Will Russia's military invasion of Ukraine include a nuclear disaster?

[titan]

Ukraine narrowly escapes nuclear catastrophe as plant loses power, Zelenskiy says
Reuters

Fears of a potential nuclear disaster in Ukraine are intensifying​

6abc Philadelphia

Russia / Putin's notion of a quick victory in conquest of Ukraine are exposed as fantasy.
Some reports accuse Russia of stationing military assets at nuclear facility, apparently Russia's attempt to discourage return fire from Ukraine.

And if there is a reactor breach, who suffers most? Would prevailing winds blow radiation Eastward, into Russia?

Can international nuclear safety prevail here? Or will the risk persist?

 

[sear]

t #1,
I've puzzled over why Putin doesn't temporarily impose a military draft, to increase his troop strength. Oddly (for a dictator) it seems Russian public opinion may be a factor.

Reports a day or two into Putin's invasion indicated Russian expectation of a quick, decisive victory against Ukraine. Half a year in, and it appears a more realistic perspective applies, imposed on Russia by Ukraine's sovereign resolve, and Western support against Russian autocracy.

It may seem odd that an autocrat like Putin would be strongly influenced by Russian public opinion. But it seems Putin still thinks he can trick Russia into believing things are going well. A sudden military draft in Russia might destroy that illusion.

Ukraine says it has begun counter-offensive to retake Russian-held south​

By Andrea Shalal and Max Hunder
ZAPORIZHZHIA, Ukraine/KYIV, Aug 29 (Reuters) - Ukraine announced on Monday the start of a long-awaited counter-offensive to retake territory in the south seized by Russian forces since their invasion six months ago, a move reflecting Kyiv's growing confidence as Western military aid flows in.
The news came as a team from the U.N. nuclear watchdog headed to Ukraine to inspect the Zaporizhzhia nuclear plant - captured by Russian forces in March but still run by Ukrainian staff - that has become a hotspot in the war.

A military miscalculation here could cause a nuclear disaster to rival Chernobyl. Putin rolls the dice.

 

[titan]

The command and control decisions surely cannot be dismissed here. But some may not realize what a high stakes risk artillery fire is so near to a nuclear power plant.

Ukraine has been providing a significant percentage of the world's farm produce. If a nuclear disaster contaminates Ukraine's farmlands, it can halt food production there for generations. And it may take nothing more than a single artillery shell to cause that. Is Putin so focused on conquest that he hasn't bothered to realize this? Or is Putin so ruthless that he knows the risks, but considers expansionist Russia worth that risk? Either way, famine may be about to become a much more widespread problem.

 

[Rampage]

UN inspectors near Ukrainian nuclear plant on mission to avert an accident​

• IAEA team expected to start inspection on Thursday
• Unclear how long inspectors will be able to stay
• Ukraine claims successes in military counter-offensive
• Russia halts gas flows via key pipeline

ZAPORIZHZHIA, Ukraine, Aug 31 (Reuters) - United Nations inspectors arrived on Wednesday in the southern Ukrainian city of Zaporizhzhia ...

UN inspectors near Ukrainian nuclear plant on mission to avert an accident

United Nations inspectors arrived on Wednesday in the southern Ukrainian city of Zaporizhzhia on a mission to prevent a nuclear accident at a Russian-occupied power plant where nearby shelling has prompted global fears of disaster.

www.reuters.com

Troops on the ground may already have dodged a bullet here. Reports of Russian troops taking war trophies, plunder including radioactive samples raises questions about whether Russian front line commanders recognize the danger.

The IAEA may mean well. But aggressive Russian commanders and ignorant Russian troops under their command may be more than the IAEA can handle.

 

[Rampage]

No mushroom clouds reported from there, yet some good news is filtering in. Ukrainian counter-offensive is reportedly having substantial success, in some cases sending the Russians hastily away.
In such haste reportedly that the Russian military is abandoning weapons & other equipment in their retreat.
This has lead to jokes including: Russia has become one of Ukraine's primary military equipment suppliers.

 

[Borg Refinery]

The sooner the war is over, the sooner Ukraine can begin to rebuild and I hope the EU gives them speedy accession

 

[sear]

"I hope the EU gives them speedy accession" O #6

You may not have intentionally opened a new round of the "I hope ..." game, but you have. My turn:
- I hope Russia provides 100%+ reparations fully & promptly
- I hope Russians follow the Romanian model and celebrate Christmas as Romanians did in '89. *
- I hope the backlash from Putin's catastrophic Ukraine adventure impresses a scar so severe and durable that it marks the end of autocratic / military territorial conquest.
- I hope EU / NATO / West promptly, safely and synergistically assimilates vulnerable potential military invasion targets, ending such war by eliminating the opportunity for it. & one more ...
- I hope I win a $Gargantuan $Lottery $Jackpot before it snows here. That would be nice.

* Romania's General Secretary Nicolae Ceausescu was tried & convicted of genocide and executed Dec. 25, 1989 Christmas Ceausescu, Nicolae

Christmas day would not only be an excellent day to neutralize Putin along with the Soviet delusions that have poisoned Russia since "Wall" fall. Christmas is also a good day to sit next to a dead tree and eat candy out of a sock.

 

[Rampage]

Putin's a former colonel in the Cold War KGB. Putin isn't likely to do anything he has a choice to not do. But it lowers the likelihood down from improbable to, don't bet on it.
In a sense Ukraine may never be made whole. Putin's war there is already in the second half of the year of invasion. Too many Ukranians have been murdered. Too many Ukranian families displaced.
Reestablishing the international border is a good idea. Restoring Ukraine's peaceful self-sustaining vitality to pre-war levels may take years, or may never happen.

 

[mark mywords]

I see on the news that Ukraine has discovered the bodies of hundreds lying in "mass graves" many of the bodies allegedly bound and "showing signs of torture" the camera pans to neat rows of crosses numbered and indicating individual graves.

Firstly the audio and the video dont match neat rows of crosses all bearing a number (so that the occupant could be traced) does not suggest mass graves.
Secondly would the Russians not make some attempt however futile to hide the evidence of war crimes by burying their victims in unmarked pits? perhaps also burning them?
Finally it is perhaps news to President Zelensky that in war people get dead



Serhii Bolvinov, a top police officer for the Kharkiv region, revealed that the mass burial site found in Izyum contained around 440 graves.

Ukraine says mass grave found in Izium where Russians ousted days ago, says Zelenskyy - Kfindtech

Ukrainian authorities found a mass burial site near a recaptured northeastern city previously occupied by Russian forces, President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said Thursday night. “A mass grave of people was found in Izium in the Kharkiv region. The necessary procedures have already begun there. More...

kfindtech.com

 

[sear]

"bodies allegedly bound and "showing signs of torture"" mm #9

- grim -

mm #9

I'm not a huge fan of cemeteries. But I suppose the one pictured above doesn't look so bad, if we ignore who's in it and why.
I'll be curious to see if Russia is held to account.

 

[mark mywords]

"bodies allegedly bound and "showing signs of torture"" mm #9
- grim -

If true
recently dead bodies might have been tied before rigour to make burial easier
why would they torture some one and then put them in a marked grave? would it not make more sense to dig a big hole throw them in and set light to them?

The official version just doesnt make sense, torture some one murder them and then show them enough respect to give them a nominally christian burial?????

 

[sear]

Probably best to preface this post:
it's quite common for real-time disaster reporting to included errors.

"why would they torture some one and then put them in a marked grave?" mm #11

Superb question.
Is that what happened?

You raise an important question mm #11 that hadn't occurred to me. The identical pic in posts #9, & #10 is a chronological "snapshot".
What I have not deduced from that pic:
- is that how the Russians left it, & the Ukranians found it? Or
- did the Ukranians discover corpses, and make hasty arrangement for a resting place of indeterminate duration, and then mark the impromptu graves so heirs might re-bury if kin wished it? And then photograph their result?

Therefore it depends upon where on the timeline that pic was taken. I don't have that information. Do you?

My insight is limited to the quality of the reporting in this case, as in most others. I don't know the source here.
But other sources have reported a variety of atrocities.

And we do have some corroborating indications, such as Russia basing military operations from nuclear facility, to discourage return fire.

 

[mark mywords]

I'm not a huge fan of cemeteries. But I suppose the one pictured above doesn't look so bad, if we ignore who's in it and why.
I'll be curious to see if Russia is held to account.

Its the who and why that is important are these are the "mass graves of torture victims" or are the simply the graves of casualties of war?

Superb question.
Is that what happened?

Its what Ukraine are claiming

In the various reports all of which have the same or similar photographs that is the graves as found and before excavation why would the Ukrainians dig up and then immediately rebury the bodies without any attempt at identification?

And we do have some corroborating indications, such as Russia basing military operations from nuclear facility, to discourage return fire.

Isnt that what any military leader would do in the circumstances?

 

[sear]

"Isnt that what any military leader would do in the circumstances?" mm #13

I enjoy didactic questions, and that one's razor sharp, if you'll pardon the bad propeller. You're welcome William.

The answer of course is:
it depends upon the military leader's (commander's) assessment of the enemy commander. If the assessment is it's Neville Chamberlain, sure, mount the artillery nearby the reactors.
But if the assessment is the enemy commander has a -win at any cost- determination, then basing offensive weapons near a nuclear reactor might be seen as merely a means of threatening those very troops. One armor-piercing artillery shell on a reactor and anyone within 10 miles of the resultant explosion shouldn't buy green bananas.

Thanks for the good question mm. I home my reply was near its equal.

 

[mark mywords]

But if the assessment is the enemy commander has a -win at any cost- determination, then basing offensive weapons near a nuclear reactor might be seen as merely a means of threatening those very troops. One armor-piercing artillery shell on a reactor and anyone within 10 miles of the resultant explosion shouldn't buy green bananas.

And this prospect would worry Russia how?
The reactor is in Ukraine, the land which would be contaminated would be in Ukraine and the vast majority of the people killed would be Ukrainian.

they would be foolish not to take shelter there

 

[titan]

"And this prospect would worry Russia how?
The reactor is in Ukraine, the land which would be contaminated would be in Ukraine and the vast majority of the people killed would be Ukrainian." mark
It's a complex cost to benefit analysis. A variety of criteria may be considered: global public opinion (including current and prospective trading partners), worst case nuclear scenario for Russia (including wind direction), deterrence probability (potentially factoring in a profile assessment of the enemy military command), among others.

Each of these would need a score which could then be weighted averaged for a decision. Wouldn't surprise me if the actual process (not what was planned, but what actually happened) shared some these process elements.

"they would be foolish not to take shelter there" mark

It's not a guarantee. So it's a high stakes risk-to-reward calculation. That decision has already been made. Russia's been doing quite some shuffling about lately. How that affects the occupation of nuclear facilities may be subject to hasty battlefield revision.

 

[sear]

Reuters reports it this way:
LONDON, Sept 21 (Reuters) - President Vladimir Putin on Wednesday ordered Russia's first mobilisation since World War Two and backed a plan to annex swathes of Ukraine, warning the West he was not bluffing when he said he'd be ready to use nuclear weapons to defend Russia.

Putin escalates Ukraine war, issues nuclear threat to West

President Vladimir Putin on Wednesday ordered Russia's first mobilisation since World War Two and backed a plan to annex swathes of Ukraine, warning the West he was not bluffing when he said he'd be ready to use nuclear weapons to defend Russia.

www.reuters.com

Other reports are more direct, indicating if Putin doesn't get his way in Ukraine his nuclear options are on the table. Is that not nuclear blackmail?

The obvious question: How will NATO respond?

​

 

[mark mywords]

is sabre rattling not the entire purpose of nuclear weapons?

 

[sear]

"is sabre rattling not the entire purpose of nuclear weapons?" paragon of didact #18

At this stage that might seem the sum total of a superpower nuclear arsenal utility. The obvious historic exception may be Japan in WWII, Hiroshima, Nagasaki.

You know that of course. I don't mean to suggest I'm enlightening you here about that. Instead I'm trying to follow your line of reasoning to see where it leads, where it logically concludes.
You're right of course, MIRV ICBM first use may effectively terminate the human race. "The meek shall inherit the Earth." Mold & cockroaches?

You've cast our gaze to Putin / Moscow / Kremlin. Perhaps this may cast some light:

Moscow (CNN) In a televised national address Wednesday morning, Russian President Vladimir Putin announced a partial mobilization. This means that he has essentially broken an unwritten social contract with Russians: we, the citizens, allow you, the authorities, to steal and fight, but in exchange you stay out of our private lives.
Beginning a new phase of the war, the cornered Putin is dragging a significant portion of Russians behind him. He has de facto declared war on the domestic front -- not only on the opposition and civil society, but on the male population of Russia.
Why is Putin taking the risk? Because he himself has encouraged the lack of public attention to the war for several months. Mobilization is fraught with serious discontent in society. That is precisely why he decided to make a partial mobilization, rather than a full one. In the long run, he laid a mine under his regime; in the short run, he will face sabotage.
For so long, Putin fostered a disinclination among the masses for war, a disinclination that will now cost the Russians, who are being turned into cannon fodder. *

Opinion: Putin has just laid a land mine under his regime | CNN

In a televised national address Wednesday morning, Russian President Vladimir Putin announced a partial mobilization. This means that he has essentially broken an unwritten social contract with Russians: we, the citizens, allow you, the authorities, to steal and fight, but in exchange you stay...

www.cnn.com

Putin has dug himself in deep here. Putin got himself into this. Can he get himself out? Without blowing up / nuking Berlin, DC, London, NYC, Paris, etc.? Are we to be foolish enough to believe once Putin is cornered, has zero path to victory, that he will be so humanitarian that he's exit peacefully, without vengeance?

* Editor's note: Andrei Kolesnikov is a senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. He is the author of several books on the political and social history of Russia, including "Five Five-Year Liberal Reforms." Origins of Russian Modernization and Egor Gaidar's Legacy." The views expressed in this commentary are his own. Read more opinion articles on CNN.

 

[sear]

PS
I got an interesting clarification in this AM's news.
Putin's threat to use Russian nuclear weapons to defend Russia might have seemed to some a non-issue, if they think the West is not likely to invade Russia.

But the interpretation that might have escaped the non-alarmists:
Putin seems to have been suggesting that Putin / Russia may at Russian whim, without ceremony simply deem Ukraine or portions of Ukraine to be Russian territory, and therefore properly entitled to Russian nuclear defense.

I consider that a threat directed to the West.