this post was submitted on 23 Aug 2024
104 points (94.1% liked)
World News
32068 readers
1099 users here now
News from around the world!
Rules:
-
Please only post links to actual news sources, no tabloid sites, etc
-
No NSFW content
-
No hate speech, bigotry, propaganda, etc
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
No. Russia did not send UAVs to damage a nuclear plant. Russia captured the plant as a strategic position to hold and control. Once your troops are stationed there, you have a vested interest in maintaining the integrity of the reactor. Ukraine's attack was an attack on a nuclear plant with zero intention to hold and control it.
Parts of a drone 100m from the plant.
In no way provides proof of an attack aimed to damage the plant.
Unless you are trying to claim russia walked in without firing a weapon. Atm you do not have the info to make that comparison.
Taking posesston requires survailance and potential removal of guarding forces. Drone can be used for both.
LOL, drones can be used for occupation? Really? Foolish mental acrobatics so you don't have to deal with reality.
Sending a drone, likely a kamikaze drone, at a nuclear power plant is not a valid military operation.
What Russia did, quite clearly, was captured and secure a plant. What Ukraine did, based on the evidence, is chuck an explosive at a plant.
"At a plant", or "near a plant"?
Also, why couldn't a drone strike be precursor to capturing and securing the plant? E.g. destroy guard posts in front of the plant in a controlled manner to reduce the risk of uncontrolled firefights during the capturing?
The owners of the plant say it was an attack on the plant. You can feel free to go find evidence to back up your claims of something else and present it.
Well, if the owner's word is enough as evidence on it's own, Russia has committed quite a bit of warcrimes in Ukraine. Will be interesting to see how they could possibly weasel out of a conviction considering the rock-solid "trust-me bro" evidence also provided by Ukraine.
Maybe one should not blindly trust the word of one of the warring parties?
Way to deflect into whataboutism.
Nuclear brinkmanship is the USA's behavior. The only country to use nukes on people was the USA. The USA is the one who violated non-proliferation giving nukes to Israel. The USA is the country that has pulled out of nuclear treaties. Bush 2 was openly calling for the development of tactical nukes. Under Biden the military was openly describing their work in Taiwan as building the Pacific kill chain, essential nuclear first strike capabilities.
So when a country that's been invaded by the West 3 times in last 150 years says that there was an attempt to create nuclear escalation, yeah I am gonna believe it
Holy whataboutism indeed. In a war between Ukraine and Russia, we are supposed to blindly believe Russia, because the US is doing bad stuff with nukes in a differen part of the world?
BTW, after how many invasions does one get the "everyone must believe what I say" card? I mean, Ukraine has also been invaded a few times now.
You don't understand whataboutism and can't tell the difference between it and corroborating evidence.
Whataboutism is when I say that the owner of the plant says there was an attempt at nuclear terrorism and you say Russia commits war crimes.
Corroborating evidence is when I make a bold claim like the USA is engaging in nuclear brinkmanship and then provide historical evidence to support my claim.
Do you see the difference or can you only hear "screeeeee I am a Russian apologist bot paid by the Kremlin"?
Ukraine fights Russia. "But what about US nuclear brinkmanship in completely different places?"
Would you BTW answer how many times one needs tp be invaded until one should be blindly trusted? I'm truly curious. You mentioned 3 times in 150 years. Is that more or less it?
I don't argue with fuck wits after I recognize them. Piss off with your intellectual dishonesty.
There's no need to argue. We can just check what the Ukrainian position is. As Ukraine has been invaded by Russia at least 3 times within the last 150 years, it means no proof is needed (by your logic).
It's unclear to me what happens if two countries have been invaded 3 times, but tell different stories. Do we believe the one that has been invaded more in that case?