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:
Sorry, composing, typos, half asleep. A long day, then writing hundreds of words.
Is this the Russian held town that had the hydro powerstation that was submerged? Is this where it is lowering from the original torrenting cascade? Explanation, because the river is expanding into the floodplains and estuaries going out to sea. Although won't it be some time before becoming inhabitable. It was at second storey height. Hasn't the river's banks burst and entire houses and cows and cars and beavers got carried away migrating into Kherson's costal outskirts, flooding their cellars with the drowned?
Flooding into its delta, along the coast.
Yes.
Yes, lower part of town.
Yes. and because level of upstream reservoir behind the dam lowered below main destruction, so the cross-section of the stream become smaller, so the water began to flow to the sea faster than it arrives from the breach.
Water level will come back to norm even if breach still be unrepaired. Dam itself hold most volume in reservoir, only water that was above breach streamed out.
So no land will become inhabitable. Most destruction and flood is from the giant initial wave. Hopefully it will pass eventually.
The problem I have is debilerate or accident.
There is an obvious advantage. Now who.
I am trying to understand the Ukrainian advantage. Their mindless rationality is suicidal. It uses acts of provocation to justify funding and further support, constantly trying to escalate the situation into a much larger conflict. Regardless.
However. There is reasoning. It could be on crossing, the Dniper somewhere. It could've been to sabotage, disrupt, provoke, and confuse. While launching an attack. It could be to affect the Crimea's water. But this is easily routed and still has water systems flowing despite the reservoir now levelling off to the river's water level, expanding the river flooding the run off and rising the river.
Although there is a distinct advantage defensively in wiping out a South Western approach. Kherson has no other point concurrently. It simply provides cover. Until presumably disaster.
There is a long term set back to Odessa's advance and approaches, but let's face it, there is zero chance of that concurrently. Karkiv would be a bigger prize, still ignored. Because it takes far more than a defensive position holding territory. Odessa does secure the coast. But Karkiv the border. Problematic Odessa won't be taken for some time. The odds before that occurring are significantly null. Prior to accession and or truce. Or who knows. Except it is a historic nightmare.
The odds are placing it as Russian damages. But there are more than odds. Factors to consider. Was the substation operational. If so why wasn't the dam repaired since, Ukrainian attacks, last year? Come on, if it was operational there wouldn't be the complete causation of its breach. As it wasn't at much capacity, no real maintenance, releasing the outflow, and generating productivity, the blame further falls on the occupier. It failed to maintain it through suggestive attacks. These could easily cite the rhetoric of terrorism having abundant proof on hand. It was generating output being disrupted.
But it still doesn't rule out sabotage. Why objectively. They're monkeys, okay. No, where is that advantage, outside of acts of bananas? Bananas name calling.
A river is natural geography, expanding it also provides a bigger border. But who knows. There's only irony. I could probably think of far more reasons. Unless you can provide facts of how it serves an opposing advantage?
If you are still interested in breadcrumbs about who is behind dam destruction:
George Soros himself in https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/can-democracy-survive-polycrisis-artificial-intelligence-climate-change-ukraine-war-by-george-soros-2023-06
Soros think that Crimea still completely depend on water from Kakhovka reservoir and cutting of water supply from Dnepr will make Crimea fully dependent on Ukraine will.
It is completely irrelevant if what that bastards believe real or not. Improtant thing is that they believe in their own "reality", and base their actions on that beliefs.
One of their top frontmans just confirmed his masters believe that water supply from Dnepr is crucial for Crimea, so it is reasonable to assume that they have that belief as starting point for their plans and actions.
No. Sorry both sides use propaganda. Both have reasons.
It is finding the reason. Objectively. Not listening to bleeding hearts propaganda. Trust no one.
I am inclined not to believe either objectively.
Last year Kherson was in Russian hands it was moving forward to Odessa or at least the next city above Kherson, some name I don't want to look up, Mykol whatever. That dynamic changed on withdrawal. Russia blew out the connecting bridge on retreat. Where Ukraine then had attacked the dam. Now the bridge is destroyed and so is the dam.
Accurately was the hydro powerstation in use. No, the odds are it wasn't to any degree. Problematical it's war, but no excuse for preventing catastrophe. So it suggests there is probability for Russian causality. Accidentally or not. It was expected because of the known risk.
Currently Ukraine's offensive has gone shit, although there is still fighting in Donetsk and etc. But the press today is reading of lies. They hadn't started their counteroffensive. Nato suggesting its troops might be deployed. Talks of F16s being sent, prior to the supposed months of training. It suggests what? Ukraine are full of bananas.
It is possible they created this incident to gain further support. They do shit like it.
But come on. I'm not getting into banana throwing. It served a purpose. Now who is to blame and why?