed to penetrate the earth and then explode. Earth is very effective at transmitting shockwaves so conventional explosives buried inside or next to the dam structure will do much more damage than an airburst nuclear bomb. That's why the Dambusters raid used bombs designed to sink underwater and explode right next to the dam structure - the water transfers the shockwaves to the dam structure and fractures it, then the pressure of the water causes it to fail. Dropping bombs on dams from above is unlikely to do serious damage. Artillery shells would not have caused that dam to fail, it would have taken tonnes of explosives packed right up against the structure to do that.
The politics of the war is pretty much banned on the main thread. You’re only allowed to talk about military tactics, big guns and tanks on there else you’re branded a traitorous commie.
Only in your own imagination. There is no 'banned' or 'allowed', as long as you don't break the site's T&Cs. Honestly, that sounds like some knuckle dragging BNP supporter claiming 'you can't say what you think these days', 'PC gone mad' etc. I think you're smarter than that.
There is no ‘banned’ or ‘allowed’, as long as you don’t break the site’s T&Cs.
Yeah that's why anyone expressing a slightly different view or not conforming to the thread groupthink is called a troll, shit-stirrer, argumentalist, or even worse an appeaser, putin sympathiser, useful idiot etc. This forum has an extremely strong tendency to demand conformity and bully anyone who might not agree with the majority. Much like real life I guess so hey-ho. 🤷♂️
OP:
I know there is a Ukraine thread, but this isnt about the politics.
Didn’t think it was asking much, expecially given there's another thread for the wider discussion. Too tempting to resist, I guess.
. An airburst nuclear bomb probably wouldn’t trouble it because air is not good at transmitting shock.
But that's not how cruise missiles work, for example, is it? Genuine question btw.
Will wait to see it when released. I imagine some will discount as bias
Given those pictures up there from the beeb, I expect military satellites would have much better quality imagery and you’d be able to watch the exact moment the dam was breached
Well its the US that would have the spy satellites looking down over that area, and I'd expect they could give a day by day or even hour by hour imagery.
But its strange though that they haven't, and the US were saying earlier that they didn't know for 100%, which could mean that they do, but will only support the Ukrainian side. I really dont see them saying it was A. the Ukrainian artillery, or even B. it collapsed on its own due to poor repair/ build up of water weight, overwhelming the system or whatever.
a false flag operation
This phrase to me seems a bit misplaced, or being used to explain something without evidence and point in a general direction.(I forget the actual grammatical term)
Why would a country at war, and capable of taking any action it deemed necessary or strategic need to create a 'false flag' They would just go ahead and do it.
Maybe in the cold war it could be used, or as an excuse for preemptive attack, but actually during a war where pretty much anything goes ?
But that’s not how cruise missiles work, for example, is it? Genuine question btw.
A cruise missile is a small pilotless aircraft that delivers a bomb, basically large kamikaze drones. They fly low and slow to avoid radar. To destroy reinforced concrete structures, you need bunker busting bombs which are launched from high altitude and can bury themselves underground. Cruise missiles can't do that.
Including for you, apparently. How about sticking to the subject matter instead of constantly complaining that the thread has gone off topic💡
Yes, complaining that what was an interesting discussion has been dragged off topic is definitely the problem here.
Cruise missiles can’t do that.
Nuclear armed cruise missiles slamming into the side of a dam wouldn't destroy it because they would need to "bury themselves underground"? I am genuinely surprised!
It sounds as if whoever is responsible for Nova Kakhovka Dam's destruction found the equivalent of its "thermal exhaust port".
Or it was destroyed by the demolition charges reported months ago and as suggested by the seismic data.
Nobody reported seeing a mushroom cloud, did they?
Some interesting comments on the New Civil Engineer website:
"These factors have led Barr to support the claims that the failure was initiated by an explosion, though the subsequent damage is likely to have removed the evidence."
Barr being a reseach fellow in blast.
I know there is a Ukraine thread, but this isnt about the politics
That’s aged well! 😃
Back off to the main thread which is about trying to understand what is actually happening, rather than STW’s version of speakers corner..
To summarise the facts as we know them so far:
there were warnings last year that Russia had mined the dam
the dam was destroyed on the Russian side of the river/ reservoir
that area is controlled by Russia
seismic data shows an explosion
Russia had raised the water level significantly in the last week or so before the explosion - why?
the dam exploded on the eve of the Ukrainian counter offensive - the timing is far too right for it to be a natural degradation event.
ukrains counter offensive below the dam has been halted for some time - a month or months?
so what’s the conclusion? Russia or Ukraine - perhaps aliens? 😉
if your answer is Ukraine, you’re going to have to do a lot of work showing how they achieved it.
"built to survive a nuclear strike" is vague, and doesn't automatically mean "you could drop a nuclear bomb on this and it'd be fine" For that you're talking massive hardened military stuff, vaults, things buried under mountains. There is no way that building was built for that, most stuff just can't be if you want it to also be functional (I think every mention I've seen of it specifically says "the plant" not "the dam") But, it can also mean that you've got the ability to survive a near hit, if it's in an expected blast zone.
What they're basically saying is, this was built to be a tough cookie and that means it has to have been broken in certain ways.
What they’re basically saying is, this was built to be a tough cookie and that means it has to have been broken in certain ways.
Quite. It was built at the very height of the Cold War, it is hard to imagine that such an important infrastructure asset would have been built with little concern for its vulnerability. But it is equally hard to imagine that it was ever considered that it would be able to withstand a nuclear strike.
Besides the impracticalities of constructing a structure above ground which could withstand a nuclear blast what would be the point of having a functioning dam providing hydroelectricity after a nuclear Armageddon had destroyed everything else?!?
f you go to ground zero in Nagasaki (yes, I’ve been there), there are the remains of a church, with much of the structure still standing
Er.... a bit of a wall stayed up. Probably more through luck. But either way i think we can class the cathedral as destroyed.
Nuclear armed cruise missiles slamming into the side of a dam wouldn’t destroy it because they would need to “bury themselves underground”? I am genuinely surprised!
I am pretty sure if a nuke had been used it would have been noticed. So bit pointless strawman.
I am pretty sure if a nuke had been used it would have been noticed.
😂🤣 Yeah I would have thought so! You obviously haven't been following the thread or the link to today's Guardian article. Here it is again:
You obviously haven’t been following the thread or the link to today’s Guardian article. Here it is again:
Yes I have. So the relevance to a nuke is?
You do realise a nuke would spread lots of evidence around.
Many years back an explosion nearish me registered on seismographs but that didnt mean a nuke was involved.
So help me out here what exactly are you trying to argue beyond some weird crap that some fruitcake dictator wouldnt do this?
So the relevance to a nuke is?
A comment made by someone in that article.
Seismology reports. sounds like clutching at straws. ITS A WAR ZONE, front line in fact. An explosion could be anything.
Yeah I would have thought so! You obviously haven’t been following the thread or the link to today’s Guardian article. Here it is again:
150 tonnes of high explosives would trigger seismic instruments, which are sensitive enough to register tremors a fraction of something like that explosion. A nuclear device, would not only cause seismic activity, but, and I’m sure you know this, but I’ll point it out just in case nobody’s ever brought it to your attention, it would give off significant amounts of radiation, you know, the stuff that makes Geiger counters click, and which satellites designed to detect it would immediately respond to. As no such thing happened, then it’s safe to say that Russia’s specialists mined the dam, but with their usual attention to detail, did far more damage than was intended.
I’ll point this out again for the hard of thinking - this event is of absolutely no benefit to Ukraine, it absolutely wrecks months of planning for their campaign against Russia, because the road across the dam is the most direct route into Crimea.
So, with Ukraine having made it perfectly clear that they are determined to have Crimea back and to drive Russia out of it, and with the Nova Kakhovka dam being the best route into Crimea, able to carry heavy artillery and armoured vehicles, and with presumably Russia also being perfectly aware of that fact, maybe someone could perhaps explain why, exactly, Ukraine would destroy their best possible route, and also flood their own infrastructure making their well-laid strategic planning almost impossible to carry out?
People here do seem to have rather forgotten which Russian government organisation Putin was part of, indeed was head of for most of his life, and who practically wrote the books about propaganda and false-flag operations.
As I’ve pointed out previously, he has personally written and passed laws giving him the right to murder anyone who he sees as working against him and his government, wherever they are, wherever in the world, and he will deny it, because his laws say he can. As two particular examples in this country have shown clearly that he will do so.
This is just one more example of a fascist dictator who sees himself as justified in taking anything he wants, with no repercussions.
There is no benefit of the doubt that can be made on the part of Putin and his regime. That should be perfectly clear to anyone with even a moderate grasp of right and wrong.
ITS A WAR ZONE, front line in fact. An explosion could be anything.
What, like an explosion, perhaps? You’re obviously unaware of the fact that seismologists can, and have pinpointed the explosion to the affected section of the dam, their instruments can estimate the magnitude and intensity of the explosion so what, precisely, are you trying to claim? If it walks like a duck, looks like a duck and quacks loudly, are you trying to suggest it was someone’s party balloon instead?
Also, the seismic signatures of different events are apparently easily distinguishable. A nuclear weapons explosion or a large conventional explosion create a different pattern of shockwaves than an earthquake. The seismic evidence points to an explosion at the location of the dam right at the time the dam was destroyed. The only people who had access to the dam to plant explosives within the structure were Russians. It didn't just happen to fail through natural processes and Ukraine didn't blow it up.
A couple of points:
AIUI seismologists aren't pin-pointing anything. They picked up weak signals from a seismic event that coincided in time and direction with the Kakhovka dam collapse https://www.jordskjelv.no/meldinger/seismic-signals-recorded-from-an-explosion-at-the-kakhovka-dam-in-ukraine
Cruise is a misnomer and the missiles don't necessarily fly low and slow. The sub-sonic will manage mach 0.7, supersonic are typically mach 3
FWIW the balance of evidence is an internal explosion, had Russia not rigged the dam then it wouldn't have happened
Yeah I would have thought so! You obviously haven’t been following the thread or the link to today’s Guardian article. Here it is again
A nuclear device, would not only cause seismic activity, but, and I’m sure you know this, but I’ll point it out just in case nobody’s ever brought it to your attention, it would give off significant amounts of radiation, you know, the stuff that makes Geiger counters click, and which satellites designed to detect it would immediately respond to.
What are you on about?!? 😂
There is a spectacular amount of commenting after skim reading going on on this thread!
Let me explain......an official is quoted in the Guardian article as claiming that the Nova Kakhovka Dam was designed to withstand a nuclear strike, I expressed my "surprise" by that comment.
I am however fully aware that nuclear devices "give off significant amounts of radiation", as you rightly guessed someone has previously brought that to my attention! 🤣
My tip for today would be don't assume that you have understood what someone is saying by quickly skim reading a few words 😉
From timba's link :
UPDATE:
Based on new analysis, we have also observed weak signals from an earlier seismic event from approximately 02:35 (local time in Ukraine) originating from the direction of the Kakhovka Dam.
I make that 12 hours earlier. It would be interesting to know what the explanation for that could be and whether it was connected.
Nuclear armed cruise missiles slamming into the side of a dam wouldn’t destroy it because they would need to “bury themselves underground”? I am genuinely surprised!
Blasts take the path of least resistance. If you set a banger off on your hand you might get a bit burnt. But if you close you hand over it you're losing bits. Concrete is superb at resisting shocks if it's well supported. And concrete dams are well supported by alot of nice shock absorbing water. They also tend to be built so that the are in compression (arched towards to wet side)
You only have to watch failed demolition videos to see even focussed efforts aren't easy.
alot of nice shock absorbing water. They also tend to be built so that the are in compression (arched towards to wet side)
Yeah I can appreciate those points. If a dam can withstand a direct nuclear strike then I guess that I might have overestimated the power of nuclear weapons.
It seems strange that a dam artificially holding one of the largest bodies of water in the world could withstand a nuclear attack, and yet the Ruhr Dams collapsed when attacked by bombs resembling bouncing footballs!
The Soviets knew how to build stuff!
yet the Ruhr Dams collapsed when attacked by bombs resembling bouncing footballs!
But they were specifically designed with a single purpose - to deliver their payload at weaker points in the constructions.