Russia-Ukraine war and related tensions Megathread

[oldtimer]

I don't know who did it, but I am leaning towards Russia. Seems like a strategic play in their part. This morning (Ukrainian time) the Ukrainian garrisons finally withdrew from the islands located in the Dnieper due to the flooding. Crimea already taps other reservoirs for water and before the invasion they usually just shipped it off from Russia.

I'm positive it was Ukraine.

Only the ukranians have changed the terrain of the battlefield to suit their needs.

Now they can cross the Dnieper much much easier, and on places where there are no defences anymore.

Even if that fails, the russian army can't man or defend the entire front at the same time.

[jaichind]

How many Russian fortified defenses are getting flooded?

I found this.  Not sure how accurate this is.

[jaichind]

I was thinking a bit about this action and the 1938 Yellow River flood came to mind.
It was deliberately started by the KMT in an effort to slow the Japanese advances in China.

Another one that is more local was USSR destroying Dniepr hydro power station in 1941 to delay the German advance.  The dam was rebuilt after the war.

[oldtimer]

How many Russian fortified defenses are getting flooded?

I found this.  Not sure how accurate this is.

The flooding destroyed 2 Russian defence lines, once the water level dropps and stabilises the ukrainian army can cross without resistance.

A classic Ukranian move that they also did in the spring of 2022, by flooding the northern approaches to kiev, to prevent the russian army from reaching it.

The only thing that Russia can do is blow up the dams held by ukraine up stream to delay the river crossing long enough to rebuild a defence line.

[TiltsAreUnderrated]

I'm surprised I've managed to beat Woodbury's take, which will quite obviously be that the heartless Ukrainian monsters blew up the dam to murder Russian civilians as revenge or something. This dam blowing up looks like a big deal and at this moment there are plausible cases for both Ukraine and Russia being the culprit to disrupt the other's plans. Either way, its going to be very bad for civilians on both sides of the river. Even if we don't have official word, I think a good indicator that it was actually Ukraine would be the use the floods and chaos to amphibiously cross the Dnieper.

Why would Ukraine flood Kherson city itself and make any counterattack south of Kherson all the more harder? This has Russian ecoterrorism all over it. Not to mention Russia ridiculous explanation for how Ukraine supposedly blew the dam

Regardless of whoever attacked the dam, fact is that dams can be effectively treated as legitimate war targets by either side. That's neither straightforwardly morally wonderful nor completely fair, but such is war.
If Ukraine blew up one of its own dams to try to stop the Russians I don't think I could indict them for alleged "ecoterrorism" either.

This dam is so large that its destruction likely risks the release "of dangerous forces...to the civilian population" and therefore probably constitutes a war crime under international law.

The opening of a much smaller dam near Kyiv (along with the Russian destruction of smaller dams near Kherson) simply isn't comparable. This will severely disrupt the economy of southern Ukraine for years to come.

[TiltsAreUnderrated]

https://twitter.com/Miyhnea/status/1666017539082657792

IS did that by enslaving/conscripting engineers. It especially valued these dams because they were places where its leaders could go with reduced risk of drone strikes.

[Virginiá]

https://twitter.com/bayraktar_1love/status/1666024835556753408

[Virginiá]

The impact this has on the Zaporizhya nuclear power plant could potentially make it non-operational for years to come. This dramatically hurts Ukraine's power grid.

The NPP has mostly been shutdown for a while now. The reactors still need cooling, and one or two may be active for facility power, but it isn't a factor in current Ukrainian energy needs. But yeah this will be a problem if/when occupied territories in the south are liberated.

There are a bunch of reasons why it might be Russia from a "benefits" point of view.  There are arguments for Ukraine being behind it as well.  They are

1) Reduces fresh water to Crimea which raises the cost of ownership for Russia (just like the 2014-2022 period)
2) Floods Russian fortified defenses
3) If the Ukraine Summer Offensive is stalling or needs to be delayed/canceled then this is a nice distraction from that fact.

1. Likely has ruined any potential amphibious operations planned in the near future, so destroying Russian positions doesn't really matter if their destruction can't be immediately taken advantage of
2. This puts large parts of Ukraine at risk due to a possible meltdown if the Zaporizhzhia NPP can't be cooled. There is no way NATO would be OK with this, given it could have an effect on Europe.
3. Displaces large numbers of civilians and destroys countless homes and other infrastructure
4. Significant negative impacts on agriculture in the south

[rc18]

I don't know who did it, but I am leaning towards Russia. Seems like a strategic play in their part. This morning (Ukrainian time) the Ukrainian garrisons finally withdrew from the islands located in the Dnieper due to the flooding. Crimea already taps other reservoirs for water and before the invasion they usually just shipped it off from Russia.

I'm positive it was Ukraine.

How though?

Blowing up a dam that isn't in your possession, particularly one the size of the kakhovka dam, is very hard. These are structures specifically designed to withstand huge external forces. It isn't the case of just lobbing a bunch of missiles, they would barely cause a scratch. To put it in perspective the bouncing bombs of the famous Dambusters Raid had over six times the amount of high explosive of even the largest missile in Ukraine's possession, and those took advantage of the pressure wave caused by underwater detonation to amplify the damage.

On the other hand, rigging the dam internally with lots of explosives is far easier.

[pppolitics]

So how does Russia now plans to get water to Crimea?

[Oleg 🇰🇿🤝🇺🇦]

So how does Russia now plans to get water to Crimea?

The Russians first let water to Crimea from Ukraine last April by (you won't believe it) blowing up a dam. I think nothing will happen to the North Crimean Canal, because the Dnieper will not dry up anyway. It's the same huge river as the Volga or the Mississippi.

[pppolitics]

So how does Russia now plans to get water to Crimea?

The Russians first let water to Crimea from Ukraine last April by (you won't believe it) blowing up a dam. I think nothing will happen to the North Crimean Canal, because the Dnieper will not dry up anyway. It's the same huge river as the Volga or the Mississippi.

https://twitter.com/Osinttechnical/status/1666001260175056897

[Damocles]

Beyond just being a deplorable and disgusting war crime, RuZZia blowing up the Nova Kakhova dam has got to be one of the most monumentally stupid things they've done in this war. You invaded to secure Crimean water supplies and maintain your occupation, and now you just cut off one of the major lifelines they needed. Good job, 10/10.

[Woody]

Gigabrain takes here:

"The Russians were the ones who blew up the dam, but as a result this is actually in Ukraine's favor"

[Woody]

No threat to water supply via North Crimean Canal - TASS

https://tass.com/emergencies/1628163

[Oleg 🇰🇿🤝🇺🇦]

So how does Russia now plans to get water to Crimea?

The Russians first let water to Crimea from Ukraine last April by (you won't believe it) blowing up a dam. I think nothing will happen to the North Crimean Canal, because the Dnieper will not dry up anyway. It's the same huge river as the Volga or the Mississippi.

https://twitter.com/Osinttechnical/status/1666001260175056897

According to reports from the Russian side, the North Crimean Canal is operating normally. As far as the photos at your link show, the water level has dropped, but within normal limits, and will most likely recover soon. In the worst case scenario for Crimea, the Russians can simply dig through the mouth of the canal.

These are trifles in comparison with how the Russian media rejoice about the loss of opportunity of a Ukrainian counteroffensive in the Kherson region, not forgetting to blame the Ukrainians for blowing up the dam, which actually deprived the Ukrainians of this opportunity.

[Red Velvet]

https://twitter.com/nytimes/status/1665726445493026819
https://twitter.com/BenjaminNorton/status/1665824098520375300
The Collective West is starting to change narratives on this war.

It doesn’t evidence an epiphany or anything,  this stuff was on everyones faces from the start, but it reflects how they think it’s less likely for Ukraine to come off as fully victorious from this.

So they’re beginning to build this narrative of “OMG we’ve been lied to, there are Nazis there” in order to create a moral argument to drop support so that if Ukraine loses, it will be because the West has chosen instead of losing to Russia.

It’s a way so that only Ukraine is seen as the “loser” from the conflict and a potential defeat perception isn’t extended to the countries who gave it weapons and money.

https://twitter.com/Glenn_Diesen/status/1665944093472575488

[Storr]

https://twitter.com/Gerashchenko_en/status/1666005052769685505?s=20

https://twitter.com/BasedWarszawa/status/1665953636218707969?s=20

[Storr]

https://twitter.com/nytimes/status/1665726445493026819
https://twitter.com/BenjaminNorton/status/1665824098520375300
The Collective West is starting to change narratives on this war.

It doesn’t evidence an epiphany or anything,  this stuff was on everyones faces from the start, but it reflects how they think it’s less likely for Ukraine to come off as fully victorious from this.

So they’re beginning to build this narrative of “OMG we’ve been lied to, there are Nazis there” in order to create a moral argument to drop support so that if Ukraine loses, it will be because the West has chosen instead of losing to Russia.

It’s a way so that only Ukraine is seen as the “loser” from the conflict and a potential defeat perception isn’t extended to the countries who gave it weapons and money.

https://twitter.com/Glenn_Diesen/status/1665944093472575488

How does one New York Times article indicate what the entire "collective West" is doing in terms of narrative?

[Red Velvet]

How does one New York Times article indicate what the entire "collective West" is doing in terms of narrative?

New York Times is the biggest US newspaper so it’s very significant.

But it’s more of a matter of people from the West bringing this up imo. The German report from 2014 going viral for example. Like, it’s not treated as “taboo” to mention these matters anymore like it was a year ago.

And from that I think it shows less confidence, although it’s also people just being tired with the war.

[pppolitics]

So how does Russia now plans to get water to Crimea?

The Russians first let water to Crimea from Ukraine last April by (you won't believe it) blowing up a dam. I think nothing will happen to the North Crimean Canal, because the Dnieper will not dry up anyway. It's the same huge river as the Volga or the Mississippi.

https://twitter.com/Osinttechnical/status/1666001260175056897

According to reports from the Russian side, the North Crimean Canal is operating normally. As far as the photos at your link show, the water level has dropped, but within normal limits, and will most likely recover soon. In the worst case scenario for Crimea, the Russians can simply dig through the mouth of the canal.

These are trifles in comparison with how the Russian media rejoice about the loss of opportunity of a Ukrainian counteroffensive in the Kherson region, not forgetting to blame the Ukrainians for blowing up the dam, which actually deprived the Ukrainians of this opportunity.

See what happens when you trust a Russian source?

Another Russian source said differently

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/ukraine-dam-blast-could-threaten-crimean-water-supply-says-top-russian-official-2023-06-06/

[Storr]

https://twitter.com/michaeldweiss/status/1666081213088505856?s=20

[CumbrianLefty]

How does one New York Times article indicate what the entire "collective West" is doing in terms of narrative?

It doesn't. And its not as if the NYT has never printed anti-Ukraine stuff before since this war started.

Interesting that said poster wants to take attention away from today's main news, though.

[Oleg 🇰🇿🤝🇺🇦]

So how does Russia now plans to get water to Crimea?

The Russians first let water to Crimea from Ukraine last April by (you won't believe it) blowing up a dam. I think nothing will happen to the North Crimean Canal, because the Dnieper will not dry up anyway. It's the same huge river as the Volga or the Mississippi.

https://twitter.com/Osinttechnical/status/1666001260175056897

According to reports from the Russian side, the North Crimean Canal is operating normally. As far as the photos at your link show, the water level has dropped, but within normal limits, and will most likely recover soon. In the worst case scenario for Crimea, the Russians can simply dig through the mouth of the canal.

These are trifles in comparison with how the Russian media rejoice about the loss of opportunity of a Ukrainian counteroffensive in the Kherson region, not forgetting to blame the Ukrainians for blowing up the dam, which actually deprived the Ukrainians of this opportunity.

See what happens when you trust a Russian source?

Another Russian source said differently

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/ukraine-dam-blast-could-threaten-crimean-water-supply-says-top-russian-official-2023-06-06/

When a source reports something that is UNprofitable for him to report, you can trust him even if it is a Russian source. According to your link, Peskov simply blames the Ukrainians in advance even before the dam exploded. Yes, before the explosion of the dam, their accusation was harmonious and logical.

[Buffalo Mayor Young Kim]

https://twitter.com/nytimes/status/1665726445493026819
https://twitter.com/BenjaminNorton/status/1665824098520375300
The Collective West is starting to change narratives on this war.

It doesn’t evidence an epiphany or anything,  this stuff was on everyones faces from the start, but it reflects how they think it’s less likely for Ukraine to come off as fully victorious from this.

So they’re beginning to build this narrative of “OMG we’ve been lied to, there are Nazis there” in order to create a moral argument to drop support so that if Ukraine loses, it will be because the West has chosen instead of losing to Russia.

It’s a way so that only Ukraine is seen as the “loser” from the conflict and a potential defeat perception isn’t extended to the countries who gave it weapons and money.

https://twitter.com/Glenn_Diesen/status/1665944093472575488

JFC dude. ‘Oh noes, some kid put a Swastika on his helmet, I guess that means we have to ethnically cleanse Ukraine’ is only a thought that would occur to a xenophobic tankie trying to make the world conform to his knee jerk anti-American conspiracy theories.