Sanctions against Russia

[nomadpete]

Mr Putin might even consider it a tactical advantage to turn Ukraine into a radioactive nuclear wasteland - that might be his concept of a nice safe barrier between Russia and NATO. It would keep NATO from occupying land any closer to him !

[facthunter]

The Ukranians and Russians will both benefit from Putin being despatched as will the rest of the World and it's ALL Putin's own  work, though he would blame others for telling him only  what he wants to hear (under penalty of  death.)  Who would you rather be Putin OR Biden?   Nev

[nomadpete]

16 minutes ago, facthunter said:

Who would you rather be Putin OR Biden?   Nev

I don't think that is the question, Nev.

 

Consider the risk management that US must make if Putin uses the nuclear option.

 

Biden : " Oh dear, Putin just set off a nuke. What should we do? 

What do we gain if we send him one? And what do we lose?"

 

Advisor :

"Gain?: We wipe him out! Yay!

Lose?: We started WW3. He wipes out most of USA. Economy collapses. Mass starvation. And we lose the next election"

 

Advisor :

"The other option?: Do nothing.

Gain?: We keep American people and our economy alive.

Lose?: We lose nothing, but Ukraine loses everything, and we win next election."

 

Edited October 8, 2022 by nomadpete

[willedoo]

Putin is obviously getting more desperate as his war drags on and it's starting to fail. Surely by now he's understood that he can't win if something doesn't change. Either that, or he's still ignorant of a lot of what's happening on the battlefield. He's known for having very little to do with the internet and relying instead on his underlings to keep him in the picture.

 

He has been calling for negotiation as a fallback option to hold on to some territory. Zelensky has poured cold water on that one, so Putin's next fallback position is to throw more and more conscripts into the battle to hold the lines. Looking at the quality of the new troops combined with the degraded state of the existing Russian army in Ukraine, I can't see that working. His only option left after that, if it fails, is to take some sort of nuclear action. He's getting to the point where it's all about his own political survival in Russia, and I doubt anyone can talk him into quietly going.

 

The only hope is that he's got enough sense left to realise that the nuclear option is the end of him. There's a chain of command for a nuclear strike order, leading down to the general in charge of the 12th. Main Directorate, which is the outfit responsible for the security and maintenance of the nation's nukes. He might refuse if a crazy order to launch intercontinental missiles was received, but would he refuse an order to release small, low yield tactical nukes? These warheads have to be transported to military units and mated up with delivery systems, such as aircraft or weapons like the Iskander road mobile system which has a range of 400-500klm.

 

If the 12th. Main Directorate was ordered to release short range warheads to military units on a supposedly standby basis, then I would guess it's out of their hands. If so, that would be a potentially dangerous situation.

[willedoo]

The rail section of the Crimean bridge is on fire. A trainload of fuel heading to Crimea.

 

[willedoo]

This is a dangerous ute. Not well protected, but certainly highly mobile.

 

https://twitter.com/TpyxaNews/status/1578449698708328448

[willedoo]

Crimean authorities are saying that the bridge span hasn't been damaged, but it looks like just a matter of time before it's kaput once the rest of the tankers burn. In the first photo, you can see the fibre optics and other utility lines are toast. Second photo shows it's right at the opening span for shipping into the Azov Sea. Shame it didn't happen yesterday; it would have been a good 70th. birthday present for Putler. Depending on how long the rail is out, this will be a big setback for the orcs. With the Ukrainians within 30klm of Kherson City and well within range for all types of artillery, the Russians would have been transporting a lot of gear to reinforce through this rail line.

 

[willedoo]

Press reports are saying the road section is out as well. It looks like it might have been sabotaged.

 

 

[willedoo]

Well, there it is. The road section has collapsed. The bridge is totally stuffed. Happy Birthday for yesterday, Vladimir.

[willedoo]

The Kremlin is saying a truck bomb did it. Video posted on a Russian Telegram channel shows a couple of trucks in the vicinity of the blast, but you can see the blast came from underneath the bridge. The first photo shows the collapsed section. It doesn't look consistent with a blast on top of the bridge. They must have timed it for when the fuel train was passing. Second photo shows what looks like shrapnel holes in the tankers exuding fuel and burning.

[willedoo]

[onetrack]

Far out!! That was some massive level of explosives! As someone who was taught military demolition as a military engineer, that level of blast can only mean a large tonnage of explosives was involved.

It might also have aided by gas containers of some type, as in the Bali bombing. Bridges take a lot of effort to destroy, they aren't generally made out of lightweight materials.

[willedoo]

2 minutes ago, onetrack said:

Far out!! That was some massive level of explosives! As someone who was taught military demolition as a military engineer, that level of blast can only mean a large tonnage of explosives was involved.

It might also have aided by gas containers of some type, as in the Bali bombing. Bridges take a lot of effort to destroy, they aren't generally made out of lightweight materials.

Here's a link to the media article that has the video:

 

https://www.rt.com/russia/564274-crimean-bridge-damage-caused-explosion/

[willedoo]

I wonder what the cross eyed little turd will do now. That bridge was his pride and joy, as well as one of the main logistic lines for the war.

 

Edited October 8, 2022 by willedoo

[willedoo]

[willedoo]

[red750]

Maybe he can use the tractor they gave  him for his birthday. I looked for a photo of it but didn't find one. However, I came across this:

 

In the Czech capital, Prague, demonstrators mocked Russia's president with a giant dummy depicting him as a naked emperor sitting on a golden toilet.

 

[onetrack]

I've been studying the Kerch Bridge explosion, and there's a video on the Ukrainian site below, that appears to have come from CCTV close to the blast.

 

One of the fascinating features of the blast (to me, anyway) is the massive amount of incendiary material to come from it. Incendiary munitions are banned from use where civilians are present, under a NATO agreement - and banned from aerial launching - but Russia still uses them, and used them in the attack on the Azov steel plant. 

 

I suspect the Ukrainians packed the top of two bridge pylons underneath the road bridge with a huge tonnage of explosives, possibly brought in on the water.

There would have had to have been a multiple tonnage of explosives to be able to drop two spans of the road bridge the way they did - and also send massive amounts of incendiary material and shrapnel into the train tankers.

 

Rail tanks for fuel transport are not built out of tissue paper - I've purchased and used a former WAGR rail wagon fuel tank, for fuel storage on the farm I owned in the 1980's - and that tank was built from 1/2" (12.5mm) thick plate - they're designed to stay intact in the case of derailment and rollover.

 

To penetrate that thickness of steel on the Russian train, with incendiary shrapnel from possibly up to 60 or 80 metres from the site of the blast, requires a massive level of high explosive, as well as the incendiary and fragmentation material.

 

Thermite is often used in incendiary munitions, but the Russian incendiary munitions are in the missile model 9M22S, and this missile contains an incendiary warhead, model 9H510.

9H510 contains the incendiary magnesium alloy called ML5, and it's filled with a pyrotechnic composition similar to thermite.

 

I'm wondering if the Ukrainians acquired stocks of 9M22S missiles in a Russian site takeover, and utilised them in this explosive device that destroyed the Kerch Bridge. I cannot imagine that the U.S. or any NATO nations have given the Ukraine any amount of incendiary missiles or warheads, yet this bridge explosion almost certainly contains a sizeable level of incendiary and fragmentation material.

 

https://mil.in.ua/en/tag/war-with-russia/

 

https://mil.in.ua/en/articles/not-phosphorus-russia-uses-9m22s-incendiary-projectiles-in-ukraine/

Edited October 8, 2022 by onetrack

[willedoo]

It was a huge flash when it went off. Here's a view from a distance.

 

https://twitter.com/TpyxaNews/status/1578690430426046465

 

[willedoo]

I'm still trying to get my head around how the bridge blew up. I would say the train fuel tankers were just collateral damage from the blast shrapnel. The bridge road spans are metal. Excuse my poor graphics, but I highlighted the damaged spans in green on the screengrab photo below. One span is collapsed in the middle. The span to the right of it has broken at the join over the pylon. To the left of the collapsed span is an intact span and to the left of that is another span broken at the join above a pylon. In a video recorded by emergency crew, one of them said it was an expansion joint. So it looks like the blast might have been underneath, mid span.

 

Here's another video taken later in the day:

https://twitter.com/RALee85/status/1578637477807783936

 

 

[willedoo]

That wave surge under the bridge a split second before the flash is interesting.

[willedoo]

2 hours ago, onetrack said:

I've been studying the Kerch Bridge explosion, and there's a video on the Ukrainian site below, that appears to have come from CCTV close to the blast.

 

One of the fascinating features of the blast (to me, anyway) is the massive amount of incendiary material to come from it. Incendiary munitions are banned from use where civilians are present, under a NATO agreement - and banned from aerial launching - but Russia still uses them, and used them in the attack on the Azov steel plant. 

 

I suspect the Ukrainians packed the top of two bridge pylons underneath the road bridge with a huge tonnage of explosives, possibly brought in on the water.

There would have had to have been a multiple tonnage of explosives to be able to drop two spans of the road bridge the way they did - and also send massive amounts of incendiary material and shrapnel into the train tankers.

 

Rail tanks for fuel transport are not built out of tissue paper - I've purchased and used a former WAGR rail wagon fuel tank, for fuel storage on the farm I owned in the 1980's - and that tank was built from 1/2" (12.5mm) thick plate - they're designed to stay intact in the case of derailment and rollover.

 

To penetrate that thickness of steel on the Russian train, with incendiary shrapnel from possibly up to 60 or 80 metres from the site of the blast, requires a massive level of high explosive, as well as the incendiary and fragmentation material.

 

Thermite is often used in incendiary munitions, but the Russian incendiary munitions are in the missile model 9M22S, and this missile contains an incendiary warhead, model 9H510.

9H510 contains the incendiary magnesium alloy called ML5, and it's filled with a pyrotechnic composition similar to thermite.

 

I'm wondering if the Ukrainians acquired stocks of 9M22S missiles in a Russian site takeover, and utilised them in this explosive device that destroyed the Kerch Bridge. I cannot imagine that the U.S. or any NATO nations have given the Ukraine any amount of incendiary missiles or warheads, yet this bridge explosion almost certainly contains a sizeable level of incendiary and fragmentation material.

 

https://mil.in.ua/en/tag/war-with-russia/

 

https://mil.in.ua/en/articles/not-phosphorus-russia-uses-9m22s-incendiary-projectiles-in-ukraine/

onetrack, I think you're close to the money there. It would explain all the incendiary matter coming from the blast, and also the brightness of the flash. Remember last month an unidentified drone boat washed up on the beach near Sevastopol (photo below). The second photo is reportedly the Russians detonating it at sea. If true, that would suggest it was carrying some sort of explosive warhead.

 

Considering that one span is broken in the middle, while the other two have just come apart at the join above the pylon:  could it be possible that they used one of these drones or a bigger version packed with the munitions you mentioned. Sailing it remotely under the span and detonating. The steel road span appears to be broken in the middle. Would it be possible the heat and force of the blast broke it on a mid span seam?

 

Edited October 8, 2022 by willedoo

[willedoo]

Of course, I'm just basing those assumptions on my experience in the chairborne forces.

[onetrack]

I believe there were likely to be multiple, simultaneous blasts - and yes, a motorised drone boat (or even two, or more) could have very likely been the method used.

It's the only way the Ukrainians could've got the tonnage of explosive required, to do such enormous damage, under the bridge.

 

Just about all bridge demolition in the military is designed around placing relatively small charges in strategic spots (by hand), and using shaped charges to cut through steel members. It's difficult to displace entire spans in the manner done here, without a large amount of high explosive.

 

If you look at the Twitter video you posted above, I reckon there was one blast under the edge of the roadway on the rail bridge side, and at least one more blast under the roadway adjoining that one (on the sea side), where the spans have fallen into the water.

If you look carefully, you'll see a gaping hole in the edge of the roadway, next to the rail bridge - but that span in that roadway has stayed intact.

I would estimate this was the blast that went right up to the rail cars, and perforated them. The actual blast damage to the rail bridge is minimal, it was the incendiary and fragmentation material, that took out the rail cars.

 

Yes, it's quite possible a huge blast from underneath broke the span in the middle. Notice there's no damage to the tops of the roadways anywhere, it's all come from the underside of the bridge.

 

Edited October 8, 2022 by onetrack

[rgmwa]

I wonder how long it will take them to get it partially functioning again. If the damage to the rail bridge is fairly minor and the inner roadway is not too bad they may have it usable again fairly quickly.

Edited October 8, 2022 by rgmwa