Whodunnit? That is the question.
(twitter.com)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (53)
sorted by:
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.
I don't know where, the river goes the length of the Ukraine. But Ukraine supposedly made a beachhead amassing. This was reported in most sources like Reuters, Guardian, it was around the time of Bakhmut's fall, when Ukraine pressed on the Russian retreat, or there after their defeat, while talk of the counteroffensive was being fully hyped. I believe it was somewhere Zaprozhzhia or Kherson. But don't quote me, it could've been anywhere. I didn't take much notice, apart from this memory of mine. It doesn't remember names, they're gibberish, just the content or the note.
Regardless in this conflict, crossing the river had laid traps on the Russian advance, where if we go back a year, last year, when a Russian brigade was annihilated attempting it. It has since been contentious crossing. Many bridges have been destroyed by both. However after Kherson, Ukraine had advanced claiming the central Islands. Yes they have settlements on them, some are large enough to host troops and equipment. Now ironically submerged.
Tactically, if I am funnelling into choke points I know I'd want my flanks covered.
If on probability we look at dam breaches, directly after Bakhmut, Russia knocked out a dam in the Dontesk region. It was ahead of Bakhmut to the West.
Regardless, crossing is treacherous, it has in every warfare in history where great feats of engineering have sometimes come up with solutions after losses, or they have faired badly. Because defensively it is often like shooting fish in barrel, movement across rivers.
I am basing the probability, hence my bittersweet humor. It's dastardly but perhaps accidental and ironic.