Whodunnit? That is the question.
(twitter.com)
Comments (53)
sorted by:
It’s in Russia-controlled territory, so Ukraine. This is the prelude to the nuclear disaster false flag that will come in the next few months. The reservoir behind the dam is used to cool Zaporizhzhia. Western media will release articles (all at once, just you fucking watch) about how “the dam being destroyed puts the plant at risk of meltdown,” Russia will rebuke this claim, and then all of a sudden the plant will explode (Russia will claim a heavy missile barrage; Ukraine will deny; video will be posted; all Western video sites will take the video down in lockstep and prevent it from being posted ever again) and it will be Russia’s fault.
Russian NPPs never use natural reservoirs or reservoirs directly connected to natural water for cooling to prevent contamination of natural water reservoir in case of leak to second/third contour or other disaster. There is always separate cooling ponds that is used to cool the NPP. Water periodically added to that ponds if water level fall due to evapuration, or poured in case of rains or snow melting in spring. Ponds built to have more than enough volume to cool NPP at maximum power endlessly. You could see that ponds on satellite maps easily. If there will be need to add water to ponds (which is definitely not the case in low power mode), it will be just pumped from the Dnepr, regardless of water level.
So lowering level in Dnepr in no way could do any harm to ZNPP.
Also, AFAIK dam itself was not destroyed, only gates that adjust water level damaged. So level fall and flood would be much less in comparison to the case when dam itself would have been blown.
There isn't much danger to the reactor, there's a secondary dam further up stream. It can fill the reactor ponds. The over capacity reservoir, not maintained in conflict, spilled, bursting the dam, and it remarkably flooded the lower Kherson ground held by Ukraine, and submerged the Islands also occupied by Ukraine.
This strategically doesn't need as much manpower defending that side, if any offensive is pushing from the north down, it can divert some of them. It has cut off a much bigger avenue from the southwest.
Who knows what caused it. But it smells dastardly.
Or please explain? Tactically it seems advantageous to defense. Offense if crossing it is in for hell, until the level stabilises and adjusts to the new levels of flooding, it won't be for some time. Meanwhile it has to concern itself with rescue and evacuation.
But it also puts more danger on the reactor.
This flood will not be permanent. As water from reservoir will be dumped, water level will come back to normal.
IDK, may be week or so. So strategically it have no any sense, really. Sides was divided by river for months, and no any significant moves was done from either side. So nothing will happen if sides will have no any moves a week more.
No, because the bridges were already blown. So how are they bridging it. The banks have burst. It causes much greater difficulty, crossing a wider/widening river. The ground on the other side was also lower. One of the major factors for Russia withdrawal from Kherson, and the danger posed by this dam flooding Kherson and the lower ground.
I don't buy Western media, until something significant from Ukraine occurs. But Ukraine outside of their bigger disaster yesterday in the same region, are reportedly pushing down from Zaporizhzhia area. It is possible they were also going to attempt a counterflank from Kherson area crossing.
Now state the obvious advantages?
Kherson is higher than other bank, and in case of complete dam destruction it will be flooded only partially, but the other side will be flooded a lot. However there are not many settlements on the other side and those that are are not as large as Kherson.
Withdrawal was due to inability to 100% protect single bridge, including from potential dam destruction, along with stupid, greedy (and failed) shenanigans with grain deal instead of taking Nikolaev and Odessa to close the question with Ukraine having access to sea and establishing fully controlled naval path without depending on that single bridge.
Also, it is a very unusual fake war, where goals on the ground are unknown and actions of both sides looks having very little sense for conventional war.
They doing it periodically with the same result - boats are shelled from Russian side and everybody dies. What will make them think that next time things will be different is out of my understanding.
IDK, flat water without high banks is easier to cross?
I don't really see any advantages for anybody.
It also couldbe that gates fall by themselves. Power plant and dum was shelled a lot by Ukrainians, Power plant itself was destroyed long ago, bridge have significant damage too. Gates could fail due to previous damage.
Because Ukraine have reportedly crossed, who know where, it's huge, but they were occupied on the central Islands now flooded and submerged. As well as in Kherson. Now useless. Of course it also halts advances to Odessa. But currently it has done what to the offense?
No, historically river crossing in flooding in every major conflict dating back to the beginning of civilization has been treacherous, including in WW2.
The same as gaining ground through flooding. The water level rising has now widened the area needed to be crossed. Defensively is it easier or harder to defend? No, the water level has not risen to the same incline, otherwise everywhere is submerged. It hasn't made an incline easier if it has expanded the river's surface area.
I am playing odds. Probability.
But you never know, what Ukraine are capable of. If the offensive went badly. Reeeeeee. They're almost suicidal. But come on? Defensively there is an advantage.
Tried to cross, multiple times, always without any success. Obviously Russian forces perfectly know where.
In the last days there was no any unusually high activity, so there is no difference at all.
I was on that islands many times in my childhood for fishing (have a relatives there), they are mostly swamps, only two of them had permanent settlements on kind of heights on them. This islands flooded every spring and are hardly suitable for anything. We cut the grass for livestock on them, as many locals did, that is the only use of them. You can't even dig a trench, because it will be immidiately flooded by ground water.
I don't know. Obviously it depends on the landscape, resources of each side and so on. If defending side build fortifications close to the water and offending side have advantage in boats and firepower and air superiority, then flood will make offensive easier. If defending side have fortifications far away from water and have superiority in air and firepower, then offenders will have big problems.
There is only one group of people who would concoct such a conniving plan.
No, because that won’t do anything. You can if you like. I don’t condone the destruction of any truth. It just doesn’t matter one iota.
Fyi they already tried a nuclear disaster. Remember when Russia was bombing a Ukraine nuclear plant. They said it was almost at critical, then I was under control, then there was no bombing, then there was no damage and no one knew what everyone was talking about.
In statistics we used to discuss monte carlo simulation.
I think it required trying to consider every possible variable and simulate how every variable or choice or decision or option effects an end result. Powerful computers required to calculate every possible variable. But if variables are infinite or there are not defined parameters then the calculation times out or the computer overloads itself trying to calculate it all.
Or to speak to Excel programmers, =if(If(if(if(if(if(if(if(if(if(if(if))))))))))))))))
How about “Ukraine has already used successfully HIMARS against the dam’s locks but ‘is hoping they won’t have to blow the whole thing’ as a last resort”? That should narrow the range of variables.
Hahaha.
80% Russia. 20% Natural. Maybe 60. 40%. Naturally these things happen. It had damage. It was old and not serviced in warfare. An accident. It was also over capacity.
Objectively, hahaha, it really put a dampener on a counteroffensive coming from that Kherson side. It is now evacuated. It was the danger when Russia occupied it. This dam. It really fucks up that side. Russian held territory not as much. Higher ground. Crossing a flooded river is much harder. Going across floodplains is also much harder. Various bridges had been targeted in this conflict.
There is small danger to the nuclear reactor but it's minimal unless the other dam by it goes.
Odds put Russia as a culprit. Although natural causes are a factor.
Would be epic if someone grabbed a surfboard and surfed that giant rush of water.