deleted by creator
Okay, I’ll bite. What, in your personal opinion, is the reason for Russian military do blow up the dam? What is the benefit?
-
To slow down Ukraine crossing Dnepr and attacking Crimea.
-
General scorched earth strategy
And I could easily flip the question around to OP. Why would Ukraine blow up their own dam, flooding their own territory and potentially crippling their own nuclear power plant? And making a counteroffensive across the Dnipro river that much harder?
It’s not to deprive Crimea of water ahead of the counteroffensive, Crimea’s reservoirs are full right now so they’ve got a year’s worth in the tank. That’s about the only possible benefit I can think of that Ukraine might have got out of this, and even if it were so it would be a trivial benefit compared to the costs. Crimea’s water supply isn’t going to make a difference to the actual fight that’s about to happen there.
deleted by creator
To justify more retaliation against Russia.
Ukraine doesn’t need more justification. Russia is occupying their territory. It doesn’t make sense for Ukraine to cause yet more internal displacement and risk a nuclear meltdown for something it already has.
deleted by creator
Removed by mod
I’m not speaking of morality. I’m speaking of whether it would convince anyone that Ukraine should be “allowed” to do anything in particular. Most people have already chosen a position. This dam will make little difference, but it will have an impact on Ukraine.
deleted by creator
You really think Ukraine needs more justification for retaliation against Russia at this point?
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
-
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
that is intentional annihilation, nope.
What about the children being trafficked from Ukraine to Russia? The murders and systematic raping in Bucha and elsewhere. It’s plainly genocide.
To divert resources from/mess up Ukraine’s planned offensive.
Also they haven’t exactly been below causing great suffering for civilians simply because they can throughout this war.Also, when evaluating Russian actions in the war, always consider that their main objective is propaganda, sometimes for the domestic audience, sometimes for the world. Destroying the Kakhovka dam was very popular among state TV propagandists, until they discovered it was better to accuse Ukraine of doing it. However, the purpose of Russian propaganda is always to create confusion and uncertainty, and create doubt that there is such a thing as truth.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
From the article
But if Russia did destroy the dam, he says, it might have hoped to protect its western flank by complicating Ukraine’s offensive moves. “We know the Russians have form for this sort of thing,” he argues, pointing to Stalin’s destruction of the Dnieper dam at Zaporizhia in 1941.
Not the OP but to create chaos and divert resources to aid the area would be my guess. Creating a sense of fear and uncertainty is one kind of tactic in my opinion.
If you are a podcast listener type. The War on the Rocks podcast has been pretty extensively covering the war in Ukraine and has some really good insights. I wouldnt be shocked if they cover this incident in a future episode.
Crimea depends on water via canal from Ukraine-controlled territory, which Ukraine shut off as was their right. This must be the big f u back in retaliation.
It’s… it’s a war zone, dude. What do you think happened? The dam just exploded all by itself?
The same reason Russia had to blow up the Nord Stream pipeline: they didn’t have any and they didn’t do it, America blew up the pipeline :^)
https://seymourhersh.substack.com/p/how-america-took-out-the-nord-stream
https://thegrayzone.com/2023/06/05/nord-stream-expedition-official-investigators/
defending an evil regime because somehow putin is communist and deserves to be defended in this?
Putin is not a communist and no serious communist claims otherwise, being against NATO and the US’s proxy war against Russia does not mean that I support Putin and his horrible government.
There are only 2 types of people who deny that Russia blew up the pipeline:
- People who have a vested interest in supporting Russia’s imperialism and denying their crimes
- Idiots
The European intelligence made clear that the would-be attackers were not rogue operatives. All those involved reported directly to Gen. Valery Zaluzhny, Ukraine’s highest-ranking military officer, who was put in charge so that the nation’s president, Volodymyr Zelensky, wouldn’t know about the operation, the intelligence report said.
And fired a missle at Poland
Fired a what at whom?
Poland, NATO say missile strike wasn’t a Russian attack
PRZEWODOW, Poland (AP) — NATO member Poland and the head of the military alliance both said Wednesday that a missile strike in Polish farmland that killed two people appeared to be unintentional and was probably launched by air defenses in neighboring Ukraine.
“Ukraine’s defense was launching their missiles in various directions, and it is highly probable that one of these missiles unfortunately fell on Polish territory,” said Polish President Andrzej Duda. “There is nothing, absolutely nothing, to suggest that it was an intentional attack on Poland.”
Edit: downvoted for correcting misinfo quoting NATO and the Polish government, that’s pretty funny :P
Polish President Andrzej Duda. “There is nothing, absolutely nothing, to suggest that it was an intentional attack on Poland.”
The well known Kremlin propagandist… Andrzej Duda XD
I mentioned Polen middle thing as similar to Nord steam thing: No Russian involvement
I see, I read it as a serious claim of them doing it since it was a pretty common talking point a few months ago, sorry hehe :P
Funny how that happen nearly every time yet the next time all the “leftists” are again there for the greater glory of UA and USA.
I read something about the dam being under attack for quite a while now, I hope the people there have been prepared for the dam breaking.
It was also frontline for months so i guess a lot people left before. Land and buildings much worse, you can’t really prepare for that short of making another dam.
Love to see the immediate certainty that Russia did it based on… UA saying so. Impressive media criticism. I’m sure Iraq’s WMDs will turn up any day now, too.
FYI:
The Bush administration, not US intelligence, claimed there were WMDs in Iraq. US intelligence agencies disputed the Bush administration claims repeatedly under oath. Not defending US intelligence in general, just clarifying the specifics of your example.
There was kabuki theater around this, so far as intelligence was involved. Mostly the official faces quietly did nothing. None actively contradicted the narrative. And of course, Tenet (the CIA director at the time) called it a “slam dunk”. Most of them were never under oath about any of this - it’s not like the US actually investigates or punishes its own war crimes or violations of the UN Charter. In reality, invading Iraq was a Washington consensus position to destabilize that country further after over a decade of civilian-targeted sanctions. Our liberal hero, Joe Biden, happily laid the propaganda on thick through his position as chair of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, bringing in hack after hack to testify and make the case via the media apparatus. Very few people in power even publicly questioned the case for a war of aggression, let alone did anything to oppose it, and media narratives were more or less lockstep with them despite record-setting protests. Actually, scratch that: there was a pervasive culture of anti-brown, islamophobic rhetoric that questioned the patriotism (read: right to belong) of anyone who pushed back. Ask anyone that looked vaguely South Asian or Arab at the time.
Of course, I don’t want to gice the impression that possessing WMDs has ever been a consistent, valid, or legal justification for being a target of a war of aggression. The only country to use nukes on civilians was the US and I don’t see them invading themselves with a “coalition of the willing” since then, though they have certainly been very aggressive.
But I digress. Of course US intel is going to be doing shady things, that’s not really debated. The thing I think is most relevant here is the parallel of a lack of media criticism and how easy it is to get folks, and particularly Americans, to absorb headlines and claims without looking any deeper into sourcing, into the history at hand, or even just for now, admitting that there is very little information or ways to get a good handle on the sequence of events, and it’s okay to not have a hot take. Opposing a jingoistic fervor is essential to opposing fascism.
It’s obviously a little bit of column A and column B. And my comment exaggerated a bit.
But the deliberate mischaracterization, the cherry picking of reports, and omissions of evidence that Iraq no longer perused WMDs or biological weapons, the omissions of reports that Iraq had no relations with Al-Queda, etc, the act of calling reports with “low confidence” “certain,” etc etc we’re all done by the White House who wanted to go to war regardless of the so called intelligence. And that is what the bipartisan senate committee reports concluded in 2002, 2003, and 2008.
I know Wikipedia is not a source, but it cites these reports and the testimony of many intelligence officials. I thinks it is clear who wanted to paint the Iraq invasion as unavoidable and who did not with respect to these two groups.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Senate_Report_on_Iraqi_WMD_Intelligence?wprov=sfti1
And also based on it making total sense for Russia to have done it, and no sense at all for anyone else to have done it.
It also “made sense” to most Americans that Iraq had WMDs. Colin Powell even said so, and he was greatly respected despite his participation in covering up the My Lai Massacre.
A bunch of whataboutism that has no relevance to the subject at hand.
Accusations of whataboutism are a thought-terminating cliché that, ironically, usually just help the accuser avoid engaging with a critical argument.
The relevance here is that using “it sounds right to me” to decide whether a media narrative is true will lead a person to make big mistakes. And I am criticizing the general lack of media criticism in this thread.
Removed by mod
Am I crazy or do most people call whataboutism “pointing out hypocrisy” and consider it a normal human reaction to… being confronted with hypocrisy
I guess that depends on conditions. It can be just deflection and it can be pointing out of important context.
For example current situation: USA (and UA since the maidan attack false flag) have long history of trying to manufacture consent for coups, wars etc, with the newest uncovered example being the Nordstream attacks. So to point that out is pretty important with yet another case of suspicious attack (also not even the first such case in that war) which is immediately being pushed without any confirmation whatsoever on basis sometimes going as far as just “Russia evil”.
But the facedeer when pointed out that it’s relevant just said “whataboutism” as if that was completely separate event in another galaxy. This is the real “whataboutism” as fallacy.
deleted by creator
This is you about Zelensky in a previous post. What the heck is wrong with Lemmy?
How the f# people can give 2 seconds of credit to this douche?! How Ukrainians could sacrifice their life for this sucker?!
If he had 5% of honor, he would abdicate and stop sacrificing Ukrainians lives!
What the heck is wrong with Lemmy?
Probably Tankies. 😑 With the current Reddit wave, I think they will become a small minority soon.
Let’s hope. The monopolization of progressive discourse by the CCP and its disciples has got to stop.
Removed by mod
deleted by creator
If someone invaded my country, I would sacrifice my life to defend it. Tankies are fine with another country invading as long as they used to be the main power in the USSR or they currently have the word “socialist” or “people’s” somewhere in their name
Not sure how any of this written diarrhea helps frame Zelensky any better.
deleted by creator
Cool
I put some light and perspective on the things you write, that’s it.
deleted by creator
Russia has the best motivations imo. They want to stall the counteroffensive which needs to cross the Dniepr.
Then why blow it up, and not open it?
Because they despise Ukraine? You have talking heads in Russian Media that openly call for genocide against people that fight for the Ukraine identity. During the war we have seen blatant incompetence that got compensated through pure cruelty and violence against civilians.
We’ve also seen blatant genocide. Not just incompetence compensated, but targeted genocide.
I agree.
Very true
Yeah, but opening it has the same effect, or?
Yeah but then they couldn’t deny it. Like always, Russian propaganda seeks not to be convincing but to make people doubt everything. Now they can simply claim that it was Ukraine’s fault.
Because they want to flood a lot quickly? They don’t just want to spill the overflow. Are you confusing dam and sluice?
A dam can have floodgates to control the flow of water (and therefore the water level in the reservoir to a degree), not just a weir with a fixed elevation where water flows over the crest, so I suspect that you might confuse a dam with a weir. I read that a professor said this particular dam had 26 gates. If you expect a flood, you’d want to open the gates beforehand, as to make room in the reservoir, and to reduce the peak flow that an uncontrolled flood would give, for example.
While I also doubt Russia blew up the dam (because I don’t really see a good reason for Russia to do so), I imagine that if the russians were behind it, they would have blown it up instead of just opening it, in order to be able to plausibly deny their involvement in the flooding. There could also have been technical reasons for doing so (maybe opening it wouldn’t have allowed the required flow for whatever goal they would have had?).
It’s not going to be a dam they control for very much longer.
Is there movement across the Dnjepr? As far as I know in the last months the front has not changed much.
Not across the Dnjepr, I don’t think anyone expected a major amphibious assault across the river. But it’s more likely the counteroffensive will go deep in Zaporizhzhia, which would let them come around to the dam from “behind”. If the Russian front collapses like it did at Kharkiv and Kherson the Ukrainian advance could be substantial.
Makes sense. But only time will tell. The counter offensive is said to start soon for last couple of months now.
Is Russia capable of this? Yes.
Is Ukraine capable of this? Yes.
Could the US or China have done this covertly? Yes.
Which one really did it? We’ll never know, but think about why you believe what you do from a story such as the one linked.
I agree with your sentiment. But I’m usually more suspicious of the invading force trying to annex huge regions of a sovereign country. The US, Russia, China are all imperialist in their own way. Russia is the invading force. And none of this would be happening if Russia was not there.
Russia has started an illegal war and is using illegal means. They will pay for this.
How can Russia pay for this? Even if there will be conference after Russia lost the war, the only thing the country produces in big amounts is fossil fuels. However at least the west will try to use as few of them as possible.
So how could Russia pay for it? The estimate for the damage in ukraine are now in the 12 digits.
How? You said it yourself: with exports of all sorts.
However at least the west will try to use as few of them as possible.
No, I don’t think so, the west is not ready to abandon their cars, they are not willing to drop their trucks and their boats and their chemistry. Russia will have to repay a colossal amount of money.
Sadly I fear that Russian exports are not high enough to repair all the damage they have done in Ukraine in a reasonable time. As most of their exports are fossil fuels there is only roughly 20 years left.
Which one really did it? We’ll never know
Oh, we will, be reassured that we will find out eventually.
Could the US or China have done this covertly? Yes.
So this is what we find on Lemmy? A russian apologist as top post?
First post and this is what I read. mmmkay “The USA or China could have destroyed this dam covertly”, right… The good old russian strategy of making you doubt everything you read. The goal of the russian propaganda is not to lie, the goal is to make you trust nothing, and specially not journalists.
A quick look at your history and you constantly bash the Ukrainian resistance.
Yikes! I dunno about that. I’m just saying that we should think critically about what we hear the media.
“Think critically” you say? So where are your facts? Because thinking critically is all about the facts. You have brushed away all the facts and declared “We will never know”. So where are your facts?
For example the russians had control of the dam, not the ukrainians. It’s just an example. What do you make of it? Come on, show us your “critical thinking”.
From the npr article:
Neither side has provided proof that the other side did it. The dam was damaged late last year in an explosion, and in recent weeks it was under stress from record-high waters. Satellite photos showed water flowing over the top of the dam in the past week.
Cool, the russian army is unable to defend their dam against an Ukrainian attack. What a bunch of newbies those russian soldiers are. A dam… not a building, a dam, a huge block of concrete and they were unable to even defend it.
The article was behind a paywall so apologies if this is covered:
The dam sluices were Russian controlled but the dam is on the front line. It easily could have been attacked by either side. Both sides will see flooding but moreso the Russian side because it’s flatter. Breaching the dam will empty the canal providing much-needed water to Crimea. The lower water level upstream could threaten the safety of an offline nuclear plant upriver. I can’t tell which side controls the plant, so I’m not sure who that would affect more.
Russia could have easily done this to distract Ukraine ahead of it’s counteroffensive and to make the river harder to cross. Also, Ukraine is likely more concerned about helping Ukrainians than Russia. But Ukraine could have done it for the reasons stated. We’re definitely still in the fog of war and it’s ignorant to assume we know all the details.
The dam sluices were Russian controlled but the dam is on the front line. It easily could have been attacked by either side.
Wrong, you don’t destroy a dam just like that. It takes preparation and a lot of explosives at the right points. This is not a Micahel Bay movies we’re talking about.
Both sides will see flooding but moreso the Russian side because it’s flatter. Breaching the dam will empty the canal providing much-needed water to Crimea. The lower water level upstream could threaten the safety of an offline nuclear plant upriver. I can’t tell which side controls the plant, so I’m not sure who that would affect more.
And Putin doesn’t care about all of that. He has proven it again and again.
I can’t tell which side controls the plant
Russia, They took control of the plant, which is illegal, all nations around the globe know perfectly that no army should take control of a civilian power plant. Every other army is trained to carefully avoid the nuclear power plants. For some reason Russia keeps ignoring the international laws.
But Ukraine could have done it for the reasons stated.
Nonsense, but keep trying
We’re definitely still in the fog of war and it’s ignorant to assume we know all the details.
Textbook Russian propaganda here -> “Nobody knows for sure”… Well, keep telling you that, nobody believes you west of Russia.
The dam was under Russian control and they sabotaged it to slow down the Ukrainian counter offensive. It’s fine, Ukraine knew it was a possibility and they have plans accounting for it.
You’re totally right. God bless you for being civil with red fascists
The lower water level upstream could threaten the safety of an offline nuclear plant upriver.
The plant is in the cold shutdown right now, so while it still need some water as cooling, the amount is way lower than in case of normal work, so even in the worst case of complete dam destruction it will not be affected as it is now.
I can’t tell which side controls the plant, so I’m not sure who that would affect more.
Currently Russia.
Russia could have easily done this to distract Ukraine ahead of it’s counteroffensive and to make the river harder to cross.
Problem is, nobody proven that offensive is even real, not to mention that it was prepared there. Currently the most intensive fights are being waged somewhere else. Also Russia recently hit at least two or three huge UA ammo depots which probably really did hampered any preparations. And the battle of Bakhmut was colossal meat grinder where regardless if we agree on exact numbers, Ukraine lost some of their best soldiers remaining (exactly those who would spearhead the offensive) and Russia lost mercenaries.
Both sides will see flooding but moreso the Russian side because it’s flatter.
Also basically all Russian defensive positions along the river were destroyed, countering the guy above on similar level i could say UA surely hit it because it will make their attack much easier when the flood lessens.
Finally, UA already had plans for exactly that action last year, as they admitted to WaPo:
archive link to this article: https://web.archive.org/web/20230101030959/https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2022/12/29/ukraine-offensive-kharkiv-kherson-donetsk/
Inside the Ukrainian counteroffensive that shocked Putin and reshaped the war
December 29, 2022 at 1:00 a.m. EST
There are no “facts” in cases like this. That’s exactly my point.
It really comes down to which narrative you believe about the current state of the war (not which side you think is justified).
If you believe the Russian propaganda, you think Russia’s control of Donbas is relatively solidified, Ukrainian forces are taking heavy losses and do not have the support of the population in the east. It makes sense for Ukraine to destroy the dam as an act of desperation in hopes that the disruption it causes will create an opening for them to exploit.
If you believe the Ukrainian propaganda, the Russians have been taking heavy losses and the rumored counteroffensive which is right around the corner will drive them out once and for all. If this is true, it gives Russia motive to destroy the dam, as they fear it will soon fall into Ukrainian hands, and its destruction will impede Ukrainian troop movements.
Personally, I tend to believe both narratives are heavily exaggerated, both sides are taking heavy losses, and that nobody is “winning” this stupid war anytime soon. But with how deeply both government/military narratives have penetrated basically all media, I’m not seeing any analysis of who benefits from this if no side is clearly winning.
Removed by mod
