Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Chernobyl power plant captured by Russian forces

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 1001 posts

Re: Chernobyl power plant captured by Russian forces

#91

Post by lend000 »

It's hard to view the events unfolding with an objective gaze. Virtually all of western journalism condemns Russia's attacks unilaterally, which seems reasonable, considering people are dying to grow a dictator's empire. But then I read about the history of the conflict and see that Ukraine has had separatist states and civil war for years. It isn't like Ukraine is a stable, peaceful, and unwitting nation, like, say, Denmark. It's more similar to NATO "protecting" their national interests in Syria or Iraq. Not that I supported those interventions as ethical, either -- I just acknowledge the potential long term geopolitical motivations for doing so.

Any Ukrainians or Russians have an alternative perspective to offer?

Re: Chernobyl power plant captured by Russian forces

#92

Post by mikeyouse »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #81
rmk wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ukraine is not a member of NATO, so options are somewhat limited. Russia intends to use Chernobyl as a deterrent to NATO, according to the report (how, I do not know). It is also not straightforward to put a NATO ally right on Russia's vulnerable flank (it's endless plains and flat ground from Ukraine to Moscow, which has always been a source of strategic vulnerability for Moscow), so admitting Ukraine to NATO was ne…

> Ukraine is not a member of NATO, so options are somewhat limited Ukraine not being in NATO means we aren’t obligated to intervene. We regularly intervene in various things without a treaty requiring it.

Intervening militarily invites a counter response from Russia and could lead to outright war between NATO and Russia. It's one thing to assist Kuwait, quite another to send troops to fight a nuclear-armed adversary.

Re: Chernobyl power plant captured by Russian forces

#93

Post by trzy »

somesortofthing wrote: post #82
causi wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

EU and US will use every diplomatic and financial weapon against Russia, but they've long since decided Ukraine and the Ukrainian people aren't worth actual war over. That call was made in 2014 and stopping Russia then would've been easier than it would be now.

The EU and US have made serious mistakes in the process but it's hard to disagree with that conclusion. Either you have a fairly short(By necessity, since Ukraine is going to remain crossable with armor for maybe a couple more weeks before the entire country turns into a giant bog in spring) proxy war in Ukraine that kills a few thousand and transfers the territory from one bickering cabal of oligarchs to another or…

I would treat threats of nuclear weapons as bluffs. He doesn’t want to perish in an inferno and a first strike is hard to justify over a mere military humiliation on foreign soil. Rather more likely are cyber attacks on infrastructure here in the US and attacks on US bases in Europe or abroad.

Re: Chernobyl power plant captured by Russian forces

#95

Post by jaywalk »

Freestyler_3 wrote: post #65
systemvoltage wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unless they're literally housed inside the containment building, this is useless against precision guided missiles and bombs. Are you talking about deterrence to nuclear bombing of Chernobyl? Then it is a moot point because the fallout from the weapon itself would dwarf the dormant fissile material in the containment facility. Sorry, but this makes no sense. If Russia wants to deter EU with fallout, they already have…

I think a nuclear bomb and a nuclear power plant are very different and have different halftimes.

Halflife is the word you're looking for, but they're not so different in terms of halflife. Although a nuclear bomb would be way worse.

Re: Chernobyl power plant captured by Russian forces

#96

Post by Thaxll »

netsharc wrote: post #54
TameAntelope wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ukraine isn't part of NATO, I think it's a big reason why troop deployment hasn't happened.

Even if they were, what's easier, to honour such an agreement with an expensive (materially and in terms of human lives) and dangerous (would cause the conflict so spread) deployment or to say "Sorry, you're going to have to tough it out yourself.". The USA and UK already abandoned the Afghani people, feels like the once mighty US military really doesn't want to be in a shooting war against Russia. As someone living…

Putin would have never invaded a NATO country.

Re: Chernobyl power plant captured by Russian forces

#97

Post by bcrosby95 »

netsharc wrote: post #54
TameAntelope wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ukraine isn't part of NATO, I think it's a big reason why troop deployment hasn't happened.

Even if they were, what's easier, to honour such an agreement with an expensive (materially and in terms of human lives) and dangerous (would cause the conflict so spread) deployment or to say "Sorry, you're going to have to tough it out yourself.". The USA and UK already abandoned the Afghani people, feels like the once mighty US military really doesn't want to be in a shooting war against Russia. As someone living…

> Even if they were

You would have to weigh how things would escalate if NATO got involved, vs how things would escalate if Russia found out NATO isn't actually a thing any country intends to honor.

Re: Chernobyl power plant captured by Russian forces

#98

Post by ngcc_hk »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #81
rmk wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ukraine is not a member of NATO, so options are somewhat limited. Russia intends to use Chernobyl as a deterrent to NATO, according to the report (how, I do not know). It is also not straightforward to put a NATO ally right on Russia's vulnerable flank (it's endless plains and flat ground from Ukraine to Moscow, which has always been a source of strategic vulnerability for Moscow), so admitting Ukraine to NATO was ne…

> Ukraine is not a member of NATO, so options are somewhat limited Ukraine not being in NATO means we aren’t obligated to intervene. We regularly intervene in various things without a treaty requiring it.

It is still an independent state and a member for a long term of un. Can one just take one like japan say if it is not part of nato.

Re: Chernobyl power plant captured by Russian forces

#99

Post by dekhn »

gpm wrote: post #66
dekhn wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

NATO/US is preparing to handle the refugee flood into countries invading Ukraine. They are not keeping russia from taking ukraine or holding it, by using military force. It looks like the takeover of Ukraine will be done by tomorrow.

You're overestimating the speed of the attack. Even if the Ukrainians put up no resistance (and they have been putting up resistance) - tanks just don't move that fast/ukraine is a big place. See the dotted lines in this map - that's a rough estimate of how far the Russians have made it in a day. Even if they continue at the same pace overnight (unlikely), and the next day, and the next night, there's still a lot of…

Since they're already shelling Kyiv, they obviously have more options than tanks to take ownership of the governmental apparatus.

I can't see how Ukraine can put up any realistic defence given they now have no radar tracking or air support.

If your point is "it takes tanks a few days to get to Kyiv", then, yes, that is technically correct. If your point is "Russia needs to invade the whole country", no. They own the country when they control the governmental apparatus in Kyiv.

Re: Chernobyl power plant captured by Russian forces

#100

Post by rocqua »

moffkalast wrote: post #86
injb wrote: post #78

I think this is mainly a psychological move. It has people talking about nuclear fallout, radiation etc. That's the point.

It does pose the question what would actually happen should someone bomb the sarcophagus.

Unless the prevailing winds are really blowing towards the west, this would harm Russia and their newly conquered territory much more than it would harm the EU.

It makes more sense as a bargaining chip with Ukraine than as a chip with the EU.

Post reply on HN