But the International Monetary Fund believes Russia’s economy could grow by 0.7% in 2023.
this is only meaningful if you think that the Russian “economy” works like a normal country’s economy does. Given that Russia is a mafia state pretending to be a country renders any analysis of its performance moot.
I am just pointing out that the sanctions are causing more damage to the the US and Europe than it is to Russia.
The U.S. and EU economies are much, much stronger than Russia's and much less hurt by sanctions. If you accept the basic premise that free-trade benefits everyone, then sanctions will hurt everyone. However, Russia cannot easily replace the technology imports that it receives from liberal democracies, without imported technology, it will be unable to sustain manufacturing. On top of that, if you believe that the economic benefits of free-trade don't justify turning a blind eye to human rights abuses, then the same holds with sanctions - the costs of sanctions don't justify ignoring Russia's genocidal behaviour.
slowoldman
Full Member
So. About that dam…
I’ve seen video of people walking on the reclaimed land in the reservoir - ground looks firm, maybe this will backfire on Russia big time?
the costs of sanctions don’t justify ignoring Russia’s genocidal behaviour.
Eh? How is pointing out that sanctions haven't had the desired effect on Russia equal to ignoring 'Russia's genocidal behaviour'?
Sanctions haven't had the desired effect on Iran, does pointing that out equate with supporting the Iranian government?
You can't simply tailor facts to suit whatever your preferred narrative is.
How is pointing out that sanctions haven’t had the desired effect on Russia equal to ignoring ‘Russia’s genocidal behaviour’?
What's the point of complaining about the cost of sanctions to Western economies if you don't believe that should be a consideration?
ukraine says it has evidence it was russian sabotage.
Will wait to see it when released. I imagine some will discount as bias
Given those pictures up there from the beeb, I expect military satellites would have much better quality imagery and you'd be able to watch the exact moment the dam was breached
What’s the point of complaining about the cost of sanctions to Western economies if you don’t believe that should be a consideration?
Who is complaining about the "cost of sanctions to Western economies"?
Pointing out that sanctions haven't had the desired effect on Russia doesn't equate with "complaining" about the cost of sanctions to Western economies.
Stop these weird leaps of logic and instead how about getting back to the subject matter?
Who is complaining about the “cost of sanctions to Western economies”?
You might want to think about how this sounds. Maybe that's not what you meant, but it does sound like that's what you meant.
ernielynch
Full Member
No of course I don’t think that Russia is in a stronger financial position than the West. I am just pointing out that the sanctions are causing more damage to the the US and Europe than it is to Russia. And they are an absolute godsend to China.
I’ve seen video of people walking on the reclaimed land in the reservoir – ground looks firm, maybe this will backfire on Russia big time?
I suspect the weight of a loaded tank is going to be much higher than the weight of a person, so what will be firm for a human could very well be an utter quagmire for a tank...
You might want to think about how this sounds.
I reckon it sounds like I'm pointing out a fact. Why do you think Germany has gone into recession?
The greatest benefactor from the sanctions appears to be China. Whether that is a price worth paying is a topic for another discussion.
You can’t simply tailor facts to suit whatever your preferred narrative is.
Ernie I'm not sure you understand how discussion of the Ukraine war is supposed to happen on here. Let me summarise:
1. Everything Russia says or does is a lie or a false flag operation, any information about Russia, from whatever source is unreliable, and anyone seeking to understand the facts and history behind the war is a traitorous commie.
2. Everything the US/UK/EU/NATO and Ukraine says or does is completely true and cannot be questioned, and all actions associated with them cannot be questioned or criticised or else you're a traitorous commie.
So. About that dam…
Good luck with that, now that the argumentalists have entered the fray it'll be like plugging a ...
I’d call public executions pretty backward, wouldn’t you?
Yeah much more civilised if they do them behind closed doors with a watching select audience like happens in the US. 🙄
Well Daz I generally keep out of the main Ukraine thread because I realised a fair while back that attempting to have a serious discussion on the topic was going to be hard work.
But I am genuinely surprised that some people are apparently oblivious to the fact that sanctions have had little of the expected impact on Russia and that they have instead contributed significantly to the negative economic climate which the West is currently experiencing.
It's a dam thread........... 🙂
So. About that dam…
I tried a couple of hours ago but until the usual suspects get bored there will be no discussion about the thread
What’s the point of complaining about the cost of sanctions to Western economies on this thread when the first line in the original post says - I know there is a Ukraine thread, but this isnt about the politics.
The BBC is now reporting the seismic angle
Seismic signals recorded in Bukovina, Romania, 620km (372 miles) away from Nova Kakhovka, indicate an explosion took place at 2:54 on Tuesday.
Norsar, the Norwegian Seismic Array which analysed the signals, says the timing and location coincide with the collapse of the dam.
Furthermore, only a very large quantity of explosives could have produced the signal detected almost 400 miles away, says BBC World Affairs correspondent Paul Adams.
Keva
It's this post yesterday that sent the thread off on a tangent:
Putin would have to be mad to launch nuclear weapons, so why do think Zelensky should talk to a mad man? It seems to me that the one threat totally negates the usefulness of the other. If I was Zelensky I would only talk to Putin if he did a constructive act such as withdraw troops or show some other sign of seriously wanting to de-escalate the war. As long as Putin claims that he’ll launch nuclear weapons, I wouldn’t go anywhere near the negotiating table, what would be the point?
and govts and people on both sides are going to have to swallow some hard compromises.
What compromises do you think that Ukraine should make? It seems to me that they are just defending themsleves, the only compromises should be made by the Russians as they withdraw to their previous border
It gave the impression that Ukraine is holding all the trump cards and Russia is not in a position to carry on its military operations indefinitely.
I had no idea that some people had such an optimistic view of the situation.
Direct link here which will need translation https://www.jordskjelv.no/meldinger/seismic-signals-recorded-from-an-explosion-at-the-kakhovka-dam-in-ukraine?fbclid=IwAR3VPmBNZhv4IplUVmizn2Ohu9FPXeEJ43ACVeBOUd0mF4SEXmE02DEOez4
Ernie I’m not sure you understand how discussion of the Ukraine war is supposed to happen on here. Let me summarise:
1. Everything Russia says or does is a lie or a false flag operation, any information about Russia, from whatever source is unreliable, and anyone seeking to understand the facts and history behind the war is a traitorous commie.
2. Everything the US/UK/EU/NATO and Ukraine says or does is completely true and cannot be questioned, and all actions associated with them cannot be questioned or criticised or else you’re a traitorous commie.
If you can't give your tiresome shit stirring a rest, at least take it to the main Ukraine thread.
If you can’t give your tiresome shit stirring a rest, at least take it to the main Ukraine thread.
No, please keep it here where it's easier to ignore.
Aren't we missing the other resident crackpot to help derail this thread even more.
Im sure itll be along at some point
You have done your fair bit to derail the thread piemonster, or hadn't you noticed?
No, please keep it here where it’s easier to ignore.
And yet you don't appear to be able to ignore it.
.
Anyway back on topic:
The two men discuss the destruction of the dam, and one of them assumes it was carried out by Ukrainians but the other speaker corrects him, saying “our guys did it”.
“Our saboteur group is there. They wanted to cause fear with this dam. It did not go according to the plan. More than they planned,” the speaker said.
This is a surprise :
Ukrainian officials have expressed frustration that Kyiv’s account of the dam’s destruction, that it was blown up from inside by Russian forces, has not so far been confirmed by US, UK or other intelligence agencies.
And this is even a greater surprise!
The plant was designed to withstand a nuclear strike,” Syrota told the Guardian in an interview in Kyiv. “
Really? Something above ground was designed to withstand a nuclear strike?!?
You have done your fair bit to derail the thread piemonster, or hadn’t you noticed?
Me? No I hadnt noticed, do you have a source for that?
I know there is a Ukraine thread, but this isnt about the politics.
The politics of the war is pretty much banned on the main thread. You're only allowed to talk about military tactics, big guns and tanks on there else you're branded a traitorous commie.
It's very interesting though that no one seems remotely interested in discussing the politics of the war as that is surely the way out of it. 🤷♂️
Really? Something above ground was designed to withstand a nuclear strike?!?
Concrete structures will withstand nuclear strikes. If you go to ground zero in Nagasaki (yes, I've been there), there are the remains of a church, with much of the structure still standing. A concrete dam is designed to withstand immense pressure from water. An airburst nuclear bomb probably wouldn't trouble it because air is not good at transmitting shock. Bunker buster bombs are designed to penetrate the earth and then explode. Earth is very effective at transmitting shockwaves so conventional explosives buried inside or next to the dam structure will do much more damage than an airburst nuclear bomb. That's why the Dambusters raid used bombs designed to sink underwater and explode right next to the dam structure - the water transfers the shockwaves to the dam structure and fractures it, then the pressure of the water causes it to fail. Dropping bombs on dams from above is unlikely to do serious damage. Artillery shells would not have caused that dam to fail, it would have taken tonnes of explosives packed right up against the structure to do that.
The politics of the war is pretty much banned on the main thread. You’re only allowed to talk about military tactics, big guns and tanks on there else you’re branded a traitorous commie.
Only in your own imagination. There is no 'banned' or 'allowed', as long as you don't break the site's T&Cs. Honestly, that sounds like some knuckle dragging BNP supporter claiming 'you can't say what you think these days', 'PC gone mad' etc. I think you're smarter than that.
There is no ‘banned’ or ‘allowed’, as long as you don’t break the site’s T&Cs.
Yeah that's why anyone expressing a slightly different view or not conforming to the thread groupthink is called a troll, shit-stirrer, argumentalist, or even worse an appeaser, putin sympathiser, useful idiot etc. This forum has an extremely strong tendency to demand conformity and bully anyone who might not agree with the majority. Much like real life I guess so hey-ho. 🤷♂️
OP:
I know there is a Ukraine thread, but this isnt about the politics.
Didn’t think it was asking much, expecially given there's another thread for the wider discussion. Too tempting to resist, I guess.
. An airburst nuclear bomb probably wouldn’t trouble it because air is not good at transmitting shock.
But that's not how cruise missiles work, for example, is it? Genuine question btw.
Will wait to see it when released. I imagine some will discount as bias
Given those pictures up there from the beeb, I expect military satellites would have much better quality imagery and you’d be able to watch the exact moment the dam was breached
Well its the US that would have the spy satellites looking down over that area, and I'd expect they could give a day by day or even hour by hour imagery.
But its strange though that they haven't, and the US were saying earlier that they didn't know for 100%, which could mean that they do, but will only support the Ukrainian side. I really dont see them saying it was A. the Ukrainian artillery, or even B. it collapsed on its own due to poor repair/ build up of water weight, overwhelming the system or whatever.
a false flag operation
This phrase to me seems a bit misplaced, or being used to explain something without evidence and point in a general direction.(I forget the actual grammatical term)
Why would a country at war, and capable of taking any action it deemed necessary or strategic need to create a 'false flag' They would just go ahead and do it.
Maybe in the cold war it could be used, or as an excuse for preemptive attack, but actually during a war where pretty much anything goes ?
But that’s not how cruise missiles work, for example, is it? Genuine question btw.
A cruise missile is a small pilotless aircraft that delivers a bomb, basically large kamikaze drones. They fly low and slow to avoid radar. To destroy reinforced concrete structures, you need bunker busting bombs which are launched from high altitude and can bury themselves underground. Cruise missiles can't do that.
Including for you, apparently. How about sticking to the subject matter instead of constantly complaining that the thread has gone off topic💡
Yes, complaining that what was an interesting discussion has been dragged off topic is definitely the problem here.
Cruise missiles can’t do that.
Nuclear armed cruise missiles slamming into the side of a dam wouldn't destroy it because they would need to "bury themselves underground"? I am genuinely surprised!
It sounds as if whoever is responsible for Nova Kakhovka Dam's destruction found the equivalent of its "thermal exhaust port".
Or it was destroyed by the demolition charges reported months ago and as suggested by the seismic data.
Nobody reported seeing a mushroom cloud, did they?
Some interesting comments on the New Civil Engineer website:
"These factors have led Barr to support the claims that the failure was initiated by an explosion, though the subsequent damage is likely to have removed the evidence."
Barr being a reseach fellow in blast.
I know there is a Ukraine thread, but this isnt about the politics
That’s aged well! 😃
Back off to the main thread which is about trying to understand what is actually happening, rather than STW’s version of speakers corner..
To summarise the facts as we know them so far:
there were warnings last year that Russia had mined the dam
the dam was destroyed on the Russian side of the river/ reservoir
that area is controlled by Russia
seismic data shows an explosion
Russia had raised the water level significantly in the last week or so before the explosion - why?
the dam exploded on the eve of the Ukrainian counter offensive - the timing is far too right for it to be a natural degradation event.
ukrains counter offensive below the dam has been halted for some time - a month or months?
so what’s the conclusion? Russia or Ukraine - perhaps aliens? 😉
if your answer is Ukraine, you’re going to have to do a lot of work showing how they achieved it.
"built to survive a nuclear strike" is vague, and doesn't automatically mean "you could drop a nuclear bomb on this and it'd be fine" For that you're talking massive hardened military stuff, vaults, things buried under mountains. There is no way that building was built for that, most stuff just can't be if you want it to also be functional (I think every mention I've seen of it specifically says "the plant" not "the dam") But, it can also mean that you've got the ability to survive a near hit, if it's in an expected blast zone.
What they're basically saying is, this was built to be a tough cookie and that means it has to have been broken in certain ways.
What they’re basically saying is, this was built to be a tough cookie and that means it has to have been broken in certain ways.
Quite. It was built at the very height of the Cold War, it is hard to imagine that such an important infrastructure asset would have been built with little concern for its vulnerability. But it is equally hard to imagine that it was ever considered that it would be able to withstand a nuclear strike.
Besides the impracticalities of constructing a structure above ground which could withstand a nuclear blast what would be the point of having a functioning dam providing hydroelectricity after a nuclear Armageddon had destroyed everything else?!?
