Massive explosion in Ukraine.

[video="youtube;4lb1TAMTZv8"]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4lb1TAMTZv8[/video]

:eek:

Doesn't look good at all.

http://rt.com/news/230459-donetsk-explosion-ukraine-shelling/

Would a chemical plant do that? Presumably you'd have materials in various stages of preparation and some finished munitions. So lot's of highly flammable stuff and lots of separate explosive devices. Doesn't seem as tho that lot would go up in a single explosion with no fire afterwards.

(edited 9 years ago)

Reply 1

jakeel1

Not surprised when you have a bunch of fascist thugs with few resources and a crap understanding of science and management governing the region.

Reply 2

R£SP£CT

Very worrying indeed. Hope no one got hurt. This needs to be controlled asap or we could find ourselves close to a Cuban missile crisis-esque situation. The west are playing a dangerous game against Russia which will only end badly for both.

Reply 3

Aj12

Original post by R£SP£CT

Are the west trying to station nuclear weapons in Ukraine? Or is russia trying to station nukes in Mexico? How is the situation going to become anything like the Cuban missile crisis?

Both sides are already doing a lot to deseculate the situation, tensions are nothing like the cold war.

If anyone is playing a dangerous game it is clearly russia.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 4

R£SP£CT

Original post by Aj12

Not an actual renactment of the crisis but a similar situation where there is a plausible risk of a nuclear war between NATO and Russia. Since the demise of the soviet union the west have been playing a dangerous game in provoking Russia. They've managed to cripple the Russian economy through sanctions, which can have direct repercussions for parts of Europe as I believe there is some level of trade between the two. They've also edged closer to Russia's border through NATO expansion and yet Russia have hardly responded. Russia are not exactly saints in this but I do believe the west have a greater share of the blame for current tensions. NATO have also been building up a military presence close to Russia. Back to Ukraine. Ukraine shares a border with Russia. This makes any sort of military escapade within Russia's borders a legitimate security risk. Considering how quick Russia took Crimea back under its wing it wouldn't be foolish to assume that Russia would react just as quick if not more if NATO decided to help Kiev.

Given everything though I don't think Russia would want war as they are economically/militarily inferior to their NATO counterparts and they haven't really fully recovered from ww2 and its effects. I don't think its in Russias interest to seek out a war between herself and the west any time soon however with that said, under Putin, Russia won't exactly stand down. So if ever a situation of war broke out in the near future Russia wouldn't hesitate to use nukes.

Reply 5

Aj12

Original post by R£SP£CT

I just do not see it happening. If Putin tries doing what he has done in Ukraine, in say a NATO member then maybe. But neither side has the interests at stake in Ukraine to make risking a nuclear exchange worthwhile.

To be perfectly honest Putin shattered his own economy through an over reliance on oil to fund state spending. As well as the corruption and inefficiency within the economy that Putin has done nothing about and also made worse. Sanctions have only had such an effect on Russia because they came at the same time as a huge drop in the price of oil. Europe also recently postponed further sanctions to allow diplomacy to work. Europe is quite willing to see the situation deescalated, it all depends on Putin where things go next.

But NATO has not been trying to get Ukraine to join. Putin's actions have led to NATO members in the east getting tetchy so a projection of force was necessary to placate them. Fifteen years ago people were asking what purpose did NATO have? The War on Terror gave it more of a purpose again but only a temporary one. The aggressive actions of Russia have given it purpose again, in Ukraine, in Georgia in 2008, through rearming and the testing of banned nuclear weapons and finally through flying bombers close to the airspace of other countries, in one case almost hitting a civilian plane. These are not the actions of a victimized country, but one that is trying to intimidate its neighbors and create a sphere of influence.

Russia clearly does not want war but this situation cannot be presented as being instigated by the West. Russia needs to understand that this is not the mid 20th century any more. You cannot simply carve out a buffer zone of nearby countries because you still fear an invasion.

Reply 6

green.tea

Original post by Aj12

But each side has interests in not being the one to blink first. If the "This might start ww3" side prevails in the argument over arming Ukraine then all Russia will have to do is look like it might start ww3 in order to paralyse the west. It would actually encourage Russian aggression leaving us having to deal with an emboldened Russia in the future. It would also hugely strengthen Puitin's position within Russia. A Russian U-turn would weaken it.

On the other hand, this sort of brinkmanship could actually start ww3.

Reply 7

R£SP£CT

Original post by Aj12

I'm not so sure. This enitre thing started because of Europe insisting on signing an agreement which essentially ruled out Russia and created a policy of resisting Russia. Putin saw this and urged Yanukovych not to sign the deal. Tbh I don't blame Putin for taking this course of action. I mean NATO has taken pretty much all the ex-soviet states under its belt within 2 decades.

I don't think sanctions against Russia works. Putin is stern and very perceptive. As are the people who back him. He has a strong backing from the population too. Tbh what Europe are doing now,they should have done prior to the civil war eruption in February. An agreement which involves Russia, Ukraine and the west should have been the way forward from the start. Any suggestion of submission and Putin is gone. If Europe played her cards right maybe that way they could have avoided the bloodshed. Yes he has but thats expected given the huge energy reserves Russia has. It could be one of the reasons why the west feels so threatened.

But NATO has not been trying to get Ukraine to join. Putin's actions have led to NATO members in the east getting tetchy so a projection of force was necessary to placate them. Fifteen years ago people were asking what purpose did NATO have? The War on Terror gave it more of a purpose again but only a temporary one. The aggressive actions of Russia have given it purpose again, in Ukraine, in Georgia in 2008, through rearming and the testing of banned nuclear weapons and finally through flying bombers close to the airspace of other countries, in one case almost hitting a civilian plane. These are not the actions of a victimized country, but one that is trying to intimidate its neighbors and create a sphere of influence.

Russia clearly does not want war but this situation cannot be presented as being instigated by the West. Russia needs to understand that this is not the mid 20th century any more. You cannot simply carve out a buffer zone of nearby countries because you still fear an invasion.

My take on this crisis puts the west mainly at fault. Whatever the west say and do they always seem to back track. What actions are you referring to? Joining NATO was always going to be a sign of aggression in the eyes of Russians. This is perhaps I put the west at fault. Russia is a huge partner of the west in many aspects of world life and will remain so for the considerable future. Even in Georgia. Sakashvilli was a client of the west and eyed NATO membership. What would you have Russia do? Tbh though both Russia and the west are guilty of stirring things up through military exercises etc. I really hope this peace deal works out. But it has to be serious. You cannot deprive one side of a country and come to an agreement of peace. Russia isn't going to allow it.