Russia has reliable data that the Armed Forces of Ukraine are storing Western weapons at nuclear power plants – SVR

The Foreign Intelligence Service of the Russian Federation reported that there is reliable information about the deployment of three Ukrainian nuclear power plants in the territories. In addition, they said that these “warehouses” house missiles for HIMARS and foreign air defense systems.

If detonation of warehouses and destruction of nuclear power plants occur at Ukrainian nuclear power plants, it is planned to blame Moscow – Foreign Intelligence Service

The Foreign Intelligence Service reported that only in the last week of last year, several railway wagons of the “deadly cargo” were delivered to the Rivne NPP. In the event that a large-scale detonation occurs at Ukrainian nuclear power plants, Kyiv plans to put the blame on Moscow.

“The calculation is based on the fact that the Russian Armed Forces, realizing the danger of a nuclear catastrophe, will not strike at the territories of nuclear power plants. If a large-scale detonation of warehouses and the destruction of a nuclear power plant happen due to the fault of another “stray” Ukrainian air defense missile, then the blame for the tragedy can always be attributed to Moscow,” the Foreign Intelligence Service noted.

source1, source2: Telegram

This is just wonderful. Basically, the Ukrops are keeping the NATO weapons stockpiles in the nuclear power plants, because they figured out that they are the only thing the Russians weren’t calibrating, so it’s safe. So now of course the Russians are frustrated because they have to choose between not achieving military goals, and risking several Chernobyls at once if they do.

I watched a series of YouTube videos by a young woman who is travelling alone across the world in a Land Rover converted into a camper. Yes, it sounds like one of those “conquer your fears, get killed” things, but one thing in particular made me go out on a rant.

At one point, she almost lost a wheel because she didn’t tighten the screws enough, because she was being a strong independent woman and did it herself instead of having a mechanic do it. Then she spent half the video showing how she’s being brave and forward-thinking, and not allowing fears to constrain her, and she’s going to just look forward and not think about the past and waste time thinking “what if”.

The rant I exploded into was “Yeah, that’s such a great idea, it’s good that you didn’t think about anything because your fears and doubts might have motivated you to have the vehicle checked thoroughly for other easily preventable things that might strand you in the middle of a desolate road through the northern wilderness, and that would be such a bad thing, to have your fears rule you. Things such as that loose and corroded electrical connection to the starter motor solenoid, that finally fell off later, exactly in the middle of nowhere, and you had to depend on pure dumb luck of having a guy with another Land Rover close by, and having him fix it.”

I’m trying to identify what is it exactly that’s pissing me off there, and I think it’s the “positive thinking” attitude, or, as I would put it, dealing with issues by refusing to think about them because that causes stressful emotions, and when shit actually happens you “solve” it by making helpless female in distress vocalisations and have someone rescue you so that you can be a strong independent woman successfully dealing with adversity again.

Let me tell you how I approach potential problems, in my negative way that doesn’t give a shit about anyone’s emotions, starting with mine. I make a list of things that would strand me in deep shit if they happened, and I especially focus on things that would leave me in worst shit and would cause the worst emotions, and I identify weaknesses in my position, plans and so on. Then I see if anything can be done about it. If nothing can be done about it, I shrug and go on, because it is pointless to worry about things you can’t influence. For instance, if an asteroid or a nuclear bomb strikes me, I’m dead and there’s nothing I can do about it. However, if electricity goes out for a day, or a week, that’s another matter entirely. Also, if someone hits my car with an RPG and blows it up, it’s a freak event and I can’t prepare for it or do anything about it. However, if I have bald tyres and there’s strong rain and I lose control due to aquaplaning, that’s something I can influence. I can always have good tyres on my car, I can check tyre pressure regularly, and I can adjust speed according to the conditions on the road. Basically, I draw a tree of possibilities and I simply prune the branches that are out of my control, because worrying about those is a waste of effort and stressing about them is pointless. However, it is very much worth the effort to stress over things where I can attenuate or outright prevent problems.

Sure, you can extend this attitude too far and constrain your actions excessively because you see too many things that could possibly go wrong, so you end up not doing anything or going anywhere. The other extreme is being so open-minded your brain falls out, like those people who go on backpacking trips across dangerous areas and news of them being found dead is not really even news at this point, because it happens so often, and this is caused by all this “let’s push your limits” propaganda on social media, where people fail to perceive how those “bold adventurers” are in essence just idiots who regularly fuck up and then have to depend on other people to pull them through. This makes for interesting social media content, but if you make it a lifestyle, you eventually run out of luck and you make the news. Every year we have stupid tourists of this kind going poorly prepared into the Velebit mountain here in Croatia and the mountain rescue service ends up saving their stupid arses. They don’t bring enough water, they dress optimistically and, basically, they all act like stupid children who think that the world is here for their entertainment and adventures and anything dangerous would be “unthinkable” because it causes unpleasant emotions, and so you just don’t think about it and it will all be fine. It’s similar with women who go out alone in the night and think it’s fine because they are wrapped in a bubble of safety caused by thinking they have a “right” not to get raped and robbed. Guess why the prisons are full, dumbass? Because you don’t have a right not to get raped and robbed. It’s just that the state will prosecute and imprison the guy who beat you up and fucked you for hours, then took your phone and wallet and slit your throat for good measure. You have the right to have your murderer/rapist/robber prosecuted, if they can find him.

I get really weirded out when people say that nuclear war is “unthinkable”, which they then translate into “impossible”, and then proceed to act as if they solved that problem and they can provoke a nuclear superpower all they want, because of course there won’t be a nuclear war because that possibility is “too horrible to consider”. Guess what, dumbass: things too horrible for you to consider happen every day. People live their entire lives in ways that are too horrible for you to consider. Your failure to consider very realistic possibilities that cause you to experience strongly unpleasant emotions doesn’t make those possibilities go away; in fact, it actually increases the probability of those events taking place. Not considering the option of being slowly eaten alive by a bear and proceeding to go to a camping trip alone and unarmed doesn’t make you immune to the outcome you found “unthinkable”, it actually makes the statistical intersection of your life and that outcome bigger.

I moved into the new apartment I bought on Hvar island, so one can imagine I was quite busy, and obviously I did not follow the news anywhere as closely as I did in Zagreb. It’s not because I would be lacking in Internet speed; I have 35 Mbit download and 12 Mbit upload:

In Zagreb, I had a “homebox”, basically a router with a built-in SIM card that connects to the 4G network, and I had 24Mbit download and 22Mbit upload. Yes, the upload speed was higher, but the overall speed variability and lag were quite bad. Also, I have 5G mobile coverage here:

Of course that’s on half signal, this is on full signal:

Upload speed is not great on either network, but I managed to get by with a fraction of that, so I guess I’ll live. The download speed is stellar, at least for my standards which are a tenth of this. There are no fiberoptics available on the island, which is unfortunate, but, also, I’ll live, since there weren’t any available on either ot the two locations in Zagreb where I used to live recently. All in all, my Internet connectivity is improved.

The reason why I’m out of touch is that I’m deliberately reducing my exposure to the news, because it was stressing me out so much I needed a break from it all, so it’s intentional and quite deliberate. I check my mail and keep connected to work, I check the private forum, but beyond that, I’m surrounded by a pine forest with crickets and I find this much more appealing than humans, whom I am thoroughly sick of. The main cause for this profound aversion is the fact that they are so abrasively godless, they literally hurt my spiritual inner senses for “listening to God”, and they, spiritually speaking, turn everything they touch into shit, like some kind of anti-Midas. A person who has God in their inner vision turns every place they inhabit into a tirtha, a place of pilgrimage. A godless person turns every place they inhabit into a pigsty, and they remember God only when they are in need of something to curse when they hit their finger.

I watched the new Top Gun movie recently and I actually liked it, but I couldn’t help myself noticing a few things that probably make sense to Americans, and to nobody else.

The hypersonic Mach 10 prototype in the beginning of the movie would have been Russian. The Americans can’t pull that off.

The mission is to bomb some sort of “rogue state’s” underground nuclear facility that’s protected by SAM’s and 5-gen fighters. What kind of a country has 5-gen fighters and still doesn’t have nukes? The 5-gen fighters in the movie are the SU-57 with a dark color scheme, probably to appear more villainous, but the target description looks more like Iran. The target is an underground facility inside something that looks like a deep crater in the mountains, which makes no sense whatsoever, because how would that thing even get built there? Also, why would anyone build it in terrain so difficult to defend properly, and then leave the “air vent” at the bottom of the damn crater where it’s actually the least likely to vent anything? This looks like something of a Bond villain’s lair, if anything, but I guess the Americans think it’s perfectly plausible that “villains” do crazy things like that. After all, they are “rogue” and “crazy” and intend to destroy the world because, well, evil.

The mission is almost an ideal case for either a cruise missile attack through the canyon, using TERCOM/DSMAC guidance, or an overhead attack from either high altitude or using a hypersonic deorbiting vehicle. To use fighter jets in such a scenario is utterly insane, for several reasons. First, the probability of success is extremely low, because it exceeds realistic capability of both pilots and airplanes. Second, the political implications of planes shot down and pilots getting captured and paraded on TV are unpleasant. Third, the tomahawks give you an almost endless number of second chances, unlike the fighter-bomber assault, which either works in the first attempt or not at all. Also, the tomahawks were indeed used to attack a nearby airfield, which implies that they went through the target air defenses without difficulty, which is not realistic, but if it worked on the airfield, why not through the canyon and into the crater? After all, the Tomahawks don’t really need to be fast, since they are not attempting to get out of there alive after striking the target.

The assault is launched from an aircraft carrier, and it somehow doesn’t get noticed in advance, there are no enemy ships with anti-aircraft missiles intercepting the assault, there are no radar stations on the coast to detect either the airplanes or the Tomahawks, and yet the country has lethal air defenses elsewhere, and 5-gen fighters. How in the hell would that be a realistic scenario? Even Iran would send a hundred patrol boats with MANPADs to harass the intruder. Anyone capable would have the shore bristling with mobile radars and rocket launches the moment American fleet was noticed anywhere near the nautical border. The canyon and crater defenses would be the last line of defense, not the first thing the Americans would encounter. In fact, the aircraft carrier would have to live in constant fear of being struck by hypersonic missiles from either the shore or the enemy ships, in a several hundred kilometer range. Also, it would have to live in fear of enemy hunter-seeker submarines. After all, we’re talking about a foe that has SU-57 fighters. The moment the enemy figures out where the attack came from, that aircraft carrier is in acute danger of becoming a radioactive coral reef.

The defending SU-57 fighter jets are called “bandits” by the Americans. How is someone defending his country from a foreign invader a “bandit”? But that’s how the Americans see the world. A country doing things on its own territory that America did during the WW2 is “rogue”, its defenders are “bandits”, and the Americans attacking a foreign country by a sneak Pearl Harbor-like attack, they are the “good guys”.

Other than that, the movie was great. 🙂