Hacker News Reader

>shelled by "someone"

See, that is entirely the point. In the fog of war, unless someone takes responsibility for an action, we cannot be sure who performed that action.

There is substantial reason to believe that covert Western operatives are also on the battleground. This is, after all, what those trillions of dollars of 'investment' each year, are all about .. however this equally valid suspicion is, tribally, also easily overlooked.

They shelled the road above it, as opposed to blowing up the engine room where only Russians had access.

It's pretty clear who did it, but you can wait 50 years until the CIA report about it is declassified if you want to be absolutely sure.

I think the question has to be asked - who benefits?

It is like Nordstream where we are supposed to believe the Russians did it. Yet they controlled the taps to it and had no benefit from blowing it up.

I read a lot of information from the Russian side and we clearly have two truths regarding the Kakhovka Dam. The Russians understand that the Kiev regime did it. Furthermore, if you look at the graph of the water level in the lake, the Kiev regime released water from upstream to deliberately top it up so they could blow it up and sweep away all of the Russian armed forces downstream in the Kherson area.

People that only get their news from one side - the NATO side - are not aware of how the Russians understand what happened. I suspect these people are the ones that are modding you down, but sometimes getting down voted is worth it.

"Kiev regime" - interesting choice of term.

The IAEA didn't refute anything, their statement was couched in tons of language like "from the areas we have seen" while also stating that they haven't been allowed to see all of the areas they wanted to see.

Anyway, from the article in the OP

"The destruction of the dam, Russian President Vladimir Putin said in a news conference a week after the event, "ruined their counteroffensive in this direction." It was a comment that didn’t fit particularly well with his claim that the Ukrainians had destroyed the dam themselves."

It's just like with the little green men who invaded Crimea:

  2014: "It isn't us, you can go to the store and buy any uniforms."

  2015: "That’s why I gave orders to the Defense Ministry -- why hide it? -- to deploy special forces of the GRU as well as marines and commandos there under the guise of reinforcing security for our military facilities in Crimea."

  2023: “I want to point out and I want everyone to know about it: The maintenance of the entire Wagner Group was fully provided for by the state.”

I think you ought to look up the UN security council resolution 2202 (2015)[1] by which the Minsk agreements became part of international law.

Fun trivia fact for you, in 2014 in multiple cities Ukranian soldiers defected to the east and took loads of military equipment with them[2].

Of course history has been conveniently written the entire last year.

[1] https://press.un.org/en/2015/sc11785.doc.htm

[2] https://web.archive.org/web/20140420132508/https://www.chron...

Putin never wanted peace through the Mink agreements, he only wanted to buy time. But US and the UK weren't wasting time either.

"Amid rising tensions between Russia and Ukraine in early 2022, Russia officially recognised the DPR and LPR on 21 February 2022.[9] Following that decision, on 22 February 2022, Russian President Vladimir Putin declared that the Minsk agreements "no longer existed", and that Ukraine, not Russia, was to blame for their collapse.[10] Russia then invaded Ukraine on 24 February 2022."

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

Funny you should say that, since:

a) the Ukrainian forces were saved by the Minsk agreements[1]

b) it was both Merkel and Hollande that said they tried to buy time using the Minsk agreements[2]

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Debalts...

[2] https://archive.ph/c4ZVK

[3] https://kyivindependent.com/hollande-there-will-only-be-a-wa...

How do you know Putin never wanted peace with the Minsk agreements? Why were they officially ratified, then?

> How do you know Putin never wanted peace

Happo-Kuzushi. Judoka balance breaking married with maskirovka. He basically played the naïve European leaders. The only ones who weren't played this time were the Americans and the UK who wanted to send weapons and military instructors, which they eventually did.

Putin wants peace, just under his own terms. Think Belarus, only with weaker puppets he can control. What he wants is Leonid Kuchma and Vladimir Voronin type of "leaders". He doesn't want a Korean solution and it probably wouldn't work anyway because Ukraine is not a peninsula. That's what the Minsk agreements were basically proposing. Of course, everyone broke them, especially the separatists and the Russians who back them.

And immediately broken. Why were "green men" invading Ukraine, putin LYING about them not being russian army and then later telling proudly that of course they were russian army.

>"The destruction of the dam, Russian President Vladimir Putin said in a news conference a week after the event, "ruined their counteroffensive in this direction." It was a comment that didn’t fit particularly well with his claim that the Ukrainians had destroyed the dam themselves."

It fits just fine. Ukraine was pressured into this offensive by its western partners and was publicly dragging its feet for months. They knew it wouldn't be successful.

Washing their hands of one of the fronts while doing a massive amount of damage to the Russian side of the Dnieper that they knew they were never going to recapture probably seemed like a good trade off.

The narrative that Russia blew it up and did more damage to themselves because they were terrified of the counter offensive, on the other hand, matches with reality about as well as "Russia blew up nordstream 2" did. Their public stance before the offensive was that it would be a catastrophic failure because it lacked air support and was at a munitions disadvantage and lo and behold that's exactly what happened.

So why on earth would they blow up a dam that would do far more damage to the areas they controlled?

> So why on earth would they blow up a dam that would do far more damage to the areas they controlled?

Because actions like this are less about Russia winning and more about Ukraine losing.

They did this to cause decades of damage to Ukraines industry and an ecocide.

It’s the same reason they fire missiles into civilian buildings, destroy power plants during winter, rape and torture children, execute teenagers and fire on civilians. L The terror and damage destruction is the point.

Destruction of this dam was also a war crime by Russia.

They gain a lot by trying to cover up another of there war crimes and to muddy the water with their firehose of falsehood propaganda method.

>They did this to cause decades of damage to Ukraines industry and an ecocide.

"They did this to cause decades of damage to Ukraines industry and an ecocide" and ended up doing more damage to the side they controlled doesn't make any sense at all. Not unless you assume that Russia is some irrational cartoonist supervillain that would cut off its own nose to spite its face.

"They did this because they were terrified of the counter offensive" made more sense than that.

> Not unless you assume that Russia is some irrational cartoonist supervillain that would cut off its own nose to spite its face.

So they went to Ukraine to gain what? At the expense of what?

How would you explain why they brutally attacked Ukraine without coming to the conclusion of them being exactly what you described?

They went to Ukraine to take the land required to give them a buffer against NATO-aligned forces, which have called for the destruction of Russia for years - and thats exactly what they've created.

Whether you like that answer or not, has no bearing on whether the cartoon-character in your head reflects reality. It clearly doesn't.

> They went to Ukraine to take the land required to give them a buffer against NATO-aligned forces, which have called for the destruction of Russia for years - and thats exactly what they've created.

Interesting cause the victory article they accidentally posted then quickly deleted didn’t even mention NATO once.

But do you know what it did talk about?, the tragedy of Ukrainian independence and fixing that historical “mistake” of 1991.

That sounds more like imperialism than wanting a buffer state to me.

So in 1939 did they invade Poland in defense against Nato as well?

This is just such a dumb take, even the mafia bosses running the show don't believe that.

Let alone Ukraine not being in NATO at all.

Also I remember the rhetoric being about denazification, so apparently every russian nationalist has a different story they push.

>So they went to Ukraine to gain what?

Thats a different question entirely to who blew up the dam and why.

So you are avoiding that question?

Also it's crystal clear that if russia had not illegally invaded Ukraine no-one would have blown up the dam.

Yes I am avoiding this sharp departure from the original topic.

Then we can discount you argument that they are not crazy or spiteful as you are not willing to discuss refutations.