Ukraine

[Johan R]

Re: Ukraine

An interesting angle on the dam breach on the BBC website.

In effect it appears to be saying that the dam appeared to have had sprung a leak from at least the 2nd June, perhaps earlier:

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-65836103

If that's the case it seems a little odd that nobody seemed to have noticed what was going on until it was too late.

The damn gates had been hit 3 times by Ukraine with Himars, as admitted to, as I posted previously.

[George Jung]

Re: Ukraine

So..... just poor maintenance?

But of all the scenarios - Ukraine responsible seems by far least likely, right?

Despite what our trolls repeat ad nauseum.

[George Jung]

Re: Ukraine

Those damn gates. Gosh!

[Peerie Maa]

Re: Ukraine

An interesting angle on the dam breach on the BBC website.

In effect it appears to be saying that the dam appeared to have had sprung a leak from at least the 2nd June, perhaps earlier:

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-65836103

Wiki has some interesting details

In mid-October 2022, news reports suggested that Russians may have been planning to blow up the dam to slow down the Ukrainian counter-offensive in the region.^{[16][17][18][19]}
On 11 November, a large explosion occurred on the dam, shown on CCTV footage. The road and rail sections were destroyed, but the dam itself remained mostly undamaged.^[20][21] Russian officials opened additional sluice gates, allowing water to rush out of the reservoir. At that time the Zaporizhzhia Regional Military Administration in a statement suggested that one of the purposes of draining the reservoir might have been to flood the area south of the dam, in order to keep Ukrainian Forces from crossing the Dnipro River. Officials stated that Ukrhydroenergo, Ukraine's hydro electric company, believed Russian forces "opened the station's locks fearing an advance of Ukrainian soldiers".^[22]
In early November 2022, the spillways at the dam had been opened, and the Kakhovka Reservoir dropped to its lowest level in three decades, putting irrigation and drinking water resources at risk, as well as the coolant systems for the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant. Between 1 December 2022 and 6 February 2023, the water level dropped 2 meters.^[23]
In May 2023, the water level in the reservoir reached its highest recorded level and it appeared that water had started to flow over the top of the dam.^[24] The raised water level caused some nearby villages to flood.^[25] The rise appeared to be the result of Russia keeping too many gates closed.^[24]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kakhovka_Dam

[Johan R]

Re: Ukraine

[QUOTE=Peerie Maa;6864735]

Apply the "What is more likely" test.

Ukraine has previously damaged its own infrastructure in order to defend its land. Dams, bridges and power grids. So perhaps the question is why would they not do so again?

On the one hand, Ukrainian demolition experts lugged of the order of 10te of explosives

Gone from 20t to 10t. Yesterday an "expert" from the Clinton institute in Ireland said a few hundred pounds of explosive would be enough. This morning people saying it would survive a nuclear blast, and one mention that a UK Storm Shadow missile was more than adequate for that task.

Bit of a no-brainer

I disagree. Ukraine does not have all the tanks or all the equipment it wanted, this would be a way to delay an offensive while keeping Russia at bay, it is what they have previously done, so, ludicrous to term it "no brainer" . It could also be Russias attempt to slow down an offensive, one would question about all that time spent digging in was wasted and ground mines being washed downriver are now more of a risk to both sides. Maybe Wagner have emptied a few more prisons for cannon fodder. I just see both sides as having something to gain from it, as usual though, it is normal people paying the price.

[AndanteEd]

Re: Ukraine

Wiki has some interesting details

I guess that management of water levels etc may have taken a bit of a back seat.

The dam giving way may also have been of benefit to both sides.

Obviously it now makes it harder to the Ukranians to cross the Dnipro river, so perhaps a good short-term defensive move by the Russians.

It also means that the Ukranians, who by all accounts have less people to throw at their counter-offensive, can focus their troops north of Zaporzhzhia for now whilst also potentially messing up the Russians' long-prepared defensive lines south of the Dnipro for when the floods have receded. It also helps Ukraine that the dam was in Russian-controlled territory. Makes it easier for the world opinion to focus further outrage towards Moscow.

I'm a bit on the fence about who did this, it seems more like neither side may have done much to prevent it.

[Lew Barrett]

Re: Ukraine

I guess that management of water levels etc may have taken a bit of a back seat.

The dam giving way may also have been of benefit to both sides.

Obviously it now makes it harder to the Ukranians to cross the Dnipro river, so perhaps a good short-term defensive move by the Russians.

It also means that the Ukranians, who by all accounts have less people to throw at their counter-offensive, can focus their troops north of Zaporzhzhia for now whilst also potentially messing up the Russians' long-prepared defensive lines south of the Dnipro for when the floods have receded. It also helps Ukraine that the dam was in Russian-controlled territory. Makes it easier for the world opinion to focus further outrage towards Moscow.

I'm a bit on the fence about who did this, it seems more like neither side may have done much to prevent it.

However one looks at it, the Russians are responsible. They are, after all, the invaders and started this bloody mess of a war. I could go on about how Zelensky asked for international monitoring of the dam in 2022. We could speculate about why the water level in the reservoir was raised over the last months. Or we could just monitor RT to see their reaction to it. Fog of war and all, but this is in no way a benefit to Ukraine, short or long term. And if the dam failed due to being weakened, why did the Russian occupiers not the at least basic remedial action to repair what they could? Why was the water level raised instead of lowered to reduce pressure and/or the negative impact of a potential breech? And so on.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mm98czlX-uw

[sandtown]

Re: Ukraine

But in reality there is no such thing as an "international rules based order" its a construct to justify doing whatever we with the power wish to do. International rules are essentially meaningless, especially in geopolitics, we see the contradictions on a daily basis yet the media simply ignores it. .

I disagree. The international community has achieved some notable successes in arms control - chem, bio, child soldiers, and more.

Vets For Peace worked hard with many others to get nukes made illegal. I take pride in that.

But I know it is only a start.

Far more than Russia and China, the US has done all in its power to wreck any sort of international rules. Look at the Intl. Criminal Court

[Johan R]

Re: Ukraine

I disagree. The international community has achieved some notable successes in arms control - chem, bio, child soldiers, and more.

But I know it is only a start.

Far more than Russia and China, the US has done all in its power to wreck any sort of international rules. Look at the Intl. Criminal Court

We tie our own hands. For sure, some low level African war lords have been disarmed, and a few rogues held to account. The biggest actors doing the most damage though, are still doing it. International rules based order is a mockery, unfortunately.

[AndanteEd]

Re: Ukraine

The damn gates had been hit 3 times by Ukraine with Himars, as admitted to, as I posted previously.

Yup. Reported by the Washington Post back in December:

WAPO.jpg

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2022/12/29/ukraine-offensive-kharkiv-kherson-donetsk/

This was at the time that Kherson City was occupied by the Russians and they were supplied by three bridges crossing the Dnipro.

So flooding the Dnipro has occurred to the Ukranians as a means of gaining a military advantage.

However one looks at it, the Russians are responsible. They are, after all, the invaders and started this bloody mess of a war.

Emphatically agreed.

Fog of war and all, but this is in no way a benefit to Ukraine, short or long term. And if the dam failed due to being weakened, why did the Russian occupiers not the at least basic remedial action to repair what they could? Why was the water level raised instead of lowered to reduce pressure and/or the negative impact of a potential breech? And so on.

Why did the Ukranians hit it with Himars last year? Why did the Russians let it allegedly overfill and didn't seem to be do much to shore it up when it started to go? Ultimately the dam's integrity was not critical to either side's success.

As previously mentioned, I think that both sides saw the potential for strategic advantage with the dam bursting right now.

Sometimes a large scale event such as this is a good way to break a potential stalemate.

I suspect it will ultimately be of more benefit to the Ukranians than the Russians. They would likely have to cross the river at some point, now around 100kms of Russian defensive positions have been largely wiped out.

[johnw]

Re: Ukraine

The USA had a brief spell of Imperialism in the 1890s; it ended when the Americans realised that if they were going to be nice to their little brown brothers they would have to make them US citizens.

This consisted of Teddy Roosevelt, the Spanish American War and the Great White Fleet.

America sucked at empire, but you know, we had no difficulty practicing racism at home, so I doubt that was the problem. I think the problem was capitalism. Empires work very well with a mercantilist system that is designed to extract wealth from some areas to gather it in the home country. Capitalism chases cheap labor and low transport costs for the resources processed by that labor into goods. In addition, stateless capital flows to the country with the lowest taxes. Both of these things tend to undermine the tax base needed to maintain an empire, which tends to be very expensive.

[dutchpp]

Re: Ukraine

There seems to be heavy fighting going on in the Zaporizja region, according to unverifiable sources.
The Ukrainians seem to push to the Tokmak region with their modern arms.

[sandtown]

Re: Ukraine

The biggest actors doing the most damage though, are still doing it. International rules based order is a mockery, unfortunately.

For now, yes, but we cannot give up.

[dutchpp]

Re: Ukraine

There seems to be heavy fighting going on in the Zaporizja region, according to unverifiable sources.
The Ukrainians seem to push to the Tokmak region with their modern arms.
The distance Tokmak- Sea of Azov is approximately 80 kilometers.

[sandtown]

Re: Ukraine

We tie our own hands..

Speaking of arms control, this is one of the challenges we face.

No one said it would be easy . .

Influential House Dem “Open to” Cluster Munitions for Ukraine A statement by the ranking member of the House Armed Services Committee — signaling that he is “open to” the U.S. shipping cluster munitions to Ukraine — is now sparking alarm nationwide. Speaking to the Council on Foreign Relations last month, Adam Smith (D-Wash.) spoke favorably about supplying what is widely regarded as one of the most inhumane types of weapons in existence. When Russia invaded Ukraine while using cluster munitions, the New York Times reported that “internationally banned cluster munitions” are “a variety of weapons — rockets, bombs, missiles and artillery projectiles — that disperse lethal bomblets in midair over a wide area, hitting military targets and civilians alike.” And the newspaper noted that cluster bombs “kill so indiscriminately they are banned under international law.” Human Rights Watch has declared: “All countries should condemn the use of these weapons under any circumstances.” But Rep. Smith said that providing cluster munitions to Ukrainian armed forces is “something I’m open to.” In an opinion piece published by The Hill on Wednesday, “The U.S. should not provide cluster munitions to Ukraine,” Institute for Public Accuracy executive director Norman Solomon wrote: “Part of Smith’s rationale was that the Russian military has already used cluster munitions in Ukraine, so the U.S. might as well enable Ukrainian forces to do the same. That approach boils down to a tacit assumption that Washington should not lag behind Moscow in a race to the bottom.”