• CarlMarks@lemmygrad.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Love to see the immediate certainty that Russia did it based on… UA saying so. Impressive media criticism. I’m sure Iraq’s WMDs will turn up any day now, too.

    • FaceDeer@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      And also based on it making total sense for Russia to have done it, and no sense at all for anyone else to have done it.

      • CarlMarks@lemmygrad.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        It also “made sense” to most Americans that Iraq had WMDs. Colin Powell even said so, and he was greatly respected despite his participation in covering up the My Lai Massacre.

        • FaceDeer@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          A bunch of whataboutism that has no relevance to the subject at hand.

          • CarlMarks@lemmygrad.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            Accusations of whataboutism are a thought-terminating cliché that, ironically, usually just help the accuser avoid engaging with a critical argument.

            The relevance here is that using “it sounds right to me” to decide whether a media narrative is true will lead a person to make big mistakes. And I am criticizing the general lack of media criticism in this thread.

    • tookmyname@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      FYI:

      The Bush administration, not US intelligence, claimed there were WMDs in Iraq. US intelligence agencies disputed the Bush administration claims repeatedly under oath. Not defending US intelligence in general, just clarifying the specifics of your example.

  • lntl@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    Is Russia capable of this? Yes.

    Is Ukraine capable of this? Yes.

    Could the US or China have done this covertly? Yes.

    Which one really did it? We’ll never know, but think about why you believe what you do from a story such as the one linked.

    • FuzzyDunlop@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      Which one really did it? We’ll never know

      Oh, we will, be reassured that we will find out eventually.

      Could the US or China have done this covertly? Yes.

      So this is what we find on Lemmy? A russian apologist as top post?

      First post and this is what I read. mmmkay “The USA or China could have destroyed this dam covertly”, right… The good old russian strategy of making you doubt everything you read. The goal of the russian propaganda is not to lie, the goal is to make you trust nothing, and specially not journalists.

      A quick look at your history and you constantly bash the Ukrainian resistance.

      • lntl@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Yikes! I dunno about that. I’m just saying that we should think critically about what we hear the media.

        • FuzzyDunlop@slrpnk.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          “Think critically” you say? So where are your facts? Because thinking critically is all about the facts. You have brushed away all the facts and declared “We will never know”. So where are your facts?

          For example the russians had control of the dam, not the ukrainians. It’s just an example. What do you make of it? Come on, show us your “critical thinking”.

          • JillyB@beehaw.org
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            1 year ago

            The article was behind a paywall so apologies if this is covered:

            The dam sluices were Russian controlled but the dam is on the front line. It easily could have been attacked by either side. Both sides will see flooding but moreso the Russian side because it’s flatter. Breaching the dam will empty the canal providing much-needed water to Crimea. The lower water level upstream could threaten the safety of an offline nuclear plant upriver. I can’t tell which side controls the plant, so I’m not sure who that would affect more.

            Russia could have easily done this to distract Ukraine ahead of it’s counteroffensive and to make the river harder to cross. Also, Ukraine is likely more concerned about helping Ukrainians than Russia. But Ukraine could have done it for the reasons stated. We’re definitely still in the fog of war and it’s ignorant to assume we know all the details.

            • FuzzyDunlop@slrpnk.net
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              The dam sluices were Russian controlled but the dam is on the front line. It easily could have been attacked by either side.

              Wrong, you don’t destroy a dam just like that. It takes preparation and a lot of explosives at the right points. This is not a Micahel Bay movies we’re talking about.

              Both sides will see flooding but moreso the Russian side because it’s flatter. Breaching the dam will empty the canal providing much-needed water to Crimea. The lower water level upstream could threaten the safety of an offline nuclear plant upriver. I can’t tell which side controls the plant, so I’m not sure who that would affect more.

              And Putin doesn’t care about all of that. He has proven it again and again.

              I can’t tell which side controls the plant

              Russia, They took control of the plant, which is illegal, all nations around the globe know perfectly that no army should take control of a civilian power plant. Every other army is trained to carefully avoid the nuclear power plants. For some reason Russia keeps ignoring the international laws.

              But Ukraine could have done it for the reasons stated.

              Nonsense, but keep trying

              We’re definitely still in the fog of war and it’s ignorant to assume we know all the details.

              Textbook Russian propaganda here -> “Nobody knows for sure”… Well, keep telling you that, nobody believes you west of Russia.

              The dam was under Russian control and they sabotaged it to slow down the Ukrainian counter offensive. It’s fine, Ukraine knew it was a possibility and they have plans accounting for it.

            • PolandIsAStateOfMind@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              The lower water level upstream could threaten the safety of an offline nuclear plant upriver.

              The plant is in the cold shutdown right now, so while it still need some water as cooling, the amount is way lower than in case of normal work, so even in the worst case of complete dam destruction it will not be affected as it is now.

              I can’t tell which side controls the plant, so I’m not sure who that would affect more.

              Currently Russia.

              Russia could have easily done this to distract Ukraine ahead of it’s counteroffensive and to make the river harder to cross.

              Problem is, nobody proven that offensive is even real, not to mention that it was prepared there. Currently the most intensive fights are being waged somewhere else. Also Russia recently hit at least two or three huge UA ammo depots which probably really did hampered any preparations. And the battle of Bakhmut was colossal meat grinder where regardless if we agree on exact numbers, Ukraine lost some of their best soldiers remaining (exactly those who would spearhead the offensive) and Russia lost mercenaries.

              Both sides will see flooding but moreso the Russian side because it’s flatter.

              Also basically all Russian defensive positions along the river were destroyed, countering the guy above on similar level i could say UA surely hit it because it will make their attack much easier when the flood lessens.

              Finally, UA already had plans for exactly that action last year, as they admitted to WaPo:

          • lntl@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            There are no “facts” in cases like this. That’s exactly my point.

    • tookmyname@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      I agree with your sentiment. But I’m usually more suspicious of the invading force trying to annex huge regions of a sovereign country. The US, Russia, China are all imperialist in their own way. Russia is the invading force. And none of this would be happening if Russia was not there.