Comment by AnonCoward42 | Hacker News Reader

Comment by AnonCoward42 | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

This is mostly romantic western propaganda. We (the NATO) are the good ones, which is not part of your essay, and the bad ones are the Russians. This is reflected in the sources as well, which are exclusively pro-west ones as far as I can see.

Just as an example: Currently in our media Russians blew up the Kahovka dam. At no time anyone asks why they'd do that. It is detrimental to Russias strategy in the same way Russia does not profit from blowing up Nord Stream. The only reason for blowing up the dam would be to stop Ukraine forces at that flank, however the Russians were in control of the dam and they could have just opened it. Again this is similar to Nord Stream.

Could Russians have done it still? Sure, not all actions need to make sense, but it wouldn't be my first guess.

> With Ukrainians apparently unbeatable [...]

Not sure as meant as quote or not, but this does not hold water at all. Even Ukrainian officials say that the offensive isn't up to par currently. And by now we saw enough broken Leopards to say that the deliveries didn't have their desired effect either. Why are we in this war again?

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/

> 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.

>> 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.

> Could Russians have done it still? Sure, not all actions need to make sense, but it wouldn't be my first guess.

So what is your first guess. Because I think it makes plenty of sense that Russia would blow up the dam, but even if we accepted your premise that it doesn’t, then for what actor does it make more sense to blow up the dam than Russia?

You may be the one who needs to take a step back and question if you’ve been consuming propaganda.

Especially considering Russia was the only one with the plausible means to do so, and a reasonable motive to rig the dam for demolition even if not to blow it up immediately (which I agree, was a dumb decision, probably an error either in communication or execution).

> So what is your first guess. Because I think it makes plenty of sense that Russia would blow up the dam, but even if we accepted your premise that it doesn’t, then for what actor does it make more sense to blow up the dam than Russia?

Russia had the means to block the flank at will. It does block that part for a week, sure, but after that Russia has no control over it anymore.

> [...] and question if you’ve been consuming propaganda.

That is beside the point. We all only/mostly consume propaganda. It's when you think that one side tells the truth, that you're being manipulated.

'WE' are not in this war anon

Reply on news.ycombinator.com