Ukraine

[Peerie Maa]

Re: Ukraine

A false narrative? Any evidence of that?

You are entitled to your opinion, but I will take information from one who works with EURATOM, than some dumbarse throwing accusations on the internet.



See you there.

You demonstrated that you know sod all about how nuclear power plants work, and the extensive infrastructure that they rely on.
Splodge is correct, if a tad irate with your lack of knowledge and terminological inexactitudes
.

[George.]

Re: Ukraine

This just in from Stefan Korshak and the Kyiv Post

https://www.kyivpost.com/post/17910

Ukraine Launches Multiple Attacks in Possible Kick Off to Big Offensive, Leopards Reported in Action


Russian sources said Kyiv has launched ground attacks in several places and advanced in some, and at one location Leopard tanks reportedly were in action.



by Stefan Korshak | June 5, 2023, 3:57 pm | Comments (4)

Armed Forces of Ukraine (AFU) troops have launched ground attacks in multiple sectors in a possible curtain-raiser for Kyiv’s long-awaited counteroffensive, with two Kremlin-associated information platforms reporting the first-time combat use of German Leopard tanks in the war.

On Monday evening after a day of not commenting directly, Kyiv said it was conducting "offensive actions" on the front line and noted some progress in the eastern Ukrainian city of Bakhmut.

"The defensive operation includes counteroffensive actions. Therefore, in some sectors, we are conducting offensive actions," Deputy Defence Minister Ganna Malyar said.

"The Bakhmut sector remains the epicentre of the hostilities," she said, adding Kyiv's troops were occupying the "dominant heights" and reported some "success".

"In the south the enemy is on the defensive," she added.

In the southern Donbas sector on Monday, AFU forces were engaged “in heavy battles” near the village of Novodonetske, a Monday report from the pro-Russia Voenniy Obozrevatel’ (VO) said, and Ukrainian troops had “gained ground at some locations” and “were attempting to exploit this success.”

The pro-Russia reporter Simyeon Pegov on Monday confirmed an AFU attack was in progress in Novodonetske. He said “30 NATO vehicles” were involved in the attack, among them Germany-produced Leopard tanks. If accurate, Pegov’s report would mark the first combat use of a NATO-standard tank in the Russia-Ukraine War.

Russian military blogger Aleksandr Khodakovskiy likewise reported Leopards in action, but by Monday afternoon KP was unable to confirm the Leopard report independently.
.
.
.
Nataliya Humeniuk, spokeswoman for the AFU’s Joint Forces South command, in a Monday statement kept to Kyiv’s longtime messaging that the big offensive hasn’t started, but it will soon.

“The occupiers (Russian Federation troops) are morally exhausted by the long wait for the Ukrainian counteroffensive. They are constantly moving and panicking. The Rushists (a common Ukrainian epithet for Russian soldiers) do not know in which direction our counteroffensive will take place and keep 450 km of the front…in constant tension.. They get nervous and…in some cases resorts to desertion. All this speaks of the enemy's moral and psychological instability,” Humaniuk said.

Ukraine’s 46th Air Assault Brigade, one of the units widely reported to be part of the general offensive, likewise hinted not yet but soon with a Monday post: “(We) cannot say anything yet…Interesting and difficult days are ahead.”

So, it has started.

Blowing the dam certainly releases a lot of RF forces from the now inaccessible front line along the Dnieper. They must expect they will be needing these, even more than they will be needing water for Crimea.

[Andrew Craig-Bennett]

Re: Ukraine

So, it has started.

Blowing the dam certainly releases a lot of RF forces from the now inaccessible front line along the Dnieper. They must expect they will be needing these, even more than they will be needing water for Crimea.

Good points, George. I haven’t seen them made elsewhere.

[mizzenman]

Re: Ukraine

Japan got bombed flat before it gave in
Germany got invaded before it gave in

Is Russia going to give in without Ukraine attacking their turf? Personally I doubt it.

Even if all Russian soldiers got chased out of Ukraine, Russia could continue sending rockets into Ukraine thereby barring them from NATO membership. Personally I think NATO have to have a far more active role here before we see an end.

[George.]

Re: Ukraine

Good points, George. I haven’t seen them made elsewhere.

It's not just the areas downstream from the dam becoming flooded and waterlogged. It's also the areas upstream all the way to Zaporizhzhia, where there should now be two broad belts of mud through which no mechanized or amphibious assault will be possible for a while.

[Johan R]

Re: Ukraine

. There is enough water capacity on site in the current cooling ponds to keep the remaining reactor functioning and/or safely bought off-line.

[QUOTE=Peerie Maa;6863485]

You demonstrated that you know sod all about how nuclear power plants work

,

I never made any such claims that I did.

your lack of knowledge and terminological inexactitudes

Can you be kind enough to point out what "terminological inexactitudes" you are referring to in my quote above? I do not see any.


We all see you jump at any opportunity to claim expert status, that all of the UK and possibly Europe should be grateful for your work in being a small wheel in the machine of providing a nuclear umbrella; what do you want, for people to drop to their knees in gratitude or will a slow handclap by everyone suffice?

Given you are the "expert", what exactly is the biggest risk at Zaporishzhia at present? Maybe you should pass your concerns onto EURATOM, perhaps they have miscalculated something only you are aware of?

[WszystekPoTrochu]

Re: Ukraine

Blowing the dam certainly releases a lot of RF forces from the now inaccessible front line along the Dnieper.

A significant number of their forces from southwestern front is now literally clinging to trees and crying for help, if you believe intercepted radio calls

Left bank is significantly lower and more prone to flooding than right:

5946930.jpg

Invader's defenses are destroyed or in the process of being destroyed. For these still wondering who might have done it, a kind reminder:
It already happened before. A dam blown up to slow down offensive already happened. Done by stalinists, of course.

[WszystekPoTrochu]

Re: Ukraine

IIRC, destruction of civilian infrastructure is a war crime. I’ll look for the reference.

https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/ihl-treaties/api-1977/article-56

Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol I), 8 June 1977.

Article 56 - Protection of works and installations containing dangerous forces

1. Works or installations containing dangerous forces, namely dams, dykes and nuclear electrical generating stations, shall not be made the object of attack, even where these objects are military objectives, if such attack may cause the release of dangerous forces and consequent severe losses among the civilian population. Other military objectives located at or in the vicinity of these works or installations shall not be made the object of attack if such attack may cause the release of dangerous forces from the works or installations and consequent severe losses among the civilian population.

[Johan R]

Re: Ukraine

Scaremongering Johan?
No it is not scaremongering you pathetic troll.
. May you burn in hell.

The IAEA Director General is obviously a troll,

" ...... our current assessment is that there is no immediate risk to the safety of the plant."

"There are a number of alternative sources of water.A main one is the large cooling pond next to the site that by design is kept above the height of the reservoir. As the reactors have been shut down for many months it is estimated that this pond will be sufficient to provide water for cooling for some months."

Who are people suppose to listen to, experts or claimed experts from the North of England 1,500 miles away?

[Peerie Maa]

Re: Ukraine

[QUOTE=Johan R;6863512]

,


Can you be kind enough to point out what "terminological inexactitudes" you are referring to in my quote above? I do not see any.

This:

Scaremongering. 5 off the reactors are currently off-line. There is enough water capacity on site in the current cooling ponds to keep the remaining reactor functioning and/or safely bought off-line.

[Andrew Craig-Bennett]

Re: Ukraine

https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/ih...977/article-56

Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol I), 8 June 1977.

Article 56 - Protection of works and installations containing dangerous forces

1. Works or installations containing dangerous forces, namely dams, dykes and nuclear electrical generating stations, shall not be made the object of attack, even where these objects are military objectives, if such attack may cause the release of dangerous forces and consequent severe losses among the civilian population. Other military objectives located at or in the vicinity of these works or installations shall not be made the object of attack if such attack may cause the release of dangerous forces from the works or installations and consequent severe losses among the civilian population.

Thank you!

[Johan R]

Re: Ukraine

[QUOTE=Peerie Maa;6863555]

This:

For a man who excels in long winded tirades, you have become a mono wordist?

Let me help you. 5 of the 6 plants have been taken off-line, yes or no? According to the IAEA, yes.

Has the DG of the IAEA confirmed there is no risk at this time, yes or no? According to the IAEA, yes.

Can you admit to ever being wrong and making wrong assertions?, we already know the answer to that.

[Andrew Craig-Bennett]

Re: Ukraine

Article 56 - Protection of works and installations containing dangerous forces

1. Works or installations containing dangerous forces, namely dams, dykes and nuclear electrical generating stations, shall not be made the object of attack, even where these objects are military objectives, if such attack may cause the release of dangerous forces and consequent severe losses among the civilian population. Other military objectives located at or in the vicinity of these works or installations shall not be made the object of attack if such attack may cause the
release of dangerous forces from the works or installations and consequent severe losses among
the civilian population.
2. The special protection against attack provided by paragraph 1 shall cease:
(a) for a dam or a dyke only if it is used for other than its normal function and in regular, significant and direct support of military operations and if such attack is the only feasible way to terminate such support;
(b) for a nuclear electrical generating station only if it provides electric power in regular, significant and direct support of military operations and if such attack is the only feasible way to terminate such support;
(c) for other military objectives located at or in the vicinity of these works or installations only if they are used in regular, significant and direct support of military operations and if such attack is the only feasible way to terminate such support.
3. In all cases, the civilian population and individual civilians shall remain entitled to all the protection accorded them by international law, including the protection of the precautionary measures provided for in Article 57 . If the protection ceases and any of the works, installations or military objectives mentioned in paragraph 1 is attacked, all practical precautions
shall be taken to avoid the release of the dangerous forces.
4. It is prohibited to make any of the works, installations or military objectives mentioned in paragraph 1 the object of reprisals.
5. The Parties to the conflict shall endeavour to avoid locating any military objectives in the vicinity of the works or installations mentioned in paragraph 1. Nevertheless, installations erected for the sole purpose of defending the protected works or installations from attack are permissible and shall not themselves be made the object of attack, provided that they are not used in hostilities except for defensive actions necessary to respond to attacks against the protected works or installations and that their armament is limited to weapons capable only of repelling hostile action against the protected works or installations.
6. The High Contracting Parties and the Parties to the conflict are urged to conclude further agreements among themselves to provide additional protection for objects containing dangerous forces.
7. In order to facilitate the identification of the objects protected by this article, the Parties to the conflict may mark them with a special sign consisting of a group of three bright orange circles placed on the same axis, as specified in Article 16 of Annex I to this Protocol [Article 17of Amended Annex]. The absence of such marking in no way relieves any Party to the conflict of its obligations under
this Article.

It seems quite clear that the attacks on the Zaporiza nuclear power station and the attack(s) on the Nova Kakhova dam are bort war crimes, and the closure of the canal from the Dnipro to the Crimea is not a war crime.

Lets see if our Russian enthusiast can admit to being wrong?

[dutchpp]

Re: Ukraine

A significant number of their forces from southwestern front is now literally clinging to trees and crying for help, if you believe intercepted radio calls

Left bank is significantly lower and more prone to flooding than right:

[ATTACH=CONFIG]138164[/ATTACH]

Invader's defenses are destroyed or in the process of being destroyed. For these still wondering who might have done it, a kind reminder:
It already happened before. A dam blown up to slow down offensive already happened. Done by stalinists, of course.

Inundation is a means of defense that requires some knowledge, I have the impression that the Russians don't have that knowledge.
Blowing up this dam could be a strategic mistake, the defense constructions on the south shore of the Dnjepr are seriously damaged now, this could partly open up the route to Sebastopol.
I'm pretty sure that the Ukrainian counterattack planners have taken this scenario into account. We'll see what happens next.

[Gerarddm]

Re: Ukraine

Western journalists speculate that it might not have been explosion that destroyed dam at hydroelectric power plant (yahoo.com)