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.
Without this dam, Crimea will be without water for at least next 3 to 5 years after Ukraine recaptures it.