Russia and Ukraine Current Events

LilWabbit

Senior Member
you're in the wrong thread.

Not in this context.

If we are to explore the hypothesis of Russian sabotage of the Polish pipeline carrying Russian oil, it would support the same false-flag logic where Putin gets to blame Poland for the sabotage as a beneficiary in cahoots with the USA.

Poland claiming it's an accident would in fact deflect such an accusation whilst not Putin's main 'veiled' signal of Russian capability to disrupt Europe.
 
Last edited:

deirdre

Senior Member.
No. But if Poland would claim it's Russian sabotage (a claim which would be a serious escalation into a NATO conflict), he likely would.

How old is the pipeline in Poland?

Article:
The 2.5 million miles of America’s pipelines suffer hundreds of leaks and ruptures every year, costing lives and money. As existing lines grow older, critics warn that the risk of accidents on those lines will only increase.
 

LilWabbit

Senior Member
How old is the pipeline in Poland?

Article:
The 2.5 million miles of America’s pipelines suffer hundreds of leaks and ruptures every year, costing lives and money. As existing lines grow older, critics warn that the risk of accidents on those lines will only increase.

Even if such accidents do happen, the convenient timing still begs the question.
 

deirdre

Senior Member.

LilWabbit

Senior Member
fyi, that's the type of thing we hear conspiracy theorists say all the time here.

With the key difference that the other cases do not usually have sound reasons to suspect clandestine operations by a country led by a former KGB operative at a time where it's in nobody's interest to claim Russian aggression on a NATO country. But rather to play it down.

Anyway, it could be just an accident. All I'm saying is let's not naively accept the accident narrative so swiftly offered. Not that we can conclude it's not. Given the timing and the context, it doesn't look like an accident. But looks can deceive.
 

Hevach

Senior Member.
Pretty good indication we've gotten all the reliable information about the bridge attack we will see, unless somebody claims responsibility.

Source: https://twitter.com/OAlexanderDK/status/1580088362991759360


Russia has released what they claimed to be an X-ray from the truck's inspection before crossing the bridge, and it has a different number of axles from the truck seen in previously released video of the visual step of the same inspection.

This isn't a new thing in Russia, and not just under Putin. Showing weakness is a good way to jump out of a window and land on some bullets so when you've been caught being incompetent and possibly letting a bomb through your inspection point you've got to make a good show of proving you did more than expected and the person who got past you had to be some kind of genius infiltrator. See also: the cartoonishly silly stories of what it took to kill Rasputin. Because no mere man could be seen outmaneuvering two consecutive governments like that.
 

Mendel

Senior Member.
Russia has released what they claimed to be an X-ray from the truck's
Do we have a link to that release?

I was going to post on the passport story, but detector media doesn't give a source apart from "social media", so it's uncertain who created or published it.
 

Mendel

Senior Member.
Pretty good indication we've gotten all the reliable information about the bridge attack we will see, unless somebody claims responsibility.

Source: https://twitter.com/OAlexanderDK/status/1580088362991759360


Russia has released what they claimed to be an X-ray from the truck's inspection before crossing the bridge, and it has a different number of axles from the truck seen in previously released video of the visual step of the same inspection.
It gets better:
SmartSelect_20221012-180242_Samsung Internet.jpg

Source: https://twitter.com/OAlexanderDK/status/1580170632846680064
 

NorCal Dave

Senior Member.
Saw this story this morning:

Russia's Federal Security Service, known by the Russian acronym FSB, said it arrested five Russians and three citizens of Ukraine and Armenia in the attack on the Kerch Bridge. A truck loaded with explosives blew up while driving across the bridge Saturday, killing four people and causing sections of road to collapse.

The FSB alleged the detained suspects acted on orders of Ukraine’s military intelligence to secretly move the explosives by a convoluted route into Russia and forge accompanying documents.

The Russian security services have pointed the finger at Ukraine’s intelligence directorate and its head, Kyrylo Budanov. Ukraine's Defense Ministry on Wednesday dismissed accusations of Ukrainian involvement.

“The entire activity of the FSB and the Investigative Committee is nonsense,” Defense Ministry spokesman Andriy Yusov told reporters.
Content from External Source
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/worl...attack-ukraine-plant-loses-power/ar-AA12RZ83?

At least for this story, it might be Russians and Ukrainians along with an Armenian.
 

Mendel

Senior Member.
Evidence and a theory
Feos7hZXgAA5Egf.jpeg.jpg

Source: https://twitter.com/ChuckPfarrer/status/1579127075369537536


Objections: the launch and flight of this missile are hard to hide

Note that all "light from above" arguments ignore that the lines on a digital image don't all reflect the same moment in time; the image gets brighter towards the top because the camera scans in that sequence, so the accumulating brightness simply reflects the scene as whole getting brighter.
 

benthamitemetric

Senior Member
I think a truck bomb fits with all of the direct evidence we have. That evidence could also be consistent with a large missile hitting that same truck, but we don't have any independent evidence of a missile.

The fact that the truck exploded near the fuel cars on the train but in the wrong lane to maximize damage to the bridge suggests to me that the truck was detonated intentionally by someone looking to maximize damage to the bridges but who was not in full control of the truck. That could mean that Ukrainian (or just anti-Russian) operatives planted a denotation device on a truck that they knew to be carrying something explosive (e.g., powerful munitions or fertilizer) and then detonated it remotely. It's also possible that the truck driver was a suicide bomber who just didn't get in the best lane due to adrenalin addling his or her thought processes.
 

BombDr

Senior Member.
Evidence and a theory
Feos7hZXgAA5Egf.jpeg.jpg

Source: https://twitter.com/ChuckPfarrer/status/1579127075369537536


Objections: the launch and flight of this missile are hard to hide

Note that all "light from above" arguments ignore that the lines on a digital image don't all reflect the same moment in time; the image gets brighter towards the top because the camera scans in that sequence, so the accumulating brightness simply reflects the scene as whole getting brighter.
It’s not a missile. A missile would leave debris of itself and a point of detonation/impact which is absent.

None of the decks appear to be penetrated or leaving a blast fan on the road surface, or impact scoring.

On the information that I currently have, which is always subject to change, I would assert that it was a vehicle borne IED, of which I would also assert is of the ANFO variety.

ANFO is ammonium nitrate and fuel oil (diesel). It’s easy to store unmixed without arousing suspicion and can be mixed in barrels and loaded on a truck.

The other reason I suspect this is that ANFO is a low explosive with a slower rate of detonation, and often exhibits a large fireball of combusting gasses as shown in the cctv of the explosion. This is simple brute force of applying a lot of energy onto a deck that overstretched its load capacity. It’s inefficient in pure demolition terms, but a good solution in the circumstances of wanting to get an explosive charge on a bridge.

A missile will be loaded with high explosive which will have more of a rapid blast and brief fireball/flash.

This video explains the different quite well:
Source: https://youtu.be/OOWcTV2nEkU
 

Ann K

Senior Member.
Who is Oliver Alexander? Why is just stating via social media he can "independent confirm" anything without presenting evidence credible?
Good question. All I can find about him is that he relies on OSINT (open source intelligence) which, I think, means that he is just as likely to gather propaganda as facts as he lets his fingers do the walking through the internet.
 

Mauro

Senior Member
Conflict Intelligence Team reports about the Russian version of the events:

The [Russian] Federal Security Service reported that they had identified the organizers and perpetrators of the explosion on the Crimean bridge. They named Kyrylo Budanov, head of the Ukrainian Defense Ministry's Main Intelligence Directorate, as the main organizer. According to the investigators, the bombs were masked with rolls of construction polyethylene foil on 22 pallets with a total weight of over 22 tons. In early August, the cargo was shipped from the port of Odesa to the Bulgarian city of Ruse, after which it was transported to Georgia, and then to Armenia. And in late September or early October, the cargo was cleared according to EEU rules at the "Transalliance'' terminal in Yerevan. After that, the documentation was changed, and the Armenian "GU AR DJI GROUP" company became the consignor, and the Moscow "Leader" company became the consignee.

After that, on October 4, a DAF two-axle truck registered in Georgia entered Russia at the Verkhny Lars border checkpoint, where it was X-rayed (the FSB published a photo), and two days later the cargo was delivered to a wholesale warehouse in Armavir.
According to the FSB, the documents for the cargo were then changed again. TEK-34, a company registered in Ulyanovsk, became the shipper, while a non-existent Crimean company was booked as the recipient. Two Ukrainian nationals – Solomko and Vladimir Zloba, as well as five identified Russian nationals, were involved. On October 6, the pallets were loaded into a three-axle truck belonging to Mahir Yusubov, a Russian national. The truck headed to Simferopol and has not been X-rayed again.
Our team is not sure whether the explosives were planted in the cargo at one of the first stages, this does not directly follow from the FSB report. The easiest way would be to plant and disguise an explosive device at a warehouse in Armavir.
https://notes.citeam.org/dispatch-oct-11-12

It appears the truck which was X-rayed was not the same truck which then blew up, so no contradictions here [the referenced article includes pictures, inclouding the X-ray one].


A missile is quite improbable: it would have been tracked by multiple systems, missiles are launched in salvos, no reports of air defences trying to intercept, and Ukraine is not know to have missiles with the required range, precision and payload (an ATACMS would have the required range and precision, but it only has a 500lb/225kg payload).
 

NorCal Dave

Senior Member.
Found this referencing Oliver Alexander's claim (bold by me):

"The truck and trailer visible in the x-ray images is not the same truck as is visible in the CCTV camera footage released showing the truck being inspected though," Oliver Alexander wrote.

The two apparently different vehicles also featured in some of the articles published by Russian state outlets, including RIA Novosti.

However, as other experts point out, the original FSB press release does not claim that the photos show the same truck.

In fact, the statement clarifies that two vehicles were used in the supposed "sabotage" operation.

The first was a DAF truck, which transported the load from Georgia or Armenia to Armavir in Southern Russia. That is the truck that had undergone the x-ray inspection at the border, according to the FSB.

The load was then allegedly placed on a second truck, an International ProStar (which also had a red cabin, adding to the confusion), which was not scanned, although it was searched by the security guards when coming onto the bridge.

So while the two images have been used in juxtaposition to suggest that the Russian authorities had "messed up," the claim is misleading.

All of the above comes with a significant caveat that, as no independent investigators have been allowed to take part, there is no way to verify the FSB's claims that either of the trucks did actually carry any explosives, or otherwise were linked to the explosion.

And even if they were, it is not clear who was behind it, or how the truck loaded with explosives would have gotten past the security in what Russia claims to be one of the most strongly protected structures in the country.
Content from External Source
s://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/fact-check-did-russia-s-fsb-share-fake-x-ray-of-crimea-bridge-blast-truck/ar-AA12SuYk?
 

Landru

Moderator
Staff member
What facts do you think I've spun @Mendel? Pinpoint them and I'll address them.

To not see in the timing of the alleged 'accident' anything curious appears to me as a lack of appreciation of a universe of facts as regards the geopolitical context and regional history. In addition to naivetë in accepting the narrative of 'an accident'. Disclaimer: Me stating all this does not preclude the possibility it actually is an accident.



Unlike Berger who swiftly jumped to claim "accident", I haven't assumed a thing. I have pointed out that this new leak adds credence to Russia's geopolitical signalling claim which, in turn, regards plausible deniability as a given. It's supposed to look like an accident. "Adds credence" is not logically equivalent to "assuming". A historical pattern of activities by a repeat offender adds credence to the claim that a new event seemingly following the same pattern points to the same offender. It's a sensible claim. But it's still unproven.



I think that's a simplistic claim which you do not have the credentials to make authoritatively. Cite an expert. And even if it has left obvious clues, there's reason to deny any existence of such clues on the part of a NATO government as well as Russia at this sensitive and inflammatory juncture of the conflict.



That's another simplification which you do not have the credentials to make authoritatively. Cite an expert.

@Landru, while I agree with the guideline on most issues, there's a caveat which I'd like you to consider here.

It gets tricky to converse even at a basic level of exploring relevant hypotheses if we premise it on direct evidence while discussing operations where plausible deniability (i.e. calculated attempts at producing 'no direct evidence') is the prime objective.

But if that's your ruling, I will abide by it.
Making stuff up is not exploring relevant hypothesis. It's just making stuff up.
 

LilWabbit

Senior Member
Making stuff up is not exploring relevant hypothesis. It's just making stuff up.

Let's get this clear: Are you saying Russian sabotage is not a relevant hypothesis for the Polish PERN pipeline leak?

If you are, then we need someone else to moderate this thread @Mick West. Someone who knows the geopolitical context and doesn't just make stuff up about 'making stuff up'.

Even the Polish authorities are not excluding other scenarios besides accident.

Article:
A Polish government security official, Stanislaw Zaryn, said the leak could be the result of an accident, but that officials were still investigating and were looking at all possible explanations.

“Different scenarios are possible. We don’t exclude any of them,” he told The Associated Press.
 
Last edited:

Landru

Moderator
Staff member
Let's get this clear: Are you saying Russian sabotage is not a relevant hypothesis for the Polish PERN pipeline leak?

If you are, then we need someone else to moderate this thread @Mick West. Someone who knows the geopolitical context and doesn't just make stuff up about 'making stuff up'.

Even the Polish authorities are not excluding other scenarios besides accident.

Article:
A Polish government security official, Stanislaw Zaryn, said the leak could be the result of an accident, but that officials were still investigating and were looking at all possible explanations.

“Different scenarios are possible. We don’t exclude any of them,” he told The Associated Press.
Do you have evidence of Russian sabotage? Or Polish, US or any sabotage?
 

Landru

Moderator
Staff member
From The Posting Guidelines

The goals of Metabunk are
  1. To find and expose bunk
  2. To prevent bunk from forming and spreading.
  3. To develop and promote efficient methods of finding, exposing, and preventing bunk
  4. To create re-usable debunkings (antibunk)
  5. To help people escape the rabbit hole, either directly, or by giving tools to their friends
 

BombDr

Senior Member.
What did you make of the hole indicated in the lower left of the diagram? Incidental damage?
Its too clean for a missile or bomb strike and the kinetic energy would most likely bend the steel rebar and supports through the direction of travel.
apartment-ceiling-bilal-02-1549654117.jpeg
I could be wrong.
 

FatPhil

Senior Member.
Its too clean for a missile or bomb strike and the kinetic energy would most likely bend the steel rebar and supports through the direction of travel.
apartment-ceiling-bilal-02-1549654117.jpeg
I could be wrong.

Is that image supposed to be contrasting something against something else, or highlighting the similarities between something and something else? And what are the something and the something else, and why did you chose that particular something else? Would other something elses also have been available to either compare similarities with or contrast differences against?
 

benthamitemetric

Senior Member
For a missile to have impacted the truck and yet not appear on the security footage, it would have to have been traveling very fast, perhaps faster than a typical cruise missile. Perhaps someone who is more skilled with video editing than I can ascertain the framerate of the original security camera footage. From there, we could calculate how fast a missile would need to be traveling to hit the truck and explode without appearing at all in the prior frame. We of course could not rule out that someone shot a very fast, radar avoiding missile at the bridge, the evidence of which was all blown into the ocean upon its impact, but, at some point, I think Occam's razor will have to take the wheel and drive us towards the conclusion that the truck that blew up on camera contained a truck-sized bomb.
 

BombDr

Senior Member.
Is that image supposed to be contrasting something against something else, or highlighting the similarities between something and something else? And what are the something and the something else, and why did you chose that particular something else? Would other something elses also have been available to either compare similarities with or contrast differences against?
Sorry for not being clear. This image I chose as as an example of a concrete and steel plate that had been penetrated by an air dropped weapon.
Screenshot 2022-10-13 at 00.28.23.png
The photo above of the road deck does not seem to be deformed in a similar way and without any bending in of support material. It is possible that further damage is obscured by being under water, but for the reasons above I am doubting a missile strike.
 

Duke

Active Member
For a missile to have impacted the truck and yet not appear on the security footage, it would have to have been traveling very fast, perhaps faster than a typical cruise missile. Perhaps someone who is more skilled with video editing than I can ascertain the framerate of the original security camera footage. From there, we could calculate how fast a missile would need to be traveling to hit the truck and explode without appearing at all in the prior frame. We of course could not rule out that someone shot a very fast, radar avoiding missile at the bridge, the evidence of which was all blown into the ocean upon its impact, but, at some point, I think Occam's razor will have to take the wheel and drive us towards the conclusion that the truck that blew up on camera contained a truck-sized bomb.
Don't disagree with you or BombDr, looks to me like some type of vehicle mounted bomb as well. I really liked BombDr's initial post on the topic earlier today. What I do want to do is briefly clarify a couple points and some terminology for the laymen that have been used in the discussion.

First, you used the term "cruise missile" in your post here. A cruise missile is (generally) a relatively slow moving (+/- 500mph), jet powered missile designed to carry a large warhead over a long distance. They tend to fly closer to the ground to avoid radar detection and lessen the change of bring shot down, particularly by AAA. They can "pop up" as they near a target to hit a specific location if programmed to do so. Cruise missiles can be launched from land, sea, and air. And I agree, a cruise missile would probably have been seen on the videos.

In his Twitter post (posted here by Mendel) that started this conversation, Chuck Pfarrer asserted the bridge was struck by an ATACMS. This is a tactical battlefield ballistic missile powered by a rocket motor with a top speed of 2000-3000 miles an hour, but with a smaller payload and shorter range than a jet powered cruise missile. It is a surface-to-surface weapon fired from a ground based tactical platform. In all likelihood, this would not have been seen on video. While you are just as dead if hit by either, they are designed/built for different missions.

Just as there are a variety of missile types and methods of deployment, there are also a number of warheads that can be installed as a function of the mission being undertaken. For example, there are fragmentation munitions employed against personnel and soft-skinned targets like vehicles, high explosive and/or incendiary for harder targets, and of course nuclear warheads. Warheads can be detonated on ground impact or in midair as an "airburst."

Others have already offered explanations as to why this wasn't missile strike, and I agree. Keep in mind, however, bomb damage assessment (DBA) is both a science and art that requires varying degrees of analysis and interpretation by skilled analysts. I'm pretty sure there are NATO experts looking at photos/videos from both open and classified sources coming to defensible conclusions about what happened.
 
Last edited:

LilWabbit

Senior Member
PERN services are investigating at the pipeline leak site. Deformation of the PERN trunk pipeline suggests an accidental leak. No signs of third-party interference at this point. Exact cause of the incident still undetermined.

Article:
As PERN conveyed in a communiqué, after removing most of the debris from the area near the crude oil pipeline damaged yesterday, the company’s technical services have located the site of the spill. “From the first findings and from the manner in which the pipeline was deformed, it appears that at this point there are no signs of third-party interference,” – the information noted.

At the same time, PERN stipulated that detailed analyses are underway “to determine the cause of the incident and to repair the trunk line so that the pumping of the raw material can start as soon as possible”.
 

FatPhil

Senior Member.
One of my first jobs out of university was in designing and implementing a document control system for engineering blueprints, transferring them over from tubes of A0 plots to the digital realm. Initially just a prototype for for British Gas, the plan was to use this for a cooperative project with Agip and .... Karachaganakgazprom. Apparently the latter had such a terrible paper document control system that most maintenance was performed by sense of smell, rather than referring to the docs. I was led to believe that this held for the entire Soviet sphere of influence, and that it worked unsurprisingly badly. Basically, leaks were always, and everywhere. I'm not saying Poland's Kazakhstan, but I wouldn't be surprised if such occurences were mostly nothingburgers, and they're only having attention drawn to them because of heightened sensitivity generally.
 

obiwanbenobi

Active Member
... We of course could not rule out that someone shot a very fast, radar avoiding missile at the bridge, the evidence of which was all blown into the ocean upon its impact, but, at some point, I think Occam's razor will have to take the wheel and drive us towards the conclusion that the truck that blew up on camera contained a truck-sized bomb.

I don't think it was a missile or submarine atack either. The lack of evidence is, um, striking...
 

BombDr

Senior Member.
If there was any evidence, however flimsy, of any NATO supplied missile attacking the Kerch Bridge, I imagine the Russian propaganda apparatus would be screaming blue murder about it.
 

Duke

Active Member
If there was any evidence, however flimsy, of any NATO supplied missile attacking the Kerch Bridge, I imagine the Russian propaganda apparatus would be screaming blue murder about it.
Or ignoring/denying it completely to both save face and further Putin's "terrorist" rant. Infrastructure is a legitimate target for military forces in time of war. If the Russians admitted it was hit by a missile, they change from victims of cowardly terrorists to combatants hit by the military of nation at which they are at war of their own making.

But if wasn't a missile.
 
Top