11 ms·

A trip to the dried-up Kakhovka Reservoir

44 points by tomohawk 3y ago

lnsru 3y ago
[flagged]
- rainworld 3y ago
  It was also in Russian hands when the Ukrainians shelled it last year: https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/ukraines-russian-held-nova-kakhovka-dam-damaged-shelling-russian-media-2022-11-06/ https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/ukraines-russian-held-n...
  - _kbh_ 3y ago
    Shelling was unlikely to have caused that damage. It was nearly certainly an internal explosion based on reporting by the NYTimes. > https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2023/06/16/world/europe/ukraine-kakhovka-dam-collapse.html https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2023/06/16/world/europe/... > Given the satellite and seismic detections of explosions in the area, by far the most likely cause of the collapse was an explosive charge placed in the maintenance passageway, or gallery, that runs through the concrete heart of the structure, according to two American engineers, an expert in explosives and a Ukrainian engineer with extensive experience with the dam’s operations.
    - rainworld 3y ago
      Shelling was unlikely to have caused that damage. Non-sequitur refutations followed by a wave of downvotes are my favourite HN feature. I did neither write nor imply that the shelling caused the damage. I refuted lnsru’s spurious logic of attribution.
- hutzlibu 3y ago
  First, you have to be aware that it is a warzone, making independent information verification allmost impossible. And propaganda is happening on all sides. Second, the russians had allmost nothing to gain from blowing it up. The regions east of the river were hit way harder and now the crimea water supply is threatened and the conquered nuclear power plant is rendered worthless. Now the russians surely are not rational all the time, so it still might have been them - but the reason might have been also simply incompetence. If you look at the water levels, they were rising a lot before (and they were not regulating it, like it happened before). And the dam was already damaged from shelling. So it is possible that the increased water pressure caused something to break violently which can sound like an explosion and then the rest just followed. The main argument against this theory is the timing, as the ukrainian counteroffensive just started before. Now blowing up the dam does not make much sense strategically, rather the opposite as lots of russian trenches and minefields were flooded and negated as well(and not on the western side), but it might have been a panic reaction, with someone messing things up along the chain of command. In either case it is a stupid tragedy.
  - dralley 3y ago
    It really needs to be stated that the dams destruction is a massive catastrophe for Ukraine, and as much as people say "Russia had no reason to do it", Ukraine had far far less reason to do it. It provides water for drinking and heavy industry and agriculture for the entire central part of the country most of which is still under Ukrainian control. Lots of manufacturing capacity that was still online, had to be shut down. It still caused a ton of damage in Kherson, and the Russian positions it "destroyed" are irrelevant because Ukraine hasn't actually made any big push to the other side there, just some minor skirmishes. And Russia has now had, at this point, plenty of time to rebuild those positions. So Ukraine is going to be eating an economic cost of billions or tens of billions, and gained nothing from the destruction of the dam. The most likely cause is that Russia had prepped it for demolition in case of a significant Ukrainian attack across the river, and then either misinterpreted a small attack or triggered it by accident.
    - hutzlibu 3y ago
- helpfulContrib 3y ago
  I can explain it to you, even though it will inevitably be downvoted for being unsavory to our readers' mindset .. In the fog of war, all bets are off. Apparently, we do not have the evidence of who actually blew the dam, because we do not have the conditions required to gain sufficiently suitable evidence. Perhaps one day we will, but sufficient doubt exists that we cannot make canonical conclusions. Yet. The best we can do is use conjecture and assumptions - but in the court of world opinion, this just simply isn't enough. It is the same situation behind the destruction of the Nordstream 2 pipeline or the Duma gas attacks - we can make assumptions, and conjecture, over who did it and how and for what purpose - but until there is actionable evidence, its simply not enough to make conclusions based on ones own political position. Such is the nature of Lady Liberty - she is blind in the face of verifiable evidence - and this is a core Western Value which shall not be abrogated, for any reason - especially in the face of oppression, where she is needed most.
  - yostrovs 3y ago
    From the point of view of morality, I'm of the opinion that Russia did it. Even if Ukraine actually pulled the trigger. Just like in many US states: if you and your buddy get into someone's house to rob it in the middle of the night, and the homeowner gets his revolver and shoots your buddy dead, and you run out and the police catch you, it will be you that will be prosecuted for murder. You created the situation that led to the end result.
    - Dabphil 3y ago
      [flagged]
    - helpfulContrib 3y ago
      That is a slippery slope argument that can be equitably applied by the Russians who believe this war was started by the West in 2016. Be careful with the ease by which you can adopt this perspective. It doesn't actually serve you to adopt such fallacies. Evidence is important - faith in the world institutions that will act on that evidence, just as important. Literally nothing in your position will have a positive effect on those institutions.
- cpursley 3y ago
  Using derogatory terms like "ruzzian" is against HN guidelines: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
  - T-zex 3y ago
    [flagged]
    - cpursley 3y ago
      We don't do collective judgement/punishment here. Ping @dang
  - deely3 3y ago
    https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/Ruzzian https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/Ruzzian
    - hutzlibu 3y ago
      "(slang, derogatory, neologism) Alternative spelling of Russian."
  - hdjjhhvvhga 3y ago
    Unfortunately we need some term to express what is happening; this is similar to using the terms "Germans" and "Nazis" interchangeably when speaking about WW2. For sure it's not true that all Russians support the war; many are against. Yet, these are Russian soldiers who are killing innocent Ukrainians. If we use the term "Russians", this bundles these two reinforcing the Putinist idea that "Russia is me" and that the war is one behalf of all Russia and all Russians. This big lie will have great consequences for the future so maybe using the term "Ruzzian" for the population supporting the atrocities of war is not such a bad solution.
    - lnsru 3y ago
      Interesting theory. But I like it. There were soviets. I am one of them. Then there were russians. And now we have ruzzians. Russians could live in oil wealth like Saudis. But they went for ruzzians and that makes me sad.
- fuoqi 3y ago
  No doubt it was the Russians, same as with blowing up the Nordstream pipeline and shelling the Zaporozhia nuclear plant. There was absolutely no shelling of the dam from the Ukrainian side and numerous threats to blow it up when the Russians held both sides of the river. It's in the Russian's best interest to deny water supply to Crimea, cooling to the Zaporozhia nuclear plant, and to flood the left bank (which is much lower than the right one) to clear most of prepared defensive structures and mine fields. /s
  - inglor_cz 3y ago
    How much explosives do you need to destroy a Soviet reinforced dam like this? Several tons at least, perfectly placed. These mammoths were built to withstand American nukes. If the Ukrainians did it, they were able to smuggle a fantastic amount of explosives under the Russians' noses into Russian-controlled territory and then blow it up, without any cars or mechanization. Impressive ninjas.
    - fuoqi 3y ago
      With underwater explosion in the direct proximity you do not need that much, especially if you will use a charge with explosively formed penetrator. 16 meters of water pressure will quickly exploit even a small hole. My guess, it's small enough to be deliverable by a remotely controlled boat like those used by Ukraine to attack the Russian fleet, naval bases and the Crimean bridge.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- jandrewrogers 3y ago
  It is "apparently" because important details are unclear e.g. if the Russians placed the explosives and the Ukrainians inadvertently set them off since there was fighting in the area. Blowing up a large dam that is structurally sound is not something that happens accidentally. It would have required the Russians to place truly massive amounts of explosives at critical points within the dam's structure, which they did control at the time. That is an intentionally engineered situation. It does not imply that they intentionally or accidentally set them off. Ukraine had little capacity to do real damage to the dam. Artillery shells will not do much more than scratch the paint. The highly specialized capabilities required to do more damage are not available to Ukraine nor would the battlefield conditions have allowed them to operate these capabilities even if they did have them.
timeon 3y ago
Unfortunately site requires login or tracking.
- tetromino_ 3y ago
  Irony: making a login on site A to write complaints about a required login on site B :)
  - timeon 3y ago
    Is it? I'm regular here, not on random site posted. Also login here is not used just for viewing.
- mkl 3y ago
  That's what incognito windows are for. UBlock Origin will help too. Try Tor if you're really concerned.
fractallyte 3y ago
An OSINT journalist on Twitter carried out the most detailed investigation yet into the dam's destruction - far more thorough than the Nev York Times article mentioned elsewhere in this discussion. The conclusions are contentious, but the evidence is clear - backed up by multiple hydraulic engineers. https://twitter.com/osintjourno/status/1682342248187416576 https://twitter.com/osintjourno/status/1682342248187416576
- cmrdporcupine 3y ago
  Unpaywalled version (for now): https://nitter.net/osintjourno/status/1682342248187416576 https://nitter.net/osintjourno/status/1682342248187416576 The thread you tried to post is only visible to logged in twitter members.
  - fractallyte 3y ago
    Thanks for that, I didn't realize! TwiX is really different now... :-/
- tomohawk 3y ago
  When Russia invaded and occupied the area, they took responsibility for maintaining the dam. They are the ones that started the massive outflow of water. So, whether they mismanaged the dam and ended up destroying it, or blew it up - they are responsible.
  - fractallyte 3y ago
    Yes, OSINTJOURNO was quite clear about this too, although it may not have been evident in that particular TwiX thread. The ultimate responsibility lies with the Russian occupiers.
jahnu 3y ago
“Germany’s Lake Constance” Switzerland and Austria might like a word ;)

44 points by tomohawk 3y ago

lnsru 3y ago

[flagged]

rainworld 3y ago
It was also in Russian hands when the Ukrainians shelled it last year: https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/ukraines-russian-held-nova-kakhovka-dam-damaged-shelling-russian-media-2022-11-06/ https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/ukraines-russian-held-n...
- _kbh_ 3y ago
  Shelling was unlikely to have caused that damage. It was nearly certainly an internal explosion based on reporting by the NYTimes. > https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2023/06/16/world/europe/ukraine-kakhovka-dam-collapse.html https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2023/06/16/world/europe/... > Given the satellite and seismic detections of explosions in the area, by far the most likely cause of the collapse was an explosive charge placed in the maintenance passageway, or gallery, that runs through the concrete heart of the structure, according to two American engineers, an expert in explosives and a Ukrainian engineer with extensive experience with the dam’s operations.
  - rainworld 3y ago
    Shelling was unlikely to have caused that damage. Non-sequitur refutations followed by a wave of downvotes are my favourite HN feature. I did neither write nor imply that the shelling caused the damage. I refuted lnsru’s spurious logic of attribution.
hutzlibu 3y ago
First, you have to be aware that it is a warzone, making independent information verification allmost impossible. And propaganda is happening on all sides. Second, the russians had allmost nothing to gain from blowing it up. The regions east of the river were hit way harder and now the crimea water supply is threatened and the conquered nuclear power plant is rendered worthless. Now the russians surely are not rational all the time, so it still might have been them - but the reason might have been also simply incompetence. If you look at the water levels, they were rising a lot before (and they were not regulating it, like it happened before). And the dam was already damaged from shelling. So it is possible that the increased water pressure caused something to break violently which can sound like an explosion and then the rest just followed. The main argument against this theory is the timing, as the ukrainian counteroffensive just started before. Now blowing up the dam does not make much sense strategically, rather the opposite as lots of russian trenches and minefields were flooded and negated as well(and not on the western side), but it might have been a panic reaction, with someone messing things up along the chain of command. In either case it is a stupid tragedy.
- dralley 3y ago
  It really needs to be stated that the dams destruction is a massive catastrophe for Ukraine, and as much as people say "Russia had no reason to do it", Ukraine had far far less reason to do it. It provides water for drinking and heavy industry and agriculture for the entire central part of the country most of which is still under Ukrainian control. Lots of manufacturing capacity that was still online, had to be shut down. It still caused a ton of damage in Kherson, and the Russian positions it "destroyed" are irrelevant because Ukraine hasn't actually made any big push to the other side there, just some minor skirmishes. And Russia has now had, at this point, plenty of time to rebuild those positions. So Ukraine is going to be eating an economic cost of billions or tens of billions, and gained nothing from the destruction of the dam. The most likely cause is that Russia had prepped it for demolition in case of a significant Ukrainian attack across the river, and then either misinterpreted a small attack or triggered it by accident.
  - hutzlibu 3y ago
helpfulContrib 3y ago
I can explain it to you, even though it will inevitably be downvoted for being unsavory to our readers' mindset .. In the fog of war, all bets are off. Apparently, we do not have the evidence of who actually blew the dam, because we do not have the conditions required to gain sufficiently suitable evidence. Perhaps one day we will, but sufficient doubt exists that we cannot make canonical conclusions. Yet. The best we can do is use conjecture and assumptions - but in the court of world opinion, this just simply isn't enough. It is the same situation behind the destruction of the Nordstream 2 pipeline or the Duma gas attacks - we can make assumptions, and conjecture, over who did it and how and for what purpose - but until there is actionable evidence, its simply not enough to make conclusions based on ones own political position. Such is the nature of Lady Liberty - she is blind in the face of verifiable evidence - and this is a core Western Value which shall not be abrogated, for any reason - especially in the face of oppression, where she is needed most.
- yostrovs 3y ago
  From the point of view of morality, I'm of the opinion that Russia did it. Even if Ukraine actually pulled the trigger. Just like in many US states: if you and your buddy get into someone's house to rob it in the middle of the night, and the homeowner gets his revolver and shoots your buddy dead, and you run out and the police catch you, it will be you that will be prosecuted for murder. You created the situation that led to the end result.
  - Dabphil 3y ago
    [flagged]
  - helpfulContrib 3y ago
    That is a slippery slope argument that can be equitably applied by the Russians who believe this war was started by the West in 2016. Be careful with the ease by which you can adopt this perspective. It doesn't actually serve you to adopt such fallacies. Evidence is important - faith in the world institutions that will act on that evidence, just as important. Literally nothing in your position will have a positive effect on those institutions.
cpursley 3y ago
Using derogatory terms like "ruzzian" is against HN guidelines: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- T-zex 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - cpursley 3y ago
    We don't do collective judgement/punishment here. Ping @dang
- deely3 3y ago
  https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/Ruzzian https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/Ruzzian
  - hutzlibu 3y ago
    "(slang, derogatory, neologism) Alternative spelling of Russian."
- hdjjhhvvhga 3y ago
  Unfortunately we need some term to express what is happening; this is similar to using the terms "Germans" and "Nazis" interchangeably when speaking about WW2. For sure it's not true that all Russians support the war; many are against. Yet, these are Russian soldiers who are killing innocent Ukrainians. If we use the term "Russians", this bundles these two reinforcing the Putinist idea that "Russia is me" and that the war is one behalf of all Russia and all Russians. This big lie will have great consequences for the future so maybe using the term "Ruzzian" for the population supporting the atrocities of war is not such a bad solution.
  - lnsru 3y ago
    Interesting theory. But I like it. There were soviets. I am one of them. Then there were russians. And now we have ruzzians. Russians could live in oil wealth like Saudis. But they went for ruzzians and that makes me sad.
fuoqi 3y ago
No doubt it was the Russians, same as with blowing up the Nordstream pipeline and shelling the Zaporozhia nuclear plant. There was absolutely no shelling of the dam from the Ukrainian side and numerous threats to blow it up when the Russians held both sides of the river. It's in the Russian's best interest to deny water supply to Crimea, cooling to the Zaporozhia nuclear plant, and to flood the left bank (which is much lower than the right one) to clear most of prepared defensive structures and mine fields. /s
- inglor_cz 3y ago
  How much explosives do you need to destroy a Soviet reinforced dam like this? Several tons at least, perfectly placed. These mammoths were built to withstand American nukes. If the Ukrainians did it, they were able to smuggle a fantastic amount of explosives under the Russians' noses into Russian-controlled territory and then blow it up, without any cars or mechanization. Impressive ninjas.
  - fuoqi 3y ago
    With underwater explosion in the direct proximity you do not need that much, especially if you will use a charge with explosively formed penetrator. 16 meters of water pressure will quickly exploit even a small hole. My guess, it's small enough to be deliverable by a remotely controlled boat like those used by Ukraine to attack the Russian fleet, naval bases and the Crimean bridge.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
jandrewrogers 3y ago
It is "apparently" because important details are unclear e.g. if the Russians placed the explosives and the Ukrainians inadvertently set them off since there was fighting in the area. Blowing up a large dam that is structurally sound is not something that happens accidentally. It would have required the Russians to place truly massive amounts of explosives at critical points within the dam's structure, which they did control at the time. That is an intentionally engineered situation. It does not imply that they intentionally or accidentally set them off. Ukraine had little capacity to do real damage to the dam. Artillery shells will not do much more than scratch the paint. The highly specialized capabilities required to do more damage are not available to Ukraine nor would the battlefield conditions have allowed them to operate these capabilities even if they did have them.

timeon 3y ago

Unfortunately site requires login or tracking.

tetromino_ 3y ago
Irony: making a login on site A to write complaints about a required login on site B :)
- timeon 3y ago
  Is it? I'm regular here, not on random site posted. Also login here is not used just for viewing.
mkl 3y ago
That's what incognito windows are for. UBlock Origin will help too. Try Tor if you're really concerned.

fractallyte 3y ago

An OSINT journalist on Twitter carried out the most detailed investigation yet into the dam's destruction - far more thorough than the Nev York Times article mentioned elsewhere in this discussion. The conclusions are contentious, but the evidence is clear - backed up by multiple hydraulic engineers. https://twitter.com/osintjourno/status/1682342248187416576 https://twitter.com/osintjourno/status/1682342248187416576

cmrdporcupine 3y ago
Unpaywalled version (for now): https://nitter.net/osintjourno/status/1682342248187416576 https://nitter.net/osintjourno/status/1682342248187416576 The thread you tried to post is only visible to logged in twitter members.
- fractallyte 3y ago
  Thanks for that, I didn't realize! TwiX is really different now... :-/
tomohawk 3y ago
When Russia invaded and occupied the area, they took responsibility for maintaining the dam. They are the ones that started the massive outflow of water. So, whether they mismanaged the dam and ended up destroying it, or blew it up - they are responsible.
- fractallyte 3y ago
  Yes, OSINTJOURNO was quite clear about this too, although it may not have been evident in that particular TwiX thread. The ultimate responsibility lies with the Russian occupiers.

jahnu 3y ago

“Germany’s Lake Constance” Switzerland and Austria might like a word ;)