4 ms·
I don't think that this constrain applies. The dam was part of the Russia-occupied territory or part of the gray zone. Ukraine was not using the damn dam for an
by esarbe 3y ago
I don't think that this constrain applies. The dam was part of the Russia-occupied territory or part of the gray zone. Ukraine was not using the damn dam for anything.
At this point I'm not willing to give Russia the benefit of the doubt anymore. Their leadership has more than sufficiently demonstrated that they consider atrocities and crimes of war as part of the toolbox, so to say.
- 2-718-281-828 3y agodoesn't this make it more plausible that ukraine blew it up?
- esarbe 3y agoThe dam was under Russian control. Ukraine wouldn't have had any opportunity to place demolition charges. Russia has demonstrated that it is; - willing to level cities with hundreds of thousands of inhabitants - willing to use torture, abduction, rape as systematic weapons of war - willing to indiscriminately attack civilians - willing to use banned weapons of war Despite war crimes obviously (d'oh) happening on both sides of the conflict, the Russian leadership has made it evidently clear that is more than happy to unleash any amount of terror, pain, misery and suffering to get what it wants. The Russian leadership is perfectly a-ok to systematically use all of the aforementioned as weapons. I've not seen this callousness from the Ukrainian leadership.