6 ms·

Man they try real hard to avoid naming the culprit of the "Disaster".

by qaq 3y ago

Synaesthesia 3y ago
[flagged]
- unsigner 3y ago
  There's no "their side" here, both sides of the Dnipro are Ukrainian territory; one of them is temporarily occupied.
- OldFatCactus 3y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Destruction_of_the_Kakhovka_Dam#Responsibility https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Destruction_of_the_Kakhovka_Da...
- qaq 3y ago
  Yes we don't know who controlled the dam and would be able to place required amount of explosives in the location they were detonated at. It's shrouded in mystery.
  - orangepurple 3y ago
    There were no explosives placed at the dam. The dam was hit with high precision artillery strikes.
    - eitland 3y ago
      Absolutely not. Every credible source points to the dam being blown by a ton or more of explosives inside it. Read up on dam busters to get an idea what it would take to destroy such a thing from the outside and then remember this dam was newer and IIRC designed to survive a nuclear war.
      - orangepurple 3y ago
        > Kovalchuk considered flooding the river. The Ukrainians, he said, even conducted a test strike with a HIMARS launcher on one of the floodgates at the Nova Kakhovka dam, making three holes in the metal to see if the Dnieper’s water could be raised enough to stymie Russian crossings but not flood nearby villages. > The test was a success, Kovalchuk said, but the step remained a last resort. He held off. https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2022/12/29/ukraine-offensive-kharkiv-kherson-donetsk/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2022/12/29/ukraine-offe... Who controlled the dam at the time of the explosion?
- jahewson 3y ago
  This claim makes zero sense. The Russians had already withdrawn their army so the opportunity to trap them was nil. Not only that but any future opportunity to trap them was also lost. Meanwhile the Russians got a free moat at a crucial moment when they were retreating and the Ukrainian counter offence was stopped in its tracks. In WWII the Russians blew up a damn on the same river (killing tens of thousands of their own civilians) to stop the Germans advancing. It’s the most Russian tactic ever. This is exactly how they fight.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
stronglikedan 3y ago
[flagged]
- eitland 3y ago
  Well. Do you really think Ukrainians managed to sneak a ton or more of explosives far into Russian territory and into a guarded power plant? Or shall we be more realistic and just add a disclaimer that this isn't finally settled but everything suggest that the same people who boasted about being able to pull this off did it? The same war criminals that are behind close to 100% of the other war crimes in this war was behind this too?
  - DiggyJohnson 3y ago
    I'm not sure there is any conflict where "close to 100%" of war crimes are committed by one side. I'm not trying to "both-sides" this discussion, but that is in all likelihood an overstatement.
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
  - eitland 3y ago
    To late to edit but I of course meant "temporarily Russian controlled territory", not "Russian territory".
- regnull 3y ago
  There is little doubt that nothing like this would've happened without Russia invading Ukraine.
- antondd 3y ago
  What does constitute “absolute proof”? Holographic 4d scans of military men waving their respective flags whilst planting charges on the dam?
  - 3y ago
EGreg 3y ago
[flagged]
- OldFatCactus 3y ago
  This both sides rhetoric kinda breaks down in the face of there being a very clear aggressor/invader to this conflict. A dam was destroyed because it was occupied by an invading force. The invading force was there because the invadee would not join the Eurasian Economic Union. Russia did not choose diplomacy.
  - LudwigNagasena 3y ago
    Surely those facts don’t make the distinction between a proximate cause and a distal cause irrelevant.
    - OldFatCactus 3y ago
      Much of what I have personally (anecdotally) seen around proximate cause seem to point to Russian sabotage. I find arguments like this to be pointless though as we will all have our pet theories and research we want to believe as we are not likely to find definitive proof. It is easier to just point out that the side that gains the most from this and bears ultimate responsibility for this is Russia as that is irrefutable
  - EGreg 3y ago
    In every conflict in the world, one side always says it’s the other’s fault completely. And that the other side didn’t engage in diplomacy in good faith. But many of them are proxy wars between large imperial interests, that topple governments and undermine democracies. For example in Yemen, the Sunnis say that Iran is completely at fault for fomenting a Houthi revolution and and all the blame falls squarely on them. While Iran would say that they simply gave moral support to Houthi rebels and that the Sunni hegemony and Saudi coalition has been committing war crimes for decades and Yemenites are fed up with it. Depending on if you were Sunni or Shiite, Jewish or Arab, you’d often be so biased that any hint of additional context or nuance would sound preposterous. But as rational people we should avoid one-sided narratives, whether it is in Niger, Armenia, etc. Usually the same patterns repeat and sectarian violence happens in the aftermath of the fall of an empire (Ottoman, British, Russian, etc.) It happens in much the same way, and each side blames the other (eg Pakistani Muslims vs Indian Hindus). We as imperial countries simply take sides and our public is told what to think (“we were always at war eith eastasia”.) Conflicts always have multiple sides. When you live inside one empire or another (Russia, China, USA), the mainstream media’s rhetoric is always one-sided. But the rest of the world outside the bubble (billions of people) see both sides. As usual, most of these conflicts could have been avoided, in dozens of ways, if cooler heads prevailed at any point for decades. I collected all context you are probably missing in one place, so you can better understand the conflict from other sides: https://magarshak.com/blog/?p=397 https://magarshak.com/blog/?p=397
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
m0llusk 3y ago
[flagged]

Man they try real hard to avoid naming the culprit of the "Disaster".

by qaq 3y ago

Man they try real hard to avoid naming the culprit of the "Disaster".

Synaesthesia 3y ago

[flagged]

unsigner 3y ago
There's no "their side" here, both sides of the Dnipro are Ukrainian territory; one of them is temporarily occupied.
OldFatCactus 3y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Destruction_of_the_Kakhovka_Dam#Responsibility https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Destruction_of_the_Kakhovka_Da...
qaq 3y ago
Yes we don't know who controlled the dam and would be able to place required amount of explosives in the location they were detonated at. It's shrouded in mystery.
- orangepurple 3y ago
  There were no explosives placed at the dam. The dam was hit with high precision artillery strikes.
  - eitland 3y ago
    Absolutely not. Every credible source points to the dam being blown by a ton or more of explosives inside it. Read up on dam busters to get an idea what it would take to destroy such a thing from the outside and then remember this dam was newer and IIRC designed to survive a nuclear war.
    - orangepurple 3y ago
      > Kovalchuk considered flooding the river. The Ukrainians, he said, even conducted a test strike with a HIMARS launcher on one of the floodgates at the Nova Kakhovka dam, making three holes in the metal to see if the Dnieper’s water could be raised enough to stymie Russian crossings but not flood nearby villages. > The test was a success, Kovalchuk said, but the step remained a last resort. He held off. https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2022/12/29/ukraine-offensive-kharkiv-kherson-donetsk/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2022/12/29/ukraine-offe... Who controlled the dam at the time of the explosion?
jahewson 3y ago
This claim makes zero sense. The Russians had already withdrawn their army so the opportunity to trap them was nil. Not only that but any future opportunity to trap them was also lost. Meanwhile the Russians got a free moat at a crucial moment when they were retreating and the Ukrainian counter offence was stopped in its tracks. In WWII the Russians blew up a damn on the same river (killing tens of thousands of their own civilians) to stop the Germans advancing. It’s the most Russian tactic ever. This is exactly how they fight.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]

stronglikedan 3y ago

[flagged]

eitland 3y ago
Well. Do you really think Ukrainians managed to sneak a ton or more of explosives far into Russian territory and into a guarded power plant? Or shall we be more realistic and just add a disclaimer that this isn't finally settled but everything suggest that the same people who boasted about being able to pull this off did it? The same war criminals that are behind close to 100% of the other war crimes in this war was behind this too?
- DiggyJohnson 3y ago
  I'm not sure there is any conflict where "close to 100%" of war crimes are committed by one side. I'm not trying to "both-sides" this discussion, but that is in all likelihood an overstatement.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
- eitland 3y ago
  To late to edit but I of course meant "temporarily Russian controlled territory", not "Russian territory".
regnull 3y ago
There is little doubt that nothing like this would've happened without Russia invading Ukraine.
antondd 3y ago
What does constitute “absolute proof”? Holographic 4d scans of military men waving their respective flags whilst planting charges on the dam?
- 3y ago

EGreg 3y ago

[flagged]

OldFatCactus 3y ago
This both sides rhetoric kinda breaks down in the face of there being a very clear aggressor/invader to this conflict. A dam was destroyed because it was occupied by an invading force. The invading force was there because the invadee would not join the Eurasian Economic Union. Russia did not choose diplomacy.
- LudwigNagasena 3y ago
  Surely those facts don’t make the distinction between a proximate cause and a distal cause irrelevant.
  - OldFatCactus 3y ago
    Much of what I have personally (anecdotally) seen around proximate cause seem to point to Russian sabotage. I find arguments like this to be pointless though as we will all have our pet theories and research we want to believe as we are not likely to find definitive proof. It is easier to just point out that the side that gains the most from this and bears ultimate responsibility for this is Russia as that is irrefutable
- EGreg 3y ago
  In every conflict in the world, one side always says it’s the other’s fault completely. And that the other side didn’t engage in diplomacy in good faith. But many of them are proxy wars between large imperial interests, that topple governments and undermine democracies. For example in Yemen, the Sunnis say that Iran is completely at fault for fomenting a Houthi revolution and and all the blame falls squarely on them. While Iran would say that they simply gave moral support to Houthi rebels and that the Sunni hegemony and Saudi coalition has been committing war crimes for decades and Yemenites are fed up with it. Depending on if you were Sunni or Shiite, Jewish or Arab, you’d often be so biased that any hint of additional context or nuance would sound preposterous. But as rational people we should avoid one-sided narratives, whether it is in Niger, Armenia, etc. Usually the same patterns repeat and sectarian violence happens in the aftermath of the fall of an empire (Ottoman, British, Russian, etc.) It happens in much the same way, and each side blames the other (eg Pakistani Muslims vs Indian Hindus). We as imperial countries simply take sides and our public is told what to think (“we were always at war eith eastasia”.) Conflicts always have multiple sides. When you live inside one empire or another (Russia, China, USA), the mainstream media’s rhetoric is always one-sided. But the rest of the world outside the bubble (billions of people) see both sides. As usual, most of these conflicts could have been avoided, in dozens of ways, if cooler heads prevailed at any point for decades. I collected all context you are probably missing in one place, so you can better understand the conflict from other sides: https://magarshak.com/blog/?p=397 https://magarshak.com/blog/?p=397

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

m0llusk 3y ago

[flagged]