No Rise in Radiation Levels at Chernobyl, Despite Damage from February's Drone Strike (nytimes.com) 145
UPDATE (12/7): The New York Times clarifies today that the damage at Chernobyl hasn't led to a rise in radiation levels:
"If there was to be some event inside the shelter that would release radioactive materials into the space inside the New Safe Confinement, because this facility is no longer sealed to the outside environment, there's the potential for radiation to come out," said Shaun Burnie, a senior nuclear specialist at Greenpeace who has monitored nuclear power plants in Ukraine since 2022 and last visited Chernobyl on October 31. "I have to say I don't think that's a particularly serious issue at the moment, because they're not actively decommissioning the actual sarcophagus."
The I.A.E.A. also said there was no permanent damage to the shield's load-bearing structures or monitoring systems. A spokesman for the agency, Fredrik Dahl, said in a text message on Sunday that radiation levels were similar to what they were before the drone hit.
But "A structure designed to prevent radioactive leakage at the defunct Chernobyl nuclear plant in Ukraine is no longer operational," Politico reported Saturday, "after Russian drones targeted it earlier this year, the U.N.'s nuclear watchdog has found." [T]he large steel structure "lost its primary safety functions, including the confinement capability" when its outer cladding was set ablaze after being struck by Russian drones, according to a new report by the International Atomic Energy Agency. Beyond that, there was "no permanent damage to its load-bearing structures or monitoring systems," it said. "Limited temporary repairs have been carried out on the roof, but timely and comprehensive restoration remains essential to prevent further degradation and ensure long-term nuclear safety," IAEA Director General Rafael Mariano Grossi said in astatement.
The Guardian has pictures of the protective shield — incuding the damage from the drone strike. The shield is the world's largest movable land structure, reports CNN: The IAEA, which has a permanent presence at the site, will "continue to do everything it can to support efforts to fully restore nuclear safety and security," Grossi said.... Built in 2010 and completed in 2019, it was designed to last 100 years and has played a crucial role in securing the site.
The project cost €2.1 billion and was funded by contributions from more than 45 donor countries and organizations through the Chernobyl Shelter Fund, according to the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, which in 2019 hailed the venture as "the largest international collaboration ever in the field of nuclear safety."
The I.A.E.A. also said there was no permanent damage to the shield's load-bearing structures or monitoring systems. A spokesman for the agency, Fredrik Dahl, said in a text message on Sunday that radiation levels were similar to what they were before the drone hit.
But "A structure designed to prevent radioactive leakage at the defunct Chernobyl nuclear plant in Ukraine is no longer operational," Politico reported Saturday, "after Russian drones targeted it earlier this year, the U.N.'s nuclear watchdog has found." [T]he large steel structure "lost its primary safety functions, including the confinement capability" when its outer cladding was set ablaze after being struck by Russian drones, according to a new report by the International Atomic Energy Agency. Beyond that, there was "no permanent damage to its load-bearing structures or monitoring systems," it said. "Limited temporary repairs have been carried out on the roof, but timely and comprehensive restoration remains essential to prevent further degradation and ensure long-term nuclear safety," IAEA Director General Rafael Mariano Grossi said in astatement.
The Guardian has pictures of the protective shield — incuding the damage from the drone strike. The shield is the world's largest movable land structure, reports CNN: The IAEA, which has a permanent presence at the site, will "continue to do everything it can to support efforts to fully restore nuclear safety and security," Grossi said.... Built in 2010 and completed in 2019, it was designed to last 100 years and has played a crucial role in securing the site.
The project cost €2.1 billion and was funded by contributions from more than 45 donor countries and organizations through the Chernobyl Shelter Fund, according to the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, which in 2019 hailed the venture as "the largest international collaboration ever in the field of nuclear safety."
And the only way to get it back (Score:5, Insightful)
The project cost €2.1 billion and was funded by contributions from more than 45 donor countries and organizations through the Chernobyl Shelter Fund
Take it out of Putin's ass.
Old News? (Score:1, Insightful)
The UN reported on 14 February that Ukrainian authorities said a drone with a high explosive warhead struck the plant, caused a fire and damaged the protective cladding around the reactor. Ukrainian authorities said the drone was Russian. Moscow denied it had attacked the plant.
Re: (Score:1)
The UN reported on 14 February that Ukrainian authorities said a drone with a high explosive warhead struck the plant, caused a fire and damaged the protective cladding around the reactor. Ukrainian authorities said the drone was Russian. Moscow denied it had attacked the plant.
This would be one of those awkward occasions where a planet is taking in that response from Russia, with the full understanding of exactly which party has zero fucking reason to attack their own containment shield.
Especially that one.
Re: (Score:1)
Re:Old News? (Score:4, Informative)
The more likely explanation is that the drone didn't hit what it targeted or it was debris from the Ukraine air defense.
You think that's the more likely explanation?! Seriously? So the drone was supposed to hit some other valid target in the 1600 square mile exclusion zone? Or that debris from Ukrainian air defenses somehow, after hitting a Russian drone headed for a target outside the 1600 square mile exclusion zone somehow flew all the way to the shield and just managed to hit it? That's more likely?!?! Really?!
But that basic argument certainly applies to claims Russia is attacking the nuclear power plant they control
So you believe that the massive column of black smoke from the cooling tower which normally contains nothing that should produce black smoke when burning is just Ukrainian propaganda?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Just put it in context: Today Russia struck the Pechenihy Reservoir dam in Kharkiv.
Russia launched the war because they thought it would be a quick and easy win, a step towards reestablishing a Russian empire and sphere of influence, because Putin thinks in 19th century terms. Russia is continuing the war, not because it's good for Russia. I'd argue that winning and then having to rebuild and pacify Ukraine would be a catastrophe. Russia is continuing the war because *losing* the war would be catastroph
Re: (Score:1)
Sorry, I am not sure what any of your comment has to do with my comment. I was pointing out that it's incredibly unrealistic to claim that, if the Russians hit the Chernobyl dome it most likely purely accidental or that it wasn't even the Russians, but a fragment of a Ukrainian anti-air missile. The reason is big sky theory. There are no valid targets remotely near the site of the strike. So, if it was a completely random hit from something many, many miles off course, it would have been an amazing coincide
Re: (Score:2)
I'm actually responding to the AC above you. He is arguing that the attack wouldn't make any sense for either country to make, based on *national* interest. I'm pointing out that's not the only framework in which *regimes* make decisions.
Re: (Score:2)
Got it. Thanks for the clarification.
Re: (Score:2)
no problem.
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
And then Trump came in and Ukraine has recieved nothing since.
It's not like you're paying, living in Russia.
65% of Americans are happy to support the war according to the latest polls. So take your ruskie propaganda and shove it up your arse.
Re: (Score:3)
I agree - you are a Russian troll.
Re: (Score:1)
Re:Old News? (Score:5, Insightful)
Russian authorities always lie, even if telling the truth would have been beneficial to them. They can't help themselves.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Moscow denied it
That confirms it then. Moscow definitely did it.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Chernobyl had actually fallen to the Russians in 2022, during the first days of the war. Did the Ukrainians take it back since?
Uh, yeah, the next month. This was nearly four years ago at this point. You might be a little behind on the news.
Re: (Score:2)
hahahah LOL WUT? Chernobyl is up near Kyiv. It was in the path of an initial onslaught that tried to move towards the capital and was basically instantly repelled back across the Belarus border. Not only was that region liberated by the Ukraine within days, the Russians completely abandoned all war activities up there within the month and there hasn't been any fighting or contention of land there since.
The only thing happening anywhere near there is drone strikes and the occasional bombing.
Re: (Score:1)
Season 2 (Score:3)
in a way (Score:2)
In a way this is good news.
Seriously.
If Russia expected to win this conflict, it's unlikely even they are dumb enough to cause major nuclear leaks in territory they expect to hold.
It's possible this is a clue that they DON'T expect to do so, and we've advanced to the "well if I can't have it nobody can" scorched earth stage, which is very Russian.
Re: (Score:2)
If Russia expected to win this conflict
russia has already reached the point where attrition cascades. even the nyt admits this.
at this point only a few countries in europe (actually just 3-4 that count: uk, france, germany and maybe poland) and a minority of ukranians (20% according to last gallup poll) want to continue the war, hoping to rescue the situation in the long run.
their plan seems to be: ... europe (the us has bailed)
1. ukraine:
- fight to the last man (which will be soon) while being supported by
2. europe:
- steal russian assets to sup
Re: (Score:2)
russia has already reached the point where attrition cascades. even the nyt admits this.
Russian attrition is indeed spiraling.
https://en.zona.media/article/... [en.zona.media]
at this point only a few countries in europe (actually just 3-4 that count: uk, france, germany and maybe poland) and a minority of ukranians (20% according to last gallup poll) want to continue the war, hoping to rescue the situation in the long run.
With the exception of Putler very few wanted the war to start much less continue. Don't mistake wanting war to end for any Ukrainian willingness to acquiesce to absurd demands of Putler et el.
1. ukraine: ... europe (the us has bailed)
- fight to the last man (which will be soon) while being supported by
This is nonsensical. Both sides are capable of suffering their respective rates of attrition forever. This war like nearly every war will not be settled by running out of men. It will be settled by running out of will.
- steal russian assets to support ukraine for 2 more years, see from there. if they succeed, the money will last 6 months, it will wreck their financial industry for good (one of its few industries still standing) and when the trial comes they will have to pay the money back plus reparations.
Forfeiture of Russian asse
Re: (Score:3)
it's unlikely even they are dumb enough
Russian's are happy to deliberately contaminate their own people, rivers, lakes and forests with nuclear waste. They fly nuclear powered cruise missiles over their own land. They leak weaponized anthrax in their own cities. They have solders dig and occupy trenches in land they know is contaminated with nuclear waste.
What could possibly make you believe the Russians would hesitate to spread yet more nuclear waste around in Ukraine if they thought it would bring them some military advantage? In all lik
Ukraine/Russia (Score:1)
Re:Was it a Russian drone? (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah, Russia and Ukraine are at war, but was it a Russian drone that attacked the dome? Ukraine has more reason to attack it and blame Russia, so they hope Europe will poor more money into them (their leaders already shown nothing has changed over the decades in how corrupt they are) . Chernobyl is very close to russian border, so if the dome cracks and nuclear radiation escapes, it might hit russia. But of course it might be possible for a russian drone on its way to Kyiv to be misguided and hit the dome by accident. Yeah Russians are morons and not very nice, but in this war nothing is as it seems, and we in the west don't seem to get the real/full story.
Russia has more reason to attack it because in doing so, people like you will contemplate it being Ukraine blaming Russia to garner sympathy. Of course, Ukraine has more reason to attack is so people like me will think it's Russia hoping to blame Ukraine for it being Russia false-flagging Ukraine's implication of Russia being to blame while falsely accusing Ukraine.
We can play sixteen-dimensional chess. Or we can boil it all down to one country being instigators and nothing else mattering. The dome is damaged because Russia invaded another country. Period. In my books, even if the leader of Ukraine ordered Ukranian people to damage the dome, the Russians are to blame. There's the border. Get back on your side.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Russia has more reason to attack it because in doing so, people like you will contemplate it being Ukraine blaming Russia to garner sympathy. Of course, Ukraine has more reason to attack is so people like me will think it's Russia hoping to blame Ukraine for it being Russia false-flagging Ukraine's implication of Russia being to blame while falsely accusing Ukraine.
Given this level of subterfuge, all I can say is, "Sloppy job, Mossad."
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
We can play sixteen-dimensional chess. Or we can boil it all down to one country being instigators and nothing else mattering. The dome is damaged because Russia invaded another country. Period. In my books, even if the leader of Ukraine ordered Ukranian people to damage the dome, the Russians are to blame. There's the border. Get back on your side.
I find this line of reasoning dangerous.
If the Nazis had not started WW2, but had been invaded by some Western power unjustly, and then executed the holocaust, would the holocaust by the fault of the invading Western power?
No, it would not be.
The fault is the person who did the crime, period.
Russia is responsible for this terrible fucking war- but if Ukraine accidentally or purposefully popped the dome over Chernobyl (which I am not accusing them of doing) then it is their fault, period.
Unfortunatel [bbc.com]
Re: (Score:3)
but if Ukraine accidentally or purposefully popped the dome over Chernobyl (which I am not accusing them of doing) then it is their fault, period.
Depends on the legal system. Russia(armed thug) robs liqueur store(Ukraine) the clerk(reactor dome) was shot by someone while "crime" was being comited. Most courts send the armed thug up for murder regardless of who brought the bullets. With legal matters their is no "period."
Re: (Score:1)
You cannot be tried for murder because someone else shot someone while you were committing a crime.
There are, of course, other laws that you can be in violation of.
I'm not aware of any statute for murder that includes "being indirectly responsible for the unintentional killing of someone".
This sounds like the wive's tale that was commonly told to children about legal guilt by association.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
See reply to AC. [slashdot.org]
The analogy you presented was one where the liquor store clerk shot someone during the robbery.
That does not invoke the felony murder rule for those committing the crime.
Re: (Score:2)
The felony murder rule and proximate cause rule can and do result in the prosecution of people when their crimes lead to third parties shooting and possibly killing people. This has happened numerous times with lone criminals (without accomplices) being shot at by police and the criminal being charged for bystanders being shot by the police. See for example Jordan Waddy who was charged for the injuries to bystanders shot by the police.
Re: (Score:2)
While it was once upon a time normal, it's now considered ridiculously unjust.
I'll grant you a technical correctness because it does still exist in a few backwaters today, but it is not the law in the vast majority of the land.
Re: (Score:2)
Right, so:
You cannot be tried for murder because someone else shot someone while you were committing a crime.
Is not an absolute statement, so that's all I was saying.
Re: (Score:2)
Even in cases that still allow proximate cause, it's not absolute.
In your example- Waddy- the charge of assault was dropped, and a police officer was charged instead.
This is because the police officer committed a crime (negligently discharging his firearm into a crowd), thus the direct chain of proximate cause was broken.
Re: (Score:2)
Regarding Waddy. If the charges were dropped, that means that he was being prosecuted on those charges, so what I said is correct. Also, just worth noting that the officer shot 7 people and got probation whereas Waddy went to prison for 2 1/2 years on a firearms possession charge. This was after pleading guilty to the possession charge. In other words, a plea deal. The prosecution over assault charges for the shootings was not dropped because of the prosecution of the officer, it was dropped because he took
Re: (Score:2)
Compare the charges against him, and the charges against the officer.
Waddy doesn't appear to have ever been charged for the shootings. I think you just made that shit up
Re: (Score:2)
Na, looks like you were just flat-out wrong. [denvergazette.com]
Do you care to explain how I'm wrong? All you did was post a link to the article. I read the article and it does not say anywhere that I can find that I'm wrong. Maybe if you want to use a source to make an argument you should, you know, actually make the argument.
The article does say:
The defendant plead guilty to the crime on Jan. 12. Four other counts against him were dismissed as a result of the plea deal.
which agrees to what I said. It also explains that it took 7 months for the officer to be charged, whereas Waddy was charged immediately.
Now, as to the other charges against Waddy, they included assault charges, but it is very
Re: (Score:2)
Do you care to explain how I'm wrong?
lol. You really are just the most pathetic fucking thing.
See for example Jordan Waddy who was charged for the injuries to bystanders shot by the police.
The article clearly demonstrates that he was not.
He was never charged for any harm that came to the bystanders.
He was charged with 4th degree assault for an assault the police witnessed before they approached, and being a felon in possession of a weapon.
As I said, compare those charges, with teh charges against the officer:
One of the three officers who fired, Brandon Ramos, was indicted by a Denver grand jury on 14 counts in January of 2023. The indictments included two counts of reckless second-degree assault, three counts of third-degree knowing or reckless assault, three counts of third-degree assault with negligence using a deadly weapon, one count of prohibited use of a weapon and five counts of reckless endangerment.
Seriously, go crawl back under your fucking rock.
Re: (Score:2)
lol. You really are just the most pathetic fucking thing.
In other words you can't explain it and you just fall back on arrogance and vulgarity rather than try to form a coherent argument. Got it.
The article clearly demonstrates that he was not.
He was never charged for any harm that came to the bystanders.
He was charged with 4th degree assault for an assault the police witnessed before they approached, and being a felon in possession of a weapon.
The article does not clearly state that. This is the part I asked you for. Normally, what you do is reference specific parts of the article, usually in the form of quotes, to actually make your argument. If it's so certain. Then do that. However, it doesn't matter because, as I pointed out, that was just one example. I don't have much stake in one example. I only need one
Re: (Score:2)
You're referring to the felony murder rule.
That requires you both to be committing the crime. They have to be your accomplice- not your accessory.
I.e., if during a robbery, some random person in the store shoots someone else trying to shoot you- you are not in legal jeopardy for murder.
If during a robbery, the clerk shoots someone other than a participant on accident, you are not in legal jeopardy for murder.
If during a robbery, your accomplish
Re: (Score:2)
I.e., if during a robbery, some random person in the store shoots someone else trying to shoot you- you are not in legal jeopardy for murder.
To my knowledge, you are pedantically correct, but that doesn't mean you aren't in legal jeopardy for the death; you just won't face murder charges. You could still very easily be hit with civil wrongful death claims, and maybe negligent homicide or involuntary manslaughter charges for creating the situation that led to that death.
Re: (Score:2)
But I would argue that isn't pedantically correct.
Civil liability is just that- civil liability. It doesn't even require mens rea.
Criminal justice is another thing altogether.
Negligent homicide and involuntary manslaughter suffer the same problem- no mens rea for the person accused of the crime.
Mens rea is required, except in the case of proximate cause, which is outlawed just about everywhere precisely because of the lack of mens rea.
Re: (Score:2)
Negligent homicide and involuntary manslaughter suffer the same problem- no mens rea for the person accused of the crime.
Depends on what the person was doing at the time. If the person who didn't pull the trigger was holding up a liquor store and the police shot the wrong person, there's at least arguably mens rea, which is how we get things like the felony murder rule. Extending that to involuntary manslaughter when the person didn't actually pull the trigger but directly created a situation where the police did seems like not that much of a stretch to me.
Re: (Score:2)
Depends on what the person was doing at the time. If the person who didn't pull the trigger was holding up a liquor store and the police shot the wrong person, there's at least arguably mens rea, which is how we get things like the felony murder rule.
Not quite- that's how you get the proximate cause felony murder rule, of which only a couple of jurisdictions in the US, and none outside of the US in the Western world recognize due to its obvious injustice.
Extending that to involuntary manslaughter when the person didn't actually pull the trigger but directly created a situation where the police did seems like not that much of a stretch to me.
It isn't in proximate cause jurisdictions... but even then, not all of those.
To give you an example, in even the laxest proximate cause jurisdictions, if the police officer fires his weapon inappropriately, then the proximate cause is broken. You are not responsible for someone else breaking the law (s
Re: (Score:2)
Depends on what the person was doing at the time. If the person who didn't pull the trigger was holding up a liquor store and the police shot the wrong person, there's at least arguably mens rea, which is how we get things like the felony murder rule.
Not quite- that's how you get the proximate cause felony murder rule, of which only a couple of jurisdictions in the US, and none outside of the US in the Western world recognize due to its obvious injustice.
No, it's how you get mens rea for the felony murder rule. You didn't carry the gun with the intent to kill, only to intimidate, but you still had a guilty mind, and if you then used the gun to kill someone in the heat of the moment, there's your mens rea.
And remember that actual cause does not mean literally pulling the trigger. At least in the U.S., the courts apply a "but for" test. If the event would not have happened without the previous event, then the previous event is considered the actual, not pr
Re: (Score:2)
That only applies for proximate cause theory felony murder.
For the agency theory of felony murder, only the criminals are only responsible for the crimes committed by their immediate accomplices.
In jurisdictions that have any felony murder rule- the agency theory is the overwhelming majority of implementations.
Explained simpler, in the agency theory of felony murder, the following statement is false.
If the person who didn't pull the trigger was holding up a liquor store and the police shot the wrong person, there's at least arguably mens rea, which is how we get things like the felony murder rule.
Re: (Score:2)
This is easily demonstrated by the fact that you think felony murder is proximate cause in general.
Only a 2 states still have a concept of proximate cause felony murder, and it has been outright abolished in the rest of the Western world with common law roots.
Parents example was that:
If Ukraine strikes Chernobyl in a conflict with Russia, who has committed the crime of invasion, then Ru
Re: (Score:2)
Quoting my claim without context isn't clever- it's either manipulative, or stupid. In your case, given the AI and TV knowledgebases- almost certainly the latter.
Proximate Cause Felony Murder does not exist except for a couple of places in the US.
The analogy used which I replied to was for proximate cause felony murder- i.e., the victim of the crime kills a bystander during the commission of the crime.
That I understand nuance, and you're too stupid to grasp
Re: (Score:2)
If the Nazis had not started WW2, but had been invaded by some Western power unjustly, and then executed the holocaust, would the holocaust by the fault of the invading Western power?
Depends. Was the Holocaust the result of that specific party doing specific war related activities? No. you're equating two very different things. The Holocaust had nothing to do with the war - the Jews didn't attack, nor were they a party to the war. They were a completely unprovoked 3rd party wiped out at the behest of someone cleansing the world. There was no propaganda angle, no strategic angle, nothing at all related to the war itself.
On the flip side bombing things, especially infrastructure has every
Re: (Score:2)
Depends. Was the Holocaust the result of that specific party doing specific war related activities? No. you're equating two very different things.
Pretty hard to argue that it wasn't.
The persecution of Jews in Germany certainly predated the war, but the extermination of them very much did not.
There was no propaganda angle, no strategic angle, nothing at all related to the war itself.
The dipshits literally blamed the Jews for the German loss of WW1. You bet WW2 played a role in the rapid acceleration of the persecution into mass murder.
On the flip side bombing things, especially infrastructure has everything to do with war.
Has to do with- sure. Particularly if done in good faith.
Both Ukraine and Russia are blowing shit up and/or killing innocent people and blaming it on the other side currently. Those are not legal and legitima
Re: (Score:2)
They're both full of shit, as parties at war tend to be.
I tend to side with the defender rather than the aggressor unless there is indisputable proof that violence was the only answer. Ukraine is fighting for its very existence, which was previously guaranteed on paper. *shrug*
Re: (Score:2)
But I'll not let facts be a victim of that war as well.
There is rapid and strong outrage if you dare point out that Ukraine has gotten caught executing false flag action as well. One of which, the Nordstream bombing, even directly impacted the people giving them money.
That doesn't make them worse than Russia somehow. It just means they cannot be taken at their word.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I would perhaps alter his post with Ukraine was bad too, and strengthen the fact that Russia continues to be bad today, while Ukraine has managed to more or less get its Nazi brigades under Government control and washing the worst of them out of service.
That being said, trying to silence any criticism of Ukraine by accusing the critic of being a Russian trol
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
MAGA twats, and you ravenous illiberal twats are both extremist pieces of shit.
It is demonstrable that both Russia and Ukraine are bullshit propagandists.
It is demonstrable that both Russia and Ukraine have a problem with neo-nazis in their ranks.
There is only one rational viewpoint, and that is the both sides viewpoint.
Anything else is Machiavellian horse-shit.
Re: (Score:2)
And you sound like a fucking moron for denying facts because they're inconvenient to you.
The only fact is you presented a truly disgusting false-equivalence.
Re: (Score:2)
RWNJ is Slashdot's Tucker Carlson. Educated, erudite, pretending not to know things in order to justify the worst possible conclusions. I wonder if he wears a stupid bow tie.
Re: (Score:2)
You may call me someone who spent too much time in college learning how to be a scholar, which forced me to learn to view everything as objectively as possible as far away as possible. I'm not kool-aid proof, but I'm damn close.
Trying to shut down criticism of Ukraine with claims of false balance fallacies (ignorantly called "both sides") or accusations of trolling for Russia is just a fucked up purity test the left has began to employ
Re: (Score:2)
The only equivalence I claimed was in fact true. They're clearly enumerated.
You extrapolated a false equivalence out of that, because your brain shuts down whenever any criticism is levied at all at your pet cause.
The things I listed being true does not mean that Ukraine and Russia are the same. The fact that I need to say that is a defect in your reasoning skills, not me employing a fallacy.
Re: (Score:2)
I claimed no such generalizations.
The topic here was false flag operations. Both sides are demonstrably guilty of them.
Any means justify your ends. The only difference between you and a MAGA dimwit, is that they have succeeded in getting their strongman in office, and you're really pissed off that they beat you to it.
If you would stop for one second and evaluate what you were saying, you'd see that it was Machiavellian drivel.
I'm going to quote some text from an independent panel evaluating
Re: (Score:2)
yeah but sometimes it's actually true, that's what makes this a statement that is both true and also fucking useless. sometimes there really are good guys and bad guys, you can say that when its true. doesnt mean the good guys are perfect widdle angels
The problem is not that you proclaim that they're perfect widdle angels, it's that you proclaim that any criticism of them is tantamount to support for their opponent. This makes you dangerous. You're the kind of braindead motherfucker who ends up putting actual fascists into office.
Show us all ANYTHING approximating this [wikipedia.org] or this [oscepa.org]
There is nothing comparable. What's up with the whataboutism? Do you think Russia's war crimes justify Ukraine's?
if your stance is "i dont support countries that do war crimes" then you dont support any nation that has ever warred in history. fucking "oh so cool an cynical" like a goddamned teenager. live in reality please.
I didn't say I don't support them. I absolutely "support" Ukraine, in that in the balance, they are the just party.
Re: (Score:2)
Pointing out that person A and person B have both done thing X does not mean that A = B.
Good call posting AC- I'd hate to have my name attached to that intellectually defective rationale.
Re: (Score:2)
However, Ukraine spent 4 years blaming the Nordstream bombing on the Russians. When it was the Ukrainians did it.
Trying to pretend like these 2 people are cut from entirely different cloths is absolutely fucking asinine, and contrary to evidence.
Re: (Score:3)
Ukraine has more reason to attack it and blame Russia, so they hope Europe will poor more money into them
This doesn't really track as the most likely scenario, I mean the risk to Ukraine is enormous if this was found out, particularly when Europe is and has been helping them. Really just an overall needlessly risky plan. I'm not totally convinced Russia has a legit reason to attack intentionally, an accident seems likely.
Also it's "very close to the Russian Border" [app.goo.gl] only if you're the type of person who considers Belarus just another part of Russia at this point. It's closer to Kiev than the closest Russian
Re:Was it a Russian drone? (Score:4, Insightful)
Who is going to find them out and hold them to account? No one.
What do you mean? Everyone! Europe would not be happy with that. The USA would not. Russia has every incentive to expose such an action if it took place. Belarus would also be very incentivized. Seriously, think about it.
This is a war and both sides are to blame.
No, this is an invasion. Ukraine did not attack Russia, even Russia acknowledges that. You can say an invasion is justified and make that case but that's the position you're starting from, Ukraine was not looking to war with Russia, you can't just hand wave a "uhh, both sides" here and that does all your cognitive work.
Calling it ethnic is one of the justifications Russia gives but if you think about that's not something we would use to justify an invasion from anyone. It's bullshit, this is political and a power grab. Putin isn't exactly secret about things.
Re: (Score:2)
Nordstream is a given I'll say that but it does not carry the risk to relations nearly as much as Chernobyl, is also in the ocean and was likely rebels, not a state action.
Russia points to the Maidan revolution and following civil war as being instigated by Ukrainian "Nazis' spurred on by NATO
Who cares? Everyone knows that is not factually true. Do you think that's true? It's not true you know.
Russia does not lean on an attack on their people or terriroty as one of their many justifications.
Serbia
Oh, pray tell, and what was happening in Serbia that wasn't happening in Ukraine?
Re: (Score:1)
it does not carry the risk to relations nearly as much as Chernobyl
Let me suggest that the damage done to Germany by the Nordstream action was a magnitude greater than any damage done to the dome at Chernobyl. Yet no one seems to really want to know who did it and certainly have no interest in holding anyone accountable. Even protecting people indicted in Germany from being deported for trial.
Who cares?
Apparently you cared enough to lie about it. Russia has consistently claimed it was acting in self-defense and defense of ethnic Russians in Ukraine.
Oh, pray tell, and what was happening in Serbia that wasn't happening in Ukraine?
NATO was intervening in an ethnic
Re: (Score:2)
Let me suggest that the damage done to Germany by the Nordstream action was a magnitude greater than any damage done to the dome at Chernobyl.
Considering the pipeline was not operating yet you might be wrong but ask Germany. Also it's not the action itself at Chernobyl it's the potential consequences of the action that is the concern but that might be too much forward thinking for some. Also no-one seem interested in finding out? Isn't the most comprehensive investigation from the Germans?
Apparently you cared enough to lie about it. Russia has consistently claimed it was acting in self-defense and defense of ethnic Russians in Ukraine.
Lie about what? I acknowledge Russia says a thing that does not make it true or an acceptable justification for anything.
NATO was intervening in an ethnic conflict to prevent genocide, contrary to your claim that was not ever a sufficient reason for military intervention.
Not to prevent but to stop an ongoing
Re: Was it a Russian drone? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This is gross misuse of the phrase "both sides". I'm just trying to figure out if it's because you're legitimately stupid, or if you're deliberately trying to mislead.
Both-sides would be to try to claim that both Russia and Ukraine are equally justified in this combat. They are not. Russia is the aggressor, and nothing can change that.
However, if we're to say that the criteri
Re: (Score:2)
I claimed no such generalizations.
The topic here was neo-nazi mercenaries. Both side demonstrably have them.
Any means justify your ends. The only difference between you and a MAGA dimwit, is that they have succeeded in getting their strongman in office, and you're really pissed off that they beat you to it.
Re: (Score:2)
No, it's fucking not. Good lord, you are tedious.
Yes, it fucking is, you dim-witted shit-for-brains:
I love Russian trolls. If you are attacking another country and your mercenaries are literally imitating SS uniforms, you don't have to ask if you are the baddies.
I can see it now: Headline: Russia attacked the United States. You: Yeah, but there are neo-nazis in the United States too.
I can see it now- person on the internet with an IQ of 40 creates straw man in lack of an argument.
We weren't discussing neo-nazis in Ukraine. We were discussing mercenaries in the employ of the government, who were neo-nazis, in both Ukraine, and in Russia, which the link I provided clearly demonstrates.
Re: (Score:2)
Ukrine, after funding and supporting them for several years, kicked them to the curb when it became apparent to them that they were going to need a lot of outside help, and Amnesty International was accusing them of war crimes.
Ukraine, at least superficially, corrected their mistake. Russia continues to do it.
Nobody cast doubt upon that.
However, when setting the criteria for "the bad guy", it's important to select a criteria that you yourself didn't set first at the beginning of the c
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Curious why you bother putting "Russian" in quotes there. Why would it being located in Belarus make it "Russian" as opposed to Russian?
Re: (Score:2)
Cough.
That being said- It was probably Russia. But your thinking on the matter is fundamentally broken. Ukraine and Russia both have a history of false flag attacks in this war.
Re: (Score:2)
Ya, I mean they would never blow up a pipeline in the middle of the Baltic- because the fallout would be immense if they were caught.
You don't think there's a geopolitical difference between the destruction of a non-operating pipeline in the middle of the ocean and a worldwide famous site of the worst nuclear accident in history, which threatened the entire region and planet in worldwide scandal? One that's on land within hundreds of miles of several EU nations and others? One that's a two hour drive from their nations largest city and capital and the site where there is a "Monument to Those Who Saved the World"?
Lets put on our detectiv
Re: (Score:2)
You don't think there's a geopolitical difference between the destruction of a non-operating pipeline in the middle of the ocean and a worldwide famous site of the worst nuclear accident in history, which threatened the entire region and planet in worldwide scandal?
Oh, there's a difference.
One is an act of war, one is an act in a war. Both bad. The geopolitical consequences of the Nordstream destruction though... Impressive.
What do you think would have happened to them if they had halted the flow of oil to the US when the US was more dependent on foreign oil?
How fucking naive can you be?
One that's on land within hundreds of miles of several EU nations and others? One that's a two hour drive from their nations largest city and capital and the site where there is a "Monument to Those Who Saved the World"?
Chernobyl may as well be 1000 kilometers from Kyiv. If you blew the dome today, the radiation would not spread that far. It would just further contaminate the local environment.
To
Re: (Score:2)
I'm happy to admit that Russia is by far the more evil party, here.
Cool. We agree,
All you have to do is admit that Nordstream was a page right out of their fucking playbook.
Sure. That changes my position 0% though, it's irrelevant vibes.
Re: (Score:2)
That is, again, a projection you placed on me, presupposing my position.
I think one of the best things that could happen in the world for its stability, is Russia collapsing into a failed fucking state and giving Glasnost another shot.
I also think white washing the ill deeds of those we support because everything has to be fucking black and white is exactly the kind of stupid shit that leads to shit like the Putlers of the world.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah well it's a bit strange to me to have folks bending over backwards for Russia just to turn around and say "Well sure they're evil here" and yes, this equivocation of both nations positions is how I would view that.
Also this black and white claim is as much a presuppositional projection as what I did yet. Nothing about my position says that, in fact I can make a purely selfish defense of the same positions. That assisting Ukraine is purely in the geopolitical interests of America, that America has a lo
Re: (Score:2)
That might be what you perceive, but it's because your own viewpoint is distorted to all fucking hell.
Nobody ever equivocated the nations.
However, actions stand alone, they are not painted by who did them. Thinking otherwise is the root of nearly every fucking atrocity ever committed in the name of someone's subjective good.
Also this black and white claim is as much a presuppositional projection as what I did yet.
Bullshit! You just fucking did it!
Pointing out an equivalency is immediately reduced to calling both things eq
Re: (Score:2)
That might be what you perceive, but it's because your own viewpoint is distorted to all fucking hell.
"Et tu"
This I agree with, with zero reservations.
Cool.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I claimed no such generalizations.
The topic here was false flag operations. Both sides are demonstrably guilty of them.
Any means justify your ends. The only difference between you and a MAGA dimwit, is that they have succeeded in getting their strongman in office, and you're really pissed off that they beat you to it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Was it a Russian drone? (Score:5, Insightful)
Ukraine has more reason to attack it and blame Russia
That's like the situation where one of my neighbor's dogs pooped on my lawn. Which neighbor was it? Was it the one that I see conscientiously pick up their dog's poop every time on their walks. Or the neighbor that lets their dog roam around the neighborhood with no leash? Your argument would be the conscientious one did it to frame the other neighbor. Because . . .sympathy and support? I do not believe Europe needs any more justification for sympathy and support for Ukraine.
But of course it might be possible for a russian drone on its way to Kyiv to be misguided and hit the dome by accident.
Consider Russia indiscriminately attacks civilian targets, I would bet Russia hitting it by accident or on purpose. It is hard to know at this point.
Re: Was it a Russian drone? (Score:5, Insightful)
The facts:
- Russia is attacking civilian targets in Ukraine
- Russian military is actively invading a sovereign country
- there are multiple documented war crimes committed by Russian military during the invasion
- Russian agents have committed various provocations in EU countries
- the Russians have a history of blundering in Chernobyl recently
In the light of the above, your claims are suspect.
Re: (Score:2)
Russia invaded parts of Ukraine that weren't part of those republics (including trying and failing to take Kiev itself). But also, no one (other than Russia) recognized those "republics" as sovereign, so no, on no account is the claim that Russia invaded Ukraine invalidated.
And given that, nothing else matters. Russia chose to start a war by invading which they could choose to end at any time by leaving. So everything that happens in the course of that war of choice is Russia's fault, no matter whose han
Re: (Score:2)
Its hard to figure out why Russia would be wasting resources attacking civilians.
Yes that is hard to figure out. Yet they do it literally all the time. From the very start of the war Russia was lobbing cluster bombs into random suburbs.
Re: (Score:1)
"Ukrainian authorities said the drone was Russian"
Ukraine has good reason to attack the site, gauge response, and then blame the Russians.
There is no way for the rest of the world to know, except perhaps some intelligence agencies, and they will NOT tell.
In this scenario, the truth cannot help any of the parties involved, until you recognize that nuclear pollution from this site affects the world, and then the whole world is involved. And it's time to stop this madness in Ukraine before it escalates in a
Re: (Score:2)