4 ms·
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
by 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 agoSo what do you say to the fact, that due to height differences, the east, under russian control(with no immediate threat of being conquered) was hit way harder? The nuclear plant, the water supply to crimea? As of russian position, they are russian motherland since last autumn. So no matter how fake the referendum was, from their point of view, they were hurting themself. But sure, it is a massive catastrophe for Ukraine, like the whole war is.
- dralley 3y agoI say that unless the fact that the Russian side was lower resulted in meaningful military benefits for Ukraine, it's basically irrelevant. Russia lost some equipment but not really that much. Not enough to come even close to making it worth it for Ukraine, or enough to refute the idea that Russia did it. Since when has Russia ever been terribly concerned with "hurting itself" if they thought it would hurt the enemy too. And I just explained why this hurts Ukraine badly.
- hutzlibu 3y agoYes and I just explained that with the status quo, it hurt russia worse in my understanding.
- dralley 3y agoFrom the very article in the OP "The destruction of the dam, Russian President Vladimir Putin said in a news conference a week after the event, "ruined their counteroffensive in this direction." It was a comment that didn’t fit particularly well with his claim that the Ukrainians had destroyed the dam themselves."
- hutzlibu 3y agoOk, that is a new and strong fact to me, I missed so far, indeed indicating russian origin. It likely is wrong, though, but the justification seems to indicate that they thought it will help countering the offensive.
- hutzlibu 3y ago... but if the full quote is, like in the sibling comment, then everything is still far from clear.
- justsomehnguy 3y ago> then everything is still far from clear https://nitter.net/osintjourno/status/1682342248187416576 https://nitter.net/osintjourno/status/1682342248187416576 , from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37544753 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37544753 >> For clarity: I still do not rule out the possibility that the Russians may have dealt an additional blow to the Kakhovka dam in phase 4, but the dam was actually so severely damaged four days before the collapse that it was beyond saving
- justsomehnguy 3y ago>> “If Russia invades — that means tanks or troops crossing the border of Ukraine — then there will be no longer a Nord Stream 2. We will bring an end to it.” But of course this is a totally different thing, amirite?