Interesting follow-up by the same poster here, quoting WaPo tweeting some Maxar photos, showing that the dam seems to have suffered some damage in the past week - adding credence to the possibility that it did, in fact, "collapsed due to damage", without either side specifically pulling the trigger today.
US 'cannot say conclusively' what happened in dam breach - Kirby
Yeah right. lol. And that is a clear signal that Ukraine was behind it. But as always the warmongers will try 4d chess to convince you Russia did it, like it blew nord stream, attacked crimea bridge, and shot missiles into Poland.
It could just be the US doesn't have special info, like the rest of us. The fact that it was in a Russian controlled area, rigged with Russian explosives and that the damage would mostly be inflicted on Ukraine suggest maybe it was Russia, no 4d chess required.
Russia. Turns everything from Zaporizhzhia to the Black Sea into a boggy-ass mess of mud (draining the reservoir will leave mud, flooding the downstream will leave mud). Filling the reservoir before blowing it like they did only maximizes the amount of mud left. Lets Russia shift more forces north.
It has already caused loud cry from EU politicans, before we even know the reason.
President of the European Council: "The destruction of civilian infrastructure clearly qualifies as a war crime - and we will hold Russia and its proxies accountable."
It blocks or slows only couple weeks at max. Not really a big gain.
The river has 6 dams. Ukraine can control the upstream flow.
It is estimated than in three days, the highest point in downstream is reached and then it will get lower. In the war which has lasted more than year, the benefit is meaningless.
On the other hand, the flow flushes all the Russian defenses on the other side. And the source of drinkable water in Crimean is ruined.
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.
It's a pretty big psychological warfare advantage for the Russian though to impress their population and keep them in the dark about what is really going on in Ukraine. It seems a bit coincidental considering the major Ukrainian offensive will likely start with the next couple of weeks.
Current chatter that I'm seeing indicates that the local RF commander got scared and blew the dam. It may not have been commanded by higher ups. So, the only benefactor seems to have been the local RF, and even then only until someone can got over there to ream him.
How good is this info? Probably not the best. But it fits fine enough with how poorly commanded RF has been throughout this war.
It seems to be the Muscovites giving up on folding Ukraine into their empire, and going for scorched earth instead before withdrawal. Here's hoping Belgorod and Kursk can be liberated soon.
Looks historically unprecedented (?). This is a run-of-the-river type dam (relatively small elevation drop between upstream and downstream), but one with an enormous reservoir, with a volume (1.8e10 m³ nominal) larger than e.g. Banqiao (4.9e8 m³) or Mosul (1.1e10 m³). It is/was #48 on Wikipedia's ranking of world's largest water reservoirs.
Looking at the innundation by blowing up the dikes in ww2 near my birth city it's not unprecedented but now definately a war crime (which the allies did btw). The reservoir here was the North Sea.
I want to remind everyone that the irrigation of the entire south Kherson oblast depended on the Crimean channel, providing around 17% of Ukraine's agricultural output, and the water supply to some of the largest cities in the area such as Kherson and Krivuy Rih was also dependent on that water reservoir. Not to mention the colossal flooding and displacement of tens of thousands of Ukrainian people. This act had ruined a chunk of Ukraine's future. It's extremely unlikely Ukraine had anything to do with it or anything to gain which would compensate the economic loss.
Crimea has survived without water for years previously. Russia may have determined that the expense of some aquaducts across the Kerch Strait is less than the expense they may incur from a successful Ukrainian crossing of the river.
Or they may have determined they are likely to lose Crimea anyway and are salting the earth behind them.
This is to say, there are plenty of reasons why they may feel motivated to do this. Furthermore they destroyed another smaller dam in Eastern Ukraine only about 2 weeks ago.
>This also leaves the Zaporizhzhia nuclear plant in danger of having no cooling left, the same Zaporizhzhia nuclear plant that
It does not work like that, the plant is in cold shutdown and has all the water it needs. Also, the water is taken from the bottom of the reservoir/river.
>had been shelled by Ukrainians in the lest six to eight months with not even a slap on the wrist from the Westerners.
You forgot to add that it was shelled with magical shells that flip always flip when hitting the ground, making it look like russians did it! The same with donetsk buildings getting hit from southeastern side! Satanic technology.
It’s clear that we live in totally two separate worlds. Time will tell.
This recent event also made me aware that the Ukrainian men that I see daily here in the streets of Bucharest have not run away from the Russians, but from some of their fellow Ukrainians.
Of course you shouldn't blindly believe everything one side says, but saying that Russia is as trustworthy as the rest of the world (barring a dozen countries at the bottom of the democracy ranking) is just wrong.
I agree with the intention of this comment. However, "fog of war" usually refers to the situation the fighting soldiers and commanders are in, not to the situation the ordinary population. It refers to the fact, that the soldiers and commanders themselves need to fight. Where they need to base their decisions on an understanding of the situation high uncertainty.
The OP "believes" that the Russians bombed out their own pipeline, a thing not even mentioned by the Western press anymore (it's all a "blob" for them at this point).
This "whataboutism" is perfectly valid, because it highlights double standards. Whataboutism isn't a blanket logical fallacy, it's applicable in certain scenarios.
Since you seemed to appreciate logical fallacies, your argument starts with an appeal to emotion [0], then ends with ad hominem [1]. There's no point in your argument, nor in your personal attack, since nobody denied the war or mentioned anything about it in this thread of ours. Siding with the victim doesn't suddenly make your logic perfectly sound, and it doesn't make your peers side with the aggressors, either. Let's keep discussions civil, shall we?
What are you trying to say? To hell with facts and reason, if they're opposing my politics or emotions?
I guess critics of enlightenment were right: humans ain't improving shit. We're only pretending to, and it works only as long as the culture allows it.
Constant surprise how many pro Russian views there are from a mainly American audience on a tech website. I'm anti war, anti the US going into Iraq for example. Therefore I'm on the side of Ukraine here and we should give any support necessary for them to defend themselves. No "provocation" that happened or has been made up or imagined by Russia excuses what they're doing. There are plenty of political reasons I don't necessarily like for the west to support Ukraine, but reasons aside, outcome is aligned.
Don't confuse "pro-Russian" with "anti-bullshit" stance.
Finding Russia to be the aggressor and Ukraine to be the victim doesn't automatically imply you have to throw away all your mental faculties and gobble up wartime propaganda without questioning, reducing yourself to a binary classifier - "it says Ukraine good == it's good; otherwise, it's pro-Russian trolling".
War time is literally the last moment you want to take what anyone involved says at face value. The eagerness with which people in tech circles - including on this very website too - are jumping in to loudly signal their allegiance with a side (be it Ukraine in this conflict, or US in US vs. China threads, or...), whether or not it even makes sense, much less follows any kind of sensible reasoning - this is what keeps baffling me. As a teenager/young adult, I had the impression that STEM circles are better than this. The last decade has proven me wrong.
Anyone who values STEM and the legacy of enlightenment that has made STEM possible should definitely pledge allegiance to the Western side in a conflict with Russia or China, even if that includes
repeating wartime propaganda at times. I find it perfectly rational.
Broadly supporting the Western side? Perhaps. Siding with and supporting Ukraine in this conflict? Yes. Repeating war propaganda? I strongly think this is just sawing off the branch you're sitting on.
We can debate the merit of the idea of sacrificing the thing you value the most in order to protect it - but it's neither here, nor there. People on the ground, fighting to defend their homes, are going to do whatever they feel necessary, including plenty of nasty, ugly, underhanded things - as it has always been in the history of war. But people far away, safe from any ongoing conflict, have no excuse - they're not sacrificing anything but intellectual integrity, and they're not doing it for survival, but rather for internet points or a leg up in some domestic political games.
Funding this war (which we're losing) is gutting funding for further education and scientific research.
It's possible there's a secret plan which will turn things around, but it seems more likely that the only thing which benefits from our inevitable defeat is the arms industry.
> It's possible there's a secret plan which will turn things around, but it seems more likely that the only thing which benefits from our inevitable defeat is the arms industry.
The benefit of a Russia that is incapable of committing more or any forces to there numerous wars of conquest is a net benefit for the entirety of the Europe as it increases stability in the region.
It could still mean a Vietnam type situation which wasn't fun for the Vietnamese. But I doubt Ukrainian citizens would choose the other option just to end it early.
Might be worth asking again in a year from now when this war will likely still be deadlocked.
How are we losing? Ukraine was supposed to fall in days. For them, even holding the line isn't losing, and they've pushed the line back.
I talked about politics that I don't like here it is: the west is not losing, it's winning substantially. Even if Ukraine doesn't win back territory, the west sees Russia bash itself against a wall losing men and equipment, and showing its hand operationally. And the amount spent is a pittance to western governments. We could, and imo we should, give Ukraine to means to win. But I would say there is a calculation going on the US about stringing out the war longer to weaken Russia even further and perhaps even pull out its alliances, see what happens.
Neither Russia nor Ukraine are going to "win" in the sense of coming out of things better than they went in. Ukraine obviously. But Russia has probably fallen further from higher. The war has essentially solidified Ukraine identity and politics, but it's starting to unravel Russian politics. Nobody can know what the future holds, but I cannot see a future now where Russia is not considerably weakened - it's turned it's western neighbours/customers into enemies, shown weakness to its vassal states, and gone begging to China for material and trade.
Also what outcome do you want? We surely don't want Russia to win this and think its great and start more wars and repress more people. I think we should care at least.
> And the amount spent is a pittance to western governments
I don't consider well north of $100billion and climbing to be a pittance.
> We could, and imo we should, give Ukraine to means to win.
And yet we haven't. The Ukrainians are still rationing artillery fire, appear to have lost most of their air defence cover and long ago lost air cover.
If we were serious about winning the US government would have switched to a planned economy (as we did in WW2), taken control of munitions production and gotten a handle on our out of control military contract padding.
> But I would say there is a calculation going on the US about stringing out the war longer
That's certainly one way to spin trying to lose more slowly.
> Also what outcome do you want? We surely don't want Russia to win this and think its great and start more wars and repress more people. I think we should care at least.
a negotiated peace. Tricky given all of the times the US has betrayed Russian trust over the last ten years. The only plausible route feels like a massive neutral DMZ (probably everything east of the Dnipro) administered by a BRICS led UN peace keeping force.
Hugely embarrassing for the West and NATO, but would end the killing and devastation and allow us to concentrate on the real threat of climate change.
> The only plausible route feels like a massive neutral DMZ
How is that even remotely plausible? It would be absolutely unprecedented in scale, Ukraine would have to cede protection of massive amounts of its territory in exchange for Russia doing what? Stop trying to unsuccessfully advance frontlines and be saved from counteroffensive?
> I don't consider well north of $100billion and climbing to be a pittance.
You may not but the west does, the US is spending less then 10% of its yearly military budget and is mostly giving Ukraine stuff that was going go be replaced soon anyway.
> a negotiated peace. Tricky given all of the times the US has betrayed Russian trust over the last ten years. The only plausible route feels like a massive neutral DMZ (probably everything east of the Dnipro) administered by a BRICS led UN peace keeping force.
Why should Ukraine trust a negotiated peace with a country who already has multiple international agreements to not invade them?.
Ukraine already has a negotiated peace agreement with Russia it’s called the Budapest memorandum it didn’t stop them invading in 2014 or 2022.
All a negotiated peace does is allow Russia to rearm itself and try and grab more land.
We have tried appeasing Putin in the past when the west did nothing about what happened in Georgia, Chechnya and in Ukraine in 2014.
Appeasement doesn’t work, the only thing Russia understands is force so the only way this works out well for the rest of world is if they suffer a huge defeat.
I don’t see this working unless the DMZ starts on Russias side of the pre 2014 border.
> Hugely embarrassing for the West and NATO, but would end the killing and devastation and allow us to concentrate on the real threat of climate change.
If you want to really end these threats then get Russia to leave Ukraine. But I have a feeling you don’t want that to happen.
You’d think everyone in the US can align with Ukraine on this.
Peaceful orientation: Russia started it
Warlike orientation: Ukraine winning this thing would defeat a major US rival
Budget conscious: sending $1 to Ukraine does more to cement US hegemony than sending it to the DoD
Social justice types: Russia has a horrific record on the human rights of anyone who isn’t Putin
Conservatives: Ukraine, formerly part of the USSR, is trying to align itself more with the Western way of doing things and Russia is violently trying to stop them
Yeah, spot on. It's incredible how many people here think they see the big truth while the "herd of sheep" is obviously way less enlightened than them. How anybody can orchestrate a pro-russian view point within this conflict is mind boggling to me.
>Conservatives: Ukraine, formerly part of the USSR, is trying to align itself more with the Western way of doing things and Russia is violently trying to stop them
The biggest meme amongst conservatives now is how west all sucks. Amazing how quickly that spread. Reagan would be disgusted with traitors that calls themselves Republicans nowadays.
"In November 2013, a series of events started that led to his ousting as president.[10][11][12] Amid economic pressure from Russia,[13] Yanukovych retracted plans to sign an association agreement with the EU, instead choosing to accept a Russian trade deal and loan bailout. This sparked large protests by supporters of European integration, who held a wave of protests dubbed the "Euromaidan" and were met with violent reprisals from authorities. Three months later, the escalating civil unrest led to over 100 deaths[14] and culminated with Yanukovych's flight into exile in Russia.[15] Later that day, Ukrainian parliament voted to remove him from his post and schedule early elections on the grounds that he had withdrawn from his constitutional duties"
So, when people don't like what their government is doing it's only because some external powers are to blame for supporting them?
If anything the above quote points the "meddling" being done by russia and not the US/West. So they made it happen and when it went wrong they obv point to others. This is so classic. That some fools still fall for it is the amazing part.
What about Russia trying to kill Yanukovich's opponent (who after the failed poisoning even failed to win, despite confirmed election fraud)? The same Yanukovich that promoted European integration during the 2013-2014 campaign and then reneged on his promises once elected, thus prompting Euromaidan—it was all his doing, no need to involve US and Europe in the supposed "coup".
Imagine seriously thinking that a society that had financed one of the largest militaries in the world on a partially ground-up/volunteer basis for the last nine years couldn't finance an internal revolution against a corrupt twice convicted criminal who infringed on his own campaign promises, the rights of businessmen, and human rights, and who fled to the country that had been threatening Ukraine ever since the 2003 Tuzla incident, while also keeping the Parliament running throughout the events and preserving a Constitutional majority of representatives.
Nah, it's all the US, of course. Ukrainians can't do shit in their own country, except breaking the back of the second largest army in the world purely out of spite towards those who want to take away their freedoms.
> I'm not talking about the 2014 "election" that happened after the Crimea invasion.
I'm talking about before all that. The 2014 coup openly supported by US and Europe that overthrew Ukraine's pro-Russian elected President.
Neither am I, did you even read my comment?
It’s a revolution, not a coup, when will you learn already?
And I don’t understand the point you’re trying to make. That without US and Europe Euromaidan would never succeed? Or that Euromaidan was orchestrated by US and Europe?
> These things aren't propaganda, they are events that happened.
Events that happened is Ukrainians CHOSE Europe. Russians CHOSE to invade in 2014 and 2022.
> Do you honestly believe that coup was totally organic and the US had no hand in it?
Yes. How much do you even know about history of Ukraine?
You’re not going to have a reasonable discussion on this topic here. The last time I brought up my personal history living and working in Donetsk and the views of my neighbors and friends, I was emailed and texted multiple times by users here to “kill myself”.
Interesting question. How badly does someone have to behave before you feel you have a moral blank cheque in stopping them. I think starting a war counts.
Someone provided confirmed russian defensive positions along Dniepr. Unless the Russians moved out before the Ukrainians would have at least a reason to destroy the dam.
They have, however, avoided civilian casualties, and looking at the map this would have been a deviation from that. It would fit the russian MO better
What are you saying could be a reason for Ukraine to do this? The flooding is probably not fast enough to trap/kill soldiers at those positions. And while those defensive positions will be "destroyed", they are replaced kilometers of marshlands, which is a superior defense, at least in the coming months. It can be held with much fewer people, shortening the effective length of the front, and freeing up soldiers to be used elsewhere. Massive gain for Russia, unfortunately. Likely nothing positive for Ukraine, unless they have something _incredibly_ creative going on.
Following some of the threads, there's satellite evidence it may have just failed for mechanical reasons. If this was unintentional and they didn't abandon those positions downstream they're in for a bad time.
The fact it's timed with the first day of the counter offensive and it's been long discussed as a very likely target for Russia that would be one hell of a coincidence.
Regardless of what actually happened today, the high level was absolutely deliberate, it is just basic dam maintenance to let more water out when it fills. And that was absolutely reckless, contributing to certain deaths today.
Of course, if you are planning on blowing the dam, that makes sense for maximum damage, but I speculate.
Maybe forcing a mechanical failure provides more plausible deniability than simply blowing it up? It also makes it easier to repair considering it's still a valuable source of water for Crimea.
A hydrologist on twitter said that it would require far fewer explosives to blow it up when overfilled. If they were short on those, it would be another reason.
Easier to repair? Did you see the pictures? Not an engineer, but that looks like they will have to tear down whatever is still standing and rebuild from scratch.
It's been shelled for months probably by all parties at some point
> Ukraine's Armed Forces (UAF) "developed a tactic to work around that limitation by conducting multiple precision strikes across the key Antonivskiy Bridge and the road that ran atop the Kakhovka Dam in such a way as to break the roadways in a line across them, rendering them unusable without actually destroying the bridges' infrastructure (or badly damaging the dam)," the think tank said.
Kovalchuk considered flooding the river. The Ukrainians, he said, even conducted a test strike with a HIMARS launcher on one of the floodgates at the Nova Kakhovka dam, making three holes in the metal to see if the Dnieper’s water could be raised enough to stymie Russian crossings but not flood nearby villages.
The test was a success, Kovalchuk said, but the step remained a last resort. He held off.
wanted to take you up on the "explicitly" then just googled it myself. in deed the additional protocol i of the geneva convention has something explicit to say about dams.
----
"[...] the Nova Kakhovka dam has been earmarked as a potential target for [...] its strategic importance"
"Its destruction would have a number of significant repercussions [...] for Ukraine’s wider war effort."
"2. The special protection against attack provided for in paragraph 1 shall cease:
(a) for a dam or a dyke only if it is used for other than its normal function and in regular, significant and direct support of military operations and if such attack is the only feasible way to terminate such support;"
don't know whether or not this constraint applies. i'm anyway not really intending to justify this or russia's attack on ukraine in general. just don't like pointing out cruelty in wars as if it's a surprise this is happening. war is about killing more soldiers than your opponent and there never was a war not impacting civilians. many people seem to think: "i'm against war except if it's fought fair and without killing children, elderly, women, handicapped people and civilians in general."
I don't think that this constrain applies. The dam was part of the Russia-occupied territory or part of the gray zone. Ukraine was not using the damn dam for anything.
At this point I'm not willing to give Russia the benefit of the doubt anymore. Their leadership has more than sufficiently demonstrated that they consider atrocities and crimes of war as part of the toolbox, so to say.
The dam was under Russian control. Ukraine wouldn't have had any opportunity to place demolition charges.
Russia has demonstrated that it is;
- willing to level cities with hundreds of thousands of inhabitants
- willing to use torture, abduction, rape as systematic weapons of war
- willing to indiscriminately attack civilians
- willing to use banned weapons of war
Despite war crimes obviously (d'oh) happening on both sides of the conflict, the Russian leadership has made it evidently clear that is more than happy to unleash any amount of terror, pain, misery and suffering to get what it wants. The Russian leadership is perfectly a-ok to systematically use all of the aforementioned as weapons.
I've not seen this callousness from the Ukrainian leadership.
"Kovalchuk considered flooding the river. The Ukrainians, he said, even conducted a test strike with a HIMARS launcher on one of the floodgates at the Nova Kakhovka dam, making three holes in the metal to see if the Dnieper’s water could be raised enough to stymie Russian crossings but not flood nearby villages."
War as an impersonal phenomenon doesn't bring anything inherently, saying so simply blurs individual responsibility. It's up to the belligerents, up to the individual commanders, units and members of armed forces to decide what and whom they target. Targetting a dam by the Russians is a war crime per Art. 56 of the 1977 Additional Protocol I of the Geneva Conventions.
Is Russia the kind of country that would kill you or members of your family if you were in uniform and didn't follow orders? I honestly don't know. I do think individual responsibility absolutely has a place for acts in war, but I'd want that informed by that what choices those individuals had available and what they'd have understood the consequences of their choices would be.
Of course they are, they've done it the whole war.
Most of the time executing civilian men as per our gender's supposed "main purpose" in life.
But they have also executed women and children indiscriminately as well. There are recorded radio conversations of Russian soldiers explaining their orders as "kill everyone, I don't care who they are".
It's also weird how totally unnecessary all of this is. You could probably say that about most wars really, but this one is entirely pointless. Russia didn't have to invade at all. They can go home at any time and it'd all just stop. It'll be hard enough to deal with all the loss and damage that's been done already.
Russia’s image was trashed when they failed to take Ukraine in the first weeks of the invasion. Winning now (or months/years from now) isn't going to fix that. Even if they did win what would they get? Russia has no real need for Ukraine. I'd rather be known as a country who screwed up but knows when to quit than one who does something dumb and is too embarrassed by it to pull their head out of their own ass no matter what the cost.
This type of view pretends to be smart, but only until you personally get robbed or mistreated. Then such people quickly learn that sometimes there's black and white. Seen many times.
You only can afford to not think in black and white until you're confronted with, as you write, evil and good, yourself.
As per one of Ekaterina Schulmann's recent talks (I think the one at Science Po) "Q: Do you know which concentration camp they are bringing us to? A: I don't know, I don't bother about politics!"
Vladimir Vladimirovich is going to be remembered as the next Adolf Stalin and for a good reason. Post-1945 world is not magically immune to the emergence of such people in power. Grey morality, especially with regards to genocidal dictators, is a myth that the West fell into because Germany had to be quickly whitewashed into being a NATO ally. Hence the "clean Wehrmacht" myth, the Rommel myth, and more. Now this cognitive distortion plays out with regards to Russia and their crimes, "oh they can't be completely evil, nobody can be completely evil anymore", when that is just a myth. Sometimes we can see the same distortion with regards to China, too.
> "Water from the Kakhovsky Reservoir is necessary for the station to receive power for turbine capacitors and safety systems of the ZNPP. The station's cooling pond is now full: as of 8:00 a.m., the water level is 16.6 meters, which is sufficient for the station's needs."
Of course it's totally unsafe: it's in a war zone. It's on the current, active front line of a warzone. If this dam collapse doesn't cause a catastrophic spent fuel nuclear disaster in the next few hours, there's still imminent danger of that from any number of different causes – most visibly, military actions occurring right next to (or inside of!) the power plant. The IAEA messaging has been extremely shrill about this for like a continuous year, and no one listens.
e.g.
- "After nearly nine months of failed efforts to forge an agreement between Ukraine and Russia to establish a protection zone around the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant (ZNPP), Rafael Mariano Grossi, the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, is now pushing for a new proposal to reduce the possibility of a catastrophic nuclear disaster."
- "Ukraine’s Zaporizhzhya Nuclear Power Plant (ZNPP) has been without external back-up power for three months now, leaving it extremely vulnerable in case the sole functioning main power line goes down again"
Note that it is the second time the dam is destroyed here. During WW2 soviets exploded the dam upstream (Zaporizhzhya dam) perishing ~100k civilians and their own military.
The water situation is way overblown. Crimea did fine since 2014 when the water was cut. There were shortages in the central and north parts but mostly because of high demand from the local industry (Crimean Titan plant) and agriculture (it is hard to believe but they were planting rice over there). It also helped that due to the climate change we had unusually heavy rains and even floods in the southern parts. Because of that, water supply in Sevastopol hasn't been rationed even once even though the population has increased, although it was a common occurrence before 2014.
Well, I don't know what to say really. I have no idea how this all ends, and I fear it is far from over yet. I don't support Ukraine in this conflict for different reasons, one of which is that in case of their victory my family will loose everything and I'll end up in jail (and that's best case). But I cannot support Russia either because I cannot support the idiots who decided to start this war, because I cannot support the way this war was fought, and because if Russia wins I'll be sealed in one country with these idiots forever. And in the case the conflict will get frozen at some point (which is probably how it'll go because I cannot see either side winning on the battlefield), it'll just continue later. In short, I think we're screwed either way.
> I don't support Ukraine in this conflict for different reasons, one of which is that in case of their victory my family will loose everything and I'll end up in jail (and that's best case).
In the unlikely event of retaking Crimea, Ukraine is going to prosecute collaborators, cancel _all_ property deals after 2014, and expel Russian citizens who never had Ukrainian citizenship. I have received Russian citizenship, some of my family members have been Russian citizens all their life, and I have inherited, sold, and bought property after 2014. And while it is not clear who is going to be considered a collaborator, nobody who received Russian citizenship is safe (which means nobody at all).
I find it very unlikely that they would imprison, essentially, the entire remaining pre-2014 population of Crimea on the sole basis of having received a Russian passport. It's going to be a large problem in the occupied territories as well, as people have been refused medical care and other necessities unless accepting a Russian passport or in some cases threatened and tortured. Separating out those who were under genuine duress from those who enthusiastically accepted is an intractable problem, so the bar would need to be set somewhat higher.
Given that 10+ million Ukrainians have lost their homes or forced to relocate, entire destroyed cities, the extensive mining of Ukrainian territory etc. it is difficult to be especially sympathetic to non-Crimean Russian settlers who might lose their property.
Oh, I am not a settler, I was born in Sevastopol and lived here most of my life, as most people I know. It is hard to be sure, but I'd say, only about 10% of the current population came after 2014, the rest lived here before and then took Russian citizenship.
Cancelling property deals after 2014 would effectively mean most will still be able to live in their homes and apartments but will never be able to sell anything. It took me 5 years to change Ukrainian documents to Russian documents (property documents, passports, driver license, everything), and I still have not received and will probably never receive ownership on the small workshop that belonged to my father's company because it requires something from Ukrainian archives, which is pretty much impossible to obtain. I spent months of my life standing in queues in government agencies and in the court. I cannot imagine changing everything back, it will take decades!
And then, what about the kids who were born here after 2014 and have no Ukrainian documents? What about tens of thousands who lived here all their life but who always were Russian citizens, like my father in law? Sevastopol has been a Russian navy base since 1783, there are so many people who are kids and grandkids of retired navy officers, who were born and lived here but never had Ukrainian citizenship. What about their families, and everybody who had some relation with Russian navy? Half of guys my class in 1994 went to the local Russian navy academy and became Russian navy officers, no chance they or their families can re-integrate in Ukraine. And then the Russian military shipyards, and the local branch of Moscow State University and many many other Russian institutions which were functioning here since forever and all the people working for them and their families... Russia has always had so much presence here, I honestly cannot imagine Ukraine taking over Crimea without expelling or imprisoning half of the population.
Sorry for the brain dump, I didn't mean to make a statement or prove anything, it is just such a mess it hurts to even think about this all.
Oh I wasn't implying you were a settler, it was clear that you were not from the original post. But you mentioned others. There's really no great answers, certainly no blanket ones.
>> Arestovych was kicked out of the administration for making exaggerated statements for attention, he's not a great source.
Also:
> Compulsion; forcible constraint; the act of controlling by force or arms.
As those people like to say, that person could just go to the Ukraine and get medical care there. Bonus points: wouldn't get shot up as a collaborator.
One cannot "just" cross the front lines of an active warzone. This should be blindingly fucking obvious. Especially not with all of the bridges being blown. Especially not when you're elderly, probably ill or injured (they are looking for medical attention, remember) and in all likelihood do not have a vehicle in the first place.
And it's just "Ukraine", not "the Ukraine".
Thank you for showing your colors so clearly. The kind of person who does not see how it could be coercive to force elderly, sick people to leave the place they live (and probably livestock, because Ukraine) and travel hundreds of miles, or to accept Russian citizenship - to get basic medical attention is not worth arguing with.
> One cannot "just" cross the front lines of an active warzone
What exact 'front lines' and 'an active warzone' were for 8 years for Crimea? What forbade an Ukrainian patriot to find the time in 8 years to get from the occupied by evil Russkies Crimea to his homeland and don't be in the need 'to be coerced to receive the passport to receive a medical help'?
> And it's just "Ukraine", not "the Ukraine".
And it's 'Netherlands', not 'the Netherlands', right, because you are the one consistent fellow? And it's also makes sense because English is the first language of the Ukraine, right?
> The kind of person who does not see how it could be coercive to force elderly, sick people to leave the place they live
But somehow you are perfectly fine if those people are coerced by the right guys to leave their places - because somehow people living all their life in Crimea, Sevastopol, Donetsk, Lugansk aren't a proper humans.
You are boring and specifically take only the points where you can argue.
In the video in question it's specifically said what would happen when Ukrainians would take Crimea. Of course you ignored that to make your point look good in your own eyes.
So, let's try again:
Arestovich would shoot up everyone deemed too Russian, everyone else would be guilt by default and somehow only some elderly people who couldn't make it to the motherland in eight fucking years to receive the so needed medical attention (but somehow found the time to get a Russian passport) would be spared - and you are totally, absolutely fine with all these points.
> In the unlikely event of retaking Crimea, Ukraine is going to prosecute collaborators, cancel _all_ property deals after 2014, and expel Russian citizens who never had Ukrainian citizenship. I have received Russian citizenship, some of my family members have been Russian citizens all their life, and I have inherited, sold, and bought property after 2014. And while it is not clear who is going to be considered a collaborator, nobody who received Russian citizenship is safe (which means nobody at all).
Based on this.
> I have received Russian citizenship
You should be okay, I think they will recognise most people faced the choice of getting Russian citizenship or potentially very bad things happening to them, as long as you where Ukrainian before I don't see the issue.
> and I have inherited, sold, and bought property after 2014.
This is on you my friend, you knowingly sold, and bough property that was in essence stolen.
> And while it is not clear who is going to be considered a collaborator, nobody who received Russian citizenship is safe (which means nobody at all).
I don't think this is true, if you weren't overtly fighting or collaborating with the Russians I don't think the Ukrainians will do much.
This would happen if the person is squatting on somebody else's property (i.e. received or bought illegally while the Crimea is occupied) or is a collaborator.
I don't know. Sevastopol is super important to them. I hope they won't do anything drastic.
It's the only warm water port Russia has on the black sea. And thus full year access to the mediterranean. I doubt they will give it up. Perhaps the rest of Crimea, I could imagine. But not the base.
I thought this was not a warm water port but indeed it is.
Their main port in the black sea is still Sevastopol though. It would cost a lot to transfer all that over to Novorossiysk and it would also cause them to lose a lot of face. I doubt they will let that happen.
Launch a strategic nuke, no. Nobody expects that. But we're talking about tactical ones. The smaller ones that can be dropped from a plane or installed in a short range missile.
Even if one or two fail, they will find one that works. It would set a terrible precedent for the rest of the world, where any kind of nuke deployment right now is "not done".
We don't want to go back to the 60s where nuclear-tipped torpedoes were regularly carried and in fact one almost was launched during the cuba crisis.
> Launch a strategic nuke, no. Nobody expects that. But we're talking about tactical ones. The smaller ones that can be dropped from a plane or installed in a short range missile.
Even with a tactical nuke we are talking about the end of the Russian federation, if anything would invite a physical kinetic response it would be a nuke, tactical or not.
Russia won't launch nukes come what may, because Putin's now very very big brother Xi doesn't want a nukes-equipped Taiwan, and holiday resorts for Moscovites are less important than TSMC chips.
Sevastopol being only Black Sea port is not true. Russia has Novorossiysk where they constructed naval base before 2014. The remains of the Black Sea fleet have moved there because it is safer than Crimea.
"Decree of the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet "On the transfer of the Crimean Oblast". In 1954, the Soviet leadership, which included Khrushchev, transferred Crimea from Russian SFSR to Ukrainian SSR."
There's no significant drinking water source in Crimea. And this was the dam directing water to Crimean water channel. Not sure what other credible source you may want.
The dam disappearing doesn't mean the flow of water disappears. The water level might drop below the intake of the North Crimean Canal, but the canal already requires pumping water uphill to get it all the way to Crimea, so the dam doesn't necessarily have to be fully reconstructed to deal with a lower water level, a second pumping station would be enough.
The next question is how long would it take to repair if it does slow down / reroute the counter offensive?
There's lots of evidence it harms Russian troop build ups in the region but only if they plan on abandoning the southern Kherson region and don't have any plans beyond that.
FYI, it stops looking like innocent questioning when you put more time and effort into repeating the question in multiple places than into looking up the answer yourself. If you think someone is wrong, then be forthright about that, and consider whether addressing the lack of adequate sourcing is still necessary after you've made a real contribution to the conversation. In a topic like this one, people can reasonably make very different assumptions about what is "common knowledge" that doesn't need full citations every time it's mentioned.
The GGP is neither a credible source (it's an unsupported statement by an internet rando) nor speculation that withstands much scrutiny (IIRC, circa 2014, Ukraine had blocked the channel that supplies water to Crimea, and that didn't cause the Russians to abandon it then, and I don't see why now would be any different).
There's a lot of wishful thinking and propaganda swirling around this conflict, and strong claims need strong evidence.
I'd say any claim needs evidence (with some extreme exceptions), and in fact it's only the evidence that's worth reading, not the claim.
Rando claims have zero value by themselves - there is an infinite supply that say anything and everything. That's why science, law, etc. require evidence.
Above all, it's economical. Say what you will about Peter Zeihan, but he's been going on about it for months: ~“Once winter is over, and they can't hurt the Ukrainian population by going after energy and heating infrastructure, they'll go after their economy. And with Ukraine a major agricultural exporter, that's probably what they'll go after.”
The Nova Khakovka reservoir fed not only the Crimea Canal, but three (or was it four?) other major canal systems... Irrigation canal systems. Without the dam, the erstwhile reservoir's water level is of course far below that of those canal systems, so they're all out of commission. And with them some significant proportion (a fifth? Something like that) of Ukraine's agriculture.
No, but one is easier to understand than the other. Spending a ton of intelligence capital on a complicated clandestine demolition operation just to impoverish a region under context just doesn't make a lot of sense, even for Putin. At best it's a side benefit.
It also requires that you assume Putin genuinely believes he's going to lose Crimea in this war, which seems questionable (a Ukrainian military conquest of the peninsula is a *huge* ask, much more so than just retaking the occupied Donetsk territory).
The tactical explanation, and especially the timing, really seems much more likely.
More weapons and permission to strike military targets in Russia seems like a proportional response. Otherwise, what's the response for blowing up a nuclear power plant in the future? Slap on the fingers? Russia keeps escalating, it's clear now that this can only be allowed to end with the full defeat of the Russian military.
Whether the dam was blown up or collapsed due to damage is just the difference between shooting someone and slowly poisoning them, it's still murder.
It look like the most anticipated Ukrainian offensive had begun, but was blunted by the Russians
After this occurred, it stands to reason that the Ukrainian government would like a reason for not losing any more men and material so why not blow up the dam and damage most of the defensive positions the Russians had prepared and give an excuse for not going on with the offensive.
And of course ask for more money and weapons so who did this benefit and you don’t have to be a mental giant to figure out that this was more damaging to Russia and the Crimea than to Ukraine.
And remember, we were all told that the Russia blew up its own pipe line in the North Sea as well, confirmed by US officials both military and state department, of course they would not lie to us again right?
Look at the lay of the land and facts, the Crimean region relies on that water for agriculture and industrial/domestic water supplies much more than the Ukraine does.
Think for yourselves and don’t be led around by politically motivated people.
"The reservoir it contains holds an estimated 18 cubic kilometres of water, about the same volume as the Great Salt Lake in Utah. Bursting the dam could send a wall of water flooding settlements below it, including Kherson, which Ukrainian forces recaptured in late 2022"
In 1941 the retreating Red Army blew a different dam, the Dnieper/Dnipro dam, up to a hundred thousand people died on that occasion...
There's more. Sun is also responsible for floods, typhoons, cyclones and tornadoes. Hundreds of disasters every year.
Come to think of it, energy stored in the dam is the result from the Sun evaporating water from other areas, and then convection currents, aka wind, blowing the clouds over the continent and condensing.
I'm not a military expert, but it seems like this will benefit the Russians, who will now have time to reinforce and strengthen their positions in Kherson Oblast on the south side of the Dnipro River at a time when Ukraine has been gaining momentum, and possibly considering crossing for a counter-offensive.
From a purely positional perspective, this is a big advantage for the Russians, who benefit from a more prolonged conflict because they have more people, and need more time to resupply their logistics.
Ukraine needed to present a credible threat to cross there to pin Russian forces in the area. Now that it's basically impossible to cross the river, Russia can redeploy the majority of the forces to other areas.
Last fall, Russians have built and used several pontoon bridges over Dnipro for a few weeks, as they defended Kherson city and the Antonovskij bridge was rendered unusuable by HIMARS strikes.
Here’s a post from Kherson journalist with breakdown of Russian propagandist reactions to the situation for those who still think it’s not Russian orchestrated explosion.
- settlements on river banks will be swept away
- the biggest nuclear power plant in Europe, ZNPP, won't be restarted due to lack of cooling
- Crimea will lost access to fresh water
- First line of defence for both sides are swept away.
- it will be harder for Ukraine side to mount an amphibious assault
I'm kinda happy for that power plant not to be restarted though.
It's much better for it to be in a shutdown state if it finds itself in the middle of combat again. I know Ukraine needed the power but it getting damaged could cause problems far beyond Ukraine. One Chernobyl was enough. But I hope it has enough cooling water to cool its storage reservoirs.
All the other effects are terrible of course :( And all favour Russia.
It will also make it easier for Ukraine to attack upstream when the reservoir is empty. In places where there are virtually no Russian defenses. So that's a win for Ukraine.
First, the reservoir won't empty completely. Second, if it were there will be meters of mud on the bottom of it. It's possibly more impassable when empty.
In short term yeah, it will probably be too muddy. But it will dry over time and in the long term this unlocked a completely new axis of attack for Ukrainians. Similarly in the downstream regions. The water will go away eventually and it will be much easier for Ukrainians to attack in the future, when the Russians will not have the capability to flood the downstream regions with this dam.
The Dnipro is still a large river to cross and it's not going away. I looked at it in Google Maps and it's at least 500 m wide before and after the reservoir.
I am actually not sure how wide it will end up. Dnipro is actually reservoirs all the way up to Kyiv. It will be Ukrainians in Dniper HES that will control the flow from now on.
Benefits the Russians who have been dealing with a Ukranian counter-offensive, and commentators have been wondering if Ukraine would attempt to cross the Dnipro and mount a counter-offensive to cut Crimea off from the mainland.
Footage coming out in the last two days showed heavy Ukraine armour losses, so I am not sure whether this is necessarily because Russians were on backfoot. The overflow would be higher towards South so it will hurt Russian defensive preparations more once the water has receded.
> Footage coming out in the last two days showed heavy Ukraine armour losses, so I am not sure whether this is necessarily because Russians were on backfoot.
Worth noting that this may still turn out to be accidental, in the sense that all the bombing activity around it triggered sufficient cracking in the wrong places that the normal forces (made worse by high water levels) caused a failure.
To be clear, I'm not saying that this wasn't a strike, or a demolition, just that it could be an unintended failure caused by precision strikes performed on targets very near to the dam.
“That latter point means that, like all concrete structures, concrete dams will crack. These cracks will be tend to be vertical, since the concrete is free to grow and shrink in the vertical dimension, while the canyon it spans is of a fixed dimension. While an arch dam will have the pressure of the water pushing these vertical cracks closed, a gravity dam has no forces acting along its axis--well, except for the temperature changes. The easiest way to deal with this is to provide a known place for the concrete to crack. Therefore, the dam is divided into monoliths, where each monolith is a separately-placed block of concrete that is more or less structurally independent of the monoliths next to it. The dividing lines between monoliths are contraction joints, and will open and close with temperature changes, sometimes quite dramatically. This is the same reason sidewalks are cut into squares and concrete highways have the joints that go "ba-dump" as you drive over them--the concrete will crack, so provide a way to make it crack in a controlled, pretty manner.
[...]
This will hold true for all of the concrete, but once you get to the foundation, it gets a bit tricker. The soil is not a relatively well-controlled material like the concrete. It's typically full of joints and is permeable. At the base of the dam, it's typical to assume that the full pressure of the forebay is acting at the heel and the pressure of the tailwater is acting at the toe. The total force acting upwards is typically pretty large, which is a problem: this pressure will reduce the forces acting on the foundation, and therefore the force squeezing any joints in the rock. If you remember from high school physics, it's typically assumed that frictional forces are proportional to the force squeezing two surfaces together. Therefore, this uplift pressure can reduce these forces enough that a wedge of foundation rock will slide with the dam in a foundation failure. This is the typical cause of failure in a large gravity dam.
I've shown with a dashed line what that uplift pressure would look like under the monolith, if we let it reach its natural state. However, we have some tricks that we can use to dramatically reduce this uplift pressure. I've drawn a grout curtain and foundation drains extending from the bottom of the dam. The grout curtain is a "wall" of portland cement grout, formed by drilling through the bottom of the dam from the drainage gallery and injecting the grout under pressure. It's typically much deeper than I've shown here, as I ran out of room on the paper. This curtain will increase the path length for flow lines, which will primarily serve to reduce the volume of water flowing under the dam. ”
“OTOH, what gives me a bit of pause in going "It's a deliberate demolition" is that when I try to wrap my head around a plan for how you'd do this for a dam of this type (concrete gravity dam with spillway and powerhouse using intake sections), it gets to be extremely complicated very quickly. If you just had one huge bomb--and this would include airstrikes as well as a bomb on a truck or suspended from a barge in the forebay--you'd disrupt a couple of monoliths, and then this basically rounds to the same problem I pointed out above: why doesn't the progression stop after the disrupted monoliths slide downstream and the pool starts to drop?
But if you wanted to go and do demo on each monolith, that's...a very elaborate operation. Not impossible for a military to conduct, but it's hard for me to believe that it would have escaped notice until now. I'd expect to have seen a bunch of video of Russian soldiers spending weeks putting demo on each monolith, including having drilling rigs out there. People tend to have an overly-optimistic view of how easy it is to do a surreptitious controlled demolition, and it's harder when dealing with a structure that mainly functions by just being so damn heavy that water can't push it downstream--you need to either remove mass or disrupt the structure of the dam long enough for the reservoir to push it out of the way, which either means really big bombs that are probably easily visible, or super-elaborate placement of a bunch of small ones, which is also easily visible.”
Think for yourselves look at facts
Are there pictures of an explosion? Seems like there should be with all the satellites and drones in the area.
The Crimea region depends much more on the water from that dam than the Ukraine does for agriculture and domestic water sources.
Who lied to us about the Russian Pipe line being blown up saying Putin did it and now we know that the Ukraine did it of course with the knowledge and probable help of the US. Ukraine offensive had started and had been stopped.
There are more than two groups who could have done this. The Wagner Group could have done it independently. Ukrainians or Russians could have done it thinking it advances their goals. Who it benefits, hurts, and who could have done it is messy.
You know it could have also been damaged by the war or it needed some maintenance and then it simply blew up open. No one knows who did this but it is really beyond the point now. There is a war going on and pointing fingers only make peace harder to achieve.
Russian state media openly publishes articles that Ukraine should cease to exist, and Ukrainians should be erased as a nation with the descriptions of eradication of all the Ukrainian government supporters (almost everyone according to them) and mandatory civilian suffering through the hardships of war and post-war rebuilding to redeem themselves for betraying Russia.
It's a direct description of genocide they aren't shy to openly talk about. And yet the situation is still somehow very complicated to understand.
If you're trying to convince people than there's a moral case against Russia and for Ukraine, then sure. If you're trying to convince people of specific operations then you do have to get down into the details.
I've always found it difficult to see how most Germans in WW2 supported Hitler and the regime.
But here we have in the free world, with access to all the information from the internet and who can read what journalists all over the world report, who still choose to believe a state that act in the exact same manner.
At least in Nazigermany the narrative was controlled and it was difficult to "see the other side".
It's absolutely crazy how even ridiculous propaganda can be effective.
(And yes, some of the Russian propaganda is absolutely ridiculous.)
> Meanwhile you're sitting in your comfy chairs asking for 'credible sources' and wondering which side this benefits more.
But it's precisely because we're sitting in a comfy chair that we have to ask for credible sources. "Fog of War" is a real thing and disinformation campaigns have been integral to this war. Most people here couldn't pinpoint this dam on a map and it's not immediately obvious that this isn't some tactical decision by ukraine to advance their counter operation.
To you it might be obvious that this is part of russias illegal war, to me it's not and i'd rather wait a few days until things clear up instead of rushing to judgement without understanding it.
Have you considered that the Ukrainian armed forces may have made a mistake? Accidentally shelling the damn setting of Russian explosives? Just because Ukraine is the victim doesn't mean they know more what happened there then we do. Again, fog of war is a real thing.
It will take several days until people outside the Ukrainian and Russian government can have any idea what really happened. But to paint me as a Russian sympathizer because I don't know for sure what happened in a warzone hours after reports started coming out is just incredibly stupid.
You seem to be quite misinformed about the war. It's openly known that Ukraine is running propaganda campaigns and intentionally publishes misleading information, to win the information war. Note, this isn't bad and in fact is encouraged by us western allies. We *want* Ukraine to lie. In fact that's how the last counter offensive happened. Ukraine ran a massive propaganda campaign about their "offensive" in the south, then attacked in the north. That's also why even western secret services don't know how many soldiers Ukraine has lost so far. That's also why we don't know who blew up Nordstream 1&2, even though the tracks point to a Ukrainian oligarch, as reported by reputable western newspapers.
But that doesn't mean that we - normal citizens in comfy chairs - can't try to look through the fog of war. No reason to go into the Reddit outrage mode. It's very possible that Ukraine has made a mistake or expects some military advantage from the dam breaking. But its also very possible that Russia broke the dam, to enhance their defense. Or it was an honest mistake due to lack of maintenance. Or it was a partisan group, who are active in this area. We will probably only really know in 2-3 months, when independent western experts have finished their investigation, anyone stating "facts" beforehand is just making up stuff. It isn't "victim" blaming to keep some rational mind in this conflict. We all know that Russia is a genocidal aggressor, but we also know that Ukraine is intentionally spreading misinformation, to gain military advantages.
You know, as a Ukrainian, what I appreciate the most is someone claiming to both be "in a comfy chair" and lecturing me on what is going on in my country of origin.
You have three potential explanations:
(1) The agressor, who:
- Has a history of using the very same tactics in Ukraine and sacrificing thousands of its citizens in burnt Earth approach,
- Has shot down a commercial airline "by mistake" several years ago
- Has a history and culture of endemic lying, which they also foster in Western countries through soft power and social network campaigns
- Who have started shelling the very citizens in Kherson they claimed to have liberated once they lost the city
- Benefits from the flooding massively, because it blocks off the looming counteroffensive by Ukraine
(2) The victim, who:
- Gains nothing on the battlefield by doing this and actually makes it more difficult for them.
- Has to sacrifice the lives of its own civilian population to achieve this.
- Has no history of such misinformation tactics.
(3) Force majeur.
But wait, here come the enlightened HN commenters to assign equal probability to all three explanations, disregarding all of the above, because:
- They haven't bothered to actually inform themselves (thinking that *oligarchs*, even with a Ukrainian citizenship, have nothing to do with russian secret service is another level of naive)
- They feel entitled to have an uninformed opinion
- Imply that the lives of Ukrainians are worth so little that their government would willingly sacrifice them.
if we're already at it - have you heard about the freedom of russia legion? allegedly russian citizens turning against their own government. everything i could gather about that group smells to high heaven and nobody questions that narrative. pro-ukrainian media basically just praises those selfless heroes for their action. but none of it makes any sense. neither psychologically, nor militarily, nor socially, nor politically - any theories on what's going on with that?
Oh wow how did you manage to get good sources about the state of the CIS's psychology, society, or for that matter military?
Do you have access to FSB's secret polls? How does polling work if the wrong answer gets you 15 years in a penal colony?
Glad you're not in charge. Maybe you feel cool saying you'd ok an operation which would result in the deaths of more innocents, but that's an abhorrent position.
And if your enemy does not have same morals? You allow them to destroy your hospitals, electric power plants, dams, your nuclear power and you keep your moral superiority?
Say some piece of shit country would drop nuclear bombs on a city full of civilians, and I should not do the same back because for morality? Will not that encourage that evil country t drop more nuclear bombs?
What is your opinion then, if you are losing a way with an enemy that plays dirty you give up and accept your annihilation? Your children will be brainwashed by the enemy and send t fight more evil wars.
Russia was in control of the dam, had mined it, and had in recent weeks let water levels go up to unprecedented levels. Something like 80 settlements will be completely inundated, the largest nuclear power plant in Europe loses its cooling reservoir and attacks over the river will be impossible for weeks.
I don't think Ukraine did it.
(getting information from the thread in /r/worldnews).
If it wiped away defences it'd be more than worth it and Ukraine is now more than capable with its Shadow Storm missiles which UK provided just for this kind of attack.
It's a very bold move and if intentional it could be pivotal in this conflict.
It is an act of mass destruction and a war crime, that Ukraine was very worried about for some time since it will kill many innocent people. Very, very unlikely they did it. My first bet would be the dam failed from russian negligence / mismanagement, second the russians blew it up. But there will certainly be video of what happened today soon.
Cruise missiles don't win wars like this. It requires land forces crossing and holding territory. The narrower parts of Dnipro was the easiest path to doing that in the south.
Those cruise missiles were specifically designed to destroy tough targets like this dam.
If either side knew this was going to happen (because they planned it) it would certainly easily be the difference between winning and losing this war.
No. Storm Shadow has a small penetrating warhead. It is designed to punch through reinforced concrete to destroy whatever is within. It is not designed to destroy solid concrete. Otherwise the Crimean bridge would already had been destroyed with one of those super duper warheads.
It doesn't matter if the defenses are wiped out, if you cannot cross to reach those defenses. The terrain and roads will be wrecked and everything will be a muddy mess for miles.
No. Russians are trying to stop the counter offensive. This move will free up troops to defend Melitopol. Capturing that city effectively blocks land supply route to Crimea.
Wouldn’t Melitopol be harder to defend though? Looks to me that the huge accumulation lake upstream of the dam should drain in a few days, so a crossing by the Ukrainian forces should be much easier.
At a minimum this will force the Russians to bring troops and weapons to guard a stretch of more than 100 km, which they didn't need go guard before. That could be thousands of troops that will not be taken from a different part of the frontline.
The benefit near the flood will be in weeks to months.
That is if Ukrainian forces were concentrated elsewhere based on a plan to burst the dam.
If they win on other fronts they can turn attention south by that time Crimea will have not had fresh water for months and the forces will be depleted and demoralised.
This could be a major factor in the new offensive. But will require careful planning (if that didn't happen already).
There is a bridge to Crimea, they will bring in water like they used to do when it was cut after 2014 (even when there was no bridge yet). They made huge reservoirs in Crimea. The canal is mostly for water used by agriculture, and it will be a problem in years to come, not this year. And definitely not for troops. The canal is a tiny detail.
A propaganda war where nobody anything says can be believed about anything anyone says and the video from both sides is AI-manipulated and only 'embedded' reporting is allowed and then only from 'yellow' zones.
Rather sad, isn't it, the extent to which manipulative propaganda has become the daily fare?
All sides do use propaganda, but the idea that Western media is equal to Russian media in how much they lie in this war is definitely a ridiculous take.
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/nova-kakhovka-dam-khers...
Simulation of worst-case scenarios:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0tRYWbVD5AE
The Russian State News agency claims that the dam "collapsed due to damage"
https://twitter.com/Osinttechnical/status/166592960325106892...
Ukraine says it was destroyed by the Russian military.
Google maps: https://www.google.com/maps/place/Kakhovka+Hydroelectric+Pow...
Update - high quality video of the breach: https://twitter.com/AricToler/status/1665935477671690240/med...