There are three topics in this post, one on IAEA and the indifference of people, one about what European Governments might be preparing for and a comment about the changing tactics in the Ukraine conflict.
IAEA and International indifference to what Ukraine is doing with to nuclear power plants.
"The IAEA statement, however, did not mention expressly that the damage was due to a Ukrainian drone attack."
It is as if, the I in IAEA is not for International, but for Israel (with US and allies). Had it been 15 years ago, people in neighbouring countries would begins to panic if they saw what appears as a smoking cooling tower, but now watching Israel's ongoing genocide in Gaza and the NATO facilitated years long destruction of Ukraine, have we reached a point of intellectual and emotional numbness where even a couple of Fukushimas would be non-issues? Besides since the West supports Ukraine, it is like the Nord Stream, they can't and won't say anything against it, no matter how outrageous. At least the tipping point has not yet been reached.
Here are some numbers for the support for Ukraine: From the
Ukraine support tracker:
Let us say that the total aid is more like 500 billion. Recently there was information that 1.7 million Ukrainian have lost their lives. If we count Russians and make it 2.0 million, then the price for NATO and allies, of doing away with one Ukrainian/Russian life would then be 500,000 million divided by 2.0 million, or 250,000 USD/ per individual.
In other words, a donation of one billion to Ukraine translates to 4000 dead plus an unknown number of maimed people.
Having an idea of the cost benefit in terms of lives, how much destruction can NATO get for each donation dollar in this proxywar?
Statista.com has
a diagram:
500 billion in aid vs 175 billion in destruction. Every donation dollar would then translate into 35 cent worth of destruction. And that is only in Ukraine, Russia has also suffered some, so the real value is much higher. It also seems to me that it would cost more than 175 billion USD to rebuild 175 billion worth of destruction in Ukraine. The reason is that some of the buildings destroyed were already depreciated due to age, but they can't be replaced for the value they had on paper. And before you can even begin building you have to demine the areas. On the other hand, since many people have fled or died and are unlikely to come back, less housing and infrastructure might be needed.
Comparing Israel and Ukraine regarding money spent for number of killed.
In the beginning the I in IAEA was translated as Israel with US and allies. So how does the costs of the war in Ukraine compare with Israel. Who is cutting the better deal. There was on May 28, 2025 20:47 this article in JFeed
Israel’s War Costs Skyrocket: One Day of Fighting Now Tops 425 Million Shekels which was translated to 113 Billion USD. To get reliable information about how many people in Gaza have been killed directly or indirectly as the result of hostilities, is not easy. If ones use the same measure, as above, and divides 113,000 million with 0.25 million per person, then one would expect the loss to be around 450,000 thousand. Officially the Eng
Wiki for the Gaza War gives a number more like 15 % of that. Whether it is one or the other, given the indifference to the losses in both Ukraine and Gaza, is it any wonder that a bit of nuclear power plant terrorism is passed over as the order of the day? And maybe the Western public and IAEA have good reason, considering that the losses by the end of 1945 from the
atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were estimated to be 150,000-246,000. And now between Gaza and Ukraine, we are closer to ten times that.
When it comes to indifference is it related to the size of the donation to Ukraine? Or is the size of the donation a measure of something else, like obsession. Have a look:
If the goal for the depopulation supporters is a reduction of a few billion, then 200,000 USD per life as in Ukraine would make it unachievable. I don't know if this is a real problem for some of those who do plan, rather than just stumble into a destructive chaos, but it might tie in with the next.
What are the European Governments preparing for? - Civil unrest or something else?
Many European countries are taking steps to prepare for war, but here not everything is so clear. What are the British authorities preparing for?
Apart from war against another country, or a preparations for a mass death due to disease, there is also the possibility of upheaval within a country, it can have various origins. Asking a search engine
predictions about civil wars in europe (no quote marks),
this came up:
Some agencies and groups would not only prepare for the eventuality, but would also, consciously or not, inconspicuously help the probability along. As seen from this Wiki
List of conflicts in Europe, there is a long tradition. In the
article the author writes:
At the time of writing the countries that are most likely to experience the outbreak of violent civil conflict first are Britain and France—both of which have already experienced what may be described as precursor or exemplary incidents of the kind discussed further below. The conditions are similar, however, throughout Western Europe as well as, for slightly different reasons, the United States;[ii] moreover, it must be assumed that if civil war breaks out in one place it is likely to spread elsewhere.[iii]
His conclusion is:
‘Normalcy bias’ is a concept originating in disaster management that refers to the way in which people sometimes fail to react in a timely manner to warnings of imminent danger. The defence establishments of the West ought to guard against a tendency to disbelieve or to minimise the threat of internal conflict. The matter is that conditions which are generally agreed to be indicative of the potential for civil war are vividly present across a range of states which have for a long time been thought beyond such sort of conflict.
[...]
To suggest that civil war is imminent and ascendant and precisely in parts of the world thought, heretofore, to be the wealthiest and least restive—is contrary to expectation—but that is where we are.
Normalcy bias is not only of the governments. Imagine, if you will, a government slowly taken over by a corporation supported postmodern technocratic totalitarian ideology which then claims the authority of tradition to fight the insurgency of people who come to realize they are not okay with all the small changes that have crept in and piled up to amount to a revolution from above. In this situation, the people imagined everything was normal only to realize it was not.
Kill zones as a new development in the Ukraine conflict?
During the conflict of Ukraine we have seen how the progress and application of technology has changed the way wars are fought. The Military Summary Channel on discussed in
this Youtube video the topic of kill zones, an emerging trend acknowledge on the ground by some soldiers, correspondents, and commentators.
A kill zone is an area where no stable troop engagement is easy from the side of the opponent because of FPV drone superiority to the extent that anything moving in is soon destroyed. Areas where this is increasingly the case includes
Orekhov,
Huliaipole, Pakrovsk, If there is a mutual kill zone, the distance between the forces, where no one can enter on a stable basis can be up to around 10 km.
Here is a screenshot showing some of the kill zones established by Ukraine/NATO
There are of course ways a side can use to circumvent or overpower the kill zone of the opponent. One strategy is to give up on entering with vehicles and instead send many small infantry groups of two people, since the number will force the opponent to employ a FPV drone operator for each team thus potentially overwhelming the defense. Another option is to find the drone storages and points of operations of the opponent and destroy them.
What happens when kill zone meets kill zone depends. There is an example of the town Pakrovsk semi-surrounded by Russian forces, see this image:
Both have a kill zone, and the Ukrainians being semi-encircled have counterattacked to strengthen their position or prevent loosing it. They could get in, but will find it hard to get out. In the end, whoever has better logistics, intelligence and manpower will gain. Time will show how it plays out.
In a such a situation small advances that can improve the positions of FPV drone operators are desirable. Russia is trying to do this by pushing in from the northeast to take control of the town of
Mirnograd, a town that has some empty tall buildings that can serve as cover for troops and FPV drone operators, at least until they are reduced to rubble.
Another town,
Siversk, is under Ukrainian control, but there is a forest nearby. In the beginning of the SMO, forests were troublesome, but now they offer the best protection against FPV drone attacks and are important when considering advances. The battles for forests are fought the old fashioned way with armoured vehicles, artillery, air bombing, and flame thrower systems. In recent days, the Russians have taken control over the forest to the north of Siversk, thus giving them a position from where to exert more influence on what happens in the town.
little icon to send signal !
observed in the sky above our @RCValdeLoire,as well as from Lailly-en-Val (Loiret).
