5 ms·

This article currently has much more information (as of the time of posting) https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2023/jun/06/russia-ukraine-war-live-dam-nea

This article currently has much more information (as of the time of posting) https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2023/jun/06/russia-ukraine-war-live-dam-near-kherson-blown-up-by-russian-forces-ukrainian-military-says https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2023/jun/06/russia-uk... ("Russia-Ukraine war live: dam near Kherson destroyed by Russian forces, says Ukraine, sparking evacuations")

dehrmann 3y ago
[flagged]
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- wesleywt 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - bjoli 3y ago
    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
    - jononor 3y ago
      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.
      - bjoli 3y ago
        I agree with you. This is probably a net positive for Russia which will have to defend a smaller stretch of land in the (probably) upcoming offensive.
- dralley 3y ago
  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.
  - Scoundreller 3y ago
    They may not “need” the water for drinking, but it looks like it supports a lot of crop irrigation.
    - pmontra 3y ago
      It does not seem that Russia ever cared about the wellbeing of the territories they occupy.
    - The_Colonel 3y ago
      The canal was not working until last year. It's questionable how much agriculture has been revived in that time.
- Scarblac 3y ago
  That's a detail. Crimea did without that canal from 2014 to 2022.
- timeon 3y ago
  > shifting blame game No need for game: if Russia did not invade, this would not happen.
  - MrOwnPut 3y ago
    That doesn't give a blank check to do whatever you want without criticism. And if previous actions justify later actions then the US shouldn't have meddled in 2014. Thus "no need" to blame Russia, the US is responsible. In reality, things are much more nuanced than that logic.
    - wiseowise 3y ago
      [flagged]
      - MrOwnPut 3y ago
        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. These things aren't propaganda, they are events that happened. Do you honestly believe that coup was totally organic and the US had no hand in that one (just others)? There is precedent for the US meddling in other countries and even Ukraine in 2004: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2004/nov/26/ukraine.usa https://www.theguardian.com/world/2004/nov/26/ukraine.usa But maybe, just maybe, the US had no hand in these "revolutions", just the Middle East and LATAM countries.
        atdrummond 3y ago
        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”.
        MrOwnPut 3y ago
- lawn 3y ago
  It's sad how people still believe Russian propaganda, and these claims have been constant throughout the war: - We didn't bomb the civilians, that was Ukraine. - The torture chambers weren't ours, they were found in Ukraine. - Ukraine are nazis (no comments on the Russian white supremacists in the military). - We did not blow up Nord Stream 2, that was Ukraine (or the US). - We did not blow up the dam, that was Ukraine. Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice shame on me.
  - sschueller 3y ago
    It's called "fog of war". If you believe everything Ukraine/US/EU says you are just as much as a fool as if you did believing Russia.
    - lawn 3y ago
      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.
    - ajuc 3y ago
      One said Ukrainians are nazis and satanists and that NATO wants to invade Russia. And that Russia won't invade in 2022. The other side said Russia wants to invade and that it will invade in 2022. Believing that when there's 2 sides the truth is always in the middle is foolishness.
    - _glsb 3y ago
      [flagged]
      - randunel 3y ago
        This "whataboutism" is perfectly valid, because it highlights double standards. Whataboutism isn't a blanket logical fallacy, it's applicable in certain scenarios.
        3y ago

dehrmann 3y ago

[flagged]

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
wesleywt 3y ago
[flagged]
- bjoli 3y ago
  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
  - jononor 3y ago
    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.
    - bjoli 3y ago
      I agree with you. This is probably a net positive for Russia which will have to defend a smaller stretch of land in the (probably) upcoming offensive.
dralley 3y ago
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.
- Scoundreller 3y ago
  They may not “need” the water for drinking, but it looks like it supports a lot of crop irrigation.
  - pmontra 3y ago
    It does not seem that Russia ever cared about the wellbeing of the territories they occupy.
  - The_Colonel 3y ago
    The canal was not working until last year. It's questionable how much agriculture has been revived in that time.
Scarblac 3y ago
That's a detail. Crimea did without that canal from 2014 to 2022.
timeon 3y ago
> shifting blame game No need for game: if Russia did not invade, this would not happen.
- MrOwnPut 3y ago
  That doesn't give a blank check to do whatever you want without criticism. And if previous actions justify later actions then the US shouldn't have meddled in 2014. Thus "no need" to blame Russia, the US is responsible. In reality, things are much more nuanced than that logic.
  - wiseowise 3y ago
    [flagged]
    - MrOwnPut 3y ago
      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. These things aren't propaganda, they are events that happened. Do you honestly believe that coup was totally organic and the US had no hand in that one (just others)? There is precedent for the US meddling in other countries and even Ukraine in 2004: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2004/nov/26/ukraine.usa https://www.theguardian.com/world/2004/nov/26/ukraine.usa But maybe, just maybe, the US had no hand in these "revolutions", just the Middle East and LATAM countries.
      - atdrummond 3y ago
        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”.
        MrOwnPut 3y ago
lawn 3y ago
It's sad how people still believe Russian propaganda, and these claims have been constant throughout the war: - We didn't bomb the civilians, that was Ukraine. - The torture chambers weren't ours, they were found in Ukraine. - Ukraine are nazis (no comments on the Russian white supremacists in the military). - We did not blow up Nord Stream 2, that was Ukraine (or the US). - We did not blow up the dam, that was Ukraine. Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice shame on me.
- sschueller 3y ago
  It's called "fog of war". If you believe everything Ukraine/US/EU says you are just as much as a fool as if you did believing Russia.
  - lawn 3y ago
    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.
  - ajuc 3y ago
    One said Ukrainians are nazis and satanists and that NATO wants to invade Russia. And that Russia won't invade in 2022. The other side said Russia wants to invade and that it will invade in 2022. Believing that when there's 2 sides the truth is always in the middle is foolishness.
  - _glsb 3y ago
    [flagged]
    - randunel 3y ago
      This "whataboutism" is perfectly valid, because it highlights double standards. Whataboutism isn't a blanket logical fallacy, it's applicable in certain scenarios.
      - 3y ago