Accidental and ironic.

The Russian villages then were in the integrated Kherson oblast. After Kherson withdrawal, all territory West of the river and the Islands in it, were claimed by Ukraine. Russia retreated geographically to the East of the river. Yes while it was in Russian hands, I also did read the report of purported Ukrainian strikes on the dam, last year prior to withdrawal. As previously past conversation, a factor in withdrawal of Kherson, it among plenty of reasoning from the low ground that is unfavourable to artillery, and supporting an attacked city in Winter subjected to greater supply lines and outages, plus tactically Russia can return fire on a hostile city, where the Ukrainian forward line pressed, and your aforementioned bridge subjected to constant Ukrainian strikes until changing hands, now viceversa. It was blown up on Russian retreat of Kherson?

But sadly you won't change my opinion that it is an advantage. Does it prove it was accidental or deliberate? I can only find irony.

However there are questions of how the water level is affected upstream? If the reservoir drains, is it easier to cross upstream as water rushes downstream. Perhaps this could become contentious. Again it is hardly significant because river crossing would be subjected to the same historic status, unless it dropped well below the average tables?

And in every event the battlefield adjusts, reshaping. Forced to change tactics, and reposition in light of the new geography that won't be dammed again in conflict.

Accidental and ironic.

The Russian villages then were in the integrated Kherson oblast. After Kherson withdrawal, all territory West of the river and the Islands in it, were claimed by Ukraine. Russia retreated geographically to the East of the river. Yes while it was in Russian hands, I also did read the report of purported Ukrainian strikes on the dam, last year prior to withdrawal. As previously past conversation, a factor in withdrawal of Kherson, it among plenty of reasoning from the low ground that is unfavourable to artillery, and supporting an attacked city in Winter subjected to greater supply lines and outages, plus tactically Russia can return fire on a hostile city, where the Ukrainian forward line pressed, and your aforementioned bridge subjected to constant Ukrainian strikes until changing hands, now viceversa. It was blown up on Russian retreat of Kherson?

But sadly you won't change my opinion that it is an advantage. Does it prove it was accidental or deliberate? I can only find irony.

However there are questions of how the water level is affected upstream? If the reservoir drains, is it easier to cross upstream as water rushes downstream. Perhaps this could become contentious. Again it is hardly significant because river crossing would be subjected to the same historic status, unless it dropped well below the average tables?

Accidental and ironic.

The Russian villages then were in the integrated Kherson oblast. After Kherson withdrawal, all territory West of the river and the Islands in it, were claimed by Ukraine. Russia retreated geographically to the East of the river. Yes while it was in Russian hands, I also did read the report of purported Ukrainian strikes on the dam, last year prior to withdrawal. As previously past conversation, a factor in withdrawal of Kherson, it among plenty of reasoning from the low ground that is unfavourable to artillery, and supporting an attacked city in Winter subjected to greater supply lines and outages, plus tactically Russia can return fire on a hostile city, where the Ukrainian forward line pressed, and your aforementioned bridge subjected to constant Ukrainian strikes until changing hands, now viceversa. It was blown up on Russian retreat of Kherson?

But sadly you won't change my opinion that it is an advantage. Does it prove it was accidental or deliberate? I can only find irony.

However there are questions of how the water level is affected upstream? If the reservoir drains, is it easier to cross upstream as water rushes downstream. Perhaps this could become contentious. Again it is hardly significant because river crossing would be subjected to the same historic status, unless it dropped well below the average tables.

Accidental and ironic.

The Russian villages then were in the integrated Kherson oblast. After Kherson withdrawal, all territory West of the river and the Islands in it, were claimed by Ukraine. Russia retreated geographically to the East of the river. Yes while it was in Russian hands, I also did read the report of purported Ukrainian strikes on the dam, last year prior to withdrawal. As previously past conversation, a factor in withdrawal of Kherson, it among plenty of reasoning from the low ground that is unfavourable to artillery, and supporting an attacked city in Winter subjected to greater supply lines and outages, plus tactically Russia can return fire on a hostile city, where the Ukrainian forward line pressed, and your aforementioned bridge subjected to constant Ukrainian strikes until changing hands, now viceversa. It was blown up on Russian retreat of Kherson?

But sadly you won't change my opinion that it is an advantage. Does it prove it was accidental or deliberate? I can only find irony.

However there are questions of how the water level is affected upstream? If the reservoir drains, iis it easier to cross upstream as water rushes downstream. Perhaps this could become contentious. Again it is hardly significant because river crossing would be subjected to the same historic status, unless it dropped well below the average tables.

Accidental and ironic.

The Russian villages then were in the integrated Kherson oblast. After Kherson withdrawal, all territory West of the river and the Islands in it, were claimed by Ukraine. Russia retreated geographically to the East of the river. Yes while it was in Russian hands, I also did read the report of purported Ukrainian strikes on the dam, last year prior to withdrawal. As previously past conversation, a factor in withdrawal of Kherson, it among plenty of reasoning from the low ground that is unfavourable to artillery, and supporting an attacked city in Winter subjected to greater supply lines and outages, plus tactically Russia can return fire on a hostile city, where the Ukrainian forward line pressed, and your aforementioned bridge subjected to constant Ukrainian strikes until changing hands, now viceversa. It was blown up on Russian retreat of Kherson?

But sadly you won't change my opinion that it is an advantage. Does it prove it was accidental or deliberate? I can only find irony.

Accidental and ironic.

The Russian villages then were in the integrated Kherson oblast. After Kherson withdrawal, all territory West of the river and the Islands in it, were claimed by Ukraine. Russia retreated geographically to the East of the river. Yes while it was in Russian hands, I also did read the report of purported Ukrainian strikes on the dam, last year prior to withdrawal. As previously past conversation, a factor in withdrawal of Kherson, it among plenty of reasoning from the low ground that is unfavourable to artillery, and supporting an attacked city in Winter subjected to greater supply lines and outages, plus tactically Russia can return fire on a hostile city, where the Ukrainian forward line pressed, and your aforementioned bridge subjected to constant Ukrainian strikes until changing hands, now viceversa.

But sadly you won't change my opinion that it is an advantage. Does it prove it was accidental or deliberate? I can only find irony.

Accidental and ironic.

The Russian villages then were in the integrated Kherson oblast. After Kherson withdrawal, all territory west of the river and the Islands in it, were claimed by Ukraine. Russia retreated geographically to the East of the river. Yes while it was in Russian hands, I also did read the report of purported Ukrainian strikes on the dam, last year prior to withdrawal. As previously past conversation, a factor in withdrawal of Kherson, it among plenty of reasoning from the low ground that is unfavourable to artillery, and supporting an attacked city in Winter subjected to greater supply lines and outages, plus tactically Russia can return fire on a hostile city, where the Ukrainian forward line pressed, and your aforementioned bridge subjected to constant Ukrainian strikes until changing hands, now viceversa.

But sadly you won't change my opinion that it is an advantage. Does it prove it was accidental or deliberate? I can only find irony.