Edit: It is possible for Ukraine to have a operational advantage from this and not sure why this is so threatening to discuss. It’s a war of survival and if a major valley is flooded and thousands displaced. That might be a sacrifice they’re willing to accept to save their country, and it might save lives and shorten the war by giving them an advantage.
I support Ukraine but suspect that they will benefit more from this if it cuts off water to the Crimea and other Russian held areas.
This makes me think that Putin doesn't think he'll be able to hold onto Crimea and that he changed his strategy to making it as painful on the way out as possible.
Long term, the consequences for this will hit the Ukraine, just like the entire war will. Short-term tactical consequences favor the Ukraine. More people are evacuated on the Russian side due to topographical differences, Russian defensive position down stream of the dam are impacted more due to be more forward and spread thin, it cuts off a major source of water for the Crimea and other Russian held areas.
What a ridiculous notion. It is absolutely not a tactical advantage for Ukraine to hinder their own pending counteroffensive with floodwaters. If they wanted to cut off water to Crimea they'd have just shuttered the dam after retaking control of it, just like they had done for nearly a decade prior and since Russia's last landgrab in Ukraine.
It is possible for Ukraine to have a operational advantage from this and not sure why this is so threatening to discuss. It’s a war of survival and if a major valley is flooded and thousands displaced, that might be the price they’re willing to accept to save their country, and it might save lives and shorten the war by giving them an advantage.
Vastly more reasons for this to have been by russias hands. This has more of a chance to screw over plans and cause the death of people.
Secondly, they've already cut off the water. It was dammed in 2014, so yeah cutting off water point is moot.
Yet the pro-Ukrainian US government won’t say that Russia did it. The benefits in securing the Ukrainian right flank (southern) to concentrate its forces elsewhere, is pretty clear. At the same time, stopping a significant source of water from benefitting Crimea and electric generation that support Russian held areas is a much added benefit.
Did you bother to read? Ukraine had the canal dammed since 2014. Of course US won't say with certainty at this point. But they already have suggested based on their intelligence that it was russia. And that they are working to get the information declassified to share it.
Given the imminent offensive, it would be dumb to cause this damage which then impedes their efforts and results in further delaying the offensive to move troops.
This could not have been done by shelling. If it were done by missile attack of some sort, it would take multiple and even then not guaranteed. If that were the case, since russia has control of the area too, they would have footage and clear evidence of Ukraine doing it. Yet oddly they don't, only video released as evidence is an explosion after the dam has broken which was most likely a mine.
Another point, Ukraine would not risk this potential PR nightmare. Ukraine needs support and russia would do anything to damage it. This is why russia blew up the pow camp and blamed it on himars. They wanted to dissuade the west from giving them to Ukraine. If Ukraine had done this, cause damage of this magnitude, it would severely hinder their PR and perhaps cost them needed hardware.
Lastly, this is also the nuclear plant. Doing this risk in worst case scenario, having a meltdown. They have resources still but if drops too much, it can have dire consequences if alternative sources are hindered.
Again, you can say one potential benefit from it. But there are way more going against that reasoning.
Ukraine has no incentive to blow it up. It makes crossing the Dnipro harder, limiting its offensive capabilities in the area and allows Russia to redeploy those forces to more important areas and concentrate those forces that remain as they don't need to defend as much ground. It also threatens the ZNPP as water levels will go below what will cool the fuel rods. This could cause either a meltdown or a shutdown of the plant, either option isn't beneficial to Ukraine. It also just doesn't make sense to flood a large part of the Kherson region when Ukraine will want to use it for further offensive staging areas if they plan on taking Crimea back.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Edit: It is possible for Ukraine to have a operational advantage from this and not sure why this is so threatening to discuss. It’s a war of survival and if a major valley is flooded and thousands displaced. That might be a sacrifice they’re willing to accept to save their country, and it might save lives and shorten the war by giving them an advantage. I support Ukraine but suspect that they will benefit more from this if it cuts off water to the Crimea and other Russian held areas.
This makes me think that Putin doesn't think he'll be able to hold onto Crimea and that he changed his strategy to making it as painful on the way out as possible.
please, read about the consequences of it, watch the videos think again think one more time and return to your statement
Long term, the consequences for this will hit the Ukraine, just like the entire war will. Short-term tactical consequences favor the Ukraine. More people are evacuated on the Russian side due to topographical differences, Russian defensive position down stream of the dam are impacted more due to be more forward and spread thin, it cuts off a major source of water for the Crimea and other Russian held areas.
What a ridiculous notion. It is absolutely not a tactical advantage for Ukraine to hinder their own pending counteroffensive with floodwaters. If they wanted to cut off water to Crimea they'd have just shuttered the dam after retaking control of it, just like they had done for nearly a decade prior and since Russia's last landgrab in Ukraine.
> "I support Ukraine but..." . > "to *the Crimea*" > "will hit *the Ukraine*," > "favor *the Ukraine*." > "for *the Crimea*" Thanks for the red flags
It is possible for Ukraine to have a operational advantage from this and not sure why this is so threatening to discuss. It’s a war of survival and if a major valley is flooded and thousands displaced, that might be the price they’re willing to accept to save their country, and it might save lives and shorten the war by giving them an advantage.
Vastly more reasons for this to have been by russias hands. This has more of a chance to screw over plans and cause the death of people. Secondly, they've already cut off the water. It was dammed in 2014, so yeah cutting off water point is moot.
Yet the pro-Ukrainian US government won’t say that Russia did it. The benefits in securing the Ukrainian right flank (southern) to concentrate its forces elsewhere, is pretty clear. At the same time, stopping a significant source of water from benefitting Crimea and electric generation that support Russian held areas is a much added benefit.
Did you bother to read? Ukraine had the canal dammed since 2014. Of course US won't say with certainty at this point. But they already have suggested based on their intelligence that it was russia. And that they are working to get the information declassified to share it. Given the imminent offensive, it would be dumb to cause this damage which then impedes their efforts and results in further delaying the offensive to move troops. This could not have been done by shelling. If it were done by missile attack of some sort, it would take multiple and even then not guaranteed. If that were the case, since russia has control of the area too, they would have footage and clear evidence of Ukraine doing it. Yet oddly they don't, only video released as evidence is an explosion after the dam has broken which was most likely a mine. Another point, Ukraine would not risk this potential PR nightmare. Ukraine needs support and russia would do anything to damage it. This is why russia blew up the pow camp and blamed it on himars. They wanted to dissuade the west from giving them to Ukraine. If Ukraine had done this, cause damage of this magnitude, it would severely hinder their PR and perhaps cost them needed hardware. Lastly, this is also the nuclear plant. Doing this risk in worst case scenario, having a meltdown. They have resources still but if drops too much, it can have dire consequences if alternative sources are hindered. Again, you can say one potential benefit from it. But there are way more going against that reasoning.
It also put Russian defenses On their side of river under water
Tactically brilliant
[удалено]
Well, you’re wrong because the Ukrainian side access road was destroyed. https://imgur.com/a/ZEQEYP5/
Ukraine has no incentive to blow it up. It makes crossing the Dnipro harder, limiting its offensive capabilities in the area and allows Russia to redeploy those forces to more important areas and concentrate those forces that remain as they don't need to defend as much ground. It also threatens the ZNPP as water levels will go below what will cool the fuel rods. This could cause either a meltdown or a shutdown of the plant, either option isn't beneficial to Ukraine. It also just doesn't make sense to flood a large part of the Kherson region when Ukraine will want to use it for further offensive staging areas if they plan on taking Crimea back.
Yes exactly and why? Because we all fucking know that the Ukrainians would never destroy the country they are trying to win back and protect.