Probably not a bad idea to put all your troops and equipment stockpiles near an area that just about everyone is going to be reluctant to bomb indiscriminately - nobody wants to accidentally destroy that shell protecting that nuclear power plant I would imagine.
Chernobyl power plant captured by Russian forces
371–380 of 1001 posts
Re: Chernobyl power plant captured by Russian forces
#372Probably not a bad idea to put all your troops and equipment stockpiles near an area that just about everyone is going to be reluctant to bomb indiscriminately - nobody wants to accidentally destroy that shell protecting that nuclear power plant I would imagine.
is this the same plant as the one from 1986? this plant is still active today? im very surprised.
Re: Chernobyl power plant captured by Russian forces
#373Probably not a bad idea to put all your troops and equipment stockpiles near an area that just about everyone is going to be reluctant to bomb indiscriminately - nobody wants to accidentally destroy that shell protecting that nuclear power plant I would imagine.
is this the same plant as the one from 1986? this plant is still active today? im very surprised.
Not active, but actively contained.
Re: Chernobyl power plant captured by Russian forces
#374Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The Russian forces seem to be trying to encircle or assault Kyiv. Yes, but although Putin is a bloody bastard, he's not stupid. His plan isn't to take entire control of Ukraine militarily but to swap the legit government with a puppet one he would control at will. Once he succeed, which is a matter of a few days, he'll gradually withdraw most of the forces, things will slowly return to normal and in a few years Ukr…
That's such a straightforward narrative, but then why has no major power ever been able to annex and occupy an unwilling nation before? Everywhere Russia has taken to date was already a separatist region, but I'm really racking my brain to think of times when a country 'just simply annexed' another area by force since the fall of the Raj.
Annexation of Goa [0]
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annexation_of_Goa
edit: my bad, I missed the "unwilling nation" part of the parent content
Re: Chernobyl power plant captured by Russian forces
#375Earlier quoted context omitted.
Shutting down atomic power in Germany was such a brilliant move.
> Shutting down atomic power in Germany was such a brilliant move. What's done is done. Europe has enough wind potential to power the world [1]. Add solar [2], batteries, transmission, pumped hydro, remaining operational nuclear, and electrify everything (EVs, heat pumps, etc). Fill the remainder with LNG shipments from the US in the short term [3]. It's a national defense/security/sovereignty issue now to get off of…
I was/am pro-energy transition.
But it's obvious that it was too fast too soon. Capability should have been built up before decommissioning.
Re: Chernobyl power plant captured by Russian forces
#376Earlier quoted context omitted.
They won't. They want Russian support when they invade Taiwan.
They don't need Russian support to attack Taiwan and Russian economic support is meaningless. They won't do it because there is no incentive to. The US has to bribe them. Think of China like an evil corporation. They won't do anything except for their own best interests. Like Facebook with nukes.
I don't think adding the tag of "evil" in front of corporation is necessary or helpful. Corporations are selfish and aggressive enough already. Nothing about China's geopolitical plotting is anymore evil than the US or Russia, regardless of what ideological non-sense you use to justify any corner.
Re: Chernobyl power plant captured by Russian forces
#377Earlier quoted context omitted.
> superpower. Yup. Because when I think of superpower I think of an economy that is barely passing Italy's.
Power comes in many shapes. Russia does not have a good economy, but a strong military and nukes.
and more importantly, the willingness to sacrifice millions of their own people if they need to. They have done it before, and if needed, I have no doubt they will do it again.
Re: Chernobyl power plant captured by Russian forces
#378Probably not a bad idea to put all your troops and equipment stockpiles near an area that just about everyone is going to be reluctant to bomb indiscriminately - nobody wants to accidentally destroy that shell protecting that nuclear power plant I would imagine.
is this the same plant as the one from 1986? this plant is still active today? im very surprised.
The other three reactors there were operational until 2000.
Re: Chernobyl power plant captured by Russian forces
#379Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's such a straightforward narrative, but then why has no major power ever been able to annex and occupy an unwilling nation before? Everywhere Russia has taken to date was already a separatist region, but I'm really racking my brain to think of times when a country 'just simply annexed' another area by force since the fall of the Raj.
There are a few. Off the top of my head Tibet and Western Sahara come to mind. Perhaps some parts of now-Israel.
Western Sahara has a population similar to Huntsville Alabama's metro region, so I guess you are right, but I hope you also see why that situation is very different from this one.
As for Tibet, repeating an earlier comment:
Tibet was under control of the Qing Dynasty (i.e. China) until its end in 1912. From 1912-1950, Tibet (due to its remoteness) acted as an de facto independent region, despite Western legal precedent stating it was still under the control of Beijing.
When attempting to get de jure independence from China in 1951, China asserted control over the region.
So sort of, but not really.
Re: Chernobyl power plant captured by Russian forces
#380Earlier quoted context omitted.
It takes two things for an agreement like this to become worthless. The first is a violation of the agreement, which is what Russia is doing currently. The second is the lack of enforcement of the agreement against the above violator. If the other signatories enforced the agreement, then it would signal that the agreement is worthwhile, and other countries would be willing to enter into it. Yes, of course Russia is t…
Only Russia has not met its obligations of the Memorandum as listed in this section. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum_on_Secur...
Yes. And the US is not obligated to do anything about that, and they indeed are not doing anything about it.
Thus such agreements have become worthless.
Had the US said five days ago, "we will use our military to ensure the Budapest Memorandum is followed", and defended Ukraine when invaded, then in the future if a similar agreement was proposed the country would trust that it would be followed. They did not, and this means that no one will again enter into a similar agreement.
I'm not claiming that a US military intervention would be the "correct" thing to do, merely that it would be necessary to preserve worldwide trust in treaties similar to the Budapest Memorandum.