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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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
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.
One of 3 that exist between the two countries, I read elsewhere. If true, this is a BIG DEAL!
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
deleted by creator
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
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.
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.
