The Ukrainian president said earlier the Russian army mined the dam, to prevent the bridge being used by Ukrainian military. Perhaps it detonated, either by accident, as a reaction to an actual Ukranian attack over the bridge, or simply because of a very nervous Russian soldier.
On the plus side, this should mean the damage should not be too bad, as Ukraine had time to prepare.
None of the parties have supporting evidence (not for mines as well).
Both parties are in information warfare, and everything is used for their own benefits. Everything they say, should be taken with a grain of salt.
Immediately, when the dam was exploded, Zelensky said that now the world must react, and drive Russians from Ukraine, from all the territory and corners they have taken.
The problem is, that we don't have access to up-to-date Russian military records.
Is he really Russian soldier?
If he is, can we guarantee that the video is not digitally created (deep fake)?
If we guarantee the both, what is the motivation for Russian soldier to say it and what situation led to this video?
Do we know, that this soldier was indeed responsible to be close to the dam?
It is so difficult to say what is true these days.
> The problem is, that we don't have access to up-to-date Russian military records. Is he really Russian soldier? If he is, can we guarantee that the video is not digitally created (deep fake)? If we guarantee the both, what is the motivation for Russian soldier to say it and what situation led to this video? Do we know, that this soldier was indeed responsible to be close to the dam?
You got evidence and now you're trying to discredit that evidence.
> It is so difficult to say what is true these days.
Indeed it is, I have a feeling you really don't care much about the truth are just here to try and muddy the waters.
> You got evidence and now you're trying to discredit that evidence.
I am trying to say that our definitions of evidence are not the same anymore.
It is just a video online. Without any other supporting factors, it stays like that. Evidence requires connection to the context, and we can't verify that.
> Indeed it is, I have a feeling you really don't care much about the truth are just here to try and muddy the waters.
I care about the truth. But I also don't like that people can't see over their own biases. (e.g. not considering that someone else than Russia could do something for their own benefit)
> I am trying to say that our definitions of evidence are not the same anymore.
It is just a video online. Without any other supporting factors, it stays like that. Evidence requires connection to the context, and we can't verify that.
It's literally video evidence of the Russians pretty much admitting it and you're doing your best to try say theres no way to know its real.
> I care about the truth. But I also don't like that people can't see over their own biases. (e.g. not considering that someone else than Russia could do something for their own benefit)
I care about the truth as well, but it's worth knowing that people who 'question' everything generally have an ulterior motive and don't really care about the truth. Whats the points in arguing if all the evidence is deep faked?.
Theres no proof anything you said is true, tonnes of proof the Russians blew up the damn.
Here's another video of them saying they want to blow the dam, but I'm sure you'll come up with some reason why this video could be fake too.
On the plus side, this should mean the damage should not be too bad, as Ukraine had time to prepare.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/oct/21/zelenskiy-accu...