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.
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.
Ukraine doesn’t need more justification. Russia is occupying their territory.
That doesn’t justify Ukraine’s shelling of the eastern territories in the Donbass. If that requires military intervention by Russia, that’s unfortunate for the western propaganda narrative of Russian military aggression.
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.
What’s the point of flooding a region by destroying your “assets” when you could mass bombing like a deaf these villages.
After all, the west sells the war like an hegemonic move with mass slaughtering traits. Why Russia is not so heavy on using aviation, then?
US were using tomahawks on Syria for less than that.
If destruction and high toll number (aka ethnic cleansing) was the goal, they won’t deliver like a grocery shop.
At least in the US, most people are not tracking this in anything but generalities. If they even know this dam was breached, they won’t know the significance. It’s also doesn’t have quite the visual impact of row after row of bombed out apartments or bound bodies from a massacre.
One thing would be that Russia has already set a precedent with a long campaign to attack and destroy civilian infrastructure (power and heat specifically) just before winter to cause bigger humanitarian crisis.
The fact there are collateral damage, yes, the fact that is intentional annihilation, nope.
You want to see what is it for a country loosing its infrastructure during a war?
google:
“how much infrastructure was destroyed in Iraqi, Syria, Afghanistan ?” and how. It is not with 2 mortars blowing up a kitchen and fighting on the field.
Ukrainians still have broadband internet, can shop on Amazon and our officials can travel freely in Kiev.
Even Sean Penn could deliver in hand his golden toy to a country leader who should be in a bunker instead of making photo-shoot if he or Kiev was really threatened!
Funny how fickle someone’s memory can be. I’m not talking about collateral damage from strikes on military targets, I’m talking about campaign directed against Ukraine’s power grid during last autumn and winter.
I even remember people here and on lemmygrad cheering on reports of how much of energy infrastructure was destroyed and admiring pictures of dark cities during blackouts. But I guess that didn’t happen? Or maybe the entire thing was fine because it failed?
Again, if he was in mass slaughter mode like said on the TV and apparently reddit refugees, your grid would have been wiped out.
It’s not an isolated kitchen in city but a whole block that Russia would have destroyed.
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.
My speculation as to why they would do such a horrible thing is because they know they can’t hold the position and want to cause as much damage as possible before they leave. Why would they bomb civilian targets like apartment buildings?
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.
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.
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.
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.
To justify more retaliation against Russia. Our dick of minister Charles Michel called it a war crime.
And what happens on year 2?
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.
I never said it was the sovereign Ukraine…
That doesn’t justify Ukraine’s shelling of the eastern territories in the Donbass. If that requires military intervention by Russia, that’s unfortunate for the western propaganda narrative of Russian military aggression.
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.
whattabout
You really think Ukraine needs more justification for retaliation against Russia at this point?
What’s the point of flooding a region by destroying your “assets” when you could mass bombing like a deaf these villages.
After all, the west sells the war like an hegemonic move with mass slaughtering traits. Why Russia is not so heavy on using aviation, then?
US were using tomahawks on Syria for less than that.
If destruction and high toll number (aka ethnic cleansing) was the goal, they won’t deliver like a grocery shop.
I forgot a part. The thing is not Ukraine would need more justification but the West.
This is a proxy war with the help of a formerly comedian, Zelensky.
At least in the US, most people are not tracking this in anything but generalities. If they even know this dam was breached, they won’t know the significance. It’s also doesn’t have quite the visual impact of row after row of bombed out apartments or bound bodies from a massacre.
As if they needed any other justification to retaliate.
They’ve been invaded and NATO is already supporting Ukraine financially and militarily.
One thing would be that Russia has already set a precedent with a long campaign to attack and destroy civilian infrastructure (power and heat specifically) just before winter to cause bigger humanitarian crisis.
Aliexpress and Amazon still delivers in Ukraine. For a country in war and subject to unpredictable attacks, it’s quite a level of commitment.
Ho and Ukrainian TV is still emitting, you still follow your tv show.
The fact there are collateral damage, yes, the fact that is intentional annihilation, nope.
You want to see what is it for a country loosing its infrastructure during a war? google: “how much infrastructure was destroyed in Iraqi, Syria, Afghanistan ?” and how. It is not with 2 mortars blowing up a kitchen and fighting on the field.
Ukrainians still have broadband internet, can shop on Amazon and our officials can travel freely in Kiev. Even Sean Penn could deliver in hand his golden toy to a country leader who should be in a bunker instead of making photo-shoot if he or Kiev was really threatened!
Freaking joke!
Funny how fickle someone’s memory can be. I’m not talking about collateral damage from strikes on military targets, I’m talking about campaign directed against Ukraine’s power grid during last autumn and winter.
I even remember people here and on lemmygrad cheering on reports of how much of energy infrastructure was destroyed and admiring pictures of dark cities during blackouts. But I guess that didn’t happen? Or maybe the entire thing was fine because it failed?
Again, if he was in mass slaughter mode like said on the TV and apparently reddit refugees, your grid would have been wiped out. It’s not an isolated kitchen in city but a whole block that Russia would have destroyed.
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.
My speculation as to why they would do such a horrible thing is because they know they can’t hold the position and want to cause as much damage as possible before they leave. Why would they bomb civilian targets like apartment buildings?
Because artillery, mortar fire is not 100% accurate. Because using civilians as shield is war 101!
Yet another fucking Russian apologist, you’re a joke and a moron, everybody here can see that.
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.
From the article
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?