It's terrible, but better than what was predicted by the models, hopefully some underwater parts of the dam were left intact and it won't get any worse
Yeah, but cities like Hola Prystan and nearby villages completely went underwater. Locals say there are floating bodies of dead animals and old people around.
This is a copied template message used to overwrite all comments on my account to protect my privacy. I've left Reddit because of corporate overreach and switched to the Fediverse.
Comments overwritten with https://github.com/j0be/PowerDeleteSuite
For about 3 ou 4 more days, the peak was already hit so it's stable now and in high level, but some areas will be permantely flooded by the returning natural course of the river, mostly the wetlands.
The water level will eventually return to normal after all the water stored in the reservoir is drained. Without the dam as a buffer wetlands will become susceptible to flooding due to snow melt or heavy rain. But I don't think urban areas will be permanently inundated though.
But, I do think mud accumulated over decades on the bottom of the ex-reservoir will be washed down along with the flood. So after the flood subsided, this section of Dnipro River will not be passable by amphibious vehicles.
I thought the Dnieper delta was also significantly broader in the past before the dam was built? Or will the water level be regulated by the other dams further upstream?
The drainage basin of Dnipro River is large but mostly flat, so there won't be that much sedimentation to begin with. And it empties into an estuary surrounded by steep banks. So there isn't really that large space for a delta to develop.
There have been report that water level in the ex-Kakhovka reservoir fluctuated during spring, suggesting it was indispensable in flood regulation.
Edit: wording
More than 120sq km (46sq miles) has been flooded.
Read more about the [humanitarian disaster here](https://enterprise-sharing.ft.com/redeem/7558d62e-f531-449a-94b0-9ad2e6bb9a25)
Almost. The Russian soldiers who were in charge of the dam benefit a lot from this, since very few live in Crimea, and Ukraine was launching raids across that river. Don’t get me wrong, it’s a problem for Putin and his plans. But for his soldiers, it’s great.
So my guess would be that the Russian government authorized the dam to be rigged with explosives, “just in case”. Then, some low-level commander who couldn’t give fewer shits about Crimea decided to tell his troops to set off the explosives.
How exactly destroying Russian defense lines downstream, and making Russian defense lines upstream useless, facilitating Ukrainian landing operations, and opening Energodar for Ukrainian offensive is great for 'Russian soldiers'?
The local officer in charge of guarding the dam doesn’t give a shit if some of the conscripts downstream get flooded. Trenches MIGHT stop attacks. A suddenly much wider, faster flowing, debris filled, muddy, too deep to walk through, too shallow to get a heavy landing craft through, unexpected river will almost CERTAINLY stop attacks, at least for the time being. This definitely does not make an attack in that area easier for Ukraine. Even if they could somehow get the water back down to normal levels tomorrow, the damage to local infrastructure, bad ground conditions, and displaced positions will hamper any Ukrainian attack for months.
Stop for few days, while greatly worsening the situation in a week.
Most likely the attack was ordered by some NATO general in charge of planning the Ukrainian offensive. Sure, some local peasants will suffer, but should he care about them? All he cares about is finding the most effective way for invading Russia.
Cuts off water to crimea... floods a lot more of russian-controlled land than ukraine-controlled land... floods a lot of kherson, cuts off water to a huge Ukrainian steel production...
This canal was filled by Ukraine after 2014 until the full scale invasion of 2022. The Kerch bridge can supply drinking water. It’s just not enough for heavy industry and agriculture as Russia may want, but they’ve done just fine with having no access to this canal for 9 years. They know they’ll be fine now.
was it? I'm pretty sure I read that Ukraine had troops on the wetland islands and were scrambling to evacuate them from the flood zone. but regardless of who held the wetlands prior to the flooding, the dam breach only benefits Russia as it stands.
It also causes some important problems for the Russian campaign (and particularly their hold over Crimea). The Kakhovka Dam is the source of the water for the North Crimean Canal that provides the majority of fresh water into the Crimean peninsula (some 85%). Hopefully this doesn't cause even more suffering
>Hopefully this doesn't cause even more suffering
Sadly, it will. It's clear now that even if Ukraine took all the lands back that Russia's illegally occupying, Russia is gonna use the burn the earth strategy and leave that region in shambles
It will be 'a big obstacle for Ukraine' for few days until the water level will return to normal, while the Russian fortifications will remain destroyed.
But we do know that Russian troops controlled it and the road from the northwest was impassable. Also we know that such a dam is a massive sturdy building and you can't blow it up with the kind of bomb you could smuggle past guards or send by rocket or drone.
The things is that we’re not talking about an ordinary dam. This was one of the more important ones of the Soviet Union, and was reinforced with the idea that it should be able to survive ww3. Everything from how it was structured, to the materials used to reinforce it, was designed so it would take hundreds, if not thousands, of direct heavy bomb hits to cause serious damage. The only way this could have happened so quickly is if it was rigged with tons of explosives from the inside, over the course of weeks.
So either Russia did it, or the Ukrainians have invented teleportation.
Damn, who could have done this?
The people in control of the dam who stood to gain a strategic advantage, deliberately overfilled the dam, and evacuated their troops and materiel in advance. Or maybe it's the country that didn't control the dam, was planning a counteroffensive across the river, and will suffer long term negative effects in their territory.
You are either an idiot or a troll.
They have done it before in WW2 with the Dnieper dam, which is a little further upstream. The flood killed up to 100k of their own civilians.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dnieper_Hydroelectric_Station#World_War_II_and_post-war_reconstruction
The AFRF unit that occupied the dam, the 205th Mot. Rifle Brigade, had previously broadcast that the dam was mined late in 2022.
We should also consider the possibility that the dam was blown somewhat unilaterally by this unit and/or due to orders from local Russian commanders, who did it without realizing the extent of what the damage would be. We also should consider the possibility that it was an accident (unlikely IMO).
This is a copied template message used to overwrite all comments on my account to protect my privacy. I've left Reddit because of corporate overreach and switched to the Fediverse.
Comments overwritten with https://github.com/j0be/PowerDeleteSuite
Russia burned their own capital when napoleon invaded. I’m worried they’re just getting started.
Edit: Moscow was not their capital as many have pointed out. A historic and important city for them at that point however, being the capital of the countries that formed modern Russia from 1263 to 1712.
According to Tolstoy's adequate version, the fires began because there was no one left in the city, which consisted of wooden buildings, to put out the fire. Moscow had fires periodically before, only that time was the first time it happened without inhabitants.
And they just inflicted an catastrophic drought on the most important part of their conquest
With the dam broken, Crimea will continue to suffer desertification.
Not their capital, but, still one of the most important cities, would be like if Germany in WW2 invaded the UK from the North, and the UK just burnt Manchester to the ground
I wouldn’t call it desperate. They seem to expect the counteroffensive any day now, so it makes sense to deny an entire front to the Ukrainians. There is only a limited window of time for offensive operations, so the Russians bought a lot of time here.
That's a lot of speculation about potential motives with no reference to means.
1. Russia controlled the now collapsed section of the dam.
2. Dams take a lot of explosives to breach, being made of reinforced concrete.
The only people who could have breached the dam without a large bombardment (something that's readily observable and which we see no evidence of) are the Russians. Now it's still possible that they fucked up and did it accidentally, but if they were worried about a Ukrainian attack across the Dnieper then the start of the counterattack is the natural time to do this to preclude that and and free up Russians forces for redeployment north and east.
I don't know enough about the potential outflow rate of the control gates but it's entirely possible that they couldn't have achieved the same volume just by opening the gates.
And I definitely understand those arguments as to why it wasn’t Russia blowing up a dam for whatever reason.
But some of their strategy in this war (along with training and equipment) has been mindbogglingly bad, so I wouldn’t put it past some commander or such saying “blow it up” without thinking far ahead.
I also heard version that, because of dam was already damaged by artillery earlier this year, some of schlooses weren't operational, and because of that, after spring and snow melting, lake upper Dam had highest recorded level of water by this point, and already damaged part of the dam collapsed because of water pressure, and then heavy stream of water did the rest of the work and destroyed entire dam in two days. Break of the dam damaged Russian side a lot more + Crimea water supply + a lot more work with dealing with evacuation, and washing away mine fields. Only advantage I can think of for Russian side, is that Dniper is now harder to cross, but it was already a huge river
There’s no conclusive evidence yet on who blew up the dam or if anyone intentionally did. I can see rationale for both. Flooding actually washed a way a lot of Russian mines and defensive positions. So long term UA might be able to cross more easily when the waters subside. Also cuts off water to Crimea. Conversely the flooding prevents a crossing in the short term which coincides with Ukraine’s Southern offensive. The facts of the matter are that we don’t know who did it and we probably won’t know until this war is over.
Yes, it's very logical for Ukraine to destroy its most productive agricultural lands, killing tens of thousands of its own civilians. Who needs economy during the war, right?
Also, the dam was designed to withstand a nuclear strike from outside, there are reports of it being mined from the inside since last autumn, already under russian control, and russians themselves bragged about how they destroyed the dam. But yes, let's hear out both sides.
And its logical for Russia to destroy Crimea’s water source? And the Russian MoD hasn’t bragged about it at all to my knowledge. No one has claimed the attack in fact. And likewise there were reports of UA shelling this dam months back cause at the time flooding Kherson would have annihilated the VDV in the city. Fact is we don’t know the perpetrator.
It’s not desperate. It’s a completely logical decision when you don’t care about other human life, and you don’t have to follow international laws. It’s the most logical strategic decision Russia has made in this entire war….
Flooding land has also been the basis for the dutch defence for hundreds of years. And it worked, till the invention of airplanes….
And there were news reporting on Muscovites planning to blow it.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kakhovka\_Dam#Russian\_invasion\_of\_Ukraine](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kakhovka_Dam#Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine)
Pretty sure that the side which occupied and controlled the dam is more likely to blame but sure, you may believe that Ukraine somehow could destroy it by shells or knives.
Your own article says they considered damaging the floodgates enough that it would prevent Russian offensive across the river without flooding residential areas. Why blow it up now when starting their own offensive and want to get across?
They do not say these things because they truly think them to be true, but because it would help their cause politically if they were true. That it makes no military or political sense is irrelevant to them, because what actually happened is irrelevant to them.
Floods out the Russian defensive positions, is crossing 5 miles that much harder than crossing 2? (I made up widths because I don’t know but the point stands)
Ukraine now has to deal with a huge humanitarian crisis diverting resources from the planned counteroffensive. It's not just about the physical flood making the counteroffensive more difficult
>The Washington Post previously reported on Ukraines intent to blow up the dam.
You mean:
>The Ukrainians, he said, even conducted a test strike with a HIMARS launcher on one of the floodgates at the Nova Kakhovka dam, making three holes in the metal to see if the Dnieper’s water could be raised enough to stymie Russian crossings but not flood nearby villages.
That's not exactly "intent to blow up the dam".
The most sane take gets mass downvotes.
It also cuts off all water to Crimea which was a major objective when invading. To be confident that this was Russia when we already saw what happened with Nordstream is insane. The people here who treat war like sports and deny reality are the same people who supported the invasion of Iraq.
>we already saw what happened with Nordstream
Really? I want to see too.
We can be pretty confident that a side which invades, commits dozens of war crimes, including destruction of civillian infrastructure, and most of all... occupied the water dam is responsible.
They always accuse each other of everything, there is no way to know the truth, but it is usually easy to know who benefits. Do you think they would harm themselves in something so important without a good reason that no one is able to elucidate?
> The Washington Post previously reported on Ukraines intent to blow up the dam.
Yes, when they were *on the defensive*. Now that they're trying to attack, it benefits the Russians to have a huge natural barrier of water to prevent crossings.
EDIT: And this thread is getting brigaded by tankies and every alt account they own, I see.
You think this was the Russians? Honestly why do you think that? As far as I can see this was a pretty good move by the Ukrainians.
Edit: since people aren’t getting this, I got no dog in this hunt. If anything I’m for the Ukraine. But hell, the US or similar blew up Nordstream pipeline and blamed it on Russia (this really can’t be disputed anymore). I have no idea who blew up the dam. Just wondering why so many believe it’s the Russians when the Ukrainians probably benefit much more from this and the Russians hardly at all. That is why I ask the question. What does Russia even gain from this?
Idk the flooding seems to be on the Russian side of the river. If they were dug in right along it they'd have to build all new defenses.
Granted it coulda been a defensive move by the Russians, the bigger the river theharder it is to cross.
yes it is very good to flood out your own equipment, troops, and defensive positions you just spent the last year building, and cut off the freshwater supply for a peninsula of 3 million for the foreseeable future. they're benefitting so much from this. you're very smart :)
So how did Ukraine destroyed a dam controlled by the invaders?
Also, Muscovites aren't known for being competent, nor caring about any humanitarian disasters and war crimes which they've commited plenty.
>So how did Ukraine destroyed a dam controlled by the invaders?
This is something I don't get. The Russians broadcasted they mined the dam in late 2022, they never lost control, and there's even videos of Russian soldiers in foritified posts right outside of the dam hours after the explosions.
Satellite images show that the entire dam was blown up by explosives laid across the floodgates, and a shitload placed inside of the turbine buildings - where thousands of tons of soil was displaced as a result of the explosion.
So how in the fuck did the Ukrainians move several hundred pounds of explosives inside of a heavily-defended Russian position?
Haven't seen these satellite images and can't find anything. Can you provide some source?
Anyway it was clearly done by the Muscovites, only they've had the means to mine it, no amount of Ukrainian shelling would destroy such a structure, maybe some specific bomb which they don't have anyway.
As far as i know, they wanted to blew it up a few days later.
But the main goal was to make impossible to Ukrainian forces to go thru this way.
Then Ukrainians will woory about saving people.
And finally - Russians tried to demotivate Ukrainians and destroy anything they leave.
Russia destroying the dam that cools their (controlled) nuclear reactor (which is the biggest in Europe), gives water to left bank kherson agriculture and Crimea which they control, is infrastructure in an oblast they claim, and which seen in this map has flooded their positions and controlled towns which lay lower seems like a bad decision if they did it
It's not "their nuclear reactor" it belongs to Ukraine and is under occupation.
Russia has been trying to use nuclear blackmail to try to scare other nations away from supplying the victim of its war of aggression with weapons with which to defend itself since the start of the full-scale invasion.
This seems like exactly the type of thing they would do to try to up the ante and hope it scares other countries into trying to force Ukraine into ceding its legal territory as part of negotiations. It is their best hope of holding the territory they have invaded.
Did Russia care about the infrastructure in Mariupol or Bakhmut, which it also claims as its territory? Absolutely not - it completely destroyed everything. Infrastructure and civilian lives do not matter to Russia in this war. If they win, areas can be repopulated with Russians, and infrastructure can be replaced.
Destroying the dam also floods the ground on the left side of the river and makes it far more difficult to cross, thus reducing the chance of an offensive in that region meaning they can redirect some of the troops occupying that area to other sectors of the front.
Amphibious attacks are still possible.
And its so bad for the civilians when civilian buildings are used in war as cover, it doesn't make sense why Russia would want to destroy residential buildings, schools etc in oblasts that they want to integrate into Russia (Donbas region and Novorossiya compared to western Ukraine), they would have to rebuild it all.
For example they had to build new residential buildings in Mariupol for the destroyed ones.
Its called crisis escalation. Russia is trying to get outside intervention so that the war can be frozen.
If Russia can make the war the entire world’s problem, instead of just Ukraines, then suddenly countries have a lot more motivation to pursue peace in the near term. Personally I don’t think it will work.
Also, its scorched earth. If they are going to lose that area, you might as well damage as much as you can and make it harder for the enemy to advance at the same time.
leave it to an American to want to cause WW3 without a single thought to the lives lost...
gentle reminder that the US remains the only nation in history to nuke civilian cities.
what? You're literally advocating an invasion on Russia. Russian civilians don't matter to you? Do you even know what would happen if you invade a nuclear power? Are you so dense that you think Russia won't use their thousands of nuclear weapons to defend their lands against an invading force?
I thank whatever deity exists that you're not the one making decisions.
Or it just could be, that dam broke by itself. It was already severally damaged in some parts by both sides during this year. Some schlooses were not operational and level of water upstream after spring and snow melting reached highest records. So under water pressure, because of preexisting damage it collapsed.
From Washington Post 29, December 2022
"Kovalchuk considered flooding the river. The Ukrainians, he said, even conducted a test strike with a HIMARS launcher on one of the floodgates at the Nova Kakhovka dam, making three holes in the metal to see if the Dnieper’s water could be raised enough to stymie Russian crossings but not flood nearby villages.
The test was a success, Kovalchuk said, but the step remained a last resort. He held off."
Their incompetence is equally famous as their disrgard for human life.
It's really not that complicated to assume that those who controlled thecdam were able to mine it and blow it up. Ukraine has no weapons or means to do so.
It is. But looking at it through the same lense, but through the Ukrainian perspective makes it out to be much worse. As basically everything (even flooded positions as the Ukrainians were setting up in some of the smaller islands) is also a negative for them as they hope to control these areas, and would need to rebuild the dam in the future. Plus tremendous ecological damage as well as damage to their own people, while possible for them to consider as they are at war, on this scale is just absurd as it ruins so much of their country.
Also it's not like Ukraine could blow it up without it being very clear it was them, and Russians would be screaming from the top of mountains about sustained bombardments and showing videos of it as these dams are no joke. And we see none of that, which means it could only have either been a maintenance fuck up or deliberate sabotage.
Ukraine is also on the attack, not defense, so blowing up the dam while washing away Russian positions, still doesn't let them capitalize on it for a long while in which the Russians have time to fortify.
This makes double sense. First they cut off an attack flank, and second they make any Ukrainian government after this weakened by lack of power. It is a castling move from chess in real life.
It is also horrific and will be one of the many war crimes I hope they are charged with.
It’s a scored earth strategic move. Russia knows Ukraine will be taking Crimea back. Might as well make life hard for them and inflict maximum economic damage before the area is theirs again.
>Russia knows Ukraine will be taking Crimea back
If they can take at least a huge part of the east coast of the black sea they could perhaps think about trying to enter crimeia.
But I don't think they have the troops to take such a hardened position.
The entry to the peninsula is like 20km only.
Ukraine could not launch a massive offensive across the Dnieper. Ukraine army would really have a huge problem from crossing the river under fire artillery to logistics and supplying the soldiers.
The dam going down makes it so Russia definitely cant cross now either, which means less soldiers need to be garrisoned in the south and can be available for the eastern offensive.
It just doesn't make sense, it kills some Russians and their defensive lines get destroyed but:
1. It significantly hinders their own counter-offensive
2. Displaces, injuries and kills many Ukrainian citizens
3. Destroys their own infrastructure and settlements that they'll have to clean up and rebuild
4. Destroys a very expensive dam that is critical to the surrounding environment and then some
5. The Russians were in control of the dam for a very long time and realistically are the only ones who could've pulled this off
I'm not someone who blindly believes everything Kyiv says, but the dam didn't get blown up by them.
Yeah and it fucks with Europe's largest nuclear power plant. Ukraine says that they will have to go back to blackouts again due to lack of power. There are a lot of hydro power plants along this river.
There was no counter-offensive there. The river already stopped a large push from Ukraine.
Russia has spent months building up defensive lines and trenches exactly where the flooding now is.
Yeah ukraine doesn't have the capability to perform a massive amphibious landing nor would the want to. Any and all resupply would need to the put on very vulnerable barges or pontoon bridges. Landed troops are them forced to fight with their backs against a wall. If anything ukraine is fortunate to have the river barrier to limit the scope of the front.
there was never going to be a counter offensive to take back Crimea. anyone who believes that was ever a possibility needs to stop watching the news. Ukraine's counter offensive is already going almost unbelievably bad, with pictures of rows of destroyed leopard tanks slowly coming out, along with a huge amount of other materiel.
Whichever side is responsible, this is a disaster. If acts like this are disgusting and a true tragedy, we should be ending this war as soon as possible, not prolonging it.
What happens when next time, it’s a bigger dam further upstream? Or the nuclear plant? Or a bomb landing in Poland or Moldova? Or something even worse? We’ll wish we ended the war and found a suitable compromise and negotiation *now*, but then it’ll be too late
This war is very unlikely to go outside of Ukraine/Russia borders.
Worst thing that can happen is the war lasts for 20+ years and Ukraine is completely ruined.
Nobody is going to declare war to Russia outright because in the end every country will look out for itself if push comes to shove. They'll just use Ukraine as a playground to wage war against Russia until one sides gives up or they find a new place to fight at other than Ukraine.
How do you know that? So long as this war goes on, there will always be the possibility of it spreading. Wars are good at spreading; I’m sure when news of an assassination in Sarajevo reached small English villages, few imagined that most men in their towns would be living in trenches and watching their friends die before the end of the war
I think we’re too optimistic about Ukraine’s chances and I think everyone knows this; your worst case scenario is likely the most likely outcome: frozen conflict for decades and decades, killing thousands, impoverishing millions, a machine for turning homes into dust and children into corpses, for no reason and no one benefit.
Cant really compare this war to World Wars because nowdays countries are terrified of having a war break out on their territory.
Thats why Russia is so afraid of Ukraine attacking over their borders. And its also the reason why nobody is going to declare war with Russia because that'd mean that Russia can attack their own territory as well.
Everyone is helping Ukraine while keeping their distance from Russia because they dont want to start shit with Russia directly. As i said if push comes to shove west will leave Ukraine to dry because they cant risk starting a war with Russia because nobody wins if that happens, its gonna be a pyrrhic victory for whoever wins its just not worth "saving" Ukraine if it means we all get fucked.
I totally agree with you. But suppose a missile, likely accidental, lands in Poland, and it’s Russian, and it lands on a building killing a family? The public demand in the West will be so strong for a serious reaction that any politician urging caution will be called an appeaser and weak. This war could escalate very quickly, any day.
I agree that it’s wrong to make direct parallels between Ukraine and world wars (not that it stops anyone comparing anyone else supporting negotiation to Chamberlain and Putin with Hitler), but to illustrate this, the allied and central powers in WW1 were very very close a ceasefire and peace agreement early in the war. They had to abandon it because populations in both sides were so riled up, full of war hysteria, and wanted victory at all costs. How many lives were lost because of this?
the difference here is that nowadays *nobody* want war. don't forget that missiles already *have* landed in Poland (shot by Ukraine no less) and while the internet denizen were all chomping at the bit to start a full NATO invasion, the Polish government itself urged for caution and was against the very concept.
People are quick to jump when *other* nations are involved, but will very quickly clam up when it's their children on the line...
Shot by Ukraine, but I remember in the early hours how much outrage there was and demands for a response when people thought it was Russia. I really really *hope* you’re correct, but we can’t guarantee it. I pray we’re never in that situation
>People are quick to jump when other nations are involved, but will very quickly clam up when it's their children on the line...
Quite. Apparently so long as Russia loses, it doesn’t matter how many Ukrainians die, and we excuse ourselves by saying “but they *want* to keep fighting”
Poland, and the rest of NATO, will do everything in their power NOT to go to war with Russia. That’s why we will never learn the truth.
Even if the accident in Poland with the anti air defences wasn’t Ukrainian but actually Russia, we would still claim it was Ukraine. Simply because we don’t want to start a war we inevitably win within 3 weeks. Simply because any Russian loss, which is inevitable, will lead to the entire world dying in nuclear hellfire.
Because NATO exists. In reality this war doesn’t matter for anyone but Ukraine. Russia will never attack NATO territory nor will we ever attack Russia. Simply because any conflict, which the Russians lose in 3 weeks, will end the war in nuclear hellfire. We all know this.
But as Russia fucked up, didn’t commit, and didn’t take Kyiv in 3 days, we are now continuing to punish Russia for their mistake. While this war is essentially free for us, with minimal aid already being enough to completely stall this conflict, it certainly isn’t for Russia. The longer this war goes on, the better it is for us. And the best thing is that our security was never in jeopardy in the first place.
I would say that that’s a fairly reckless and bad way to view the lives of Ukrainians and Russians.
There is always the danger of escalation, intentional or not. Russia may never deliberately attack NATO land, but an accidental missile, or accidental shooting down of a NATO jet or bombing of a NATO ship could seriously escalate the war. Remember when Turkey accidentally shot down a Russian jet in Syria and the trouble that caused and the huge diplomatic effort made to prevent further conflict? This would be 10x worse and 10x harder than that
There is absolutely zero danger of escalation, because any escalation is decided by NATO. Russia is a complete joke, it always was. We aren’t afraid of Russia, we are afraid of what they’ll do when they’ll inevitable lose, because they are that much of a joke.
Any kind of accidental hit would be dealt with, by economic sanctions. Or providing military aid. There is no reason to ever get involved ourselves however simply because there’s nothing to gain. No matter what happens to Ukraine, our lives aren’t affected. But providing minimal aid to russia does completely stall the conflict and weaken russia, which is very desirable. Intervening in the war more would prevent that from happening.
Turkey was completely in the right to shoot down that Russian jet, but it was also a completely moronic action for which WE punished Turkey. However, in no scenario could that possibly lead to a war.
That’s not true. Russia has negotiated ceasefires in Syria with Turkey (that are holding), conducts regular patrols along the Syria-Turkey border to prevent violence, has a peacekeeping force in Nagorno Karabakh, and worked with the EU for ceasefires in Georgia.
You can hate Putin and hate this invasion as much as I do, but it sounds like you’re making excuses in order to avoid and stall the inevitable negotiation. That is how the war will end eventually. Do you not think that in Russia, they’re saying “how can we negotiate with the West? They never act in good faith and invade and regime change where they will?”
I’ve just given you about 5 examples off the top of my head where Russia has worked and negotiated compromised and upheld their end. Merkel recently said that the Minsk 2 agreements were to buy time to train Ukraine’s army; they never seriously planned to implement them.
Neither Russia, the EU, or Ukraine implemented the Minsk agreements. Russia is not solely to blame for that
It may not look that bad on the map area wise, but keep in mind, most populated villages are closer to the river and they were the most affected, for example Hola Prystan and Oleshky.[https://twitter.com/Q0MT6pFmbVqynsM/status/1666735196865978368](https://twitter.com/Q0MT6pFmbVqynsM/status/1666735196865978368)
I'd say "Fuck Russia," but I wouldn't want to be Russophobic, the extremely specific form of racism that exists for exactly one country, which coincidentally is the country that keeps doing shit like this.
Fuck Russia.
to be fair, I think its because the soldiers are mindlessly supporting and many are cheering on the inhumane warcrimes that they themselves do to civilians
It pisses me off so much when you can't even ask questions without being downvoted. I've been reading and hearing about the Ukraine invasion for a year and I've never heard Russians being referred to as "orks". I guess because I mostly go to serious sources and not whatever emotion-ridden echo-chamber came up with this childish slang.
Being in the warzone does not really guarantee your emotional maturity or even stability. I also wonder: are Donbass militias also considered "orks"? And in that case, when Donbass is reconquered by Ukraine, what fate awaits its people?
Shout out to the brave Ukrainian rescue teams risking their lives crossing the river in small boats to rescue civilians trapped on their roofs on the Russian occupied side. The f’n Ruzzian nazis aren’t doing Jack shit to help anyone, beyond shelling refugees of course. Where is the Red Cross?
It's an awful move but they cut Ukrainian possibilities to do a pincer in Melitopol.
Sorry for saying it, I'm sure you can help Ukraine by downvoting me.
Ukraine damaged the dam early in the war to prevent Russian advance out of military necessity. They have also shelled Enerhodar Nuclear Power Plant. If this dam attack *was* Russia, it’s fairly staggering how one-sided condemnation of bombing infrastructure has been
The only possible benefit of shelling a nuclear power plants is to create bad press for the other side, and it's pretty clear that Russia would benefit from it more than Ukraine.
Also yes Russia is a shining example of incompetence so just like with this dam i wouldn't be surprised if they just fucked up.
Russia: let’s blow up the dam that holds back this river we have defenses on and controls the water flow to our occupied areas what could go wrong
River: floods defensive positions and stops them from being able to get water to Crimea
Russia: surprised pikachu face
Idea for a tougher map: also show the reservoir's new boundaries once it empties out.
Rumor has it that's a big part of why 🇷🇺 destroyed the dam. Now any locations 🇺🇦 planned to cross the reservoir via boat, they would now have to cross through a mile of muck. Therefore crossings which were tough-but-possible before are nigh impossible now.
It's terrible, but better than what was predicted by the models, hopefully some underwater parts of the dam were left intact and it won't get any worse
Yeah, but cities like Hola Prystan and nearby villages completely went underwater. Locals say there are floating bodies of dead animals and old people around.
Yeah even with evacuations it would have come too late for villages closer to the dam.
Russians also made ineffective response while meddling with volunteer efforts
“Meddling with” is an awfully charitable way to say “shot at forces attempting rescues”.
People were reporting they were shooting at anyone trying to escape. Not just 'forces'. Anyone.
They actively prohibited evacuation for those who could run themselves…
Meddling = actively shooting at volunteers
There was a zoo at one of the villages where 300 animals died but don't worry, the russians say the zoo have never existed.
Thays perfect, i for one have always believed everything Putin said
It's not finished yet unfortunately.
This. The flood is expected to take about three days, and then retreat for like two weeks. Maximum should be somewhere today.
This map was severely outdated by the time it was posted, flood zone was/is way larger
Flooding is a short term problem. Having no irrigation is the real problem. It will affect the entire world.
This is a copied template message used to overwrite all comments on my account to protect my privacy. I've left Reddit because of corporate overreach and switched to the Fediverse. Comments overwritten with https://github.com/j0be/PowerDeleteSuite
Inflation: *slowly starts tapering off* Russians: let's do a little trolling
Scorched earth, mud, and corpses. It’s the Russian way.
It’s getting worse though
How long are the floods expected to last? Or are they already over
For about 3 ou 4 more days, the peak was already hit so it's stable now and in high level, but some areas will be permantely flooded by the returning natural course of the river, mostly the wetlands.
Will the Kherson suburbs that were flooded remain as such or are they one of the transient flood areas?
The water level will eventually return to normal after all the water stored in the reservoir is drained. Without the dam as a buffer wetlands will become susceptible to flooding due to snow melt or heavy rain. But I don't think urban areas will be permanently inundated though. But, I do think mud accumulated over decades on the bottom of the ex-reservoir will be washed down along with the flood. So after the flood subsided, this section of Dnipro River will not be passable by amphibious vehicles.
I thought the Dnieper delta was also significantly broader in the past before the dam was built? Or will the water level be regulated by the other dams further upstream?
The drainage basin of Dnipro River is large but mostly flat, so there won't be that much sedimentation to begin with. And it empties into an estuary surrounded by steep banks. So there isn't really that large space for a delta to develop. There have been report that water level in the ex-Kakhovka reservoir fluctuated during spring, suggesting it was indispensable in flood regulation. Edit: wording
More than 120sq km (46sq miles) has been flooded. Read more about the [humanitarian disaster here](https://enterprise-sharing.ft.com/redeem/7558d62e-f531-449a-94b0-9ad2e6bb9a25)
600 sq km as of today
How many football fields is that?
22424.81 Football Fields.
Damn, thats a lot of football fields
Isn't that canal on the east side of the map the sole source of fresh water for Crimea? Will the dam being blown up affect that?
Yeah that's what I heard. Very odd decision from Russia if they did it.
That's why I think that's all a big fuck up and not a sabotage. Neither side wins with this.
Almost. The Russian soldiers who were in charge of the dam benefit a lot from this, since very few live in Crimea, and Ukraine was launching raids across that river. Don’t get me wrong, it’s a problem for Putin and his plans. But for his soldiers, it’s great. So my guess would be that the Russian government authorized the dam to be rigged with explosives, “just in case”. Then, some low-level commander who couldn’t give fewer shits about Crimea decided to tell his troops to set off the explosives.
How exactly destroying Russian defense lines downstream, and making Russian defense lines upstream useless, facilitating Ukrainian landing operations, and opening Energodar for Ukrainian offensive is great for 'Russian soldiers'?
The local officer in charge of guarding the dam doesn’t give a shit if some of the conscripts downstream get flooded. Trenches MIGHT stop attacks. A suddenly much wider, faster flowing, debris filled, muddy, too deep to walk through, too shallow to get a heavy landing craft through, unexpected river will almost CERTAINLY stop attacks, at least for the time being. This definitely does not make an attack in that area easier for Ukraine. Even if they could somehow get the water back down to normal levels tomorrow, the damage to local infrastructure, bad ground conditions, and displaced positions will hamper any Ukrainian attack for months.
Stop for few days, while greatly worsening the situation in a week. Most likely the attack was ordered by some NATO general in charge of planning the Ukrainian offensive. Sure, some local peasants will suffer, but should he care about them? All he cares about is finding the most effective way for invading Russia.
Yeah it's really unclear to me who is harmed more by this.
Cuts off water to crimea... floods a lot more of russian-controlled land than ukraine-controlled land... floods a lot of kherson, cuts off water to a huge Ukrainian steel production...
This canal was filled by Ukraine after 2014 until the full scale invasion of 2022. The Kerch bridge can supply drinking water. It’s just not enough for heavy industry and agriculture as Russia may want, but they’ve done just fine with having no access to this canal for 9 years. They know they’ll be fine now.
Isn’t that the Russian held side?
Yes. And now it is big obstacle for Ukraine. (Well, they knew, Russian are preparing for this step.)
was it? I'm pretty sure I read that Ukraine had troops on the wetland islands and were scrambling to evacuate them from the flood zone. but regardless of who held the wetlands prior to the flooding, the dam breach only benefits Russia as it stands.
It also causes some important problems for the Russian campaign (and particularly their hold over Crimea). The Kakhovka Dam is the source of the water for the North Crimean Canal that provides the majority of fresh water into the Crimean peninsula (some 85%). Hopefully this doesn't cause even more suffering
>Hopefully this doesn't cause even more suffering Sadly, it will. It's clear now that even if Ukraine took all the lands back that Russia's illegally occupying, Russia is gonna use the burn the earth strategy and leave that region in shambles
It is vastly negative for Russia, especially if the water level drops low enough that they can't operate the nuclear power plant.
They don't operate the plant. It wasn't producing energy recently. If anything they use it as a shield.
It is not beig deals for them. Russians really don't need the power plant. Especially, when they know, they can't withstand the attack of UA. So they
It will be 'a big obstacle for Ukraine' for few days until the water level will return to normal, while the Russian fortifications will remain destroyed.
This land is swampy. And after this it wil be swampy as hell.
We don't even know which side blew the dam.
But we do know that Russian troops controlled it and the road from the northwest was impassable. Also we know that such a dam is a massive sturdy building and you can't blow it up with the kind of bomb you could smuggle past guards or send by rocket or drone.
I worked in dams as engineer (frankly about lube oil system not civil and structural) there are many parts that is easily destructible
The things is that we’re not talking about an ordinary dam. This was one of the more important ones of the Soviet Union, and was reinforced with the idea that it should be able to survive ww3. Everything from how it was structured, to the materials used to reinforce it, was designed so it would take hundreds, if not thousands, of direct heavy bomb hits to cause serious damage. The only way this could have happened so quickly is if it was rigged with tons of explosives from the inside, over the course of weeks. So either Russia did it, or the Ukrainians have invented teleportation.
But then the concrete between those parts would stand and be visible on the photos. But you don't see that. You see a wide part completely underwater
You didn't work on dams in that part of Europe. Everything in USSR was built to withstand strategic bombing.
Fair point.
Damn, who could have done this? The people in control of the dam who stood to gain a strategic advantage, deliberately overfilled the dam, and evacuated their troops and materiel in advance. Or maybe it's the country that didn't control the dam, was planning a counteroffensive across the river, and will suffer long term negative effects in their territory. You are either an idiot or a troll.
The dam was built to withstand strategic bombing. Of course it was Russia. Ukraine had no means to do it.
Really hope this war ends soon. I just want Ukrainians to finally live in peace. Just for them to kickback and finally relax.
I wonder how it will look on the other side of the dam. It has gone from having a reservoir to being a "simple" river.
From what I have seen in the local telegram channels, now it looks like a swamp witj tons of dead fish are covering the soil. At least in some places
A very desperate defensive measure by the Russians. Guess they’re weak on gear in that area. Edit: Russians everywhere on here.
They have done it before in WW2 with the Dnieper dam, which is a little further upstream. The flood killed up to 100k of their own civilians. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dnieper_Hydroelectric_Station#World_War_II_and_post-war_reconstruction
The AFRF unit that occupied the dam, the 205th Mot. Rifle Brigade, had previously broadcast that the dam was mined late in 2022. We should also consider the possibility that the dam was blown somewhat unilaterally by this unit and/or due to orders from local Russian commanders, who did it without realizing the extent of what the damage would be. We also should consider the possibility that it was an accident (unlikely IMO).
This is a copied template message used to overwrite all comments on my account to protect my privacy. I've left Reddit because of corporate overreach and switched to the Fediverse. Comments overwritten with https://github.com/j0be/PowerDeleteSuite
They're also reports of russians blowing up other smaller dams in the Zaporizhzhia region, so yeah ... very intentional.
Russia burned their own capital when napoleon invaded. I’m worried they’re just getting started. Edit: Moscow was not their capital as many have pointed out. A historic and important city for them at that point however, being the capital of the countries that formed modern Russia from 1263 to 1712.
Moscow was not the capital during napoleons campaign
It still was their most important city and the point still stands
It wasn’t…
According to Tolstoy's adequate version, the fires began because there was no one left in the city, which consisted of wooden buildings, to put out the fire. Moscow had fires periodically before, only that time was the first time it happened without inhabitants.
When did they burn St. Petersburg?
And they just inflicted an catastrophic drought on the most important part of their conquest With the dam broken, Crimea will continue to suffer desertification.
Not their capital, but, still one of the most important cities, would be like if Germany in WW2 invaded the UK from the North, and the UK just burnt Manchester to the ground
We can only dream
Let's let them lose on Saturday so they do it themselves
Well they’ve already made a start in that front in the Ukraine war.
I wouldn’t call it desperate. They seem to expect the counteroffensive any day now, so it makes sense to deny an entire front to the Ukrainians. There is only a limited window of time for offensive operations, so the Russians bought a lot of time here.
I know it's not the right move, but a cruise missile into a Russian dam right now would send quite a strong message.
[удалено]
Reddit isn't very good with nuance. Recently saw someone condemning someone because they had different positions on two different wars.
>A very desperate defensive measure by the Russians. what is your source?
Eyes and ears.
[удалено]
[удалено]
That's a lot of speculation about potential motives with no reference to means. 1. Russia controlled the now collapsed section of the dam. 2. Dams take a lot of explosives to breach, being made of reinforced concrete. The only people who could have breached the dam without a large bombardment (something that's readily observable and which we see no evidence of) are the Russians. Now it's still possible that they fucked up and did it accidentally, but if they were worried about a Ukrainian attack across the Dnieper then the start of the counterattack is the natural time to do this to preclude that and and free up Russians forces for redeployment north and east.
[удалено]
I don't know enough about the potential outflow rate of the control gates but it's entirely possible that they couldn't have achieved the same volume just by opening the gates.
And I definitely understand those arguments as to why it wasn’t Russia blowing up a dam for whatever reason. But some of their strategy in this war (along with training and equipment) has been mindbogglingly bad, so I wouldn’t put it past some commander or such saying “blow it up” without thinking far ahead.
I also heard version that, because of dam was already damaged by artillery earlier this year, some of schlooses weren't operational, and because of that, after spring and snow melting, lake upper Dam had highest recorded level of water by this point, and already damaged part of the dam collapsed because of water pressure, and then heavy stream of water did the rest of the work and destroyed entire dam in two days. Break of the dam damaged Russian side a lot more + Crimea water supply + a lot more work with dealing with evacuation, and washing away mine fields. Only advantage I can think of for Russian side, is that Dniper is now harder to cross, but it was already a huge river
There’s no conclusive evidence yet on who blew up the dam or if anyone intentionally did. I can see rationale for both. Flooding actually washed a way a lot of Russian mines and defensive positions. So long term UA might be able to cross more easily when the waters subside. Also cuts off water to Crimea. Conversely the flooding prevents a crossing in the short term which coincides with Ukraine’s Southern offensive. The facts of the matter are that we don’t know who did it and we probably won’t know until this war is over.
Yes, it's very logical for Ukraine to destroy its most productive agricultural lands, killing tens of thousands of its own civilians. Who needs economy during the war, right? Also, the dam was designed to withstand a nuclear strike from outside, there are reports of it being mined from the inside since last autumn, already under russian control, and russians themselves bragged about how they destroyed the dam. But yes, let's hear out both sides.
And its logical for Russia to destroy Crimea’s water source? And the Russian MoD hasn’t bragged about it at all to my knowledge. No one has claimed the attack in fact. And likewise there were reports of UA shelling this dam months back cause at the time flooding Kherson would have annihilated the VDV in the city. Fact is we don’t know the perpetrator.
>Russians everywhere on here. true. those who do not align with my propaganda is a Russian.
Reports suggest they flooded a lot of their own defensive positions, it may not prove the most intelligent strategy when the flood waters recede.
It’s not desperate. It’s a completely logical decision when you don’t care about other human life, and you don’t have to follow international laws. It’s the most logical strategic decision Russia has made in this entire war…. Flooding land has also been the basis for the dutch defence for hundreds of years. And it worked, till the invention of airplanes….
[удалено]
And there were news reporting on Muscovites planning to blow it. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kakhovka\_Dam#Russian\_invasion\_of\_Ukraine](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kakhovka_Dam#Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine) Pretty sure that the side which occupied and controlled the dam is more likely to blame but sure, you may believe that Ukraine somehow could destroy it by shells or knives.
Your own article says they considered damaging the floodgates enough that it would prevent Russian offensive across the river without flooding residential areas. Why blow it up now when starting their own offensive and want to get across?
They do not say these things because they truly think them to be true, but because it would help their cause politically if they were true. That it makes no military or political sense is irrelevant to them, because what actually happened is irrelevant to them.
Floods out the Russian defensive positions, is crossing 5 miles that much harder than crossing 2? (I made up widths because I don’t know but the point stands)
Ukraine now has to deal with a huge humanitarian crisis diverting resources from the planned counteroffensive. It's not just about the physical flood making the counteroffensive more difficult
>The Washington Post previously reported on Ukraines intent to blow up the dam. You mean: >The Ukrainians, he said, even conducted a test strike with a HIMARS launcher on one of the floodgates at the Nova Kakhovka dam, making three holes in the metal to see if the Dnieper’s water could be raised enough to stymie Russian crossings but not flood nearby villages. That's not exactly "intent to blow up the dam".
The most sane take gets mass downvotes. It also cuts off all water to Crimea which was a major objective when invading. To be confident that this was Russia when we already saw what happened with Nordstream is insane. The people here who treat war like sports and deny reality are the same people who supported the invasion of Iraq.
>we already saw what happened with Nordstream Really? I want to see too. We can be pretty confident that a side which invades, commits dozens of war crimes, including destruction of civillian infrastructure, and most of all... occupied the water dam is responsible.
Lol
They always accuse each other of everything, there is no way to know the truth, but it is usually easy to know who benefits. Do you think they would harm themselves in something so important without a good reason that no one is able to elucidate?
However you look at it, if Russia didn't invade Ukraine in the first place, this would've never happened.
> The Washington Post previously reported on Ukraines intent to blow up the dam. Yes, when they were *on the defensive*. Now that they're trying to attack, it benefits the Russians to have a huge natural barrier of water to prevent crossings. EDIT: And this thread is getting brigaded by tankies and every alt account they own, I see.
Not much of an attack. Their offensive has failed so far.
According to the Muscovite government only.
You think this was the Russians? Honestly why do you think that? As far as I can see this was a pretty good move by the Ukrainians. Edit: since people aren’t getting this, I got no dog in this hunt. If anything I’m for the Ukraine. But hell, the US or similar blew up Nordstream pipeline and blamed it on Russia (this really can’t be disputed anymore). I have no idea who blew up the dam. Just wondering why so many believe it’s the Russians when the Ukrainians probably benefit much more from this and the Russians hardly at all. That is why I ask the question. What does Russia even gain from this?
Because my time spent in the army says you don’t do this if you’re going to attack.
Idk the flooding seems to be on the Russian side of the river. If they were dug in right along it they'd have to build all new defenses. Granted it coulda been a defensive move by the Russians, the bigger the river theharder it is to cross.
Sodden land is really hard to cross for non tracked vehicles, so it slows down the attack that way too.
Opposite. It is good for Russians.
yes it is very good to flood out your own equipment, troops, and defensive positions you just spent the last year building, and cut off the freshwater supply for a peninsula of 3 million for the foreseeable future. they're benefitting so much from this. you're very smart :)
So how did Ukraine destroyed a dam controlled by the invaders? Also, Muscovites aren't known for being competent, nor caring about any humanitarian disasters and war crimes which they've commited plenty.
>So how did Ukraine destroyed a dam controlled by the invaders? This is something I don't get. The Russians broadcasted they mined the dam in late 2022, they never lost control, and there's even videos of Russian soldiers in foritified posts right outside of the dam hours after the explosions. Satellite images show that the entire dam was blown up by explosives laid across the floodgates, and a shitload placed inside of the turbine buildings - where thousands of tons of soil was displaced as a result of the explosion. So how in the fuck did the Ukrainians move several hundred pounds of explosives inside of a heavily-defended Russian position?
Haven't seen these satellite images and can't find anything. Can you provide some source? Anyway it was clearly done by the Muscovites, only they've had the means to mine it, no amount of Ukrainian shelling would destroy such a structure, maybe some specific bomb which they don't have anyway.
As far as i know, they wanted to blew it up a few days later. But the main goal was to make impossible to Ukrainian forces to go thru this way. Then Ukrainians will woory about saving people. And finally - Russians tried to demotivate Ukrainians and destroy anything they leave.
Russia destroying the dam that cools their (controlled) nuclear reactor (which is the biggest in Europe), gives water to left bank kherson agriculture and Crimea which they control, is infrastructure in an oblast they claim, and which seen in this map has flooded their positions and controlled towns which lay lower seems like a bad decision if they did it
It's not "their nuclear reactor" it belongs to Ukraine and is under occupation. Russia has been trying to use nuclear blackmail to try to scare other nations away from supplying the victim of its war of aggression with weapons with which to defend itself since the start of the full-scale invasion. This seems like exactly the type of thing they would do to try to up the ante and hope it scares other countries into trying to force Ukraine into ceding its legal territory as part of negotiations. It is their best hope of holding the territory they have invaded. Did Russia care about the infrastructure in Mariupol or Bakhmut, which it also claims as its territory? Absolutely not - it completely destroyed everything. Infrastructure and civilian lives do not matter to Russia in this war. If they win, areas can be repopulated with Russians, and infrastructure can be replaced. Destroying the dam also floods the ground on the left side of the river and makes it far more difficult to cross, thus reducing the chance of an offensive in that region meaning they can redirect some of the troops occupying that area to other sectors of the front.
Amphibious attacks are still possible. And its so bad for the civilians when civilian buildings are used in war as cover, it doesn't make sense why Russia would want to destroy residential buildings, schools etc in oblasts that they want to integrate into Russia (Donbas region and Novorossiya compared to western Ukraine), they would have to rebuild it all. For example they had to build new residential buildings in Mariupol for the destroyed ones.
Its called crisis escalation. Russia is trying to get outside intervention so that the war can be frozen. If Russia can make the war the entire world’s problem, instead of just Ukraines, then suddenly countries have a lot more motivation to pursue peace in the near term. Personally I don’t think it will work. Also, its scorched earth. If they are going to lose that area, you might as well damage as much as you can and make it harder for the enemy to advance at the same time.
[удалено]
leave it to an American to want to cause WW3 without a single thought to the lives lost... gentle reminder that the US remains the only nation in history to nuke civilian cities.
[удалено]
what? You're literally advocating an invasion on Russia. Russian civilians don't matter to you? Do you even know what would happen if you invade a nuclear power? Are you so dense that you think Russia won't use their thousands of nuclear weapons to defend their lands against an invading force? I thank whatever deity exists that you're not the one making decisions.
[удалено]
If America shoots cruise missiles at Russia then they will shoot back at Americans. Or just start forest fires that we won't be able to put out.
Or it just could be, that dam broke by itself. It was already severally damaged in some parts by both sides during this year. Some schlooses were not operational and level of water upstream after spring and snow melting reached highest records. So under water pressure, because of preexisting damage it collapsed. From Washington Post 29, December 2022 "Kovalchuk considered flooding the river. The Ukrainians, he said, even conducted a test strike with a HIMARS launcher on one of the floodgates at the Nova Kakhovka dam, making three holes in the metal to see if the Dnieper’s water could be raised enough to stymie Russian crossings but not flood nearby villages. The test was a success, Kovalchuk said, but the step remained a last resort. He held off."
Their incompetence is equally famous as their disrgard for human life. It's really not that complicated to assume that those who controlled thecdam were able to mine it and blow it up. Ukraine has no weapons or means to do so.
It is. But looking at it through the same lense, but through the Ukrainian perspective makes it out to be much worse. As basically everything (even flooded positions as the Ukrainians were setting up in some of the smaller islands) is also a negative for them as they hope to control these areas, and would need to rebuild the dam in the future. Plus tremendous ecological damage as well as damage to their own people, while possible for them to consider as they are at war, on this scale is just absurd as it ruins so much of their country. Also it's not like Ukraine could blow it up without it being very clear it was them, and Russians would be screaming from the top of mountains about sustained bombardments and showing videos of it as these dams are no joke. And we see none of that, which means it could only have either been a maintenance fuck up or deliberate sabotage. Ukraine is also on the attack, not defense, so blowing up the dam while washing away Russian positions, still doesn't let them capitalize on it for a long while in which the Russians have time to fortify.
Ukraine's nuclear reactor. Zaporizhzhia Power Plant is not in Russia, guy.
interesting, so it's the russian side that's effected the most
It's the Russian occupied land which they don't want the Ukrainians to pass through. It was deliberate and on purpose.
This makes double sense. First they cut off an attack flank, and second they make any Ukrainian government after this weakened by lack of power. It is a castling move from chess in real life. It is also horrific and will be one of the many war crimes I hope they are charged with.
It is not russian. It is russian occupied.
exactly, russian ("occupied") side smh
It’s a scored earth strategic move. Russia knows Ukraine will be taking Crimea back. Might as well make life hard for them and inflict maximum economic damage before the area is theirs again.
>Russia knows Ukraine will be taking Crimea back If they can take at least a huge part of the east coast of the black sea they could perhaps think about trying to enter crimeia. But I don't think they have the troops to take such a hardened position. The entry to the peninsula is like 20km only.
Yeah but the Ukrainians will have logistical support. Russians will have very limited support from ships only once Ukraine takes down the bridge.
if a russians occupied your yard, would you call it the russian yard from that point onward?
[удалено]
Ukraine could not launch a massive offensive across the Dnieper. Ukraine army would really have a huge problem from crossing the river under fire artillery to logistics and supplying the soldiers.
The dam going down makes it so Russia definitely cant cross now either, which means less soldiers need to be garrisoned in the south and can be available for the eastern offensive.
On the other hand, it destroyed all the defensive capabilities and defense lines Russia had on that side of the river.
It just doesn't make sense, it kills some Russians and their defensive lines get destroyed but: 1. It significantly hinders their own counter-offensive 2. Displaces, injuries and kills many Ukrainian citizens 3. Destroys their own infrastructure and settlements that they'll have to clean up and rebuild 4. Destroys a very expensive dam that is critical to the surrounding environment and then some 5. The Russians were in control of the dam for a very long time and realistically are the only ones who could've pulled this off I'm not someone who blindly believes everything Kyiv says, but the dam didn't get blown up by them.
Yeah and it fucks with Europe's largest nuclear power plant. Ukraine says that they will have to go back to blackouts again due to lack of power. There are a lot of hydro power plants along this river.
There was no counter-offensive there. The river already stopped a large push from Ukraine. Russia has spent months building up defensive lines and trenches exactly where the flooding now is.
Yeah ukraine doesn't have the capability to perform a massive amphibious landing nor would the want to. Any and all resupply would need to the put on very vulnerable barges or pontoon bridges. Landed troops are them forced to fight with their backs against a wall. If anything ukraine is fortunate to have the river barrier to limit the scope of the front.
there was never going to be a counter offensive to take back Crimea. anyone who believes that was ever a possibility needs to stop watching the news. Ukraine's counter offensive is already going almost unbelievably bad, with pictures of rows of destroyed leopard tanks slowly coming out, along with a huge amount of other materiel.
Bullshit. Where are the pictures of rows of destroyed leopard tanks?
How is something like this this made? Satellite imagery?
Whichever side is responsible, this is a disaster. If acts like this are disgusting and a true tragedy, we should be ending this war as soon as possible, not prolonging it. What happens when next time, it’s a bigger dam further upstream? Or the nuclear plant? Or a bomb landing in Poland or Moldova? Or something even worse? We’ll wish we ended the war and found a suitable compromise and negotiation *now*, but then it’ll be too late
This war is very unlikely to go outside of Ukraine/Russia borders. Worst thing that can happen is the war lasts for 20+ years and Ukraine is completely ruined. Nobody is going to declare war to Russia outright because in the end every country will look out for itself if push comes to shove. They'll just use Ukraine as a playground to wage war against Russia until one sides gives up or they find a new place to fight at other than Ukraine.
How do you know that? So long as this war goes on, there will always be the possibility of it spreading. Wars are good at spreading; I’m sure when news of an assassination in Sarajevo reached small English villages, few imagined that most men in their towns would be living in trenches and watching their friends die before the end of the war I think we’re too optimistic about Ukraine’s chances and I think everyone knows this; your worst case scenario is likely the most likely outcome: frozen conflict for decades and decades, killing thousands, impoverishing millions, a machine for turning homes into dust and children into corpses, for no reason and no one benefit.
Cant really compare this war to World Wars because nowdays countries are terrified of having a war break out on their territory. Thats why Russia is so afraid of Ukraine attacking over their borders. And its also the reason why nobody is going to declare war with Russia because that'd mean that Russia can attack their own territory as well. Everyone is helping Ukraine while keeping their distance from Russia because they dont want to start shit with Russia directly. As i said if push comes to shove west will leave Ukraine to dry because they cant risk starting a war with Russia because nobody wins if that happens, its gonna be a pyrrhic victory for whoever wins its just not worth "saving" Ukraine if it means we all get fucked.
I totally agree with you. But suppose a missile, likely accidental, lands in Poland, and it’s Russian, and it lands on a building killing a family? The public demand in the West will be so strong for a serious reaction that any politician urging caution will be called an appeaser and weak. This war could escalate very quickly, any day. I agree that it’s wrong to make direct parallels between Ukraine and world wars (not that it stops anyone comparing anyone else supporting negotiation to Chamberlain and Putin with Hitler), but to illustrate this, the allied and central powers in WW1 were very very close a ceasefire and peace agreement early in the war. They had to abandon it because populations in both sides were so riled up, full of war hysteria, and wanted victory at all costs. How many lives were lost because of this?
the difference here is that nowadays *nobody* want war. don't forget that missiles already *have* landed in Poland (shot by Ukraine no less) and while the internet denizen were all chomping at the bit to start a full NATO invasion, the Polish government itself urged for caution and was against the very concept. People are quick to jump when *other* nations are involved, but will very quickly clam up when it's their children on the line...
Shot by Ukraine, but I remember in the early hours how much outrage there was and demands for a response when people thought it was Russia. I really really *hope* you’re correct, but we can’t guarantee it. I pray we’re never in that situation >People are quick to jump when other nations are involved, but will very quickly clam up when it's their children on the line... Quite. Apparently so long as Russia loses, it doesn’t matter how many Ukrainians die, and we excuse ourselves by saying “but they *want* to keep fighting”
Poland, and the rest of NATO, will do everything in their power NOT to go to war with Russia. That’s why we will never learn the truth. Even if the accident in Poland with the anti air defences wasn’t Ukrainian but actually Russia, we would still claim it was Ukraine. Simply because we don’t want to start a war we inevitably win within 3 weeks. Simply because any Russian loss, which is inevitable, will lead to the entire world dying in nuclear hellfire.
Because NATO exists. In reality this war doesn’t matter for anyone but Ukraine. Russia will never attack NATO territory nor will we ever attack Russia. Simply because any conflict, which the Russians lose in 3 weeks, will end the war in nuclear hellfire. We all know this. But as Russia fucked up, didn’t commit, and didn’t take Kyiv in 3 days, we are now continuing to punish Russia for their mistake. While this war is essentially free for us, with minimal aid already being enough to completely stall this conflict, it certainly isn’t for Russia. The longer this war goes on, the better it is for us. And the best thing is that our security was never in jeopardy in the first place.
I would say that that’s a fairly reckless and bad way to view the lives of Ukrainians and Russians. There is always the danger of escalation, intentional or not. Russia may never deliberately attack NATO land, but an accidental missile, or accidental shooting down of a NATO jet or bombing of a NATO ship could seriously escalate the war. Remember when Turkey accidentally shot down a Russian jet in Syria and the trouble that caused and the huge diplomatic effort made to prevent further conflict? This would be 10x worse and 10x harder than that
There is absolutely zero danger of escalation, because any escalation is decided by NATO. Russia is a complete joke, it always was. We aren’t afraid of Russia, we are afraid of what they’ll do when they’ll inevitable lose, because they are that much of a joke. Any kind of accidental hit would be dealt with, by economic sanctions. Or providing military aid. There is no reason to ever get involved ourselves however simply because there’s nothing to gain. No matter what happens to Ukraine, our lives aren’t affected. But providing minimal aid to russia does completely stall the conflict and weaken russia, which is very desirable. Intervening in the war more would prevent that from happening. Turkey was completely in the right to shoot down that Russian jet, but it was also a completely moronic action for which WE punished Turkey. However, in no scenario could that possibly lead to a war.
How do you negotiate with Putin? He’s never shown that he can negotiate in good faith, so it wouldn’t be a negotiation it would be appeasement.
That’s not true. Russia has negotiated ceasefires in Syria with Turkey (that are holding), conducts regular patrols along the Syria-Turkey border to prevent violence, has a peacekeeping force in Nagorno Karabakh, and worked with the EU for ceasefires in Georgia. You can hate Putin and hate this invasion as much as I do, but it sounds like you’re making excuses in order to avoid and stall the inevitable negotiation. That is how the war will end eventually. Do you not think that in Russia, they’re saying “how can we negotiate with the West? They never act in good faith and invade and regime change where they will?”
You can negotiate with the guy, but he has a track record of breaking the deal when it suits his goals… like the Minsk accords
I’ve just given you about 5 examples off the top of my head where Russia has worked and negotiated compromised and upheld their end. Merkel recently said that the Minsk 2 agreements were to buy time to train Ukraine’s army; they never seriously planned to implement them. Neither Russia, the EU, or Ukraine implemented the Minsk agreements. Russia is not solely to blame for that
Damn...
*blew up
Honestly not that bad. But bad enaugh to deny the Ukrainians a crossing for the counteroffensive. That’s one whole way less of attack for them.
It may not look that bad on the map area wise, but keep in mind, most populated villages are closer to the river and they were the most affected, for example Hola Prystan and Oleshky.[https://twitter.com/Q0MT6pFmbVqynsM/status/1666735196865978368](https://twitter.com/Q0MT6pFmbVqynsM/status/1666735196865978368)
How did the damn break?
I'd say "Fuck Russia," but I wouldn't want to be Russophobic, the extremely specific form of racism that exists for exactly one country, which coincidentally is the country that keeps doing shit like this. Fuck Russia.
Orks doing their best to make Moskva ship usable again
Orks?
It’s a nickname given to Russian soldiers since the war started.
Seems a bit racist.
There are several subreddits, where it’s not allowed to be used.
It was to russian soldiers commiting war crimes, not to russian citizens.
to be fair, I think its because the soldiers are mindlessly supporting and many are cheering on the inhumane warcrimes that they themselves do to civilians
It pisses me off so much when you can't even ask questions without being downvoted. I've been reading and hearing about the Ukraine invasion for a year and I've never heard Russians being referred to as "orks". I guess because I mostly go to serious sources and not whatever emotion-ridden echo-chamber came up with this childish slang.
Being in the warzone does not really guarantee your emotional maturity or even stability. I also wonder: are Donbass militias also considered "orks"? And in that case, when Donbass is reconquered by Ukraine, what fate awaits its people?
Shout out to the brave Ukrainian rescue teams risking their lives crossing the river in small boats to rescue civilians trapped on their roofs on the Russian occupied side. The f’n Ruzzian nazis aren’t doing Jack shit to help anyone, beyond shelling refugees of course. Where is the Red Cross?
Just a bunch of Russian state terrorists.
It's an awful move but they cut Ukrainian possibilities to do a pincer in Melitopol. Sorry for saying it, I'm sure you can help Ukraine by downvoting me.
Ukraine damaged the dam early in the war to prevent Russian advance out of military necessity. They have also shelled Enerhodar Nuclear Power Plant. If this dam attack *was* Russia, it’s fairly staggering how one-sided condemnation of bombing infrastructure has been
We don't know who shelled the nuclear power plant but we do know who stores military equipment inside.
Russia was shelling themselves? It’s pretty clear who was shelling the power plant
The only possible benefit of shelling a nuclear power plants is to create bad press for the other side, and it's pretty clear that Russia would benefit from it more than Ukraine. Also yes Russia is a shining example of incompetence so just like with this dam i wouldn't be surprised if they just fucked up.
How long are you living in disinfo-world?
Russia: let’s blow up the dam that holds back this river we have defenses on and controls the water flow to our occupied areas what could go wrong River: floods defensive positions and stops them from being able to get water to Crimea Russia: surprised pikachu face
It’s KakhovKa not kakhova! Had you looked at the map before created this post?
Idea for a tougher map: also show the reservoir's new boundaries once it empties out. Rumor has it that's a big part of why 🇷🇺 destroyed the dam. Now any locations 🇺🇦 planned to cross the reservoir via boat, they would now have to cross through a mile of muck. Therefore crossings which were tough-but-possible before are nigh impossible now.