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?