5 ms·

Bright democratic countries are not interested in the investigation. The resolution failed to pass because it only received three votes in favor (Russia, China,

Bright democratic countries are not interested in the investigation. The resolution failed to pass because it only received three votes in favor (Russia, China, and Brazil) and 12 abstentions.

jacquesm 3y ago
I think the general consensus is that they don't want this to become a distraction. Regardless of who did it it's a footnote and it doesn't change the fact that Russia started a war next door to the EU on a flimsy pretext and that's the thing that matters.
- andreygrehov 3y ago
  I kinda both agree and disagree with you. I agree that it won't change much in the grand scheme of things, but at the same time I disagree on the footnote part. If blowing up a natural gas pipeline is just a footnote, then it means the responsible parties can do all sorts of attacks and then later simply say: "well, it's just a distraction, let's forget about it and move on".
  - jacquesm 3y ago
    Compared to attacking a nuclear plant and blowing up a dam I think it's a footnote. War is ultimately destructive and any kind of infrastructure connected to the belligerents is at risk.
    - meeuwer 3y ago
      Here's a funny weird little fact. The IAEA inspectors and even Mr. Grossi himself have been documenting and even 'hearing' shelling 'on a regular basis' while present on the ZNPP premises. But they've never attributed the shelling to either of the parties, not once. [1] Isn't that unusual given how quick all the officials and media are to blame just one side of the conflict (we know which one) for everything, with or without evidence? [1] https://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Aiaea.org+znpp+shelling https://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Aiaea.org+znpp+shellin...
      - jacquesm 3y ago
        https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Just_asking_questions https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Just_asking_questions
        meeuwer 3y ago
        > ... it should be clear that "just asking questions" only applies when the answers are already well known, where the question embodies a point refuted a thousand times, and where the questioner exhibits willful ignorance. If, for example, someone phrased their political argument as a series of questions — but provided sources to back up said questions, or has raised logical arguments in said questions — then it is not enough to dismiss the argument as "just asking questions". So, the IAEA and Grossi either can't establish where the shells are fired from (hard to believe given the prolonged and intensive nature of the shelling and the amount of evidence) or are hesitant / not allowed to incriminate the party they believe is responsible.
        jacquesm 3y ago
        No, they can but it isn't relevant. Let me spell it out for you: no Russian invasion: no shelling of plant.
        andreygrehov 3y ago
        > no Russian invasion: no shelling of plant If we apply the same logic of no A : no B, then "Russian invasion" would be the B in some other equation, e.g., no A : no Russian invasion. What would that A be?
        jacquesm 3y ago
        You're not making any sense.
        andreygrehov 3y ago

Bright democratic countries are not interested in the investigation. The resolution failed to pass because it only received three votes in favor (Russia, China, and Brazil) and 12 abstentions.

jacquesm 3y ago

I think the general consensus is that they don't want this to become a distraction. Regardless of who did it it's a footnote and it doesn't change the fact that Russia started a war next door to the EU on a flimsy pretext and that's the thing that matters.

andreygrehov 3y ago
I kinda both agree and disagree with you. I agree that it won't change much in the grand scheme of things, but at the same time I disagree on the footnote part. If blowing up a natural gas pipeline is just a footnote, then it means the responsible parties can do all sorts of attacks and then later simply say: "well, it's just a distraction, let's forget about it and move on".
- jacquesm 3y ago
  Compared to attacking a nuclear plant and blowing up a dam I think it's a footnote. War is ultimately destructive and any kind of infrastructure connected to the belligerents is at risk.
  - meeuwer 3y ago
    Here's a funny weird little fact. The IAEA inspectors and even Mr. Grossi himself have been documenting and even 'hearing' shelling 'on a regular basis' while present on the ZNPP premises. But they've never attributed the shelling to either of the parties, not once. [1] Isn't that unusual given how quick all the officials and media are to blame just one side of the conflict (we know which one) for everything, with or without evidence? [1] https://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Aiaea.org+znpp+shelling https://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Aiaea.org+znpp+shellin...
    - jacquesm 3y ago
      https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Just_asking_questions https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Just_asking_questions
      - meeuwer 3y ago
        > ... it should be clear that "just asking questions" only applies when the answers are already well known, where the question embodies a point refuted a thousand times, and where the questioner exhibits willful ignorance. If, for example, someone phrased their political argument as a series of questions — but provided sources to back up said questions, or has raised logical arguments in said questions — then it is not enough to dismiss the argument as "just asking questions". So, the IAEA and Grossi either can't establish where the shells are fired from (hard to believe given the prolonged and intensive nature of the shelling and the amount of evidence) or are hesitant / not allowed to incriminate the party they believe is responsible.
        jacquesm 3y ago
        No, they can but it isn't relevant. Let me spell it out for you: no Russian invasion: no shelling of plant.
        andreygrehov 3y ago
        > no Russian invasion: no shelling of plant If we apply the same logic of no A : no B, then "Russian invasion" would be the B in some other equation, e.g., no A : no Russian invasion. What would that A be?
        jacquesm 3y ago
        You're not making any sense.
        andreygrehov 3y ago