A false flag operation using radioactive warheads is reportedly aimed at spent nuclear fuel
Ukrainian forces have begun preparations to target nuclear waste storage sites at a Russian power plant with radioactive warheads and to then blame Moscow, according to intelligence received by Russia.
“Sources on the other side report that the [Ukrainians] are preparing a nuclear false flag – an explosion of a dirty atomic bomb,” military journalist Marat Khairullin said Friday on his Telegram channel. “They plan to strike the storage sites of spent nuclear fuel of a nuclear power plant.”
The special warheads intended for the attack have already been delivered to the Vostochny Mining and Processing plant in Zhovti Vody, in Ukraine’s Dnepropetrovsk Region, according to Khairullin.
As possible targets of the attack, Khairullin indicated either the Zaporozhye NPP in Energodar or the Kursk NPP in Kurchatov, noting that the Ukrainian government and its Western backers are “desperate and willing to try anything.”
A security official in the Russian Military Administration of Kharkov Region corroborated Khairullin’s claim to RIA Novosti on Friday. The attack is intended to use radioactive warheads to target spent fuel storage sites at a nuclear power plant, and the ammunition has already been delivered to Zhovti Vody.
Kiev’s intention is to accuse Moscow of a false flag so it could justify using nuclear weapons against Ukraine, the security official said. The Ukrainian government has received orders from its Western backers to “escalate as much as possible,” he added.
According to the security official, the intelligence came from Ukrainian prisoners of war.
Sergey Lebedev, introduced as leader of the Nikolaev Region underground, who said the planned attack would be carried out with NATO weapons, with the consent of the West.
Lebedev pointed out that a large number of Western journalists have already arrived in the Sumy Region near Kursk, as well as the Ukrainian-controlled part of Zaporozhye, suggesting that this is part of Kiev’s preparations for the nuclear false flag.
we're literally under an article about a war being prosecuted despite a nuclear deterrence (the strongest nuclear deterrence in the world btw) but sure what could go wrong with even more doomsday weapons spread across even more actors with varying levels of security, political stability, and responsibility
isn'treal already has nukes is the problem. The unstable golden child will use them before they topple.
indeed, israel makes a very good argument against nuclear proliferation
Cool, so how would you propose taking away Israel's nukes? They won't give them up willingly. Either you show Israel that if they nuke anyone else, they will also get glassed, or you glass them first.
maybe a campaign of economic interdiction, international pressure, and conventional resistance while maintaining an openness for negotiation so less suicidal zionists see a way out that doesn't involve killing themselves. wait is that what the Iran-lead resistance is actually doing
No fucking shit, that doesn't mean that we shouldn't plan for the worst because it makes you feel icky. The cold calculus of war doesn't care about feelings.
"we" shouldn't plan for worst? what "we" is this, because the nuclear proliferation and escalation being broached in this thread is not the line of the actual antiimperialist or existing socialist states, just a couple lemmygraders playing
So socialist/anti-imperialist states shouldn't think ahead then?
what are you even replying to because this is a comment observing a difference in actual policy between China's numbers of warheads and posturing and Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons versus people advocating immediate and multilateral nuclear escalation.
these places have thought about it, in much finer detail and they don't think they need enough nukes to kill every american or that nukes will singularly dissolve israel. how you can twist an argument for trusting the policy of these states into imaginary criticism is remarkable
Just because someone disagrees with you or points out the flaws in your logic doesn't mean you can strawman them.
It's not imaginary criticism either, and furthermore, no one is pressuring Iran or China into building nukes, it's called discussion about the worst possible catastrophes and how to mitigate the extreme risk.
Its the opposite, nuclear deterrence is one of the very few things that can get the US and its vassals to fuck off. Not having them, especially if you're not a major power, opens yourself up to imperialist bullying.
There is one socialist country in the entire western hemisphere, and one of the main reasons it's still standing, was due to Fidel's correct position on nuclear deterrence (which comes with a 100% willingness to use them, despite the pearl-clutching from imperial-core "leftists"). Nothing caused more strain between the Cuba and the USSR, than when the USSR removed them, Fidel was furious. Compare Cuba with all the other attempts in the western hemisphere: Chile, Grenada, etc.
Look at the fate of east asian countries also: compare the DPRK to Indonesia, Vietnam, and all the other interventions after the 1950s.
Cuba had a nuclear deterrent for all of 13 days 60 years ago. They've signed the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons. Cuba as a very stable and well defended country that is no danger to its neighbors wouldn't worry me at all anyway. the persistent thread here is the suggestion that places not like Cuba and the DPRK should have nukes
And what a difference that threat made, even after the US got rid of Kennedy and had more openly warmongering administrations, they never on-the-ground attempted troop invasions like a repeat of the bay of pigs in Cuba again. And look at the 70s-80s especially: a LOT of US troops were on the ground in the caribbean, and central and south america.
Most of us here are advocating that AES countries should have nuclear weapons, opposing the pearl-clutching imperial-core tendency of disarmament for thee, not for me.
Are you opposed in principle to imperialized countries like Palestine having a nuclear deterrent?
Cuba does NOT have a nuclear deterrent! the threat made in 1967 had no power after those weapons were removed. the suggestion that simply expressing you'd use a nuclear weapon is analogous to actually having one is ludicrous.
are you operating on a completely abstracted level? an Actually Existing Socialist Palestinian State might be a place that could use nuclear weapons. but that doesn't exist! "nukes for palestine" in the real world is nukes for multiple non state groups just barely cooperating in a time of grave struggle. can you not recognize the danger that a reactionary force could seize control of them? that a nation divided against itself is a ripe opportunity for the infiltration and influence of imperialists?
And how do you think that war would be going, if Russia had not had that deterrence? Russia's arsenal is the biggest reason why things are only officially a "proxy war."
Frankly, I would trust any non-western, non-western backed states or even most non-state entities with nukes over the western imperialists. If you want to talk about reducing the number of doomsday weapons, perhaps you should look at the ones who introduced them to the world to begin with, and who are being the aggressors across the entire globe, rather than those who are simply trying to resist.
what if Ukraine had nuclear weapons? you can't account for every state's internal security & political rectitude in perpetuity, if Ukraine had kept nuclear weapons to protect itself from the west nazis would have inherited them today.
Almost all countries in the world are run by normal people who simply want to improve the status of their country (and also possibly personally benefit in the process).
The only countries in the world that would benefit by nuking people is the USA, Israel, and maybe NATO allies. This is because they are the current dominant global powers, so nuking anyone else cements their position.
That means giving nukes to any stable country who is not them is objectively a good thing, as it reduces the likelihood that USA and co. can glass others without consequences.
no non-imperial countries ever have wars or competing interests, they've never done bad things to one another. listen to yourself.
if this was a salient strategy the USSR and China would have shipped off nukes to everyone who'd take them, but thankfully they were run by less impulsive people than you
If palestine got nukes the palestinians would not have been genocided
fantasist shit, when were you going to give them one, before the Nakba? the whole fucking conflict springs from Palestine not being a real state that can control things like its borders, a formal military, or a nuclear arsenal.
If yemen got nukes, the yemen people would not have been genocided. If syria had nukes, same. If afghanistan had nukes, same. And of course, libya.
childish magical thinking, an a-bomb would magically reconcile North and South Yemen, all Afghanistan would start holding hands if whoever's in control of Kabul had a nuke silo.
the Jamahiriya is the only state that didn't and reasonably could have but why analyze nuclear weapons as part of the whole conditions of a state? they're instant sovereignty devices apparently
I don't care about your weird technicalities. Give them nukes ASAP.
"weird technicalities" a country having a government not in danger of losing its control of its weapons to a rebel group? what is with this attitude its a two day old thread and you weirdos are still going "nu uh!" without adding literally anything.
Strawmanning much?