In the video available in the link, you can get a rough size comparison to the buildings in the foreground and see that both of these detonations are titanic. They are much larger than Pavlohrad, and I would guesstimate the yield at 10kt.
Although these installations may have been ammo depots, these are not the "cooking off" of ammo depots which happen munition by munition, just like a pack of firecrackers tossed in a campfire.
Although these installations may have been fuel depots, these are not the burning of fuel depots, which are simply large, smoky fires. If you toss a road flare in a pool of gasoline, it doesn't explode since it is not under compression, it just burns furiously. After it settles down a bit, there's not actually much of a fire at the site since all the flammable material has been vaporized or blown clear.
A key feature of the aftermath is the glowing column. This is not made up of burning mortar shells launched on ballistic trajectories. Rather, it clearly comes down out of the fireball. This is vaporized material, heated to incandescence and carried aloft by the fierce updrafts. It remains incandescent even as it falls back out of the sky.
An earlier article on the same site seemed to blame the Pavlohrad nuke on a Ukrainian black market nuke stored there accidentally detonated by the explosion of a Russian cruise missile. This strike, though, going two for two, to my way of thinking casts tremendous doubt on that.
Geopolitically, I would say that Russia knows the end is near and wants it over with sooner rather than later. They lost four aircraft today, and the terrorism is getting more blatant. On the flip side, everyone is beginning to realize the AFU spring counteroffensive is having trouble getting off the ground because it does not exist. Western wunderwaffen seem to be having little to no effect.
So can Russia increase resistance among participating NATO officers when their colleagues just down the road from Lvov are vaporized and reported as "training accidents"? I would say probably yes.
And if anyone is wondering why NATO doesn't just call it out for what it is, well, then what would they do? Declare war? Already done. That would just legitimize strikes on NATO assets wherever they are, without the inconvenience of having to track them until they arrive in Ukraine.
These are more nukes they keep secret by not telling us they're nukes, cemented by near universal ignorance:
Khmelnytskyi: Two NATO Tactical Nukes in Western Ukraine Storage Hit by Cheap ‘Iranian’ Drone…Radiation Alert Over Europe (The Intel Drop 5/13/2023)
In the video available in the link, you can get a rough size comparison to the buildings in the foreground and see that both of these detonations are titanic. They are much larger than Pavlohrad, and I would guesstimate the yield at 10kt.
Although these installations may have been ammo depots, these are not the "cooking off" of ammo depots which happen munition by munition, just like a pack of firecrackers tossed in a campfire.
Although these installations may have been fuel depots, these are not the burning of fuel depots, which are simply large, smoky fires. If you toss a road flare in a pool of gasoline, it doesn't explode since it is not under compression, it just burns furiously. After it settles down a bit, there's not actually much of a fire at the site since all the flammable material has been vaporized or blown clear.
A key feature of the aftermath is the glowing column. This is not made up of burning mortar shells launched on ballistic trajectories. Rather, it clearly comes down out of the fireball. This is vaporized material, heated to incandescence and carried aloft by the fierce updrafts. It remains incandescent even as it falls back out of the sky.
An earlier article on the same site seemed to blame the Pavlohrad nuke on a Ukrainian black market nuke stored there accidentally detonated by the explosion of a Russian cruise missile. This strike, though, going two for two, to my way of thinking casts tremendous doubt on that.
Geopolitically, I would say that Russia knows the end is near and wants it over with sooner rather than later. They lost four aircraft today, and the terrorism is getting more blatant. On the flip side, everyone is beginning to realize the AFU spring counteroffensive is having trouble getting off the ground because it does not exist. Western wunderwaffen seem to be having little to no effect.
So can Russia increase resistance among participating NATO officers when their colleagues just down the road from Lvov are vaporized and reported as "training accidents"? I would say probably yes.
And if anyone is wondering why NATO doesn't just call it out for what it is, well, then what would they do? Declare war? Already done. That would just legitimize strikes on NATO assets wherever they are, without the inconvenience of having to track them until they arrive in Ukraine.
Nuclear bombs are either extremely exaggerated or else they aren't real.
It seems like one would begin a disciplined study by making the distinction between "exist" and "not exist".