3 ms·

I cite Western sources solely because I presume most people here don't read Russian. I had to look it up. My personal hypothesis about the dam is that it was n

I cite Western sources solely because I presume most people here don't read Russian. I had to look it up. My personal hypothesis about the dam is that it was negligence and perhaps a misguided attempt to "partially demolish it". The main piece of evidence against Ukrainian/Western action is the resolution of Russian Government "On the specifics of application in the territories of the Donetsk People's Republic, Luhansk People's Republic, Zaporizhzhia region and Kherson region of the provisions of the legislation of the Russian Federation in the field of industrial safety of hazardous production facilities and safety of hydraulic structures", issued a week prior to the catastrophe[1], that says among many other similar things: > d) technical investigation of the causes of accidents at hazardous production facilities and accidents at hydraulic structures shall be carried out by commissions headed by representatives of the authorized bodies. > a) The provisions of Part Six of Article 10 of the Federal Law "On Safety of Hydraulic Structures" shall not apply until 1 September, 2023; > 8. Until March 1, 2024 the information on hydraulic structures, located in the territories of the Donetsk People's Republic, Lugansk People's Republic, Zaporozhye Region and Kherson Region and put into operation until June 1, 2023, may be submitted for their inclusion in the Russian register of hydraulic structures without submission of the declaration of safety of hydraulic structures. > *10. Until January 1, 2028 the technical investigation of accidents at hazardous production facilities and accidents at hydraulic structures, which occurred as a result of military actions, sabotage and terrorist acts, shall not be carried out.* I'm way past trying to reason about qui bono. Sometimes it works (Nord Stream), sometimes Russia is just a magical place where stuff happens. 1. https://www.garant.ru/products/ipo/prime/doc/406865902/ https://www.garant.ru/products/ipo/prime/doc/406865902/

AnonCoward42 3y ago
> I cite Western sources solely because I presume most people here don't read Russian. I had to look it up. Source 4. and 7. are Russian. It also wasn't about the language, but affiliation. > My personal hypothesis about the dam is that it was negligence and perhaps a misguided attempt to "partially demolish it". Why? > The main piece of evidence against Ukrainian/Western action is the resolution of Russian Government "On the specifics of application in the territories of the Donetsk People's Republic, Luhansk People's Republic, Zaporizhzhia region and Kherson region of the provisions of the legislation of the Russian Federation in the field of industrial safety of hazardous production facilities and safety of hydraulic structures", issued a week prior to the catastrophe[1], that says among many other similar things: [...] This proves exactly nothing, except that Russians knew about this attack vector. Especially because according to them it was attacked weeks prior. Could be a lie, but they indeed reported it weeks prior. > I'm way past trying to reason about qui bono. Sometimes it works (Nord Stream), sometimes Russia is just a magical place where stuff happens. Did you forget that Russia was behind Nord Stream as well for weeks? Past cui bono is la-la-land.
- ivan_gammel 3y ago
  >> My personal hypothesis about the dam is that it was negligence and perhaps a misguided attempt to "partially demolish it". >Why? I would agree with that, because it is consistent with the general state of affairs in Russian army and government structures responsible for Ukraine. They lack intellectual capacity to evaluate all the consequences of their actions or inaction. Even if they had it, the responsible people may have not communicated it to the peers - only to the command vertical, where the message could have been lost or did not reach decision makers in time.

AnonCoward42 3y ago

> I cite Western sources solely because I presume most people here don't read Russian. I had to look it up. Source 4. and 7. are Russian. It also wasn't about the language, but affiliation. > My personal hypothesis about the dam is that it was negligence and perhaps a misguided attempt to "partially demolish it". Why? > The main piece of evidence against Ukrainian/Western action is the resolution of Russian Government "On the specifics of application in the territories of the Donetsk People's Republic, Luhansk People's Republic, Zaporizhzhia region and Kherson region of the provisions of the legislation of the Russian Federation in the field of industrial safety of hazardous production facilities and safety of hydraulic structures", issued a week prior to the catastrophe[1], that says among many other similar things: [...] This proves exactly nothing, except that Russians knew about this attack vector. Especially because according to them it was attacked weeks prior. Could be a lie, but they indeed reported it weeks prior. > I'm way past trying to reason about qui bono. Sometimes it works (Nord Stream), sometimes Russia is just a magical place where stuff happens. Did you forget that Russia was behind Nord Stream as well for weeks? Past cui bono is la-la-land.

ivan_gammel 3y ago
>> My personal hypothesis about the dam is that it was negligence and perhaps a misguided attempt to "partially demolish it". >Why? I would agree with that, because it is consistent with the general state of affairs in Russian army and government structures responsible for Ukraine. They lack intellectual capacity to evaluate all the consequences of their actions or inaction. Even if they had it, the responsible people may have not communicated it to the peers - only to the command vertical, where the message could have been lost or did not reach decision makers in time.