3 ms·

Except by Russia, it isn't accepted the strikes were launched by Ukraine. And Russia hasn't provided any evidence to back up their claim, nor were they able to

Except by Russia, it isn't accepted the strikes were launched by Ukraine. And Russia hasn't provided any evidence to back up their claim, nor were they able to convince the UN delegation.

tyingq 4y ago
The UN seems to be admonishing both Ukraine and Russia for it, and deliberately not taking a position on who did it. Fwiw, I'm not a Russian shill...just this one particular event seems different than usual.
pydry 4y ago
>Russia hasn't provided any evidence to back up their claim They did. They called for a UN security council meeting where they presented their evidence. Thats where they invited the IAEA to visit to see for themselves. The IAEA investigated and subsequently refused to make any comment at all about who was responsible for the shelling. They didnt say that there wasnt enough evidence. They just didnt comment at all. America has also commented. They said that they think it did happen. It was already unlikely that Russia shelled themselves. The fact that they went to great lengths to try and prove Ukraine did it and got this vague "both sides" shit from a supposedly thorough investigation in response suggests that, on balance, they were telling the truth. Now they've proved we're ok with it, they've done it too.
- akvadrako 4y ago
  That wasn't convincing enough to be called evidence.
  - pydry 4y ago
    "I know that most men, including those at ease with problems of the greatest complexity, can seldom accept even the simplest and most obvious truth if it be such as would oblige them to admit the falsity of conclusions which they have delighted in explaining to colleagues, which they have proudly taught to others, and which they have woven, thread by thread, into the fabric of their lives." ^ a very relevant quote given the preponderance evidence and your overwhelming reluctance to accept it.
    - akvadrako 4y ago
      Just saying "preponderance evidence" doesn't help your point. There isn't any evidence presented by you or Russia for me to consider accepting. I personally think it's reasonable Ukraine could have fired on targets near the plant – it wouldn't be a hard thing to accept if there was information pointing toward it.

Except by Russia, it isn't accepted the strikes were launched by Ukraine. And Russia hasn't provided any evidence to back up their claim, nor were they able to convince the UN delegation.

tyingq 4y ago

The UN seems to be admonishing both Ukraine and Russia for it, and deliberately not taking a position on who did it. Fwiw, I'm not a Russian shill...just this one particular event seems different than usual.

pydry 4y ago

>Russia hasn't provided any evidence to back up their claim They did. They called for a UN security council meeting where they presented their evidence. Thats where they invited the IAEA to visit to see for themselves. The IAEA investigated and subsequently refused to make any comment at all about who was responsible for the shelling. They didnt say that there wasnt enough evidence. They just didnt comment at all. America has also commented. They said that they think it did happen. It was already unlikely that Russia shelled themselves. The fact that they went to great lengths to try and prove Ukraine did it and got this vague "both sides" shit from a supposedly thorough investigation in response suggests that, on balance, they were telling the truth. Now they've proved we're ok with it, they've done it too.

akvadrako 4y ago
That wasn't convincing enough to be called evidence.
- pydry 4y ago
  "I know that most men, including those at ease with problems of the greatest complexity, can seldom accept even the simplest and most obvious truth if it be such as would oblige them to admit the falsity of conclusions which they have delighted in explaining to colleagues, which they have proudly taught to others, and which they have woven, thread by thread, into the fabric of their lives." ^ a very relevant quote given the preponderance evidence and your overwhelming reluctance to accept it.
  - akvadrako 4y ago
    Just saying "preponderance evidence" doesn't help your point. There isn't any evidence presented by you or Russia for me to consider accepting. I personally think it's reasonable Ukraine could have fired on targets near the plant – it wouldn't be a hard thing to accept if there was information pointing toward it.