•  FaceDeer   ( @FaceDeer@lemmy.ml ) 
          link
          fedilink
          English
          331 year ago

          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.

          • And I could easily flip the question around to OP. Why would Ukraine blow up their own dam,

            To justify more retaliation against Russia. Our dick of minister Charles Michel called it a war crime.

            Crimea has 1 year worth ?

            And what happens on year 2?

            •  pingveno   ( @pingveno@lemmy.ml ) 
              link
              fedilink
              English
              341 year ago

              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.

              • 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.

      • 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.

        •  TheBelgian   ( @TheBelgian@lemmy.ml ) 
          link
          fedilink
          English
          5
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          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!

          •  AngryAvocado   ( @AngryAvocado@lemmy.ml ) 
            link
            fedilink
            English
            13
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            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.

          • 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.

      •  Senokir   ( @Senokir@lemmy.ml ) 
        link
        fedilink
        English
        20
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        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?

      • 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.

      •  seirim   ( @seirim@lemmy.ml ) 
        link
        fedilink
        English
        71 year ago

        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.

  •  lntl   ( @lntl@lemmy.ml ) 
    link
    fedilink
    English
    121 year ago

    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.

        • 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.

            •  agarorn   ( @agarorn@feddit.de ) 
              link
              fedilink
              English
              111 months ago

              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.

        • “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”.

          •  lntl   ( @lntl@lemmy.ml ) 
            link
            fedilink
            English
            31 year ago

            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.

          •  JillyB   ( @JillyB@beehaw.org ) 
            link
            fedilink
            English
            21 year ago

            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.

            • 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:

    • 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.