[jtsuken]

Just realised that the point I've made in response to a comment probably should be a level higher:

Don't trust the radiation monitoring system, the actual monitoring system has been destroyed by a rocket impact three days ago.

The monitoring system has been shot down on 1 Sep.

Here is the statement from the Nuclear Agency in Ukraine:

  On March 1, 2022 at 11:40 as a result of rocket impact, the communication network of Zaporizhzhya NPP was damaged. As a result, the Automated Radiation Monitoring   System (ARMS) of the Zaporizhzhya Nuclear Power Plant lost its full functionality and stopped the transmission of data to the international radiation monitoring network IRMIS. IAEA has been informed about the incident.

https://www.facebook.com/people/Державна-інспекція-ядерного-...

[Nextgrid]

The link doesn't load right now (HN overload?) but I wonder, if the comms are down, shouldn't the system report "no data" as opposed to "all clear"? Why should there be an explicit warning about not trusting it when the system itself should easily be able to tell whether it's getting fresh data?

[ethbr0]

Maybe they forked AWS' status page.

[Aeolun]

Damn, maybe one of the sides should consider fixing that before they proceed with shooting at each other.

[eyelidlessness]

I can’t speak to why you’ve been downvoted, but it might be worth considering the incentives to fight aren’t the same between the “sides”. One is fighting to survive an attack by the other. It’s difficult to maintain safety measures while people are trying to kill you.

[beebeepka]

What's there to understand? Cuba is still under embargo 50 years after the Russians tried to put weapons there.

[eyelidlessness]

Hey that’s a valid point and one I agree with. The way the US has treated Cuba is also completely indefensible and based in no plausible threat scenario.

[wyager]

> One is fighting to survive an attack by the other.

This statement, while true, changes denotation depending on the scale at which you view this conflict. If you view it as a conflict between Russia and Ukraine, the existential threat is to Ukraine. If you view it as a conflict between Russia and NATO, the existential threat is to Russia.

[jazzyjackson]

I don't quite understand Russia's paranoia around NATO. Estonia, Lithuania, and Latvia already border Russia (+ Poland if you count Kaliningrad). Why is it such a big deal for Ukraine to enter a defense pact, unless Russia wants to retain the right to invade when they see fit? Not trying to be rhetorical, this existential threat to Russia is news to me.

[nl]

Russia _hates_ that Estonia, Lithuania, and Latvia are all part of NATO.

But when they were accepted Putin didn't feel strong enough to do anything about it.

Russia has been advancing it's "sphere of influence" political theory, whereby independent countries with that "sphere of influence" don't get the right to make their own alliances. That "sphere of influence" includes all Eastern European countries that border on Russia at least.

It hasn't been widely reported on, but the initial demand that led to this war was that NATO withdraw all infrastructure install in post 1997 expansions:

Russia published two lists of demands — for Washington and for NATO — the latter calling for the removal of all NATO military infrastructure installed in Eastern European countries after 1997, effectively attempting to rework the consequences of the Soviet Union’s collapse in 1991, which left Russia weakened for years.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2021/12/17/ukraine-russ...

[jasonfarnon]

From what I understand of world politics, what is viewed by one as defensive is often viewed by another as offensive. Eg Monroe doctrine.

[Scramblejams]

It makes more sense when examining their history. This is probably a decent place to start: https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2015/10/ru...

[throwaway48375]

Don't forget Norway.

[gusgus01]

Did I miss something today? Did NATO deploy troops into Russia or Ukraine?

[dpratt]

If you want to achieve victory, you must understand your enemy as well as yourself. The Russian attitude towards NATO expansion into Ukraine can be roughly viewed from an American perspective as well equivalent as the old Warsaw Pact attempting to bring Mexico into their treaty. Or, at least, this is part of the explanation used to frame it as an ‘existential threat’ for Russia. This, combined with a somewhat precarious economy based largely on fossil fuel exports and the fact that in some sense Putin serves at the pleasure of the group of oligarchs, and only as long as they can earn. This combo of circumstance makes it pretty easy to guess at how we got here, and frankly how easy it was to provoke. Unfortunately for Putin, and fortunate for pretty much everybody else, at this point, it appears that outside of complete and total victory and annexation of Ukraine, it looks like he loses no matter what.

Putin is a ham-fisted dictator, and the world will be better off without him, but his motivations here aren’t mysterious.

[labster]

How would annexation of Ukraine further Russia’s strategic goals at this point? NATO expansion is getting more popular by the hour, as is joining the EU. Economic sanctions weaken Russia, and will continue for years to decades if Ukraine is annexed. Sure, the Russian army can get total victory given enough time, but winning the war doesn’t benefit Russia.

[watwut]

I dont think this take advances understanding of Russia. This is how Americans sees the world. Americans are not trying to make America larger, therefore they will project same lack of wish to get larger on Russia.

[eru]

I don't agree 100%, but I don't think you deserve the downvotes.

I think you could say in the wider scale it can be interpreted as an existential threat to Putin's Russia?

[eyelidlessness]

They are literally doing total war without provocation. The theoretical threat of NATO has not been a part of this conflict at all. Treating that imagined threat as if it’s equivalent to the very real war is navel gazing excuse for a mass murdering fascist.

[eru]

First, yes, Putin's Russia has started a war of conquest.

Second, no, it is definitely _not_ a total war. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_war for background.

Third, the theoretical threat of NATO is not so much to Russia: I agree that NATO is not a threat to Russia. However I do also see that NATO and EU are a threat to Putin's long term vision for a renewed Russian Empire.

To be clear, I agree that this vision is bogus and that a threat to a bogus vision is not a valid excuse for a war.

Please also be careful with accusing people of being fascists or Nazis. Putin and his predecessors in the USSR employed the same tactic. And whether anyone does or does not fulfill the textbook definition of a fascist is besides the point here.

[eyelidlessness]

Whut

[ruined]

shooting is one of those things that you just gotta do first. hard to deprioritize

[mzs]

this particular post: https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=3241517597...

[baskethead]

Not great, not terrible.