Here we go again-Ukraine once again

[Jimbuna]

Russian hawks gloat over 'payback' for Crimea bridge attack

The hail of indiscriminate missile fire across Ukraine was Russia's brutal payback for the attack on the Crimean bridge.

Russian President Vladimir Putin called it the response to an "act of terrorism" which he blamed on Ukraine.

But it was also Putin's response to hawks in his own camp who have been growing increasingly restless with Russian losses in the war and increasingly loud with their calls for tougher action.

Those pro-Kremlin officials and TV hosts who were depressed and dejected just days ago are now cheering this assault on their neighbour, gloating and even dancing in social media posts as Ukraine grieves for its dead and picks through the wreckage of multiple attacks.

The barrage of missiles was Gen Sergei Surovikin's first day of work. Now in charge of Russia's war effort, his appointment this weekend was a sop by Putin to the hardliners.

The general's CV includes the indiscriminate Russian bombardment of Syria and the death of pro-democracy protesters in Moscow in 1991 during the attempted coup, so he was already being described as ruthless.

Monday's assault matched his reputation.

[Jimbuna]

Russia looks like it's running out of weapons, UK intelligence chief says

Russia appears to be running out of weapons and ammunition after its missile strikes on Ukraine yesterday, the head of the UK's intelligence service has said.

GCHQ chief Sir Jeremy Fleming tells BBC Radio 4's Today programme that he believes Russia is running short of munitions.

He also says the recent mobilisation efforts launched by President Vladimir Putin showed the country was short of soldiers too, adding: "It's certainly running short of friends."

Fleming says Russia and Russia's commanders are worried about the state of their military, describing them as "desperate".

"We can see that desperation at many levels inside Russian society and inside the Russian military machine. It certainly doesn't imply complacency."

But Fleming also acknowledges that Monday's attacks demonstrate it still has a very capable military operation.

He says the country can still launch missiles and it "has deep, deep stocks and expertise", but notes despite this Russia is still very broadly stretched in Ukraine.

Fleming is due to give a speech later today, where he is expected to also say Ukraine is turning the tide against exhausted Russian forces and that Putin's decision-making has proved to be flawed.

[Jimbuna]

Red Cross warns Russia on civilian lives

The International Committee of the Red Cross last night called for civilian lives and infrastructure in Ukraine to be protected.

In an implicit warning to Russia of its obligations under the Geneva Conventions, the ICRC said it was deeply concerned at the risk to civilian lives of the use of high explosives in populated areas.

It said: "Under international humanitarian law, the effects of hostilities on civilians and civilian infrastructure must be factored into all military operations.

"All possible measures must be taken to protect and spare civilian life and essential infrastructure like health facilities, housing, schools, power plants, and water supplies."

The statement came after a day of air strikes across Ukraine which appeared to target civilian areas, power and water supplies, and medical centres.

The Red Cross also warned that the disruption of these services as winter approaches could significantly increase humanitarian needs.

[Jimbuna]

Strikes targeting civilian infrastructure are war crimes, UN says

Russia may have violated the laws of war with its missile strikes yesterday, the United Nations has said.

A spokeswoman told reporters it was "gravely concerned" that some attacks "appear to have targeted critical civilian infrastructure".

She added that intentionally striking such targets "amounts to a war crime".

"We urge the Russian Federation to refrain from further escalation, and to take all feasible measures to prevent civilian casualties and damage to civilian infrastructure."

Ravina Shamdasani
OHCHR Spokeswoman

[Jimbuna]

No sign Russia considering nuclear weapons - GCHQ

There are no current signs that Russia is considering the use of nuclear weapons in the Ukraine war, the head of GCHQ has said.

Like other US and western officials recently, Sir Jeremy Fleming did not suggest there had been any signs of suspicious activity.

Speaking on Radio 4's Today programme, Sir Jeremy warned that any talk of nuclear weapons was "very dangerous".

GCHQ would hope to see "indicators" if Russia planned to use them, he said.

"Any talk of nuclear weapons is very dangerous and we need to be very careful of how we are talking about that.

"It's clear to me that whilst we might not like and in many ways abhor the ways the Russian military machine and President Putin are conducting this war, they are staying within the doctrine that we understand for their use, including for nuclear weapons."

He added: "I'm sure Putin's worried about the dangers of escalation. He thinks about those in different terms. But I think it is a sign that he has not reached for these other forms of waging war."

The comments come as the head of the intelligence agency plans to say in a speech on Tuesday that Ukraine is turning the tide against "exhausted" Russian forces.

He will say President Vladimir Putin's decision-making has proved "flawed".

"We know - and Russian commanders on the ground know - that their supplies and munitions are running out," Sir Jeremy will say in his speech at the annual Royal United Services Institute security lecture.

He will argue that the mobilisation of prisoners and inexperienced men "speaks of a desperate situation" - and will also directly criticise President Putin as isolated and making mistakes.

Speaking on Radio 4's Today programme about the state of the Russian military, Sir Jeremy said it was "running short of munitions" and "is certainly running short of friends".

"The word I have used is desperate," he said. "We can see that desperation at many levels inside Russian society and Russia's military machine."

But he warned that the missile attacks on targets across Ukraine on Monday showed Russia was still "very capable" of causing damage.

He added: "Russia's military machine can launch weapons, it has deep stocks and expertise. And yet, it is very broadly stretched in Ukraine."

The intelligence chief will also assert that the UK and its allies are at a defining moment when it comes to China.

The director of the intelligence, cyber and security agency will say the costs to Russia of the war in Ukraine - in terms of both people and equipment - are "staggering" as early gains are now reversed.

"With little effective internal challenge, his decision-making has proved flawed. It's a high stakes strategy that is leading to strategic errors in judgement."

Sir Jeremy also claims the Russian people are now starting to understand the problems caused by what he describes as Putin's "war of choice".

"They're seeing just how badly Putin has misjudged the situation," he will say.

"They're fleeing the draft, realising they can no longer travel. They know their access to modern technologies and external influences will be drastically restricted."

In a speech in March, Sir Jeremy said intelligence had showed some Russian soldiers in Ukraine had refused to carry out orders, sabotaged their own equipment and accidentally shot down one of their own aircraft.

The bulk of his lecture on Tuesday focuses on China. He will describe the UK as being at a "sliding doors moment" in which different paths taken will define the future.

He argues the Chinese Communist Party is aiming to manipulate the technology that underpins people's lives to embed its influence at home and abroad and provide opportunities for surveillance.

But the intelligence chief said he would not stop children using TikTok - which is owned by Chinese firm ByteDance - but said young people should be more aware of their personal data and how it could be shared.

"No, I wouldn't (stop children from using TikTok), but I would speak to my child about the way in which they think about their personal data on their device," he told BBC Radio 4's Today programme.

"I think it's really important from a very early age that we understand that there is no free good here. When we are using these services we are exchanging our data for that and if it's proportionate and we're happy with the way that data is safeguarded then that's great.

"Make the most of that, make those videos, use TikTok - but just think before you do," he added.

He will also warn that China is seeking to create "client economies and governments" by exporting technology to countries around the world, saying these countries risk "mortgaging the future" by buying in Chinese technology with "hidden costs".

He will say this includes areas like: new standards for the internet which could provide tracking methods and greater government control; Chinese digital currencies - which could be used to monitor the transactions of users and try to evade the type of sanctions imposed on Russia; and plans for a Chinese satellite system, citing fears it could be used to track individuals.

Chinese control of these areas is not inevitable, he will say, adding: "Our future strategic technology advantage rests on what we as a community do next."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-63207771

[Jimbuna]

[Skybird]

In an interview with the Neue Zürcher Zeitung, nuclear weapons specialist Walter Rüegg explains what impact a deployment of tactical nuclear weapons in Ukraine would have on Switzerland or Germany. As chief physicist, he was a nuclear weapons specialist for the Swiss Army.

Mr. Rüegg, Russia is threatening to use tactical nuclear weapons in the war against Ukraine. What exactly do you mean by these weapons?

We are talking about nuclear weapons with an explosive force of 1 to 100 kilotons of TNT. For comparison, the Hiroshima atomic bomb had an explosive force of 15 kilotons of TNT. Tactical nuclear weapons are used in the battlefield. They are used to achieve tactical advantages in a battle. This is also the reason for their size. It makes no sense to throw megatons into a battlefield. The effect of multiple small nuclear weapons is much greater. Strategic nuclear weapons, on the other hand, are primarily for deterrence. They are actually designed to win a major conflict between two blocs. This would require destroying significant parts of the military and industrial complex with thousands of large bombs. But the chances of mutual destruction are great - that is what deterrence is based on.

Of what type are the tactical nuclear weapons?

Experts agree that today all bombs are only fusion bombs, i.e. hydrogen bombs. This is true even for small tactical weapons. The reason is that one wants to minimize the release of radioactivity in the battlefield. Otherwise, it could hit friendly troops in unfavorable wind conditions.

That means these hydrogen bombs produce less radioactivity than plutonium bombs, such as those used in Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

Yes. The advantage of small, tactical hydrogen bombs is that they produce relatively little fallout. Only the fissile material plutonium is used to detonate the hydrogen bomb. Relatively small amounts are sufficient for this. The fusion reactions themselves do not produce any radioactive fallout. Only some tritium and slightly radioactive bomb material are released. This is negligible compared to the fission products.

How much radioactivity does an explosion release?

The Hiroshima bomb, with an explosive force of 15 kilotons of TNT, left about one kilogram of fission products. But the fuses of tactical nuclear weapons are much smaller. The Russians have a lot of experience with the civilian use of such explosive devices, for example to create artificial lakes. At the same time, they do not want to have fission products. Presumably, the current generation of tactical nuclear weapons is practically clean. We're talking maybe a few hundred grams of fission products.

Is that comparable to the nuclear accidents in Chernobyl and Fukushima?

We are talking about completely different dimensions here. Chernobyl released about 400 times as much of the radioactive isotope cesium-137 as the Hiroshima bomb. And tactical nuclear weapons release even less radioactivity than the Hiroshima bomb because only a small amount of fissile material is needed to detonate the bomb.

So the radiation effect of tactical nuclear weapons is low?

Yes, very low.

In which radius is a high radiation exposure to be expected at all?

That depends on the altitude at which the bomb is detonated. As a rule, it is detonated at a low altitude, because that is when the destruction of military targets is greatest. Then several tens of thousands of tons of earth material vaporize in the fireball. The fireball carries this material several kilometers high into the atmosphere. Afterwards it rains out. This fallout consists of condensed earth material in the form of more or less fine sand, mixed with the fission products and the remaining bomb material. When there is no wind, the material comes back down within a radius of about two kilometers. But it is not always windless. That is, dictated by the wind, there is a typical cigar-shaped distribution. Then the radiation rises sharply for a short time over a distance of 10 to 20 kilometers.

How does the military generally deal with the possibility that a tactical nuclear weapon could be used?

The armies are very well prepared. They know exactly how best to deal with the dangerous situation, both Russian and Ukrainian. I have read the translations of Russian battlefield instructions, and they are very detailed. The civilian population, of course, has no idea; they are then totally dependent on the information provided by civil defense, police and authorities. If the wind blows stronger, the fallout zone can be 30 kilometers or more long, but then the dilution effect is all the greater. And after a few days, the fission products have largely decayed. The rule of thumb is that if you can't see the fallout, it's not dangerous. The fallout comes down clearly visible as sand. If you get into it, you are well advised to find a shelter or a cellar for a few hours or days.

Does that mean then that we here - at a distance of several thousand kilometers - would not notice anything at all?

I doubt that we would be able to detect any of the radioactivity here at all with our normal measuring instruments.

How quickly and in what way would we in the West notice if a tactical nuclear weapon was detonated?

The surveillance satellites would register it instantly. We could also see the earthquake waves, they have typical characteristics. The meteorological institutes would possibly see a shock wave as well. But with radioactivity, we have little chance of measuring anything in the short term.

Doesn't the fireball rise up into the stratosphere, so there could be transport to more distant areas?

No, that can hardly happen with small tactical nuclear weapons. However, it is possible to use larger calibers. Then the fireball can reach the stratosphere. And then it depends on the high-altitude winds: Since there are mainly westerly winds, the chance that we measure anything worth mentioning here in Central Europe is small.

How large is the safety distance that an army would have to maintain in order to use a tactical nuclear weapon?

We talk about two to three kilometers. The heat wave might travel one to two kilometers with a small weapon, the blast wave a similar distance, and the primary radiation might travel 800 meters if you are reasonably protected. The weapons are well suited for battlefield use. But the front is very long. Militarily, it makes no sense to use tactical nuclear weapons today. Modern tanks are reasonably well protected. A small tactical bomb would have to be detonated a few hundred meters from a tank to put it out of action. But the weapons are pulled out of the depots in advance, the intelligence services will register this - this then triggers an advance warning. As a result, one avoids groupings of infantrymen or tanks.

Among the scenarios currently under discussion is a purely deterrent use of a tactical nuclear weapon. What might this look like?

That is one conceivable scenario. For example, a somewhat larger hydrogen bomb could be detonated over the Black Sea as a warning shot. That would have a purely psychological effect - as a deterrent. On the battlefield, the use of tactical nuclear weapons is of little use.

---------------------
All not so bad. Here's to a cold beer!

[mapuc]

You do not get the same answer from three expert if you ask them whether Putin would use nuke or not.

This deepl translation is from the Norwegian newspaper Dagbladet

Expert: The West would destroy Russia
Former Norwegian defence chief Sverre Diesen says the use of nuclear weapons is getting closer, but the West would destroy Russia if it uses tactical nuclear weapons

The war in Ukraine is horrifying most of the world, as are President Putin's repeated nuclear threats.

According to Norwegian researcher, retired general and former defence chief Sverre Diesen, Putin's constant rattling of the nuclear sabre is worrying.

So writes the Norwegian media Dagbladet.

Internal pressure
According to the researcher, the threshold for Russia to use nuclear weapons has drawn closer, not least because Putin threatens to use tactical weapons, but he keeps making threats.

- In doing so, he puts himself in a kind of coercive position. This is because he will lose credibility every time he repeats these threats without anything happening. That's quite worrying, says Diesen.

Sverre Diesen believes that the lack of Russian warmongering, and thus the declining support in the president's inner circle, makes the nuclear threat more likely.

- Especially as he now has an opposition in his inner circle that is starting to become disaffected, in addition to having people around him who actually want Russia to use tactical nuclear weapons in the belief that this is what it will take to deter the West from continuing its support for Ukraine.

Will be crushed by the West
According to the researcher, the most important thing to avoid Russia using their nuclear weapons is that Putin fears the West's reaction.

- Namely, that the biggest risk of these weapons being used lies in the possibility that Putin may think he can get away with it - that the use of nuclear weapons will not be reciprocated. Hopefully, the Americans have explained very carefully to Putin that he must not imagine that, Diesen tells NRK.

Sverre Diesen points out that if Russia uses nuclear weapons, it would legitimise the West's intervention in the war in Ukraine, which the researcher believes would end the war in defeat for Putin.

- This would have a completely devastating effect on the Russian army in Ukraine. That's the end of it, so to speak.

- They will not necessarily respond with similar weapons, but conventional weapons in the first instance, predicts Sverre Diesen.

Darkness, cold and billions of dead: Here are the consequences of a nuclear war


Translated with www.DeepL.com/Translator (free version)

Markus

[Jimbuna]

[Jimbuna]

[Jimbuna]

[Jimbuna]

[Jimbuna]

Ministry of Foreign Affairs responded to Lavrov: "Putin’s regime has lost its chance for negotiations"

The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Ukraine reacted and commented on the words of the Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation Lavrov about the possibility of negotiations between Ukraine and Russia.

This was stated on Facebook by the spokesman of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs Oleh Nikolenko, Censor.NET informs.

"Lavrov's interview on "Russia 1" demonstrates the helplessness of Russian diplomacy. Having become unmanageable abroad, the head of the Russian Foreign Ministry had nothing left but to work out the role of a propagandist for the domestic consumer. From everything said in the interview, only the next attacks on the address of the President of Ukraine. No matter how hard the Russian leadership tries, it cannot break the will of the Ukrainian leader. It is furious with its weakness, which is why it spreads nonsense about "instructions" from Washington and London.

Putin's regime has lost its chance for negotiations. They do not negotiate with terrorists. This is a common world practice. As Volodymyr Zelensky already noted, Ukraine will conduct negotiations with Russia for another Russian president, and also, obviously, another foreign minister. And Lavrov has many more interviews ahead of him - in The Hague, Buchi, Mariupol or in another city that will be determined as the venue for the Russian war criminals' tribunal," Nikolenko said.

It will be recalled that earlier the head of the Russian Foreign Ministry, Sergey Lavrov, said that President Volodymyr Zelensky may change his mind and start negotiations with Russia.

Read more: Mass shelling of Ukraine shows Putin’s weakness, his army will lose - Stoltenberg Source: https://censor.net/en/n3373048

[mapuc]

The main question now is:

Will or can Putin accept a defeat in Ukraine ?

Markus

[Jimbuna]

Ukraine received first air defense system Iris-T from Germany, - Spiegel

Ukraine received the first air defense system Iris-T from Germany.

As Censor.NET informs with reference to NV, this is reported by Spiegel.

According to the publication, the Iris-T was handed over to the Ukrainian military on Tuesday, October 11, near the Polish-Ukrainian border.

In total, the German government intends to transfer four air defense systems of this type to the Armed Forces. Source: https://censor.net/en/n3373045