Ukraine

[birlinn]

Putin must be throwing a wobbly.
More defenestrated generals?

[Edward Pearson]

From Lyman, the station up the road Svatove then accross by road, to the line at Starobilsk. Take those two rail stations and Russia can't supply Luhansk region from Begorod. Gives Ukraine military control of the Luhansk oblast.

This triangle of land is the battle for Luhansk it seems.

[johnw]

You do realise that when I say "hypothetical", I'm referring to something made up, a pretend "what if" scenario? Because that is critical to understanding why this is going so badly wrong.
Unless of course you're just winding me up.


I'll try one last time.
I stated exactly which two pieces of information an information vacuum pertains to - specifically and only, who blew up nord stream and how. This is real, it has actually happened, but we don't know who or how - the information vacuum. Hopefully we can agree on that?


I also stated very clearly that "motive and stated goals" were in-part hypothetical (they're made up, pretend, but they have to be at least slightly plausible).
They are a way of test driving the hypothetical scenario "Might the US have been involved, and if so, why"?

As a hypothetical exercise, it goes like this:
Did Biden say he would stop NS2? Yes. This is real, he actually said that. He didn't say how.

Could Biden go a bit further than just sanctioning NS2? Yes, if he chose to. Unlikely, but not impossible, the means exist.

We have to try and answer why on earth would he do that, or the exercise fails right there. At this point, we're flying kites, trying ideas out, seeing if they fly. It's ALL hypothetical, made up from here, but if an answer isnt at least vaguely plausible it doesn't fly.
I used:
Does Germany need vast amounts of LNG? Yes.
Are there hundreds of billions of dollars at stake? Yes
Are both NS pipelines out of commission? Yes
Does the US produce LNG, and might it benefit from the situation? Yes, and maybe.

Have we satisfied the whiff of plausibility test for this hypothetical, made up, pretend answer? On the surface at least, yes.
Are we still on the same page? You understand clearly all of that ^ is nothing more than a mental exercise?

And that trying to say an information vacuum applies to that stuff ^ (our hypothetically possible goal and motive), would be a nonsense. We asked a hypothetical question, and provided a possible answer using information that is available.
Yes? Hopefully.



But you're persisting with:
You can't explain why, in what you term an 'information vacuum,' you know of motives and stated goals that don't appear in the public record.

Well no .
That would be because hypothetical (made up, what-if, pretend) stuff I post on WBF is not a matter of public record. The stated goal was a hypothetical extension of what Biden did say, and the hypothetical motive was answered with information that is all common knowledge - as listed a couple of paragraphs above.
There is no information vacuum around these hypothetical points, there is no contradiction, there is no mysterious information that only I know - if that's what you're implying . I'm at a complete loss as to why you keep banging this drum.

Your continued failure to acknowledge the distinction between the real (nord stream was damaged by an unknown party), and the hypothetical (might the US have been involved, and why?) is where your perceived contradiction comes from.
Either I've been spectacularly bad at explaining this, God knows I've had several attempts, or...you tell me.
Continuing with that level of disconnect seems fruitless though, that's why I said I'm done with it.
I can't explain it any more simply than I already have.



Pete

Well, thanks for condescending to continue the conversation, I guess. Really, all you had to say was this:

You can't explain why, in what you term an 'information vacuum,' you know of motives and stated goals that don't appear in the public record.

Well no .
That would be because hypothetical (made up, what-if, pretend) stuff I post on WBF...

I think we can both agree that the motive and stated goal that you claimed to know are, as you say, 'made up, pretend stuff,' which is fine. This is the distinction I've been making all along. Your original post seemed to assert that these were things we knew for sure. If that was not your point, you certainly could have cleared this up sooner.

We are all free to speculate as to who did this and how it happened, I just think that we need to make a distinction between what we actually know and what is speculation. It is certainly legitimate to speculate that the Biden administration might have motives and goals not publicly announced, while it is not legitimate to simply announce that they have the motives and goals you speculate they might have and expect that to be accepted as proven fact.

[johnw]

I consider that a fair observation . . .

But note that previously some few of us have posted a number of credible cites about the events of April.

I am not goint to keep on doing that , , .

Given how the credibility of those cites has turned out, I don't blame you. Honestly, I'm sure the war will end with a diplomatic settlement, but that's not helped by Russia annexing parts of Ukraine that they appear to be losing in battle.

What could Russia do that would make Ukraine eager to come to the table? Surely, they have some agency in this matter.

[AndyG]

Putin's done for.

"Does he know it yet?", is the real question.

Andy

[epoxyboy]

Well, thanks for condescending to continue the conversation, I guess. Really, all you had to say was this:




I think we can both agree that the motive and stated goal that you claimed to know are, as you say, 'made up, pretend stuff,' which is fine. This is the distinction I've been making all along. Your original post seemed to assert that these were things we knew for sure. If that was not your point, you certainly could have cleared this up sooner.
8
We are all free to speculate as to who did this and how it happened, I just think that we need to make a distinction between what we actually know and what is speculation. It is certainly legitimate to speculate that the Biden administration might have motives and goals not publicly announced, while it is not legitimate to simply announce that they have the motives and goals you speculate they might have and expect that to be accepted as proven fact.

Wow, that's a reply Sky Blue would be proud of .

I've been very clear right from the beginning this was all speculative .

In fact I called you out several times on your repeated attempts to paint what I had written as being factual, pointed each time that it was speculative, and finally expressed my frustration with you doing this in pretty blunt terms
I believe you accused me of spewing stuff at you, at that point .

But finally the message has sunk in. Hallelujah!!!

You have a nice day.


Pete

[johnw]

Wow, that's a reply Sky Blue would be proud of .

I've been very clear right from the beginning this was all speculative .

In fact I called you out several times on your repeated attempts to paint what I had written as being factual, pointed each time that it was speculative, and finally expressed my frustration with you doing this in pretty blunt terms
I believe you accused me of spewing stuff at you, at that point .

But finally the message has sunk in. Hallelujah!!!

You have a nice day.


Pete

Nah, I debated Sky Blue, he would have been quoting Mobius Mobug or someone equally obscure.

I'm painfully aware that I'm an imperfect human being and capable of making mistakes, so I went though our conversation to date to see if I've been missing something all along. Here's the post that got us going:

Originally Posted by epoxyboy
"Discredited" on no basis other than people here not wanting to believe it. Means, motive, and stated goal. Tick, tick, tick.

Pete

You said that on the 28th, and it looked to me like an unambiguous statement of fact. It wasn't until yesterday that you finally said something about hypotheticals. I'm not a mind reader, I was responding to what you had actually said. You claim claim to have been clear from the start that your statement was speculative, but you wrote it as if it were definitive. Perhaps if you devoted more effort to saying what you mean and less to attempting to demean the people you're talking to, you would have more pleasant conversations.

[johnw]

Putin's done for.

"Does he know it yet?", is the real question.

Andy

Admitting it is a threat to his survival.

[Andrew Craig-Bennett]

More Stefan Korshak:

https://medium.com/@Stefan.Korshak/s...n-3ec499875333

[TomF]

Posted by Mark Hamill. Who has just been named as a fundraising partner with Ukraine for what they're calling an Army of Drones project.
https://twitter.com/MarkHamill/statu...1HQULI_1b7B17w
FeAbXP3UAAA_6Wf.jpg

[epoxyboy]

Nah, I debated Sky Blue, he would have been quoting Mobius Mobug or someone equally obscure.

I'm painfully aware that I'm an imperfect human being and capable of making mistakes, so I went though our conversation to date to see if I've been missing something all along. Here's the post that got us going:

8

You said that on the 28th, and it looked to me like an unambiguous statement of fact. It wasn't until yesterday that you finally said something about hypotheticals. I'm not a mind reader, I was responding to what you had actually said. You claim claim to have been clear from the start that your statement was speculative, but you wrote it as if it were definitive. Perhaps if you devoted more effort to saying what you mean and less to attempting to demean the people you're talking to, you would have more pleasant conversations.

OK, taken in isolation, yep, that looks pretty damning . In the context of the preceding conversation, not so much.
I mean if I'd actully had some "secret" factual information, WBF is the absolute last place I'd be blabbing about it, surely?
But fair enough, at that point I was assuming it would be taken no more seriously than any other piece of idle speculation that passes through this place.
On that basis, perhaps you can see why I was getting so damn perplexed later on, and frustrated at having to spell out something I thought was obvious. And then we started chucking cowpats at other.

Sincerely, have a nice day,

Pete

[johnw]

OK, taken in isolation, yep, that looks pretty damning . In the context of the preceding conversation, not so much.
I mean if I'd actully had some "secret" factual information, WBF is the absolute last place I'd be blabbing about it, surely?
But fair enough, at that point I was assuming it would be taken no more seriously than any other piece of idle speculation that passes through this place.
On that basis, perhaps you can see why I was getting so damn perplexed later on, and frustrated at having to spell out something I thought was obvious. And then we started chucking cowpats at other.

Sincerely, have a nice day,

Pete

I confess, I attempted to adopt the same sort of bantering tone you used in your response to George, assuming that was the kind of conversation you desired. It now appears that you deeply resent being treated that way, so I'll keep it in mind in the future. I suspect that without the visual cues one gets in face-to-face conversation, it's a lot easier to fall into misunderstandings.

[sandtown]

He [Sachs] cites no source, just makes a bald assertion. At least this means that his source cannot be traced back to Russian propaganda.

Did Pravda report that first ?? Even if they did, that does not automatically make it propaganda.

Has it ever crossed your mind that not everything in Russian media is wrong ??

By your logic, if Pravda reported that the sky is blue, no one else should report the same thing because it is obviously Russian propaganda.

That makes no sense.

No government or news source in this conflict should be accepted uncritically. They are all massaging the truth.

“I’ve spent my career working in the mainstream, and I’ve covered probably seven, eight, nine shooting wars; I’ve never seen coverage so utterly consumed by a tsunami of jingoism, and of manipulative jingoism as this one.”

~ John Pilger

[epoxyboy]

Yes. This is a cr@p medium for communication sometimes. Different timezones makes it even worse.

[L.W. Baxter]

pravda didn't say the sky is blue. they said that the americans--behind the scenes, by some unstated mechanism--stymied peace negotiations between ukraine and russia. thereby causing to continue this terrible and unneccesary war...

how did the u.s. keep ukraine from making their separate peace, sandtown. what lever was pulled.

[L.W. Baxter]

i coulda hadda v8!

[WX]

More Stefan Korshak:

https://medium.com/@Stefan.Korshak/s...n-3ec499875333

That was a good read.

[johnw]

Hmm...they threatened to withhold military aid to Ukraine, so that it couldn't fight Russia?

Thereby forcing them to make peace!

Yeah, it all makes sense...not.

[johnw]

Did Pravda report that first ?? Even if they did, that does not automatically make it propaganda.

Has it ever crossed your mind that not everything in Russian media is wrong ??

By your logic, if Pravda reported that the sky is blue, no one else should report the same thing because it is obviously Russian propaganda.

That makes no sense.

No government or news source in this conflict should be accepted uncritically. They are all massaging the truth.

“I’ve spent my career working in the mainstream, and I’ve covered probably seven, eight, nine shooting wars; I’ve never seen coverage so utterly consumed by a tsunami of jingoism, and of manipulative jingoism as this one.”

~ John Pilger

Fine by me. So, if you're not accepting what Pravda says uncritically, what other sources can we trace this claim to? We've already exploded your claim that Fiona Hill said the US and Boris Johnson torpedoed the talks. Sachs gives no source, he just makes the assertion. Has the Ukraine government ever said the Western governments forced them to continue fighting?

Getting back on track seems more important than litigating the past. What should Russia do to bring Ukraine to the negotiating table?

[WX]

I like the fact that Russia is still the biggest supplier of military equipment to Ukraine.

[Tom from Rubicon]

I am becoming ambivalent about tactical nukes. In my lifetime so many surface "tests" were performed. Intentionally poisoning a bread basket of the world?

[Andrew Craig-Bennett]

Pilger is invaluable. He does such a fine job of Bearing The White Man’s Burden. If he supports something or someone, I know they are rotten. If he condemns something or someone, I know they are OK.

[Andrew Craig-Bennett]

A friend points out that Russia’s tactical nuclear forces are probably in the same sort of condition as Russian conventional forces, that the locations of the warhead stores are well known, and that they are watched closely by NATO.

[Andrew2]

A friend points out that Russia’s tactical nuclear forces are probably in the same sort of condition as Russian conventional forces, that the locations of the warhead stores are well known, and that they are watched closely by NATO.

I was wondering that. Chance of a malfunction and an 'own goal'?

[Nicholas Carey]

A friend points out that Russia’s tactical nuclear forces are probably in the same sort of condition as Russian conventional forces, that the locations of the warhead stores are well known, and that they are watched closely by NATO.

Something I have been thinking: if Russia's armed forces are as non-competent, and as poorly equipped, as they appear to be, in real life, the balance of power is seriously out of whack.

And that seriously ratchets up the likelihood of a nuclear exchange.

If push came to shove with a competent western power (never mind an invocation of NATO Art. 5), seems like they'd be on the ropes pretty quickly. And thus, far more likely to start tossing nukes.

[ERGR]

The Russians are probably unable to use tactical nukes in and offensive manner. The doctrine has been to use nukes to blast a hole in the enemy defence and then exploit that hole with armoured units. All assessments I've read of the current Russian capabilities state that they're presently not capable of operating in an NBC environment. A nuked area would realistically be impassable to Russian troops.
That takes away the upside of using tactical nukes. The downside is that Russia would face retaliations in the form of direct military involvement from NATO countries. Nobody knows if nukes will be used in such a retaliation. My expectation is that nukes will be used to make a statement, and that a target resulting in minor losses of lives would be selected. If I were Russian, I'd avoid the Crimean bridge.
/Erik

[Timo_N62.9_E27.7]

I agree with Erik about the target of the retaliation but I doubt that nukes would be used by NATO. And there is no need either. NATO has conventional weapons powerful enough to wipe off Russian navy from the Black Sea.

[skuthorp]

Do not ascribe logic where logic no longer applies, just hubris and desperation.

BTW
https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/other...id=BingHPCNews

[TomF]

I suspect that if Vlad was stupid enough to use a tactical nuke, that a multinational conventional weapons' strike would utterly destroy the Crimean bridge, and probably also turn the entirety of Sebastopol's naval port into 3/4" crush gravel. Carefully avoiding the civilians' residential neighborhoods.

I suspect it would also, as some newly imaginative (and clearly shaken) Russian TV commentators observed the other day, lead Ukraine to actually declare war on Russia. Which those Russian commentators realized would mean that cities like Moscow would be targets. Not merely cities close to Ukraine presently used as staging points.

If a second nuke was deployed by Russia, I really don't know what the response would look like. We'd be on a swift on-ramp towards a nuclear exchange though, I'd think.

I had thought to not feel a genuine and grounded fear of a nuclear exchange between the West and Russia ever again, but here we are. 1981 feelings all over again.

[Peerie Maa]

The Russians are probably unable to use tactical nukes in and offensive manner. The doctrine has been to use nukes to blast a hole in the enemy defence and then exploit that hole with armoured units. All assessments I've read of the current Russian capabilities state that they're presently not capable of operating in an NBC environment. A nuked area would realistically be impassable to Russian troops.
That takes away the upside of using tactical nukes. The downside is that Russia would face retaliations in the form of direct military involvement from NATO countries. Nobody knows if nukes will be used in such a retaliation. My expectation is that nukes will be used to make a statement, and that a target resulting in minor losses of lives would be selected. If I were Russian, I'd avoid the Crimean bridge.
/Erik

The behavior of the troops and their officers at Chernobyl indicated ignorance of NBCD, so I think that your assumption of responsible caution is in error.

[sandtown]

The behavior of the troops and their officers at Chernobyl indicated ignorance of NBCD, so r.

Some say it was incredible bravery and a spirit of self sacrifice.

[Andrew Craig-Bennett]

The Russians are probably unable to use tactical nukes in and offensive manner. The doctrine has been to use nukes to blast a hole in the enemy defence and then exploit that hole with armoured units. All assessments I've read of the current Russian capabilities state that they're presently not capable of operating in an NBC environment. A nuked area would realistically be impassable to Russian troops.
That takes away the upside of using tactical nukes. The downside is that Russia would face retaliations in the form of direct military involvement from NATO countries. Nobody knows if nukes will be used in such a retaliation. My expectation is that nukes will be used to make a statement, and that a target resulting in minor losses of lives would be selected. If I were Russian, I'd avoid the Crimean bridge.
/Erik

That’s a good point.

[Osborne Russell]

The Russians are probably unable to use tactical nukes in and offensive manner. The doctrine has been to use nukes to blast a hole in the enemy defence and then exploit that hole with armoured units. All assessments I've read of the current Russian capabilities state that they're presently not capable of operating in an NBC environment. A nuked area would realistically be impassable to Russian troops.
That takes away the upside of using tactical nukes. The downside is that Russia would face retaliations in the form of direct military involvement from NATO countries. Nobody knows if nukes will be used in such a retaliation. My expectation is that nukes will be used to make a statement, and that a target resulting in minor losses of lives would be selected. If I were Russian, I'd avoid the Crimean bridge.
/Erik

Yeah. Even the short-term domestic political gain is questionable, especially in context. "Ukraine Nazis refused to surrender to the Special Military Operation, so we had to make first use of nukes because we were losing. Oh well, we can't go there now, but neither can they."

OTOH the Russians have a tradition of apocalyptic thinking.

[Andrew Craig-Bennett]

Stefan Korshak’s update for today!

https://medium.com/@Stefan.Korshak/o...s-b9da17da52f3

[johnw]

Some say it was incredible bravery and a spirit of self sacrifice.

Here's the Wikipedia version of what happened:

On 18 March, Russian forces attacked Slavutych, the town constructed to house workers at the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant following the disaster. The battle lasted for nine days, resulting in a Russian victory. On 20 March, Russian forces allowed some of the power plant's staff to leave and return home, in a swap with volunteers of staff that had been outside of the plant when it was captured to replace them.^[16]
Potential radiation exposure

Reuters reported that the Russian forces used the Red Forest as a route for their convoys, kicking up clouds of radioactive dust. Local workers said the Russian soldiers moving in those convoys were not using protective suits and could have potentially endangered themselves.^[30] On 31 March 2022, a Ukrainian council member of the State Agency of Ukraine for Exclusion Zone Management claimed on his Facebook page that Russian troops were regularly removed from the exclusion zone surrounding Chernobyl and taken to the Republican Scientific and Practical Center for Radiation Medicine and Human Ecology in Gomel, Belarus. This rumor led to further speculation in the press that the soldiers were suffering from acute radiation syndrome.^[31] One Russian trooper was reported to have died due to radiation.^[32] On 6 April, images and videos of trenches, foxholes and other defensive structures at the Red Forest surfaced on the internet and news outlets.^[33][34]
Local workers and scientists also said Russian troops looted radioactive material from the laboratories.^[35]
Russian withdrawal

On 29 March, Russian Deputy Minister of Defense Alexander Fomin announced a withdrawal of Russian forces from the Kyiv area,^[36] and on 1 April the State Agency on Exclusion Zone Management announced that Russian troops had completely withdrawn from the Chernobyl NPP.^[37]
Following the Russian withdrawal, staff at the power plant raised the Ukrainian flag back over the plant.^[22] IAEA Director General Rafael Grossi announced that the IAEA would be sending a support mission to the plant "as soon as possible."^[38] On 3 April, Ukrainian forces re-entered the exclusion zone.^[16]
Following the return of Ukrainian control, significant damage to parts of the plant's offices was noted, including graffiti and smashed windows. The Washington Post further estimated that around 135 million US dollars worth of equipment had been destroyed, namely computers, vehicles, and radiation dosimetres.^[39]
Reactions

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy called the Russian capture of the zone a "declaration of war against the whole of Europe".^[40]
Mykhailo Podolyak, adviser to the head of the Office of the President of Ukraine, was quoted as saying that it was a "totally pointless attack",^[7] and "the condition of the former Chernobyl nuclear power plant, confinement, and nuclear waste storage facilities is unknown".^[41] However, the International Atomic Energy Agency stated that there were "no casualties nor destruction at the industrial site" but that it was "of vital importance that the safe and secure operations of the nuclear facilities in that zone should not be affected or disrupted in any way".^[20][42]
Analysis

In the greater picture of the Kyiv offensive, the capture of Chernobyl could be considered a waypoint for Russian troops advancing towards Kyiv. Ben Hodges, former commanding general of the United States Army Europe, stated that the exclusion zone was "important because of where it sits... If Russian forces were attacking Kyiv from the north, Chernobyl is right there on the way." Former American Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Russia, Ukraine, Eurasia Evelyn Farkas said that the Russian forces "want to surround the capital" and that they "certainly don't want loose nuclear material floating around" in case of a Ukrainian insurgency.^[43][44]
The exclusion zone is important for containing fallout from the Chernobyl nuclear disaster of 1986; as such, Ukrainian Ministry of Internal Affairs adviser Anton Herashchenko said that "if the occupiers' artillery strikes hit the nuclear waste storage facility, radioactive dust may cover the territories of Ukraine, Belarus and the EU countries".^[40] According to BBC News, monitoring stations in the area reported a 20-fold increase in radiation levels, up to 65 μSv/h.^[45] For comparison, the average person is exposed to 0.41 μSv/h from background radiation. At 65 μSv/h it would require more than a month of continuous exposure to meet the conservative yearly exposure limit for US radiation workers.^[46] This does not account for inhaled or ingested radioactive particles, which increase exposure rates. Claire Corkhill of the University of Sheffield stated that the increase was localised and was due in part to "increased movement of people and vehicles in and around the Chernobyl zone [that] will have kicked up radioactive dust that's on the ground".^[45]

It does not appear that the soldiers digging trenches in the radioactive soil were told about their exposure to radiation, so I doubt the self-sacrifice was intentional.