Ukraine’s security service blew up a railway connection linking Russia to China, in a clandestine strike carried out deep into enemy territory, with pro-Kremlin media reporting that investigators have opened a criminal case into a “terrorist attack.”
The SBU set off several explosions inside the Severomuysky tunnel of the Baikal-Amur highway in Buryatia, located some 6,000 kilometers east of Ukraine, a senior Ukrainian official with direct knowledge of the operation told POLITICO.
“This is the only serious railway connection between the Russian Federation and China. And currently, this route, which Russia uses, including for military supplies, is paralyzed,” the official said.
Four explosive devices went off while a cargo train was moving inside the tunnel. “Now the (Russian) Federal Security Service is working on the spot, the railway workers are unsuccessfully trying to minimize the consequences of the SBU special operation,” the Ukrainian official added.
Ukraine’s security service has not publicly confirmed the attack. Russia has also so far not confirmed the sabotage.
OP missed the fun bit after the tunnel bombing:
The first cargo train exploded directly in the Severomuysky tunnel.
To continue transportation, the Russians began to use the detour route through the so-called Devil’s Bridge — a 35-meter high viaduct structure, which is part of the Trans-Siberian Railway. At that point, SBU saboteurs struck again.
“When the train was passing over this 35-meter high bridge, the explosive devices embedded in it went off,” the same official added.
Damn impressive.
Sounds straight out of a WWII action/spy/war movie.
I think I played that mission in Commandos: Behind enemy Lines
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I’m open-source; check me out at GitHub.
I’m sure plenty of similar things happened in every war ever.
What, even the ones predating locomotives?
Ha sorry, I didn’t mean to imply scenarios involving locomotives. I referred more to the ingenuity of warriors to carry through clever attacks.
Thanks for the details
Just to add, according to Denys Davidov’s report on ukraine, the first train was carrying jet fuel, which added to the whole explosion.
Jet fuel can’t blow up steel beams! Wake up sheeple!
Jet fuel can’t blow up steel beams! Wake up sheeple!
Wasn’t that the reason though that the Twin Towers in NY fell, because the jet fuel melted the steel beams infrastructure?
I had read/seen that the buildings were actually designed to handle a plane crashing into them, but the architects didn’t expect the metal beams to melt from the high-temperature burning jet fuel.
My understanding is that the beams were sprayed with a fire retardant foam that is designed to protect it in the event of a typical building fire. But the violent impact of the jets would have stripped most of it off, and the jet fuel did indeed weaken the beams. They wouldn’t have melted outright, but softening them after already being damaged by the impact was more than it could handle.
That’s my understanding as well.
And that the fire retardant foam was designed to be hit by an airplane and stay on, but it was just designed in those days for a smaller 737 impact, and not for a heavybody plane, so it got knocked off, exposing the beams.
Edit: Lol, ok, meant beams, not beans.
exposing the beans.
Lemmy moment.
This lemming eatin beans!
Dammit put a NSFW warning on that post!!!
There could be children in here!!!
You guys are all government sheeple! Everyone knows the Twin Towers never existed and 9/11 was a hologram!
I stil remember going to a wedding reception on the top floor - it all seemed so real
A yes, a fire removedant.
It didn’t need to melt, raising the temperature of steel decreases it’s strength.
it’s strength
It is, is it?
It is strength that decreased
it’s its strenth that decreased
Yeah it’s a really dumb meme because obviously it can. The ancient Romans worked steel, so obviously it doesn’t have a particularly high melting temperature.
Jet fuel can’t melt steel beams. It doesn’t burn nearly hot enough.
However, for a structure to fail you don’t need to melt the beams, and getting them hot enough will also damage their structural integrity; they’ll fail long before they reach the melting point.
And this is what happened on 9/11.
Even wood alone is capable of getting steel red hot under the right condition. Given my experience was with metal floor grating in a burn barrel. The steel became easily malleable with just a metal rod.
It’s a conspiracy theory, and not a particularly intelligent one. Us normies like to make jokes like this mocking people who believe it, but they do actually believe it and will come up with some batshit insane logic to support their theories.
I haven’t heard of anything to refute that, and have heard things to confirm that.
If you have any info you’d like to submit, please do so.
Edit: By refute that, I mean refuting that the jet fuel burning caused the metal to weaken onto collapse.
If you have any info you’d like to submit, please do so.
Well, here’s what 5 minutes of research yielded
For example, according to www.911research.wtc7.net, steel melts at a temperature of 2,777 degrees Fahrenheit, but jet fuel burns at only 1,517 degrees F. No melted steel, no collapsed towers.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/fahrenheit-2777/
All materials weaken with increasing temperature and steel is no exception. Strength loss for steel is generally accepted to begin at about 300°C and increases rapidly after 400°C. By 550°C steel retains approximately 60% of its room temperature yield strength, and 45% of its stiffness.
Jet fuel burns at 1500f, which is 815c. At 800c steel retains less than 20% of the strength that it has at room temperature. There you go, fully debunked with minimal effort and extremely basic facts.
Well, here’s what 5 minutes of research yielded
The problem is, I read contradictory information, so both sides say they’re correct…
For example, this…
FACT: Jet fuel burns at 800 to 1500 degrees Fahrenheit, not hot enough to melt steel (2750 degrees Fahrenheit). However, experts agree that for the towers to collapse, their steel frames didn’t need to melt, they just had to lose some of their structural strength—and that required exposure to much less heat.
The internet since 2001…? There’s reams of examples of people who believe this crap and have posted it. I wouldn’t be surprised if people have done PhDs where this conspiracy theory is featured heavily.
This particular one is amazingly stupid for anybody who’ve dealt with materials and heat in their life. Like making barbecues.
Just to make sure we are on the same page, are you saying that the jet fuel burning the metal beams of the building is true, or a conspiracy?
At the temperature Jet Fuel burns at, Steel becomes as flexible as cooked noodles, but technically they have not “melted.”
Also: worked metal heats up. So an entire building collapsing on hot beams can get them even hotter.
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
https://piped.video/tXF60MOWUeY?si=V-j7IlmmMB3LOK9l
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I’m open-source; check me out at GitHub.
The conspiracy goes SO much deeper… it’s rumored that even physics is involved.
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
https://piped.video/FzF1KySHmUA
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I’m open-source; check me out at GitHub.
Melted beams or not, the WTCs design is what made it collapse like a peeling banana. The floors were essentially cantilevered out and held in place with a load bearing facade (for an open floor concept) There wasn’t much holding the floors onto the facade, once the weight of the floors began to sag down it essentially started to lever and pull the beams of the central core apart from all sides like a banana peel.
I don’t think those buildings were built to withstand an airplane, at least not the one they were hit by. In hindsight that open floor concept may actually have been a stupid idea, at least the way it was executed.
I don’t think those buildings were built to withstand an airplane, at least not the one they were hit by.
From what I saw on a show that covered that a long time ago, they were, but not for the larger planes that we have today, but the ones that flew back in the 70’s.
Don’t wake them!
I love how they drew the Sheeple in a completely different artstyle for emphasis.
COLD FIRE! I’M FREEZING!!! ( said the steel beams)
Russia is shooting its own foot since the start of the war… an inside job sounds plausible at this point (kidding)
Of course Russia is shooting itsself. I bet if it could throw itsself out a window it would.
How dare Russia make Russia look so weak
If it had been an inside job the explosives wouldn’t have gone off.
So they got two of three and not one of three? How is every article writer flubbing the headlines?!
The magic of AI and staff cuts.
I’m also uncomfortable with giving the SBU credit for an event that negatively impacts not only Russia but also China, which is not currently at war with Ukraine. SBU haven’t taken credit for this, a Ukrainian Official is making those claims.
If the infrastructure, and trains were russian its fair game.
Yes I’m absolutely happy this is happening, fuck both of those nations, Ukraine Sovereignity will be respected and both Putin and Xi will learn a harsh lesson, but if the SBU doesn’t take credit then it’s better that the SBU haven’t officially done this.
SBU what SBU I don’t know what you’re talking about.
Joking aside I know what you mean, but on the flip side, this could be used a propaganda to show the Russian “we can strike anywhere in russia”, and hopefully it gives putin some shivers.
I think it would be more effective if Russia assumed this to be an internal struggle.
Internal struggle would be nice.
It must be very hard for Russia to detect Ukrainians that work under cover in Russia, this must be a major vulnerability for Russia. Unfortunately the same is probably true the other way.
Probably not so much the other way, most Ukrainians are fluent in Russian, I doubt many Russians are fluent in Ukranian
I wonder how many Ukrainians can only speak Russian. Languages can be hard for some people.
I thought I heard that zelensky himself only knew Russian until relatively recently
They are incredibly similar languages that are more mutually intelligible, similar to Swedish/Norwegian/Danish or Serbian/Croatian/Bosnian.
I heard it’s more like Spanish/Portuguese which share some similarities but not mutually intelligible
Mostly all. It’s because USSR only used russian as country’s language so every nation in the country was forced to learn this language and there were many nations in ussr.
Not true, there were plenty of native Ukrainian speakers and those knowing it well, also with, eh, changing prestige of the language more people learn it, it’s very close after all, like Scots to English.
Can anyone explain how different the languages are? Super different or “they kind of get eachother, just are noticably different”
They have similar alphabets, grammar and a lot of cognates. If you only spoke one you’d be able to recognize most of a sentence with these things, but sometimes words are totally different. They probably sound similar to someone unfamiliar with both, but they are quite distinct.
So like Spanish and Italian or closer?
It appears, lexically they are closer than Spanish and Italian, close to like Italian and Romanian, but a bit further. There are many ways to measure language distance though, so this is just a vague analogy
I thought they were mutually intelligible?
Actually they are not. It’s just that knowing a bit of the other language is too common to understand that for many people. Also very often for person asked some kind of surzhik (a mix) is imagined instead of one of these languages.
That’s a bit like how English speakers often imagine Scots - just English with weird accent. It’s obviously not that.
Russian has too much Church Slavic influence, Ukrainian has a bit more Polish, German etc influence, and also the Church Slavic influence there is a bit different (say, the loanwords were adapted for East Slavic phonetics mostly).
In Russian the prestigious language was Church Slavic, in Ukrainian - a written East Slavic language, so Ukrainian is a bit more consistent.
If we hypothetically remove that, I’m not sure they’d be considered different languages (despite there being dialectal differences even in XII century).
Similar enough for mutual intelligibility but different enough that Russian only speakers will probably run into a shiboleth
Like Spanish from Mexico and Spanish from Spain?
No need for people to even speak different languages to run into shibboleth, the pronunciation of Russian is very different in different regions, the Ukrainian is not homogeneous either.
Somebody once said to me that it’s rather like the difference between English and Dutch.
If you ever hear Dutch it rather sounds like English and you’ve just not quite heard them correctly. If you were in another room and just heard the ebb and flow of the language you’d probably not be able to tell the difference, but in person directly you can.
And as a non-speaker of both languages they sound basically the same to me so I think it is true
There is a lexical tree that gives some insight. Lexicostatistical distance would have worked better, I think, but I cant seem to find the numbers for that kind of metric.
Here I’ve edited an excerpt from the table, that shows how far Russian and Ukrainian are and how that compares to some other European languages
I don’t have data, but feels wrong. Maybe if this is about historical, genetic distance, then yes, Belarusian is quite a lot closer to Russian.
But in reality Ukrainian and Belarusian have mostly the same West Russian lexicon, while Russian is different (say, more South Slavic, as in Church Slavic, loanwords), for historical reasons (in GDL West Russian written language was used for administration in its East Slavic parts ; in Muscovy Church Slavic was prestigious, so the official language was heavily influenced by that).
You can as well download the PDF and read the description, the thing is not based on historical reasons, it analyses a selected part of each language core using algorithm that is used to analyse DNA distance, as far as I understand.
To address what you’ve said, it sais:
Four factors influence lexical similarity registered in the tree: (1) genetic or genealogical relationship of languages, (2) diffusion (language borrowing), (3) universal tendencies for lexical similarity such as onomatopoeia, and (4) random variation (chance).
So the Ukrainian and Belarussian are likely different enough in everything else than the lexicon you’ve mentioned
So the Ukrainian and Belarussian are likely different enough in everything else than the lexicon you’ve mentioned
They are similar in lexicon and grammar, but phonetically very different, almost as if they were in the opposite directions from Russian.
I’d say, Ukrainian have more brutal (deep throat) sounding than russian, but maybe it’s only local thing with Ukrainian guys i was talking with. So, usually it’s like 14 years old kid in Ukraine sounds like grown up Russian dude
That may be about pronunciation of a few sounds, anybody from the southwest of Russia sounds the same.
Also intonation in Ukrainian can on the contrary feel more gentle\polite.
No, your imagination betrays you on this subject.
Most Ukrainians are fluent in Russian, but with southern accent, and plenty of them also bad at Ukrainian at the same time.
A lot of Russians speak it with the same southern accent and know some Ukrainian.
There’s no clear border in that sense. Also there are still plenty of people born in Ukraine living in Russia and vice versa, maybe millions.
For half of Ukraine and half the (Slavic) south of Russia the whole idea of choosing between being Ukrainian and Russian was preposterous not so long ago.
Very interesting to hear this.
So are you saying that (aside from this war) people from Donetsk and Rostov used to be more similar to each other culturallly and linguistically than compared to either Moscow or Kyiv?
In Donetsk and Rostov specifically - yes, but it’s still been a one-sided gradual change from people speaking Ukrainian or dialects closer to it to Russian with southern accent, as I said. Mostly during Soviet years, as Don, Kuban, even Terek Cossacks and their dialects would sometimes be described as Ukrainian. So yes, but not quite.
While, say, in Polesye, Russian, Ukrainian and Belarusian dialects literally form a continuum, which fits your question more as an example.
I think it could be worst for russia even thinking about fluency: as I understand, russia reallocated thousands of Ukrainians in its far siberian territories as part of the ethnic cleansing of crimea and surroundings
Edit: this was done in the 30s
According to Wikipedia, there are 1.928 million ethnic Ukrainians currently living in Russia.
Wasn’t relocation a huge part of the Soviet system? As they took territory they would move people around so that there were more Russians in the territories, presumably less chance at ethnic uprisings?
Yes, but that was not the only reason.
The Soviets would send foreign intelligentsia and bourgeois (including slightly better off farmers) to die in Siberia in order to reduce the chances of uprising.
They would also mix populations in order to reduce national loyalties and would also encourage mixed ethnicity families to eventually absorb smaller nations into the Russian identity.
It’s not just Soviet system, Russian colonization of Siberia, North Caucasus etc was in large part done by Ukrainians. These people don’t usually identify as such, though, it’s a purely historical note.
As they took territory they would move people around so that there were more Russians in the territories, presumably less chance at ethnic uprisings?
And that’s false and seems to be taken from some strategy game.
I mean, the USSR did have dubious ethnic policies, somewhere aiming for ethnically homogeneous population, and somewhere as intermixed as possible. Like ethnically cleansing Ukrainians from Poland and settling them in Ukraine, and ethnically cleansing Poles from Ukraine and settling them in Poland.
The “moving around” thing wasn’t connected to this, it was a direct consequence of the “distribution” system where a graduate was legally required to work a few years in a place they were sent to (which could be on the other end of the union), and also people would move all over the union to study in better universities etc.
Most people wouldn’t return to their birthplace, even if they wouldn’t remain at the place they were sent to after graduation.
Which, well, makes sense for young people.
You do realize that Russians in Siberia are most often descendants of Ukrainian colonists, I hope? Same near Kazakhstan (and in it), same in the North Caucasus.
Yes that’s exactly what I meant, the similarity of the languages, but I didn’t know whether that is equal both ways. I sincerely hope you are right, that it’s more difficult for the Russians.
I noticed this in the beginning of the war, that it would be relatively easy for Ukraine to perform sabotage in Russia. I’m kind of surprised it’s not more wide spread?It’s quite easy to understand each other for both parties, but Ukrainians actually learn the Russian language in school, so they can speak good Russian. Russians can’t speak good Ukrainian as they don’t learn it. And speaking is very important for sabotage operations.
deleted by creator
It is not the only railway connection. And there is still the original route from before this tunnel was built. So not sure how big the impact is.
Source wikipedia
I know virtually nothing about the Russian train system. Are all the routes able to carry the same loads? Older lines may have narrower tunnels, weaker bridges, etc. that are unable to transport the larger/heavier loads that Russia hopes to bring from China…
Edit: Track gauge is another question. I did some quick Googling and it looks like Russia used to use 1,524 mm gauge while China uses 1,435 mm. If those other lines aren’t compatible with China then it means cargo would need to be unloaded from their trains at the border and then reloaded onto Russian trains. That would slow things down tremendously.
Generally yes your lines can carry the same loads and have the same gauge. You want your internal logistics to be straightforward.
Fun fact: Russia chose a different gauge to make it more difficult to invade them.
That is pretty clever
They have all sorts of interesting things. Their mortars are 1mm larger diameter. So if they capture enemy supplies, they can fire them (with a little less accuracy). If the west captures Russian mortars and tries to fire them (in western barrels) they run the risk of jamming and exploding.
That might have something to do with Soviet production culture affecting precision, not preventing the potential adversary from firing Soviet ammunition. That is, done so that Soviet mortars wouldn’t sometimes explode firing Soviet ammo.
Both the Russian mortar round and the mortar barrel are 1 mm larger.
Ah. Sorry for being stupid.
N. Korea uses a smaller gauge.
Your point? Different countries choose for their own country.
His point was that NK was taking a note from the Russian playbook and made even smaller tracks so they couldn’t be invaded.
They’re also aided by the fact that nobody really wants to.
And their logistics runs off trains so they have a giant problem when invading others, only same gauge can be used reliably and rail stations are a huge target
Yeah but they’re more afraid of being invaded. See history.
Explosions hit both the tunnel and the bridge.
The tunnel will certainly be hit at some point and flooded.
Umm it was the tunnel that was hit.
They didn’t say it flooded.
Flooded with what?
Ignited jet fuel, apparently!
https://kbin.social/m/world@lemmy.world/t/670476/-/comment/3877961
I’m curious whether China will take this as a personal affront and feel the need to save face by escalating their participation. That would not be ideal.
China really has no reason to take this as an affront. China will continue milking Russia for money/oil and let them continue weaken themselves, but they have no reason to get involved or sell them weapons.
I’m no expert, please take this with a massive chunk of salt, but as far as I understand it China is trying to balance their relationship with Russia with their relationship with the US. I’d expect the reaction to a rail bombing like this to be muted and cautious.
Good point. It has seemed recently like they’re trying to make nice with the US again all of a sudden. Some of their comments after visiting San Francisco were very out of step with their rhetoric up until recently. At least as far as what I have gathered from news articles. I don’t really have a great grasp on the nuances of it myself. They’re a difficult government to understand sometimes.
I think their trying to get a pro China movement in the west. I also think it’s working.
Eh I am neutral on China at first blush, which is actually pretty shitty when you think about their anti democratic actions and ethnic cleansing of Uyghurs
They are going to have a hard time recovering from their dot balloons and the shot they pull in Taiwan, at least as far as public opinion goes. But democrats seem to be offering them some kind of economic deals that they seem to be happy about. Not sure if that’s a good thing or not.
I think part of the problem is that US media generally accepts the US state department’s interpretation of Chinese foreign policy. That makes it difficult to interpret China’s aims since it’s buried under pro US bias.
Personally, I think the Chinese government appears relatively predictable if you can parse various global sources including the actual statements China publishes. Granted that’s a bit more difficult since it means accounting for all the biases of each source.
China and Russia share similar ideologies but that’s about where the similarities ends.
China isn’t insane and actually understands restraint unlike Russia they’re not going to go charging into something without examining the consequences. China really doesn’t want to get involved in this if they can help it, as I’ve looked at it and it’s only downsized as far as they can see.
If Russia does attack NATO and NATO gets involved, and the Chinese still send them resources after that point, then it’s possible NATO will consider China to be involved and therefore a legitimate target. This will mean that China will have to go toe-to-toe with the US military, and they really don’t want to.
Of course all of those are big if’s, and to be honest are very unlikely but it’s not an impossibility and the risk they’ve decided isn’t worth the very little reward.
China will just get to charge higher delivery fees with the planes, trucks and boats that will have to ship all the goods.
Good news for China, Russia need the stuff either way, it just gonna cost them more now and take longer to arrive.
deleted by creator
Their reaction will depend on how this impacts their strategic use for Russia, which is soley as a source for raw materials (oil, minerals, etc.)
Selling goods into Russia, while critical for Russia, is barely a rounding error for China. The natural resources from Russia, however are critical inputs for the Chinese economy.
It’s interesting how the Russian government completely mismanaged even that little dependence. They could have more influence toward China.
Though if they were smart, eh, there are too many things to mention which they’d do differently. Something about invasions of generally friendly neighbors being stupid.
I think China is more concerned about being included in the next set of sanctions. If this railroad was the only rail that connected China directly to Russia, then I expect the export of arms to slowdown a bit just for caution sake.
deleted by creator
Can’t imagine this is a great idea since it’s gonna piss off China
Fuck China
Sure, but do you really wanna fight China while at war with Russia?
Fight China? Like boots on the ground fighting? I really don’t see that happening.
China can fuck you up without boots on the ground. The point is why poke a tiger when you’re already fighting a bear?
You think they aren’t already helping?
Come back when you’re thinking with your brain and not emotions
awesome! SBU ftw!
Technically SBU haven’t taken credit, a “ukrainian official” has made that claim.
what’s SBU?
Sluzhba Bezpeki Ukraini = Security Service of Ukraine, SSU Basically, Ukrainian intelligence
Ukrainian intelligence.
Dictatorships are only paper tigers inside.
Russia/China is one of the longest border. So wonder how big of an impact this would be!? There can’t be just one or two runner in 4000km long border.
Big swaths of empty, I’d argue rail is a more efficient way or carrying military gear so even if you could do it with trucks… Need a lot of them. But just my speculation
I would assume there would be multiple rail lines along the border. Any strategists would not have gone with one rail line accessible easily to part of the border.
Idk the rubric says main rail line
This is the best summary I could come up with:
Ukraine’s security service blew up a railway connection linking Russia to China, in a clandestine strike carried out deep into enemy territory, with pro-Kremlin media reporting that investigators have opened a criminal case into a “terrorist attack.”
The SBU set off several explosions inside the Severomuysky tunnel of the Baikal-Amur highway in Buryatia, located some 6,000 kilometers east of Ukraine, a senior Ukrainian official with direct knowledge of the operation told POLITICO.
And currently, this route, which Russia uses, including for military supplies, is paralyzed,” the official said.
“Now the (Russian) Federal Security Service is working on the spot, the railway workers are unsuccessfully trying to minimize the consequences of the SBU special operation,” the Ukrainian official added.
“On the Itikit — Okusykan stretch in Buryatia, while driving through the tunnel, the locomotive crew of the cargo train noticed smoke from one of the diesel fuel tanks.
The movement of trains was not interrupted, it was organized along a bypass section with a slight increase in travel time,” Russia’s state railroad company RZHD said in a statement on Thursday.
The original article contains 247 words, the summary contains 179 words. Saved 28%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
deleted by creator
SBU should keep an eye on US as US is selling weapons to Ukraine in the name of "defense " and raking billions of dollars putting Ukraine in severe debt.
I think they have more pressing concerns
Yes but always keep an eye on the US.
Why is it a “terrorist attack” lol this meets all the definitions for a terrorist attack.
You can’t just start adding quote marks when our guys do it.
They are at war therefore it is an attack not a “terrorist attack”. I am sure you can debate whether or not an attack during war time could be terrorist.
A terrorist attack is usually designed to cause psychological trauma and involves injuring civilian population. This was clearly an attack on the economy and I don’t agree with the Russian media that this is a terrorist attack. So I think the quotations make sense as it is a sign of sarcasm poking fun at Russia’s reporting.
sabotage noun
The deliberate destruction of property or obstruction of normal operations, as by civilians or enemy agents in a time of war. The deliberate attempt to damage, destroy, or hinder a cause or activity. Scamped work.
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, 5th Edition • More at Wordnik
It’s a war.
A terrorist attack is political violence by a non-recognized state/non-government agency
Ukraine is recognized so it can’t be terrorism
It absolutely does not meet the definition of a terror attack and we did not use the term that way in options within the GWOT either. Even in the context of September 11th the Pentagon was not considered a terror target while the hijacking of civilian planes and world trade center was.
Words matter.
