Kyiv’s saboteurs strike deep in enemy territory, with Russian media reporting that authorities are investigating it as a terror attack.

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.

  • totallynotaspy@kbin.social
    3643·
    11 months ago

    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.

    • ours@lemmy.worldEnglish
      1634·
      11 months ago

      Damn impressive.

      Sounds straight out of a WWII action/spy/war movie.

    • Siegfried@lemmy.worldEnglish
      125·
      11 months ago

      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.

        • Cosmic Cleric@lemmy.worldEnglish
          256·
          11 months ago

          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.

          • IphtashuFitz@lemmy.worldEnglish
            291·
            11 months ago

            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.

            • Cosmic Cleric@lemmy.worldEnglish
              113·
              11 months ago

              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.

          • shottymcbEnglish
            151·
            11 months ago

            It didn’t need to melt, raising the temperature of steel decreases it’s strength.

          • StorminNorman@lemmy.worldEnglish
            141·
            11 months ago

            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.

            • Cosmic Cleric@lemmy.worldEnglish
              116·
              11 months ago

              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.

              • Alien Nathan EdwardEnglish
                20·
                11 months ago

                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.

                https://www.steelconstruction.info/Fire_damage_assessment_of_hot_rolled_structural_steelwork#:~:text=All materials weaken with increasing,and 45%25 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.

                • Cosmic Cleric@lemmy.worldEnglish
                  111·
                  11 months ago

                  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.

              • StorminNorman@lemmy.worldEnglish
                41·
                11 months ago

                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.

                • rottingleaf@lemmy.zipEnglish
                  2·
                  11 months ago

                  This particular one is amazingly stupid for anybody who’ve dealt with materials and heat in their life. Like making barbecues.

                • Cosmic Cleric@lemmy.worldEnglish
                  25·
                  11 months ago

                  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?

                  • StorminNorman@lemmy.worldEnglish
                    81·
                    11 months ago

                    I’m saying the part of the comment you initially highlighted is a joke based on a well known conspiracy theory with no basis in reality. It’s been so long since I read up on it, the beams may not have burnt. They just may have been weakened by the heat. Either way, it matters not as we have pretty good evidence that the twin towers did fall after two planes loaded with fuel hit em.

          • Echo Dot@feddit.ukEnglish
            152·
            11 months ago

            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.

            • EatATacoEnglish
              25·
              11 months ago

              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.

              • mxcory@lemmy.blahaj.zoneEnglish
                14·
                11 months ago

                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.

          • doctorcrimson@lemmy.todayEnglish
            8·
            11 months ago

            At the temperature Jet Fuel burns at, Steel becomes as flexible as cooked noodles, but technically they have not “melted.”

          • MataVatnik@lemmy.worldEnglish
            3·
            11 months ago

            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.

            • Cosmic Cleric@lemmy.worldEnglish
              21·
              11 months ago

              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.

          • Gestrid@lemmy.caEnglish
            2·
            11 months ago

            I love how they drew the Sheeple in a completely different artstyle for emphasis.

        • Siegfried@lemmy.worldEnglish
          61·
          11 months ago

          Russia is shooting its own foot since the start of the war… an inside job sounds plausible at this point (kidding)

          • RestaldtEnglish
            12·
            11 months ago

            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

    • MotoAsh@lemmy.worldEnglish
      291·
      11 months ago

      So they got two of three and not one of three? How is every article writer flubbing the headlines?!

      • doctorcrimson@lemmy.todayEnglish
        3·
        11 months ago

        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.

          • doctorcrimson@lemmy.todayEnglish
            3·
            11 months ago

            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.

            • T00l_shed@lemmy.worldEnglish
              21·
              11 months ago

              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.