8 ms·
Is this a deliberate flooding to stop troops? Like the dutch did: https://neverwasmag.com/2016/07/how-the-dutch-would-flood-their-country-to-stop-invaders/ ht
by hackandthink 3y ago
Is this a deliberate flooding to stop troops?
Like the dutch did:
https://neverwasmag.com/2016/07/how-the-dutch-would-flood-their-country-to-stop-invaders/ https://neverwasmag.com/2016/07/how-the-dutch-would-flood-th...
- baybal2 3y agoNo, it's a scorched earth tactic, in preparation to abandoning Crimea. Without this dam, Crimea will be without water for at least next 3 to 5 years after Ukraine recaptures it.
- UberFly 3y agoThis is actually correct, at least the effect it will have on Crimea's water supply.
- wolverine876 3y agoIf you have a credible source that goes into detail on that, I'd appreciate it.
- mantas 3y agoThere'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.
- dmix 3y agoThe 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.
- wolverine876 3y ago> Not sure what other credible source you may want. I'm a little confused: You did not provide any source. You're not obligated to provide any, but I don't understand your comment.
- wtallis 3y agoFYI, 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.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- skylurk 3y agohttps://knowyourmeme.com/memes/sea-lioning https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/sea-lioning
- tivert 3y agoThe 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.
- wolverine876 3y agoI'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.
- yorwba 3y agoThe 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.
- friend_and_foe 3y agoA credible source that they're about to abandon Crimea would be nice.
- wkat4242 3y agoI really doubt they will abandon Crimea. Russia has a huge naval base there. That's the last thing they'll give up. Flooding the area would make it much harder to cross for the Ukraineans though.
- polotics 3y agoOnce the Kerch bridge is cut and the southern offensive gets through to the Azov sea, they won't have any other choice but to scamper from Crimea.
- wkat4242 3y agoI 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.
- ianburrell 3y agoSevastopol 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.
- theironhammer 3y agoPrecisely. Ukraine taking back Crimea is pure fantasy. Russia would launch nukes rather than give it up.
- holoduke 3y agoRussia will never give up crimea. In fact it 'always' practically belonged to Russia. Their most important naval base is there for decades.
- _kbh_ 3y ago> Russia will never give up crimea. In fact it 'always' practically belonged to Russia. Their most important naval base is there for decades. Maybe they shouldn’t have built their most important naval base in a foreign country then proceeded to invade that country lol.
- theironhammer 3y agoYou should look up the history of Crimea.
- _kbh_ 3y ago> You should look up the history of Crimea. History doesn’t give them a right to take what they feel like that. Just because Putin is salty that Stalin made Crimea part of the Ukrainian SSR doesn’t allow him to reverse it.
- hackandthink 3y ago"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." (Stalin died already in 1953) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikita_Khrushchev#/media/File:The_transfer_of_Crimea.jpg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikita_Khrushchev#/media/File:...
- anavat 3y agoThe 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.
- throw_pm23 3y agoThanks for the insightful information. What's your take on the war otherwise?
- anavat 3y agoWell, 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.
- _kbh_ 3y ago> 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). Why would this happen?.
- practice9 3y agoThis 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. Good riddance if this will actually happen.
- ajross 3y agoThis is tactical, not terroristic. Flooded rivers and drained reservoirs are harder for armies to cross than developed riverside real estate. This eliminates the Dnipro as an invasion route and allows Russia to concentrate on defending the north. Putin may not care much about Crimean civilians but he's not going to go through all this trouble just to make them suffer.
- skjoldr 3y agoTerrorism always has a cold, tactical calculation behind it, to achieve some goal.
- lostmsu 3y ago> This is tactical, not terroristic I am not sure why you believe these two things contradict each other.
- ajross 3y agoNo, 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.
- CRConrad 3y agoAbove 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.
- commandnotfound 3y ago[flagged]
- _kbh_ 3y ago> please stop doing drugs, they're surely harming you too much Once Ukraine is within striking distance of the supply lines to Crimea how will Russia supply it?. Perhaps via the bridge have already shown they have no issue blowing up?.