Russia/Ukraine conflict

[petit_bateau]

Update on situation with the 6 reactors at ZNPP. Elsewhere I have read multiple accounts suggesting that Russia keeps approx 1,000 troops there so as to be safe from Ukraine artillery

Energoatom says off-site power restored to Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant : Regulation & Safety - World Nuclear News

External power has been restored to Europe's largest nuclear power plant, Zaporizhzhia. The loss of external power, which meant 10 hours spent relying on emergency diesel generators for essential safety functions, followed missile strikes on Ukraine. The International Atomic Energy Agency's...

world-nuclear-news.org

 

[petit_bateau]

from the Guardian

"Hungary’s ruling party lawmakers want to postpone next week’s parliament session, which means a further delay in its ratification of Finland and Sweden’s Nato admission, an opposition party lawmaker said on Tuesday. ....... All 30 Nato members must ratify the applications, and Hungary and Turkey are the only two to have held back their approvals."

Russia-Ukraine war: strike on Kramatorsk kills at least one; Poland ‘could give Ukraine fighter jets in weeks’ – live

One killed and three injured in attack on city in Donetsk region; Polish PM says MiG jets could arrive in four to six weeks

www.theguardian.com

 

[madodel]

Update on situation with the 6 reactors at ZNPP. Elsewhere I have read multiple accounts suggesting that Russia keeps approx 1,000 troops there so as to be safe from Ukraine artillery

Energoatom says off-site power restored to Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant : Regulation & Safety - World Nuclear News

External power has been restored to Europe's largest nuclear power plant, Zaporizhzhia. The loss of external power, which meant 10 hours spent relying on emergency diesel generators for essential safety functions, followed missile strikes on Ukraine. The International Atomic Energy Agency's...

world-nuclear-news.org

That's also 1,000 troops that can't be on the front lines.

 

[stopcrazypp]

As I remember it info similar to this has already been previously in the thread. But why not throw in a reminder about a motive to blow up the Nordstream pipeline...

From a Swedish blog about the war (a google translate from Swedish):

"...] The Wall Street Journal has an article about the dispute Uniper has with Gazprom for missing gas deliveries, to the value of 13.2 EUR, which the blog has written about repeatedly. Added to this are lawsuits from Engie and RWE and others, and it is about hundreds of billions of SEK (the Swedish currency) that Gazprom can duck out of due to the explosion of Nordstream.

When Putin cut off gas exports to the EU, Gazprom broke the agreement and thus became liable for compensation. From the time that Nordstream was blown up, however, force majeure can be claimed and avoid further damages. The savings for Gazprom for discharge of liability thanks to the explosion are stated to be 40 EUR or close to 450 billion SED. [My underline.]

So who had a motive and who made SEK 450 billion from blowing up Nordstream? [..."

The author of that blog uses GEUR instead of EUR, but I'm guessing that's som kind of typo... Or?

The article in the WSJ (behind paywall):

Nord Stream Mystery Looms in Multibillion-Dollar Arbitration Cases Against Russia

European energy companies are seeking significant damages from Gazprom for delivery failure, while investigators try to figure out the cause of the pipeline blasts.

www.wsj.com

The Swedish blog (in Swedish):

UPPDATERAS: Fortsatt press från söder mot Bakhmut - rysk brist på ammunition - fortsatt terrorbombning, flyglarm i Kyjiv

Ryska VDV fortsätter pressa från söder mot Bakhmut, men Ryssland tog tunga materielförluster under måndagen. Den brittiska underrättelsetjänsten uppger att Ryssland har brist på ammunition och rent av ransonerar på delar av den långa fronten i Ukraina. Ryssland fortsätter terrorbomba Ukraina och i s

cornucopia.se

Thanks for the references, I remember much argument over this point and people claiming that Russia gains no benefit from blowing it up, that such contract terms don't exist, but as the articles you linked says, it very much does. It turns things from a regular failure to deliver by contract (even if it was from sanctions on repair parts/service) into force majeure, which the company is no longer responsible for.

 

[Tiger]

Just a thought, would it be possible to catapult (or airdrop) these Tetrapods into occupied territories and them it to "round up" the enemy?

https://twitter.com/x/status/1635611564727324676

 

[SageBrush]

Thanks for the references, I remember much argument over this point and people claiming that Russia gains no benefit from blowing it up, that such contract terms don't exist, but as the articles you linked says, it very much does. It turns things from a regular failure to deliver by contract (even if it was from sanctions on repair parts/service) into force majeure, which the company is no longer responsible for.

It would be beyond awesome if Russia/Gazprom was caught AND had to pay the contract penalties.

 

[GWord]

As I remember it info similar to this has already been previously in the thread. But why not throw in a reminder about a motive to blow up the Nordstream pipeline...

This was the conversation we all had on it back in July (link to earlier in the thread): Russia/Ukraine conflict

Force majeure seemed logical to me at the time, although in retrospect I have to balance that against Russia’s need for income (although that early in the conflict, maybe that wasn’t a concern). While I don’t discount the probability of pro Ukraine sabotage, I do have doubts about your random sabateur being able to pull off a precision subsea pipeline op, fly-by-night style, without GIS info and without specialized boats/equipment and expertise in that space.

 

[wdolson]

This was the conversation we all had on it back in July (link to earlier in the thread): Russia/Ukraine conflict

Force majeure seemed logical to me at the time, although in retrospect I have to balance that against Russia’s need for income (although that early in the conflict, maybe that wasn’t a concern). While I don’t discount the probability of pro Ukraine sabotage, I do have doubts about your random sabateur being able to pull off a precision subsea pipeline op, fly-by-night style, without GIS info and without specialized boats/equipment and expertise in that space.

The only people who knew exactly where the pipelines were had some kind of stake in the pipelines. Those included the governments of the countries surrounding the pipelines as well as the Russians and any corporate interests in the project.

Someone outside that group could figure out where the pipelines was, but they would have to search for the exact locations. The behavior of that tanker ship was odd, but whoever set the charges knew exactly where the pipelines were and knew what they were doing. Undersea demolition is not something some random people with terrorist intentions are likely going to be able to figure out on the first go.

The saboteurs knew where the pipelines were without searching around and they knew how to destroy them at depth on the first attempt. That speaks to somebody with a very professional skillset and inside knowledge about the locations. The rumors that it was some anti-Russian activists seem a bit far fetched with the knowledge required.

Ukrainian special forces might have been able to do that, but I think it's more likely the Russians did it. If the Russians were going to be sued and have to pay for non-delivery, blowing up the pipeline to prevent that makes sense to me. It's the best explanation I've seen thus far.

BTW there was in incident between the US and Russia today. The Russians took down a US drone flying over the Black Sea.
US says Russian warplane hits American drone over Black Sea

 

[SwedishAdvocate]

As I remember it info similar to this has already been previously posted in the thread. But why not throw in a reminder about a motive to blow up the Nordstream pipeline... [...

That blog i referenced earlier has posted some more about the Nordstream attack... But this time he doesn't provide an external source. But perhaps somebody else here has some info and can verify.

EDIT: Checked out the Wikipedia-article about Nordstream 2 and couldn't find anything that contradicts the following...

...] One of the pipes to Nordstream 2 was left intact in the explosions. That pipe is supposed to have the same capacity as the two Nordstream 1 pipes together, but due to the war NS2 was never approved to open.

By blowing up three out of four pipes on Nordstream, Gazprom avoids damages of around SEK 400 billion for breach of contract, but can still resume deliveries if Germany approves the last pipe for NS2 for delivery.

If this was Russia, then they have thus both eaten the cake (force majeure for non-delivery) yet they still have it (can deliver previous Nordstream capacity via the last undamaged pipe).

One might think that if someone wanted Russia badly, they would have also blown up the fourth pipe. [...

Source (in Swedish):

UPPDATERAS: Fortsatt press från söder mot Bakhmut - rysk brist på ammunition - fortsatt terrorbombning, flyglarm i Kyjiv

Ryska VDV fortsätter pressa från söder mot Bakhmut, men Ryssland tog tunga materielförluster under måndagen. Den brittiska underrättelsetjänsten uppger att Ryssland har brist på ammunition och rent av ransonerar på delar av den långa fronten i Ukraina. Ryssland fortsätter terrorbomba Ukraina och i s

cornucopia.se

 

[SmokyPeat]

Just a thought, would it be possible to catapult (or airdrop) these Tetrapods into occupied territories and them it to "round up" the enemy?

https://twitter.com/x/status/1635611564727324676

No, that wouldn't be practical. Though it would be pretty epic to see hundreds of gigantic catapults/trebuchets hurling massive concrete obstacles toward the Russians.

 

[KBF]

Tensions mount after Russian jet struck US drone over the Black Sea

A Russian fighter jet struck an American surveillance drone on Tuesday, forcing the US to bring it down over international waters.

www.euronews.com

Seems like Russia wants to escalate with the USA. How big a deal is this?

 

[stopcrazypp]

Tensions mount after Russian jet struck US drone over the Black Sea

A Russian fighter jet struck an American surveillance drone on Tuesday, forcing the US to bring it down over international waters.

www.euronews.com

Seems like Russia wants to escalate with the USA. How big a deal is this?

Given it's just a drone, probably won't escalate to much. Militarily, there is probably worry if Russia rushes to recover the wreckage to learn more about its tech.

 

[wdolson]

Given it's just a drone, probably won't escalate to much. Militarily, there is probably worry if Russia rushes to recover the wreckage to learn more about its tech.

The Russians probably have most of the tech already. The Iranians brought down a US drone intact and reverse engineered it. I would expect they shared it with Russia.

 

[stopcrazypp]

The Russians probably have most of the tech already. The Iranians brought down a US drone intact and reverse engineered it. I would expect they shared it with Russia.

That one was an unarmed surveillance drone, an RQ4-A that is an older model that the US planned to retire in 2027 and didn't buy as many units as planned (even before the downing).
2019 Iranian shoot-down of American drone - Wikipedia

This time they downed an MQ-9, which is armed and newer (planned to retire in 2035). It may retire earlier however after this incident if Russia manages to get the wreckage.
General Atomics MQ-9 Reaper - Wikipedia

 

[wdolson]

That one was an unarmed surveillance drone, an RQ4-A that is an older model that the US planned to retire in 2027 and didn't buy as many units as planned (even before the downing).
2019 Iranian shoot-down of American drone - Wikipedia

This time they downed an MQ-9, which is armed and newer (planned to retire in 2035). It may retire earlier however after this incident if Russia manages to get the wreckage.
General Atomics MQ-9 Reaper - Wikipedia

According to this the downing was closer to Snake Island than any other spot of land. I think that's the deepest part of the Black Sea and the Russians would probably be vulnerable to attack if they tried to salvage.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1635684279815421953

 

[SmokyPeat]

That one was an unarmed surveillance drone, an RQ4-A that is an older model that the US planned to retire in 2027 and didn't buy as many units as planned (even before the downing).
2019 Iranian shoot-down of American drone - Wikipedia

This time they downed an MQ-9, which is armed and newer (planned to retire in 2035). It may retire earlier however after this incident if Russia manages to get the wreckage.
General Atomics MQ-9 Reaper - Wikipedia

The Reaper can be armed, but the one downed likely wasn't.

 

[bkp_duke]

According to this the downing was closer to Snake Island than any other spot of land. I think that's the deepest part of the Black Sea and the Russians would probably be vulnerable to attack if they tried to salvage.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1635684279815421953

CNN was reporting that the Russians harassed the drone for ~30 minutes, dumping fuel on it in an attempt to bring it down. Per US EU Command the article cites.

https://www.cnn.com/2023/03/14/politics/us-drone-russian-jet-black-sea/index.html

Not a good look for the Russians, but I'm sure they don't care.

 

[petit_bateau]

The only people who knew exactly where the pipelines were had some kind of stake in the pipelines. Those included the governments of the countries surrounding the pipelines as well as the Russians and any corporate interests in the project.

Someone outside that group could figure out where the pipelines was, but they would have to search for the exact locations. The behavior of that tanker ship was odd, but whoever set the charges knew exactly where the pipelines were and knew what they were doing. Undersea demolition is not something some random people with terrorist intentions are likely going to be able to figure out on the first go.

The saboteurs knew where the pipelines were without searching around and they knew how to destroy them at depth on the first attempt. That speaks to somebody with a very professional skillset and inside knowledge about the locations. The rumors that it was some anti-Russian activists seem a bit far fetched with the knowledge required.

Ukrainian special forces might have been able to do that, but I think it's more likely the Russians did it. If the Russians were going to be sued and have to pay for non-delivery, blowing up the pipeline to prevent that makes sense to me. It's the best explanation I've seen thus far.

This stuff is marked pretty clearly on public charts - here is an example from nearby in the Baltic (I don't have anything better to hand). One would rather that ships and fishermen did not accidentally do bad things. My personal opinion remains that the most likely culprit was the Russian state for the same reasons we all know, primarily avoidance of Gazprom exposure via invocation of force majeure clause. But there are other candidates so let's just see what comes out.

 

[wdolson]

This stuff is marked pretty clearly on public charts - here is an example from nearby in the Baltic (I don't have anything better to hand). One would rather that ships and fishermen did not accidentally do bad things. My personal opinion remains that the most likely culprit was the Russian state for the same reasons we all know, primarily avoidance of Gazprom exposure via invocation of force majeure clause. But there are other candidates so let's just see what comes out.


View attachment 917847

Charts like that can get you close to the target, but someone searching for it would be looking for something a little over 1m in diameter 54m under the surface around the depth where specialist divers would be needed is going to take some hunting around unless you have the precise coordinates.

Wreck hunters have sometimes spent months looking for a ship wreck when the records for the location of the wreck going in were pretty good.

Now it is possible that the saboteurs were not a state actor who knew exactly where the pipe was and the tanker that spent some time in that area was a cover for a search operation that precisely located the pipe and transmitted it to the kill team. That would be the sort of thing an organization like the Mosad would do. Though I can't think of any reason Israel would want to sabotage that pipeline. Another player with the sort of training and resources as the Mosad could have pulled it off.

Personally I have thought from the beginning that it was the Russians, but the evidence is not a slam dunk on that. That's just my hunch. And Russia wouldn't have to search for the pipe because they have records of exactly where it is.

 

[nativewolf]

@wdolson actually they are not only precise but they are meant to be easy to find. The point is avoiding accidents. Keeping anchors and dredges and drags off the pipelines. No point arguing about it, finding them is trivial. Blowing them….not as trivial.