Chernobyl power plant captured by Russian forces • Hacker News Board

Re: Chernobyl power plant captured by Russian forces

#101

Post by willis936 » Thu, Feb 24, 2022, 7:30 PM UTC

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.

Costs money and political capital. What it buys is defense of Ukrainian sovereignty and escalates conflict with a dangerous, poor nuclear superpower.

Ukraine is being handed to Putin. He gets to flex his strongman ego and the world gets to not be ended (today).

Re: Chernobyl power plant captured by Russian forces

#102

Post by tekno45 » Thu, Feb 24, 2022, 7:30 PM UTC

docdeek wrote: post #5

throwoutway wrote: post #2

It is worth remembering that the Chernobyl sarcophagus was paid for by the EU. Not sure if that makes it EU property though

Not an expert but I would doubt it. Most every part of the EU has signs at testing to the fact that X (a road, a bridge, a building) was paid for by EU funds.

not a lot of people to look at signs in the literal middle of a nuclear exclusion zone.

Re: Chernobyl power plant captured by Russian forces

#103

Post by robbedpeter » Thu, Feb 24, 2022, 7:30 PM UTC

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…

No post body was provided.

Re: Chernobyl power plant captured by Russian forces

#104

Post by prodmerc » Thu, Feb 24, 2022, 7:31 PM UTC

BitwiseFool wrote: post #16

stickfigure wrote: post #6

Is there any strategic significance to this? I thought it was closed?

It is actually deviously brilliant. No one wants to shell the area because it would release all the dust and radionuclides that were buried during the cleanup. It is a perfect staging area because the downside to attacking it is so high. No allied forces in Europe want to deal with the fallout - literally. This is so genius I'm genuinely in awe. This is right out of Sun Tzu: “The art of war teaches us to rely not on…

No post body was provided.

Re: Chernobyl power plant captured by Russian forces

#105

Post by thow-58d4e8b » Thu, Feb 24, 2022, 7:31 PM UTC

BitwiseFool wrote: post #16

stickfigure wrote: post #6

Is there any strategic significance to this? I thought it was closed?

It is actually deviously brilliant. No one wants to shell the area because it would release all the dust and radionuclides that were buried during the cleanup. It is a perfect staging area because the downside to attacking it is so high. No allied forces in Europe want to deal with the fallout - literally. This is so genius I'm genuinely in awe. This is right out of Sun Tzu: “The art of war teaches us to rely not on…

Chernobyl sarcophagus is a massive pile of concrete - basically indestructible. Buildings made of concrete are ridiculously resilient to explosions - remember the Beirut explosion? That grain silo right next to the epicenter was still standing

Berlin has some flak towers from WW2, quoting Wikipedia:

The Soviets, in their assault on Berlin, found it difficult to inflict significant damage on the flak towers, even with some of the largest Soviet guns, such as the 203 mm M1931 howitzers. After the war, the demolition of the towers was often considered not feasible and many remain to this day

Re: Chernobyl power plant captured by Russian forces

#106

Post by GrayShade » Thu, Feb 24, 2022, 7:31 PM UTC

jandrese wrote: post #72

whatshisface wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not clear whether every financial weapon will be used. For example, > The foreign ministers of the Baltic states called for Russia to be cut off from SWIFT, the global intermediary for banks' financial transactions. However, other EU member states were reluctant, both because European lenders held most of the nearly $30 billion in foreign bank's exposure to Russia and because China has developed an alternative t…

This is where diplomacy should shine. It's clear that Russia has been hardening against western sanctions for years now, and CIPS is a big piece of that. If NATO can convince China to also shut them out of CIPS at the same time we turn off SWIFT the Russian Oligarchs will start applying pressure to Putin.

They won't. They want Russian support when they invade Taiwan.

Re: Chernobyl power plant captured by Russian forces

#107

Post by rocqua » Thu, Feb 24, 2022, 7:31 PM UTC

systemvoltage wrote: post #84

BitwiseFool wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No this doesn't have anything to do with Nuclear Weapon deterrence. Much of the liquidation effort was literally burying contaminated topsoil in the area. The explosions from conventional bombs would kick radioactive particles back up into the atmosphere. Europe probably does not want to deal with that, so I imagine they will refrain from attacking directly.

If I understand correctly, your central thesis is about deterring EU from attacking. It misses the point that Russia already has a huge stockpile of nuclear weapons to deter EU from attacking them. So, why would they rely on an 'offchance' 2nd-hand threat of fallout when they can just threaten to use their guaranteed-to-deter stockpile of weapons?

I think the thesis is to prevent Ukraine from attacking the staging area. Giving them a really safe base.

Re: Chernobyl power plant captured by Russian forces

#108

Post by rhn_mk1 » Thu, Feb 24, 2022, 7:31 PM UTC

agilob wrote: post #59

throwoutway wrote: post #2

It is worth remembering that the Chernobyl sarcophagus was paid for by the EU. Not sure if that makes it EU property though

EU also paid to build a city in what used to be Palestine, and before anyone moved in Israel demolished it all. No one even talked about it for more than a day > 319 Palestinian owned structures were demolished or seized, and 447 people (including 222 children) were displaced. Of the structures targeted in the six-month reporting period, 62 structures were funded by the EU or EU Member States with a value of nearly E…

What city? Can you post sources?

Re: Chernobyl power plant captured by Russian forces

#109

Post by BitwiseFool » Thu, Feb 24, 2022, 7:31 PM UTC

systemvoltage wrote: post #84

BitwiseFool wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No this doesn't have anything to do with Nuclear Weapon deterrence. Much of the liquidation effort was literally burying contaminated topsoil in the area. The explosions from conventional bombs would kick radioactive particles back up into the atmosphere. Europe probably does not want to deal with that, so I imagine they will refrain from attacking directly.

If I understand correctly, your central thesis is about deterring EU from attacking. It misses the point that Russia already has a huge stockpile of nuclear weapons to deter EU from attacking them. So, why would they rely on an 'offchance' 2nd-hand threat of fallout when they can just threaten to use their guaranteed-to-deter stockpile of weapons?

I think I'm using "Allied Forces" and "Europeans" too loosely. I was lumping Ukrainian forces into that label. They're already under attack so any conventional retaliation on invading forces is already a given. I'm basically saying that NATO/EU would put pressure on Ukraine NOT to attack the staging area because any fallout could waft over into Western Europe. This is in addition to the already present downside of Ukraine re-contaminating their own backyard.

Re: Chernobyl power plant captured by Russian forces

#110

Post by brabel » Thu, Feb 24, 2022, 7:32 PM UTC

rmk wrote: post #70

hwers wrote: post #21

I can't really tell what's going on here. Is the EU and America supposed to be helping out but it's all promises without real counter attacks? Is this just the calm before the storm as russia places their troops in the right spots while everyone looks on? Anyone who's smarter than me who could enlighten me?

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…

> ... including neutral Finland and Sweden deciding to join NATO, perhaps Georgia also.

Did you hear evidence of that anywhere or is that just wild speculation?