• @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    51 year ago

    Okay, I’ll bite. What, in your personal opinion, is the reason for Russian military do blow up the dam? What is the benefit?

    • @vegaiOP
      link
      English
      31
      edit-2
      1 year ago
      1. To slow down Ukraine crossing Dnepr and attacking Crimea.

      2. General scorched earth strategy

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        241 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.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          -141 year ago

          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?

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            291 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.

            • Tretiak
              link
              fedilink
              English
              -181 year ago

              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.

              • @[email protected]
                link
                fedilink
                English
                91 year ago

                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.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            201 year ago

            You really think Ukraine needs more justification for retaliation against Russia at this point?

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              English
              -141 year ago

              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.

              • @[email protected]
                link
                fedilink
                English
                -181 year ago

                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.

                • @[email protected]
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  111 months ago

                  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.

          • Roger F. Gint
            link
            fedilink
            English
            2
            edit-2
            11 months ago

            As if they needed any other justification to retaliate.

            They’ve been invaded and NATO is already supporting Ukraine financially and militarily.

      • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆
        link
        fedilink
        English
        -2
        edit-2
        11 months ago
        1. They control the dam and can just open the flood gates to release water.
        2. That would imply Russians retreating which they’re not. In fact, all the attacks Ukraine attempted doing over the past three days failed miserably.

        Seem that Ukraine has the motivation to blame their failed offensive on the flooding here when explaining themselves to their western masters.

        edit: I guess Russia is also forcing Ukraine to flood Kherson from DneproGES that Ukraine controls? https://twitter.com/sinnaig/status/1666494567388962818

        • @vegaiOP
          link
          English
          1
          edit-2
          11 months ago

          deleted by creator

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      181 year ago

      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.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        -101 year ago

        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.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        -19
        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!

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          12
          edit-2
          11 months 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?

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            -411 months ago

            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.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          811 months ago

          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.

    • fr0g
      link
      fedilink
      161 year ago

      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.

      • @mok0
        link
        English
        1
        edit-2
        11 months ago

        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.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      14
      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?

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        -9
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Because artillery, mortar fire is not 100% accurate. Because using civilians as shield is war 101!

        • Roger F. Gint
          link
          fedilink
          English
          1
          edit-2
          11 months ago

          Yet another fucking Russian apologist, you’re a joke and a moron, everybody here can see that.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      1011 months ago

      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.

    • th3dogcow
      link
      English
      71 year ago

      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.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      4
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      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.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      31 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.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      -81 year ago

      It’s… it’s a war zone, dude. What do you think happened? The dam just exploded all by itself?

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        11 year ago

        defending an evil regime because somehow putin is communist and deserves to be defended in this?

        • Krause [he/him]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          41 year ago

          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.

      • Untitled9999
        link
        fedilink
        011 months ago

        There are only 2 types of people who deny that Russia blew up the pipeline:

        1. People who have a vested interest in supporting Russia’s imperialism and denying their crimes
        2. Idiots
        • Krause [he/him]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          6
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Fired a what at whom?

          https://apnews.com/article/russia-ukraine-g-20-summit-nato-biden-government-and-politics-c76bead57a11bc8397a30ee7bb06264e

          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

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            711 months ago

            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

            • Krause [he/him]
              link
              fedilink
              English
              5
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              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

              • @[email protected]
                link
                fedilink
                English
                2
                edit-2
                11 months ago

                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.