I'm not sure exactly what movements you mean, but I just don't think it would make sense for Russia to flood its own fortifications.
They haven't flooded the fortifications, they've flooded the extensive area downstream of the dam where they didn't have fortifications and now, for the short-term at least, do not need to have any.
It even warned the UN late last year of Ukrainian plans to blow the dam, and evacuated some areas in case it happened.
Funny how in that particular instance they're concerned enough to mention something to the UN? Funny how they were worried about Ukraine somehow getting inside a dam they occupy to plant charges that blow the dam out. And as to the 'evacuation', they moved the native population on to create further disruption and add to the ongoing humanitarian burden on Ukraine's infrastructure because they are a barbaric invading force.
Conversely to what you said, Ukraine has been able to move troops from Kherson region to Zaporozhye to bolster the counter-offensive, as it's no longer possible for Russia to attack Kherson.
Both of which are on the northeast side of the flood-waters - whether the Russians hoped for more extensive flooding in Kherson isn't clear, but it's the occupied areas south and west of the flood-plain that are being protected by it, currently.
But the main reason they are unlikely to have done it is that the water supply to Crimea.
Russia chose to damage Crimea in the short term - not a great impact, given that it's militarily and economically largely inactive during the current conflict - in the hope that they'll still occupy it in the long-term, against the threat of their forces capitulating entirely and Ukraine reclaiming the illegally occupied territory. The flood-waters can't mutiny, fail to adequately comply with orders or be so fundamentally corrupt that they're ineffective in the same manner as it seems significant portions of the Russian military are.
I read that water could be seen leaking through the floodgates days before June 6. It was already damaged.
Yes, that's how you sabotage large concrete structures, you make holes in them and then wedge explosives into key stress areas - that way you reduce the quantity of explosives that you need. You can also close the outflow valves and build up an unnecessary head of water behind the dam to add stress and, as a bonus piece of shithousery, increase the indiscriminate damage downstream to civilian centres.
Also Ukraine had released dangerous amounts of water upstream at another dam, putting excessive stress on the kakhovka dam.
Do you have a reliable source for that? I've seen it mentioned once, and the source for that was the entirely reliable Russian state media agency.
It could have happened due to a combination of this and previous damage from Ukrainian shelling.
Given the pattern of damage in the structure, that's unlikely. Given who gains from the flooding, the damage pattern to the dam itself reported by people (Ukrainian and independent) who've seen it, the prior activity such as weakening the dam's integrity, the occupation by Russian forces and the increase in the reservoir's water level, it seems likely that it was a deliberate Russian act.
Are you going to suggest, as well, that it was the Ukrainian's who were shelling the refugees trying to evacuate through the floods when their boats were fired upon?
O.
[/quote]
