The Nova Kakhovka Hydroelectric dam in Ukraine has been blown open | Hacker News Reader

The Nova Kakhovka Hydroelectric dam in Ukraine has been blown open

twitter.com

286 pointsdralley306 comments

Open articleView on HN

Reuters:

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/nova-kakhovka-dam-khers...

Simulation of worst-case scenarios:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0tRYWbVD5AE

The Russian State News agency claims that the dam "collapsed due to damage"

https://twitter.com/Osinttechnical/status/166592960325106892...

Ukraine says it was destroyed by the Russian military.

Google maps: https://www.google.com/maps/place/Kakhovka+Hydroelectric+Pow...

Update - high quality video of the breach: https://twitter.com/AricToler/status/1665935477671690240/med...

“Collapsed due to damage“. Looks pretty clearly like an explosion.

Russian state news agency. The fine folks that bring news reports like “local nerd found hitting himself by school bully”

Interesting follow-up by the same poster here, quoting WaPo tweeting some Maxar photos, showing that the dam seems to have suffered some damage in the past week - adding credence to the possibility that it did, in fact, "collapsed due to damage", without either side specifically pulling the trigger today.

https://twitter.com/AricToler/status/1665937030222692352

But that brings up the question, what was happening there in the week prior? Was there any active fighting in the area?

The Russians deliberately allowed water levels to raise to unprecedented levels. Most likely in preparation to detonate it.

https://twitter.com/intelarrow/status/1666010580497448960?s=...

This could’ve caused the damage?

US 'cannot say conclusively' what happened in dam breach - Kirby

Yeah right. lol. And that is a clear signal that Ukraine was behind it. But as always the warmongers will try 4d chess to convince you Russia did it, like it blew nord stream, attacked crimea bridge, and shot missiles into Poland.

This is by far hilarious and sad. You have an interesting way to tweak facts and transform the narrative.

You could make a career out of it (if you haven't done so).

(Zero value reaction to a comment with no value whatsoever)

It could just be the US doesn't have special info, like the rest of us. The fact that it was in a Russian controlled area, rigged with Russian explosives and that the damage would mostly be inflicted on Ukraine suggest maybe it was Russia, no 4d chess required.

Strikes me as "let's confirm and be extra sure before making public statements". But feel free to tell the story you want to hear.

Well, explosive damage..

Remove the /mediaviewer from your final link, it's currently saying the tweet doesn't exist with /mediaviewer.

Who benefits the most from the collapse?

Does it disturb Ukraine or Russian military the most? Who will achieve military goals because of this?

Does it help Ukraine in information warfare? (does it increase West participation to war)

> Who benefits the most from the collapse?

Russia. Turns everything from Zaporizhzhia to the Black Sea into a boggy-ass mess of mud (draining the reservoir will leave mud, flooding the downstream will leave mud). Filling the reservoir before blowing it like they did only maximizes the amount of mud left. Lets Russia shift more forces north.

Not really benefits anyone's offensive or defensive plans. Maybe political but that's a stretch.

No one comes out with prepared narrative too, which makes it look like an accident.

It has already caused loud cry from EU politicans, before we even know the reason.

President of the European Council: "The destruction of civilian infrastructure clearly qualifies as a war crime - and we will hold Russia and its proxies accountable."

https://twitter.com/CharlesMichel/status/1665971118354710529

However it didn't blow itself up, someone did it.

Obviously ruzzia benefits, by blocking western front in preparation of the Ukrainian advance.

It blocks or slows only couple weeks at max. Not really a big gain.

The river has 6 dams. Ukraine can control the upstream flow. It is estimated than in three days, the highest point in downstream is reached and then it will get lower. In the war which has lasted more than year, the benefit is meaningless.

On the other hand, the flow flushes all the Russian defenses on the other side. And the source of drinkable water in Crimean is ruined.

The Ukrainian president said earlier the Russian army mined the dam, to prevent the bridge being used by Ukrainian military. Perhaps it detonated, either by accident, as a reaction to an actual Ukranian attack over the bridge, or simply because of a very nervous Russian soldier.

On the plus side, this should mean the damage should not be too bad, as Ukraine had time to prepare.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/oct/21/zelenskiy-accu...

On the other hand, also the Russian has claimed Ukraine on planning the for blowing the dam.

https://www.voanews.com/a/latest-developments-in-ukraine-oct...

None of the parties have supporting evidence (not for mines as well).

Both parties are in information warfare, and everything is used for their own benefits. Everything they say, should be taken with a grain of salt.

Immediately, when the dam was exploded, Zelensky said that now the world must react, and drive Russians from Ukraine, from all the territory and corners they have taken.

https://twitter.com/ZelenskyyUa/status/1666050733773299714?c...

https://twitter.com/ZelenskyyUa/status/1665952784665964545?c...

Here's a video of a Russian soldier doing everything short of admitting they did it.

https://twitter.com/den_kazansky/status/1666003021925347328

The problem is, that we don't have access to up-to-date Russian military records. Is he really Russian soldier? If he is, can we guarantee that the video is not digitally created (deep fake)? If we guarantee the both, what is the motivation for Russian soldier to say it and what situation led to this video? Do we know, that this soldier was indeed responsible to be close to the dam?

It is so difficult to say what is true these days.

> The problem is, that we don't have access to up-to-date Russian military records. Is he really Russian soldier? If he is, can we guarantee that the video is not digitally created (deep fake)? If we guarantee the both, what is the motivation for Russian soldier to say it and what situation led to this video? Do we know, that this soldier was indeed responsible to be close to the dam?

You got evidence and now you're trying to discredit that evidence.

> It is so difficult to say what is true these days.

Indeed it is, I have a feeling you really don't care much about the truth are just here to try and muddy the waters.

> You got evidence and now you're trying to discredit that evidence.

I am trying to say that our definitions of evidence are not the same anymore.

It is just a video online. Without any other supporting factors, it stays like that. Evidence requires connection to the context, and we can't verify that.

> Indeed it is, I have a feeling you really don't care much about the truth are just here to try and muddy the waters.

I care about the truth. But I also don't like that people can't see over their own biases. (e.g. not considering that someone else than Russia could do something for their own benefit)

> I am trying to say that our definitions of evidence are not the same anymore. It is just a video online. Without any other supporting factors, it stays like that. Evidence requires connection to the context, and we can't verify that.

It's literally video evidence of the Russians pretty much admitting it and you're doing your best to try say theres no way to know its real.

> I care about the truth. But I also don't like that people can't see over their own biases. (e.g. not considering that someone else than Russia could do something for their own benefit)

I care about the truth as well, but it's worth knowing that people who 'question' everything generally have an ulterior motive and don't really care about the truth. Whats the points in arguing if all the evidence is deep faked?.

Theres no proof anything you said is true, tonnes of proof the Russians blew up the damn.

Here's another video of them saying they want to blow the dam, but I'm sure you'll come up with some reason why this video could be fake too.

https://twitter.com/Gerashchenko_en/status/16660615320803614...

I'll welcome any proof that all this evidence the Russians blew up the dam is fake, but so far there is none.

> It is estimated than in three days, the highest point in downstream is reached and then it will get lower.

Leaving a nice barrier of impassible mud everywhere around the river.

It's a pretty big psychological warfare advantage for the Russian though to impress their population and keep them in the dark about what is really going on in Ukraine. It seems a bit coincidental considering the major Ukrainian offensive will likely start with the next couple of weeks.

Current chatter that I'm seeing indicates that the local RF commander got scared and blew the dam. It may not have been commanded by higher ups. So, the only benefactor seems to have been the local RF, and even then only until someone can got over there to ream him.

How good is this info? Probably not the best. But it fits fine enough with how poorly commanded RF has been throughout this war.

It seems to be the Muscovites giving up on folding Ukraine into their empire, and going for scorched earth instead before withdrawal. Here's hoping Belgorod and Kursk can be liberated soon.

Looks historically unprecedented (?). This is a run-of-the-river type dam (relatively small elevation drop between upstream and downstream), but one with an enormous reservoir, with a volume (1.8e10 m³ nominal) larger than e.g. Banqiao (4.9e8 m³) or Mosul (1.1e10 m³). It is/was #48 on Wikipedia's ranking of world's largest water reservoirs.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kakhovka_Hydroelectric_Power_P...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banqiao_Dam

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mosul_Dam

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_reservoirs_by_volume

Looking at the innundation by blowing up the dikes in ww2 near my birth city it's not unprecedented but now definately a war crime (which the allies did btw). The reservoir here was the North Sea.

You're talking about Operation Infatuate when the Allies flooded Westerscheld? Flooding size could be bigger but affected population was way smaller.

An arguably smaller war crime then?

unfortunately, no https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/nov/02/second-world-w...

I think they meant the size of the res.

During WW2 blowing up dams did happen https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Chastise

Both dams and human conflict are pretty ancient. China alone has like 10 stories in their historical record like this.

China blew up so many dams in WW2 to stop the Japanese. In the end, they didn't even slow them much, but killed 300k Chinese civilians.

I want to remind everyone that the irrigation of the entire south Kherson oblast depended on the Crimean channel, providing around 17% of Ukraine's agricultural output, and the water supply to some of the largest cities in the area such as Kherson and Krivuy Rih was also dependent on that water reservoir. Not to mention the colossal flooding and displacement of tens of thousands of Ukrainian people. This act had ruined a chunk of Ukraine's future. It's extremely unlikely Ukraine had anything to do with it or anything to gain which would compensate the economic loss.

Edit: sorry, it is definitely not the same dam, as seen by comparing it to https://twitter.com/igorsushko/status/1665907533469581313

(NOT) Video of the actual explosion: https://video.twimg.com/ext_tw_video/1665954209156460544/pu/...

- "it is definitely not the same dam"

It actually *is* the same dam — though a different incident from 2022.

-"Footage verified by the BBC shows the moment a huge explosion rocks Ukraine's Nova Kakhovka dam, near Kherson."

https://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-europe-63607625 (12 November 2022)

This is an old video from November last year (when ruscists retreated from Kherson).

Posting a video that is old and not related, yet plausibly attached to a news campaign is a classic information warfare tactic.

Makes you wonder where the initial news source was from...?

This article currently has much more information (as of the time of posting)

https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2023/jun/06/russia-uk... ("Russia-Ukraine war live: dam near Kherson destroyed by Russian forces, says Ukraine, sparking evacuations")

The destruction of the Nova Kakhovka dam by Russians follows almost exactly all the other heinous crimes Russians have committed:

1. Execute the crime

2. Laugh and brag

3. Realize the catastrophe

4. Change the story and blame others

https://twitter.com/Tendar/status/1666033978841636866

The terrain is higher on the NW side... This seems like a really strange move given their defensive positions.

(old link with color topo and some color commentary)

https://www.reddit.com/r/NonCredibleDefense/comments/yansa7/...

Ukraine just started counterattack so this effectively blocks attack through Kherson region.

Following some of the threads, there's satellite evidence it may have just failed for mechanical reasons. If this was unintentional and they didn't abandon those positions downstream they're in for a bad time.

The fact it's timed with the first day of the counter offensive and it's been long discussed as a very likely target for Russia that would be one hell of a coincidence.

Yeah it's a bit of a weird one.

https://twitter.com/evanhill/status/1665915785707921408?ref_...

Looks like the dam had been running extremely high so there's cause beyond just random chance, but even that high level could have been deliberate.

Regardless of what actually happened today, the high level was absolutely deliberate, it is just basic dam maintenance to let more water out when it fills. And that was absolutely reckless, contributing to certain deaths today.

Of course, if you are planning on blowing the dam, that makes sense for maximum damage, but I speculate.

Maybe forcing a mechanical failure provides more plausible deniability than simply blowing it up? It also makes it easier to repair considering it's still a valuable source of water for Crimea.

A hydrologist on twitter said that it would require far fewer explosives to blow it up when overfilled. If they were short on those, it would be another reason.

Easier to repair? Did you see the pictures? Not an engineer, but that looks like they will have to tear down whatever is still standing and rebuild from scratch.

Yeah after seeing the video I don't think it makes much difference if it was explosives or not. Nevermind :)

It's been shelled for months probably by all parties at some point

> Ukraine's Armed Forces (UAF) "developed a tactic to work around that limitation by conducting multiple precision strikes across the key Antonivskiy Bridge and the road that ran atop the Kakhovka Dam in such a way as to break the roadways in a line across them, rendering them unusable without actually destroying the bridges' infrastructure (or badly damaging the dam)," the think tank said.

https://www.newsweek.com/us-himars-helped-ukraine-retake-khe...

That roadway was taken out 8 months ago.

Dam wasn't shelled, roadway was on the side pretty far from dam.

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.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2022/12/29/ukraine-offe...

The dam is totally broken, not "raised enough to stymie Russian crossings but not flood nearby villages", besides there are no russian crossings now.

There will be no crossings for months too as soil captures shit ton of water.

Did you look at the video posted above? A big chunk of concrete like that doesn't just fail for mechanical reasons (what does that even mean?).

Its yet another russian war crime during Ukraine invasion

how? if it's a war then isn't it legitimate to destroy energy sources?

Not by flooding tens of thousands of people out of their homes and wrecking the local ecology

Destroying dams is explicitly a war crime.

wanted to take you up on the "explicitly" then just googled it myself. in deed the additional protocol i of the geneva convention has something explicit to say about dams.

----

"[...] the Nova Kakhovka dam has been earmarked as a potential target for [...] its strategic importance"

"Its destruction would have a number of significant repercussions [...] for Ukraine’s wider war effort."

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/jun/06/nova-kakhovka-...

"2. The special protection against attack provided for in paragraph 1 shall cease:

(a) for a dam or a dyke only if it is used for other than its normal function and in regular, significant and direct support of military operations and if such attack is the only feasible way to terminate such support;"

https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/customary-ihl/v2/rule42

----

don't know whether or not this constraint applies. i'm anyway not really intending to justify this or russia's attack on ukraine in general. just don't like pointing out cruelty in wars as if it's a surprise this is happening. war is about killing more soldiers than your opponent and there never was a war not impacting civilians. many people seem to think: "i'm against war except if it's fought fair and without killing children, elderly, women, handicapped people and civilians in general."

I don't think that this constrain applies. The dam was part of the Russia-occupied territory or part of the gray zone. Ukraine was not using the damn dam for anything.

At this point I'm not willing to give Russia the benefit of the doubt anymore. Their leadership has more than sufficiently demonstrated that they consider atrocities and crimes of war as part of the toolbox, so to say.

doesn't this make it more plausible that ukraine blew it up?

The dam was under Russian control. Ukraine wouldn't have had any opportunity to place demolition charges.

Russia has demonstrated that it is; - willing to level cities with hundreds of thousands of inhabitants

- willing to use torture, abduction, rape as systematic weapons of war

- willing to indiscriminately attack civilians

- willing to use banned weapons of war

Despite war crimes obviously (d'oh) happening on both sides of the conflict, the Russian leadership has made it evidently clear that is more than happy to unleash any amount of terror, pain, misery and suffering to get what it wants. The Russian leadership is perfectly a-ok to systematically use all of the aforementioned as weapons.

I've not seen this callousness from the Ukrainian leadership.

All is not fair in love and war. See: Geneva Conventions.

Ukrainians confessed multiple times they attacked it with HIMARSes:

1) https://www.bbc.com/russian/news-62533233

2) https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2022/12/29/ukraine-offe...

"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 Russians intentionally increased the water level of the dam to cause the most damage and then intentionally blew it up.

At least two Russian soldiers have said they would blow the damn / they blew the dam and have admitted as much in camera.

Russia was celebrating this before they realised it was a war crime then they went into their typical deny and deflect everything mode.

It's probably another way around: Ukrainians intentionally increased the water level of the dam, since they control dams up the Dnieper river.

Or you know since Ukraine doesn’t control the literal weather it would be hard to control the water level in a river.

Russia controlled whether or not they opened the spill gates they didn’t and it is obviously an intentional build up to do as much damage a possible.

Sad how much destruction war brings.

War as an impersonal phenomenon doesn't bring anything inherently, saying so simply blurs individual responsibility. It's up to the belligerents, up to the individual commanders, units and members of armed forces to decide what and whom they target. Targetting a dam by the Russians is a war crime per Art. 56 of the 1977 Additional Protocol I of the Geneva Conventions.

Is Russia the kind of country that would kill you or members of your family if you were in uniform and didn't follow orders? I honestly don't know. I do think individual responsibility absolutely has a place for acts in war, but I'd want that informed by that what choices those individuals had available and what they'd have understood the consequences of their choices would be.

Of course they are, they've done it the whole war.

Most of the time executing civilian men as per our gender's supposed "main purpose" in life.

But they have also executed women and children indiscriminately as well. There are recorded radio conversations of Russian soldiers explaining their orders as "kill everyone, I don't care who they are".

It's also weird how totally unnecessary all of this is. You could probably say that about most wars really, but this one is entirely pointless. Russia didn't have to invade at all. They can go home at any time and it'd all just stop. It'll be hard enough to deal with all the loss and damage that's been done already.

Russia’s image as superpower had been damaged. If Russia end the conflict Putin dies. He won’t let that happen

Russia’s image was trashed when they failed to take Ukraine in the first weeks of the invasion. Winning now (or months/years from now) isn't going to fix that. Even if they did win what would they get? Russia has no real need for Ukraine. I'd rather be known as a country who screwed up but knows when to quit than one who does something dumb and is too embarrassed by it to pull their head out of their own ass no matter what the cost.

USSR was a superpower before it failed. Russia, not so much.

Anyway, I noticed you're writing about the image of being so, so nevermind...

Not war, russia brings

Sad how a genocidal terrorist state can still exist in this day and age.

I we focus on the largest nuclear power plant in Europe for a minute.

Are all reactors completely shut off?

Is there any danger of meltdown?

Reactors have been shut down for about half a year. So the hard part is over but they still need quite a bit of water.

More info:

> "Water from the Kakhovsky Reservoir is necessary for the station to receive power for turbine capacitors and safety systems of the ZNPP. The station's cooling pond is now full: as of 8:00 a.m., the water level is 16.6 meters, which is sufficient for the station's needs."

Source: https://twitter.com/Osinttechnical/status/166595989648168550...

Of course it's totally unsafe: it's in a war zone. It's on the current, active front line of a warzone. If this dam collapse doesn't cause a catastrophic spent fuel nuclear disaster in the next few hours, there's still imminent danger of that from any number of different causes – most visibly, military actions occurring right next to (or inside of!) the power plant. The IAEA messaging has been extremely shrill about this for like a continuous year, and no one listens.

e.g.

- "After nearly nine months of failed efforts to forge an agreement between Ukraine and Russia to establish a protection zone around the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant (ZNPP), Rafael Mariano Grossi, the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, is now pushing for a new proposal to reduce the possibility of a catastrophic nuclear disaster."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2023/05/22/ukraine-zapo... (May 22)

and

- "Ukraine’s Zaporizhzhya Nuclear Power Plant (ZNPP) has been without external back-up power for three months now, leaving it extremely vulnerable in case the sole functioning main power line goes down again"

https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/pressreleases/update-160-iae... (June 2)

I agree. I have been following the daily IAEA reports and the level of desperation on the side of the agency is hard to overstate.

Despite ZNPP being in an active war zone, as you say, the IAEA has done an amazing job monitoring the situation on the ground.

Incredible that hardly anyone in Europe knows or cares about it. Scary times, indeed.

Dang, https://twitter.com/Osinttechnical/status/166590794898645811... is a more informative thread

There are probably dozens of better sources online on this particular topic than OP's. I don't understand people "Danging" in threads

I am op

Email hn@ycombinator.com; dang has said elsewhere that he doesn't monitor comments for @dang.

Note that it is the second time the dam is destroyed here. During WW2 soviets exploded the dam upstream (Zaporizhzhya dam) perishing ~100k civilians and their own military.

Is this a deliberate flooding to stop troops?

Like the dutch did:

https://neverwasmag.com/2016/07/how-the-dutch-would-flood-th...

No, it's a scorched earth tactic, in preparation to abandoning Crimea.

Without this dam, Crimea will be without water for at least next 3 to 5 years after Ukraine recaptures it.

The water situation is way overblown. Crimea did fine since 2014 when the water was cut. There were shortages in the central and north parts but mostly because of high demand from the local industry (Crimean Titan plant) and agriculture (it is hard to believe but they were planting rice over there). It also helped that due to the climate change we had unusually heavy rains and even floods in the southern parts. Because of that, water supply in Sevastopol hasn't been rationed even once even though the population has increased, although it was a common occurrence before 2014.

Thanks for the insightful information. What's your take on the war otherwise?

Well, I don't know what to say really. I have no idea how this all ends, and I fear it is far from over yet. I don't support Ukraine in this conflict for different reasons, one of which is that in case of their victory my family will loose everything and I'll end up in jail (and that's best case). But I cannot support Russia either because I cannot support the idiots who decided to start this war, because I cannot support the way this war was fought, and because if Russia wins I'll be sealed in one country with these idiots forever. And in the case the conflict will get frozen at some point (which is probably how it'll go because I cannot see either side winning on the battlefield), it'll just continue later. In short, I think we're screwed either way.

> I don't support Ukraine in this conflict for different reasons, one of which is that in case of their victory my family will loose everything and I'll end up in jail (and that's best case).

Why would this happen?.

In the unlikely event of retaking Crimea, Ukraine is going to prosecute collaborators, cancel _all_ property deals after 2014, and expel Russian citizens who never had Ukrainian citizenship. I have received Russian citizenship, some of my family members have been Russian citizens all their life, and I have inherited, sold, and bought property after 2014. And while it is not clear who is going to be considered a collaborator, nobody who received Russian citizenship is safe (which means nobody at all).

I find it very unlikely that they would imprison, essentially, the entire remaining pre-2014 population of Crimea on the sole basis of having received a Russian passport. It's going to be a large problem in the occupied territories as well, as people have been refused medical care and other necessities unless accepting a Russian passport or in some cases threatened and tortured. Separating out those who were under genuine duress from those who enthusiastically accepted is an intractable problem, so the bar would need to be set somewhat higher.

Given that 10+ million Ukrainians have lost their homes or forced to relocate, entire destroyed cities, the extensive mining of Ukrainian territory etc. it is difficult to be especially sympathetic to non-Crimean Russian settlers who might lose their property.

Oh, I am not a settler, I was born in Sevastopol and lived here most of my life, as most people I know. It is hard to be sure, but I'd say, only about 10% of the current population came after 2014, the rest lived here before and then took Russian citizenship.

Cancelling property deals after 2014 would effectively mean most will still be able to live in their homes and apartments but will never be able to sell anything. It took me 5 years to change Ukrainian documents to Russian documents (property documents, passports, driver license, everything), and I still have not received and will probably never receive ownership on the small workshop that belonged to my father's company because it requires something from Ukrainian archives, which is pretty much impossible to obtain. I spent months of my life standing in queues in government agencies and in the court. I cannot imagine changing everything back, it will take decades!

And then, what about the kids who were born here after 2014 and have no Ukrainian documents? What about tens of thousands who lived here all their life but who always were Russian citizens, like my father in law? Sevastopol has been a Russian navy base since 1783, there are so many people who are kids and grandkids of retired navy officers, who were born and lived here but never had Ukrainian citizenship. What about their families, and everybody who had some relation with Russian navy? Half of guys my class in 1994 went to the local Russian navy academy and became Russian navy officers, no chance they or their families can re-integrate in Ukraine. And then the Russian military shipyards, and the local branch of Moscow State University and many many other Russian institutions which were functioning here since forever and all the people working for them and their families... Russia has always had so much presence here, I honestly cannot imagine Ukraine taking over Crimea without expelling or imprisoning half of the population.

Sorry for the brain dump, I didn't mean to make a statement or prove anything, it is just such a mess it hurts to even think about this all.

Oh I wasn't implying you were a settler, it was clear that you were not from the original post. But you mentioned others. There's really no great answers, certainly no blanket ones.

In any case, taking a passport alone will not be the critera: https://kyivindependent.com/official-advises-ukrainians/

> I find it very unlikely that they would imprison

Lol? "Presumption of guilt" for anyone who lives (or happens to be) in Crimea.

EDIT: with a strongly implied round ups for anyone deemed undesirable

https://tweet.lambda.dance/Spriter99880/status/1663931257053...

> some cases threatened and tortured

Sorry? At least OSCE SMM or equivalent source?

Arestovych was kicked out of the administration for making exaggerated statements for attention, he's not a great source.

Accepting a passport alone is not going to be the criteria. The Ukrainian government explicitly recommended taking the papers if coerced to do so: https://kyivindependent.com/official-advises-ukrainians/

Ah, yes, there were no videos of what the brave liberators did with people they identified as collaborators.

>The Ukrainian government explicitly recommended taking the papers if coerced to do so

How can anyone be coerced to get a passport?

> How can anyone be coerced to get a passport?

The video you linked to mentions an example: an elderly person getting a Russian passport in order to get medical care (after nine years).

>> Arestovych was kicked out of the administration for making exaggerated statements for attention, he's not a great source.

Also:

> Compulsion; forcible constraint; the act of controlling by force or arms.

As those people like to say, that person could just go to the Ukraine and get medical care there. Bonus points: wouldn't get shot up as a collaborator.

> that person could just go to the Ukraine

One cannot "just" cross the front lines of an active warzone. This should be blindingly fucking obvious. Especially not with all of the bridges being blown. Especially not when you're elderly, probably ill or injured (they are looking for medical attention, remember) and in all likelihood do not have a vehicle in the first place.

And it's just "Ukraine", not "the Ukraine".

Thank you for showing your colors so clearly. The kind of person who does not see how it could be coercive to force elderly, sick people to leave the place they live (and probably livestock, because Ukraine) and travel hundreds of miles, or to accept Russian citizenship - to get basic medical attention is not worth arguing with.

* yawn * You are boring.

> One cannot "just" cross the front lines of an active warzone

What exact 'front lines' and 'an active warzone' were for 8 years for Crimea? What forbade an Ukrainian patriot to find the time in 8 years to get from the occupied by evil Russkies Crimea to his homeland and don't be in the need 'to be coerced to receive the passport to receive a medical help'?

> And it's just "Ukraine", not "the Ukraine".

And it's 'Netherlands', not 'the Netherlands', right, because you are the one consistent fellow? And it's also makes sense because English is the first language of the Ukraine, right?

> The kind of person who does not see how it could be coercive to force elderly, sick people to leave the place they live

But somehow you are perfectly fine if those people are coerced by the right guys to leave their places - because somehow people living all their life in Crimea, Sevastopol, Donetsk, Lugansk aren't a proper humans.

You are boring and specifically take only the points where you can argue.

In the video in question it's specifically said what would happen when Ukrainians would take Crimea. Of course you ignored that to make your point look good in your own eyes.

So, let's try again:

Arestovich would shoot up everyone deemed too Russian, everyone else would be guilt by default and somehow only some elderly people who couldn't make it to the motherland in eight fucking years to receive the so needed medical attention (but somehow found the time to get a Russian passport) would be spared - and you are totally, absolutely fine with all these points.

> In the unlikely event of retaking Crimea, Ukraine is going to prosecute collaborators

You have a wrong choice of words here, sadly. Every one would be prosecuted and after that they would decide who was a collaborator and who wasn't.

https://tweet.lambda.dance/Spriter99880/status/1663931257053...

> In the unlikely event of retaking Crimea, Ukraine is going to prosecute collaborators, cancel _all_ property deals after 2014, and expel Russian citizens who never had Ukrainian citizenship. I have received Russian citizenship, some of my family members have been Russian citizens all their life, and I have inherited, sold, and bought property after 2014. And while it is not clear who is going to be considered a collaborator, nobody who received Russian citizenship is safe (which means nobody at all).

Based on this.

> I have received Russian citizenship

You should be okay, I think they will recognise most people faced the choice of getting Russian citizenship or potentially very bad things happening to them, as long as you where Ukrainian before I don't see the issue.

> and I have inherited, sold, and bought property after 2014.

This is on you my friend, you knowingly sold, and bough property that was in essence stolen.

> And while it is not clear who is going to be considered a collaborator, nobody who received Russian citizenship is safe (which means nobody at all).

I don't think this is true, if you weren't overtly fighting or collaborating with the Russians I don't think the Ukrainians will do much.

This would happen if the person is squatting on somebody else's property (i.e. received or bought illegally while the Crimea is occupied) or is a collaborator.

Good riddance if this will actually happen.

I really doubt they will abandon Crimea. Russia has a huge naval base there. That's the last thing they'll give up.

Flooding the area would make it much harder to cross for the Ukraineans though.

Once the Kerch bridge is cut and the southern offensive gets through to the Azov sea, they won't have any other choice but to scamper from Crimea.

I don't know. Sevastopol is super important to them. I hope they won't do anything drastic.

It's the only warm water port Russia has on the black sea. And thus full year access to the mediterranean. I doubt they will give it up. Perhaps the rest of Crimea, I could imagine. But not the base.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novorossiysk would like to have a word with you.

"Novorossiysk is the biggest Russian seaport. In 2019 cargo turnover amounted to 142,5m tons[26] In 2021 cargo turnover amounted to 105,2m tons[27]

Novorossiysk is connected by rail and highways to the main industrial and population centres of Russia, Transcaucasia, and Central Asia. "

I thought this was not a warm water port but indeed it is.

Their main port in the black sea is still Sevastopol though. It would cost a lot to transfer all that over to Novorossiysk and it would also cause them to lose a lot of face. I doubt they will let that happen.

Precisely. Ukraine taking back Crimea is pure fantasy. Russia would launch nukes rather than give it up.

> Precisely. Ukraine taking back Crimea is pure fantasy. Russia would launch nukes rather than give it up.

The idea that Russia will launch a single nuke is fantasy, they haven’t even tested one in over 80 years.

Launch a strategic nuke, no. Nobody expects that. But we're talking about tactical ones. The smaller ones that can be dropped from a plane or installed in a short range missile.

Even if one or two fail, they will find one that works. It would set a terrible precedent for the rest of the world, where any kind of nuke deployment right now is "not done".

We don't want to go back to the 60s where nuclear-tipped torpedoes were regularly carried and in fact one almost was launched during the cuba crisis.

> Launch a strategic nuke, no. Nobody expects that. But we're talking about tactical ones. The smaller ones that can be dropped from a plane or installed in a short range missile.

Even with a tactical nuke we are talking about the end of the Russian federation, if anything would invite a physical kinetic response it would be a nuke, tactical or not.

They haven’t even tested one in over 80 years.

This is bonkers of course.

The idea that Russia will launch a single nuke is fantasy

Not at all, unfortunately. It has always been and remains a significant card for them to play.

Russia won't launch nukes come what may, because Putin's now very very big brother Xi doesn't want a nukes-equipped Taiwan, and holiday resorts for Moscovites are less important than TSMC chips.

Sevastopol being only Black Sea port is not true. Russia has Novorossiysk where they constructed naval base before 2014. The remains of the Black Sea fleet have moved there because it is safer than Crimea.

Russia will never give up crimea. In fact it 'always' practically belonged to Russia. Their most important naval base is there for decades.

> Russia will never give up crimea. In fact it 'always' practically belonged to Russia. Their most important naval base is there for decades.

Maybe they shouldn’t have built their most important naval base in a foreign country then proceeded to invade that country lol.

You should look up the history of Crimea.

> You should look up the history of Crimea.

History doesn’t give them a right to take what they feel like that.

Just because Putin is salty that Stalin made Crimea part of the Ukrainian SSR doesn’t allow him to reverse it.

"Decree of the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet "On the transfer of the Crimean Oblast". In 1954, the Soviet leadership, which included Khrushchev, transferred Crimea from Russian SFSR to Ukrainian SSR."

(Stalin died already in 1953)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikita_Khrushchev#/media/File:...

If you have a credible source that goes into detail on that, I'd appreciate it.

There's no significant drinking water source in Crimea. And this was the dam directing water to Crimean water channel. Not sure what other credible source you may want.

The dam disappearing doesn't mean the flow of water disappears. The water level might drop below the intake of the North Crimean Canal, but the canal already requires pumping water uphill to get it all the way to Crimea, so the dam doesn't necessarily have to be fully reconstructed to deal with a lower water level, a second pumping station would be enough.

A credible source that they're about to abandon Crimea would be nice.

The next question is how long would it take to repair if it does slow down / reroute the counter offensive?

There's lots of evidence it harms Russian troop build ups in the region but only if they plan on abandoning the southern Kherson region and don't have any plans beyond that.

> Not sure what other credible source you may want.

I'm a little confused: You did not provide any source. You're not obligated to provide any, but I don't understand your comment.

FYI, it stops looking like innocent questioning when you put more time and effort into repeating the question in multiple places than into looking up the answer yourself. If you think someone is wrong, then be forthright about that, and consider whether addressing the lack of adequate sourcing is still necessary after you've made a real contribution to the conversation. In a topic like this one, people can reasonably make very different assumptions about what is "common knowledge" that doesn't need full citations every time it's mentioned.

The GGP is neither a credible source (it's an unsupported statement by an internet rando) nor speculation that withstands much scrutiny (IIRC, circa 2014, Ukraine had blocked the channel that supplies water to Crimea, and that didn't cause the Russians to abandon it then, and I don't see why now would be any different).

There's a lot of wishful thinking and propaganda swirling around this conflict, and strong claims need strong evidence.

I'd say any claim needs evidence (with some extreme exceptions), and in fact it's only the evidence that's worth reading, not the claim.

Rando claims have zero value by themselves - there is an infinite supply that say anything and everything. That's why science, law, etc. require evidence.

People love making things up, now you're doing it about my intentions. It seems like evidence is out the window for everything.

The evidence is only that I expressed interest in a source. The rest is your fabrication. Have a good day!

https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/sea-lioning

This is actually correct, at least the effect it will have on Crimea's water supply.

This is tactical, not terroristic. Flooded rivers and drained reservoirs are harder for armies to cross than developed riverside real estate.

This eliminates the Dnipro as an invasion route and allows Russia to concentrate on defending the north.

Putin may not care much about Crimean civilians but he's not going to go through all this trouble just to make them suffer.

Above all, it's economical. Say what you will about Peter Zeihan, but he's been going on about it for months: ~“Once winter is over, and they can't hurt the Ukrainian population by going after energy and heating infrastructure, they'll go after their economy. And with Ukraine a major agricultural exporter, that's probably what they'll go after.”

The Nova Khakovka reservoir fed not only the Crimea Canal, but three (or was it four?) other major canal systems... Irrigation canal systems. Without the dam, the erstwhile reservoir's water level is of course far below that of those canal systems, so they're all out of commission. And with them some significant proportion (a fifth? Something like that) of Ukraine's agriculture.

> This is tactical, not terroristic

I am not sure why you believe these two things contradict each other.

No, but one is easier to understand than the other. Spending a ton of intelligence capital on a complicated clandestine demolition operation just to impoverish a region under context just doesn't make a lot of sense, even for Putin. At best it's a side benefit.

It also requires that you assume Putin genuinely believes he's going to lose Crimea in this war, which seems questionable (a Ukrainian military conquest of the peninsula is a *huge* ask, much more so than just retaking the occupied Donetsk territory).

The tactical explanation, and especially the timing, really seems much more likely.

Terrorism always has a cold, tactical calculation behind it, to achieve some goal.

This attack is a flagrant violation of the Geneva convention and a war crime.

Russia must be punished for doing this or allowing it to happen.

More weapons and permission to strike military targets in Russia seems like a proportional response. Otherwise, what's the response for blowing up a nuclear power plant in the future? Slap on the fingers? Russia keeps escalating, it's clear now that this can only be allowed to end with the full defeat of the Russian military.

Whether the dam was blown up or collapsed due to damage is just the difference between shooting someone and slowly poisoning them, it's still murder.

But punishing russia is bad for the economy so EU will issue very strongly worded press releases instead

*punishing russia is a threat to your own citizenry which relies on the economy to feed their families. The economy isn't some alien abstract entity.

It look like the most anticipated Ukrainian offensive had begun, but was blunted by the Russians After this occurred, it stands to reason that the Ukrainian government would like a reason for not losing any more men and material so why not blow up the dam and damage most of the defensive positions the Russians had prepared and give an excuse for not going on with the offensive. And of course ask for more money and weapons so who did this benefit and you don’t have to be a mental giant to figure out that this was more damaging to Russia and the Crimea than to Ukraine.

And remember, we were all told that the Russia blew up its own pipe line in the North Sea as well, confirmed by US officials both military and state department, of course they would not lie to us again right?

Look at the lay of the land and facts, the Crimean region relies on that water for agriculture and industrial/domestic water supplies much more than the Ukraine does.

Think for yourselves and don’t be led around by politically motivated people.

The effect/kinetic energy of the water involved would be comparable to that released by a nuclear explosion.

Total madness.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/jun/06/nova-kakhovka-...

"The reservoir it contains holds an estimated 18 cubic kilometres of water, about the same volume as the Great Salt Lake in Utah. Bursting the dam could send a wall of water flooding settlements below it, including Kherson, which Ukrainian forces recaptured in late 2022"

In 1941 the retreating Red Army blew a different dam, the Dnieper/Dnipro dam, up to a hundred thousand people died on that occasion...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dnieper_Hydroelectric_Station#...

The energy will be released over a long time though. Nevertheless, every structure downstream will end up in the black sea.

I'm not a military expert, but it seems like this will benefit the Russians, who will now have time to reinforce and strengthen their positions in Kherson Oblast on the south side of the Dnipro River at a time when Ukraine has been gaining momentum, and possibly considering crossing for a counter-offensive.

From a purely positional perspective, this is a big advantage for the Russians, who benefit from a more prolonged conflict because they have more people, and need more time to resupply their logistics.

Not great.

I'm not sure Ukraine ever planned a large-scale crossing of the Dnipro from Kherson. Certainly not for the main thrust of the counter offensive.

Ukraine needed to present a credible threat to cross there to pin Russian forces in the area. Now that it's basically impossible to cross the river, Russia can redeploy the majority of the forces to other areas.

Was it ever feasible for them to cross the Dnipro with heavy equipment though? It already seemed too wide for pontoon bridges?

Last fall, Russians have built and used several pontoon bridges over Dnipro for a few weeks, as they defended Kherson city and the Antonovskij bridge was rendered unusuable by HIMARS strikes.

https://t.me/jurnko/7938 [Ukrainian language]

Here’s a post from Kherson journalist with breakdown of Russian propagandist reactions to the situation for those who still think it’s not Russian orchestrated explosion.

Some russians bragged about putting explosives at the dam half a year ago: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=arUHJzXCfsU

Better OP:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2023/06/06/russia-ukrai...

So:

1. What side does this help?

2. How does this action help that side?

  - settlements on river banks will be swept away
  - the biggest nuclear power plant in Europe, ZNPP, won't be restarted due to lack of cooling
  - Crimea will lost access to fresh water
  - First line of defence for both sides are swept away.
  - it will be harder for Ukraine side to mount an amphibious assault

So it's a lose-lose situation for everyone.

I'm kinda happy for that power plant not to be restarted though.

It's much better for it to be in a shutdown state if it finds itself in the middle of combat again. I know Ukraine needed the power but it getting damaged could cause problems far beyond Ukraine. One Chernobyl was enough. But I hope it has enough cooling water to cool its storage reservoirs.

All the other effects are terrible of course :( And all favour Russia.

It was in shutdown state ever since it was taken by Russia and there were no plans to restart it until the end of the conflict.

Oh ok I read somewhere they wanted to restart it soon. In that case it's also a bad outcome of this dam bust indeed :(

It will also make it easier for Ukraine to attack upstream when the reservoir is empty. In places where there are virtually no Russian defenses. So that's a win for Ukraine.

First, the reservoir won't empty completely. Second, if it were there will be meters of mud on the bottom of it. It's possibly more impassable when empty.

In short term yeah, it will probably be too muddy. But it will dry over time and in the long term this unlocked a completely new axis of attack for Ukrainians. Similarly in the downstream regions. The water will go away eventually and it will be much easier for Ukrainians to attack in the future, when the Russians will not have the capability to flood the downstream regions with this dam.

The Dnipro is still a large river to cross and it's not going away. I looked at it in Google Maps and it's at least 500 m wide before and after the reservoir.

Btw, Google added the flooding marks to the map.

I am actually not sure how wide it will end up. Dnipro is actually reservoirs all the way up to Kyiv. It will be Ukrainians in Dniper HES that will control the flow from now on.

Not if you’re going to lose anyway

Who does that apply to?

It's firstly a gigantic humanitarian disaster with likely many many dead, pure act of terrorism.

Not the first, almost certainly won't be the last.

Benefits the Russians who have been dealing with a Ukranian counter-offensive, and commentators have been wondering if Ukraine would attempt to cross the Dnipro and mount a counter-offensive to cut Crimea off from the mainland.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0tRYWbVD5AE is a great visualization of why that task is basically impossible now.

Scorched earth retreats are also a time-honored Soviet and Russian military strategy.

I'd love to read an expert source on that, if you have one.

A dam on the same river was blown up by retreating Soviet troops in WW2: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/nov/02/second-world-w...

Interesting, thanks, though only one incident. Do you know any sources on Russian military strategy?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fire_of_Moscow_(1812)

Footage coming out in the last two days showed heavy Ukraine armour losses, so I am not sure whether this is necessarily because Russians were on backfoot. The overflow would be higher towards South so it will hurt Russian defensive preparations more once the water has receded.

> Footage coming out in the last two days showed heavy Ukraine armour losses, so I am not sure whether this is necessarily because Russians were on backfoot.

Do you have any links about that?

Worth noting that this may still turn out to be accidental, in the sense that all the bombing activity around it triggered sufficient cracking in the wrong places that the normal forces (made worse by high water levels) caused a failure.

To be clear, I'm not saying that this wasn't a strike, or a demolition, just that it could be an unintended failure caused by precision strikes performed on targets very near to the dam.

“That latter point means that, like all concrete structures, concrete dams will crack. These cracks will be tend to be vertical, since the concrete is free to grow and shrink in the vertical dimension, while the canyon it spans is of a fixed dimension. While an arch dam will have the pressure of the water pushing these vertical cracks closed, a gravity dam has no forces acting along its axis--well, except for the temperature changes. The easiest way to deal with this is to provide a known place for the concrete to crack. Therefore, the dam is divided into monoliths, where each monolith is a separately-placed block of concrete that is more or less structurally independent of the monoliths next to it. The dividing lines between monoliths are contraction joints, and will open and close with temperature changes, sometimes quite dramatically. This is the same reason sidewalks are cut into squares and concrete highways have the joints that go "ba-dump" as you drive over them--the concrete will crack, so provide a way to make it crack in a controlled, pretty manner.

[...]

This will hold true for all of the concrete, but once you get to the foundation, it gets a bit tricker. The soil is not a relatively well-controlled material like the concrete. It's typically full of joints and is permeable. At the base of the dam, it's typical to assume that the full pressure of the forebay is acting at the heel and the pressure of the tailwater is acting at the toe. The total force acting upwards is typically pretty large, which is a problem: this pressure will reduce the forces acting on the foundation, and therefore the force squeezing any joints in the rock. If you remember from high school physics, it's typically assumed that frictional forces are proportional to the force squeezing two surfaces together. Therefore, this uplift pressure can reduce these forces enough that a wedge of foundation rock will slide with the dam in a foundation failure. This is the typical cause of failure in a large gravity dam.

I've shown with a dashed line what that uplift pressure would look like under the monolith, if we let it reach its natural state. However, we have some tricks that we can use to dramatically reduce this uplift pressure. I've drawn a grout curtain and foundation drains extending from the bottom of the dam. The grout curtain is a "wall" of portland cement grout, formed by drilling through the bottom of the dam from the drainage gallery and injecting the grout under pressure. It's typically much deeper than I've shown here, as I ran out of room on the paper. This curtain will increase the path length for flow lines, which will primarily serve to reduce the volume of water flowing under the dam. ”

-- “Effort Post: Concrete Gravity Dam” https://www.datasecretslox.com/index.php/topic,215.msg3582.h...

Discussion of this dam by the author of those posts: https://www.datasecretslox.com/index.php/topic,5924.msg39559...

“OTOH, what gives me a bit of pause in going "It's a deliberate demolition" is that when I try to wrap my head around a plan for how you'd do this for a dam of this type (concrete gravity dam with spillway and powerhouse using intake sections), it gets to be extremely complicated very quickly. If you just had one huge bomb--and this would include airstrikes as well as a bomb on a truck or suspended from a barge in the forebay--you'd disrupt a couple of monoliths, and then this basically rounds to the same problem I pointed out above: why doesn't the progression stop after the disrupted monoliths slide downstream and the pool starts to drop?

But if you wanted to go and do demo on each monolith, that's...a very elaborate operation. Not impossible for a military to conduct, but it's hard for me to believe that it would have escaped notice until now. I'd expect to have seen a bunch of video of Russian soldiers spending weeks putting demo on each monolith, including having drilling rigs out there. People tend to have an overly-optimistic view of how easy it is to do a surreptitious controlled demolition, and it's harder when dealing with a structure that mainly functions by just being so damn heavy that water can't push it downstream--you need to either remove mass or disrupt the structure of the dam long enough for the reservoir to push it out of the way, which either means really big bombs that are probably easily visible, or super-elaborate placement of a bunch of small ones, which is also easily visible.”

Think for yourselves look at facts Are there pictures of an explosion? Seems like there should be with all the satellites and drones in the area. The Crimea region depends much more on the water from that dam than the Ukraine does for agriculture and domestic water sources. Who lied to us about the Russian Pipe line being blown up saying Putin did it and now we know that the Ukraine did it of course with the knowledge and probable help of the US. Ukraine offensive had started and had been stopped.

> Think for yourselves look at facts Are there pictures of an explosion? Seems like there should be with all the satellites and drones in the area.

Yes there is there’s even a video of it.

> Ukraine offensive had started and had been stopped.

The offensive hasn’t even started those tracts of land Russia is losing to Ukraine are from _probing attacks_.

Nothing good will come of this for anyone.

if we're already at it - have you heard about the freedom of russia legion? allegedly russian citizens turning against their own government. everything i could gather about that group smells to high heaven and nobody questions that narrative. pro-ukrainian media basically just praises those selfless heroes for their action. but none of it makes any sense. neither psychologically, nor militarily, nor socially, nor politically - any theories on what's going on with that?

Oh wow how did you manage to get good sources about the state of the CIS's psychology, society, or for that matter military? Do you have access to FSB's secret polls? How does polling work if the wrong answer gets you 15 years in a penal colony?

If I were in charge I would blowup a similar dam in Ruzzia. Let the bastards know that there ill be consequences for this war crimes.

Glad you're not in charge. Maybe you feel cool saying you'd ok an operation which would result in the deaths of more innocents, but that's an abhorrent position.

And if your enemy does not have same morals? You allow them to destroy your hospitals, electric power plants, dams, your nuclear power and you keep your moral superiority?

Say some piece of shit country would drop nuclear bombs on a city full of civilians, and I should not do the same back because for morality? Will not that encourage that evil country t drop more nuclear bombs?

What is your opinion then, if you are losing a way with an enemy that plays dirty you give up and accept your annihilation? Your children will be brainwashed by the enemy and send t fight more evil wars.

Did Ukraine just wipe out majority of Russian defences? That could go down in history as one of the boldest moves ever.

Russia was in control of the dam, had mined it, and had in recent weeks let water levels go up to unprecedented levels. Something like 80 settlements will be completely inundated, the largest nuclear power plant in Europe loses its cooling reservoir and attacks over the river will be impossible for weeks.

I don't think Ukraine did it.

(getting information from the thread in /r/worldnews).

If it wiped away defences it'd be more than worth it and Ukraine is now more than capable with its Shadow Storm missiles which UK provided just for this kind of attack.

It's a very bold move and if intentional it could be pivotal in this conflict.

It is an act of mass destruction and a war crime, that Ukraine was very worried about for some time since it will kill many innocent people. Very, very unlikely they did it. My first bet would be the dam failed from russian negligence / mismanagement, second the russians blew it up. But there will certainly be video of what happened today soon.

Cruise missiles don't win wars like this. It requires land forces crossing and holding territory. The narrower parts of Dnipro was the easiest path to doing that in the south.

Those cruise missiles were specifically designed to destroy tough targets like this dam.

If either side knew this was going to happen (because they planned it) it would certainly easily be the difference between winning and losing this war.

No. Storm Shadow has a small penetrating warhead. It is designed to punch through reinforced concrete to destroy whatever is within. It is not designed to destroy solid concrete. Otherwise the Crimean bridge would already had been destroyed with one of those super duper warheads.

It doesn't matter if the defenses are wiped out, if you cannot cross to reach those defenses. The terrain and roads will be wrecked and everything will be a muddy mess for miles.

Whoever knew this would happen (i.e. planned it) stands to gain massively in strategic terms.

That's the case no matter if it was Russia or Ukraine so long as it went to plan.

No. Russians are trying to stop the counter offensive. This move will free up troops to defend Melitopol. Capturing that city effectively blocks land supply route to Crimea.

Wouldn’t Melitopol be harder to defend though? Looks to me that the huge accumulation lake upstream of the dam should drain in a few days, so a crossing by the Ukrainian forces should be much easier.

That will be meters deep mud with steep banks I guess, completely open to enemy fire. Not crossable.

At a minimum this will force the Russians to bring troops and weapons to guard a stretch of more than 100 km, which they didn't need go guard before. That could be thousands of troops that will not be taken from a different part of the frontline.

The benefit near the flood will be in weeks to months.

That is if Ukrainian forces were concentrated elsewhere based on a plan to burst the dam.

If they win on other fronts they can turn attention south by that time Crimea will have not had fresh water for months and the forces will be depleted and demoralised.

This could be a major factor in the new offensive. But will require careful planning (if that didn't happen already).

There is a bridge to Crimea, they will bring in water like they used to do when it was cut after 2014 (even when there was no bridge yet). They made huge reservoirs in Crimea. The canal is mostly for water used by agriculture, and it will be a problem in years to come, not this year. And definitely not for troops. The canal is a tiny detail.

Oh that bridge Ukraine has previously blown up?

To be honest, I see the resolution more to do with securing better grain deal security.

A propaganda war where nobody anything says can be believed about anything anyone says and the video from both sides is AI-manipulated and only 'embedded' reporting is allowed and then only from 'yellow' zones.

Rather sad, isn't it, the extent to which manipulative propaganda has become the daily fare?

What's sad is enforcing the idea that all sides use propaganda, so therefore they're all equally believable.

> all sides use propaganda

All sides do use propaganda, but the idea that Western media is equal to Russian media in how much they lie in this war is definitely a ridiculous take.

If you don't think all sides use propaganda, you've clearly fallen for the propaganda of whatever side you think doesn't use it.

Wasn't my comment clear?

I said that both sides use propaganda, but one side is still (much) more believable.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com