Arming the Ukrainians

[jeremyp]

They had conscript and released convicts downstream who are, for the Russian military, not merely acceptable losses but a logistics drain now removed and a media bonus back home.

It's simpler than that. They wanted to cause a small breach but they overdid it.

[jeremyp]

They had defenses and troops stationed downstream, whom they didn't warn or evacuate beforehand.
Here is an unbiased (from what I can make out) article that explains what I've been saying a lot better:

https://simplicius76.substack.com/p/portmortem-analysis-on-kakhovka-dam

It gives a chart showing that the water in the reservoir had reached a critical level at the beginning of May, then plateaued. He cites a tweeter who said on May 4 that the Russians could not get the gates of the dam to open, then on 6 May that they had managed to.

The general picture is either of damage from repeated Ukrainian shelling causing difficulty letting water out and consequentially a build up of water in the reservoir, followed by a breach (visible on June 1-2).

Or, of excessive water being let in through dams further upstream, causing critical water levels. The chart in the link shows that the level is higher than the previous 6 years, so this must have been caused by more than just rainfall.
It was already damaged, as shown by satellite image of leaking before 6 June. What caused this, do you think?
Nobody, imo
Ukrainian shelling trying to disrupt Russian activity on the bridge.
The Russian forces might have deliberately kept the gates closed to increase the reservoir's water level and maximize the flooding, but just because they could have done it doesn't make it likely that they did.
I don't know. The firing came from "across the river" according to one report from a civilian on the Russian side.

Your memory is very short.

Ukraine spent a lot of time last year shelling the Dnipro crossings in Kherson because there were Russian soldiers on the North bank whose supplies Ukraine wanted to deny. They shelled a bridge next to the dam but they scrupulously avoided shelling the dam itself because they knew it would be a catastrophe. Why would they choose to do it now when there are no Russian soldiers on the North side of the river and they might want to cross it themselves?

[ad_orientem]

https://twitter.com/JayinKyiv/status/1668940662060863489?s=19

[ad_orientem]

https://twitter.com/StarskyUA/status/1669344350072098816?s=19

[jeremyp]

https://twitter.com/StarskyUA/status/1669344350072098816?s=19

Lots of replies saying the Tweets are faked. Is there any way to verify the statement allegedly made by the 205th motorised division?

[ad_orientem]

Lots of replies saying the Tweets are faked. Is there any way to verify the statement allegedly made by the 205th motorised division?

I don't know. Jay in Kyiv and Operator Starsky are usually pretty reliable though.

[Spud]

Your memory is very short.

Ukraine spent a lot of time last year shelling the Dnipro crossings in Kherson because there were Russian soldiers on the North bank whose supplies Ukraine wanted to deny. They shelled a bridge next to the dam but they scrupulously avoided shelling the dam itself because they knew it would be a catastrophe. Why would they choose to do it now when there are no Russian soldiers on the North side of the river and they might want to cross it themselves?

Not that short - I mentioned this earlier. The Washington Post (slightly more reliable than 'Jay on Twitter', maybe?) ran an article on December 29 2022; here is a quote from it:

"Kovalchuk considered flooding the river. The Ukrainians, he said, even conducted a test strike with a HIMARS launcher on one of the floodgates at the Nova Kakhovka dam, making three holes in the metal to see if the Dnieper’s water could be raised enough to stymie Russian crossings but not flood nearby villages.

The test was a success, Kovalchuk said, but the step remained a last resort. He held off."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2022/12/29/ukraine-offensive-kharkiv-kherson-donetsk/

I don't know if this is referring to the holes made in the road bridge next to the dam or as it says, to the floodgate itself. So I don't know if that test strike damaged the floodgate. But what we can learn is that they would have been willing to damage the dam to a such an extent  that the river would become a lot wider, in the event that they had no other way to defeat the Russians on the West bank in Kherson. So we can't rule out the possibility that they would, in certain circumstances, deliberately target the dam with the intention of causing damage to it.

Edit: but just as the Russians would be unlikely to deliberately flood their own defences downstream, I guess the Ukrainians would also be unlikely to flood their own positions on the islands in the river.
One other thing we should establish is whether the source in the Washington Post's claim that they damaged the floodgate should be taken to mean the actual floodgate. If it was damaged, this could explain why the Russians apparently had difficulty opening it back in May. It might also support the accidental breach theory

[Outrider]

I don't know if this is referring to the holes made in the road bridge next to the dam or as it says, to the floodgate itself. So I don't know if that test strike damaged the floodgate. But what we can learn is that they would have been willing to damage the dam to a such an extent  that the river would become a lot wider, in the event that they had no other way to defeat the Russians on the East bank in Kherson. So we can't rule out the possibility that they would, in certain circumstances, deliberately target the dam with the intention of causing damage to it.

And are any of those circumstances in play currently? No. The only operation that benefits from the flooding in any way is the illegally invading Russians.

Edit: but just as the Russians would be unlikely to deliberately flood their own defences downstream, I guess the Ukrainians would also be unlikely to flood their own positions on the islands in the river.

Nonsense. The Russians have been prepared to throw away people since their invasion began - they've upgraded poorly equipped and ill-disciplined conscripts and ex-convicts led by corrupt officers with water that can't disobey or run away.

One other thing we should establish is whether the source in the Washington Post's claim that they damaged the floodgate should be taken to mean the actual floodgate. If it was damaged, this could explain why the Russians apparently had difficulty opening it back in May. It might also support the accidental breach theory.

The visible mine damage, coupled with the previous claims by the Russians that they'd mined the dam does not support the 'accidental breach' theory.

O.

[ad_orientem]

RuSSians are not only barbarians but they're also incredibly dumb. On the day the African delegation (including ruSSia ally, the South African president) arrived in Kyiv to present their peace proposal, the ruSSian terrorists decided to launch a missile attack on Kyiv. You couldn't really make it up.

https://twitter.com/United24media/status/1669628839796801536?s=19

[Spud]

And are any of those circumstances in play currently? No. The only operation that benefits from the flooding in any way is the illegally invading Russians.

Not sure.

Nonsense. The Russians have been prepared to throw away people since their invasion began - they've upgraded poorly equipped and ill-disciplined conscripts and ex-convicts led by corrupt officers with water that can't disobey or run away.

Same for the Ukrainians. They lost 7000 soldiers since the counter-offensive started according to Russia.

The visible mine damage, coupled with the previous claims by the Russians that they'd mined the dam does not support the 'accidental breach' theory.

O.

What visible mine damage is that?
I think the claims were from Zelensky, without actual evidence, last year.

[Outrider]

Not sure.

I am.

Same for the Ukrainians. They lost 7000 soldiers since the counter-offensive started according to Russia.

And according to creditable sources it's less than that, but still not zero. There is a difference, though, between losing professional troops who are achieving something trying to reclaim towns from an occupying invasion force which has been stealing your children and throwing untrained, barely armed savages out without a coherent plan.

What visible mine damage is that?

The visible damage that four independent media organisations and the UN observers have looked at from three different drone footage sources who all concluded that the damage was consistent with explosions within the structure, not damage from an external source.

I think the claims were from Zelensky, without actual evidence, last year.

The claims were publicised by Zelensky, but came from Ukrainian dam-workers who escaped the area after the Russians occupied. Are the impartial, arguably not, but has their account been borne out by the evidence? Wholesale flooding of the Dnipro downstream of what used to be the dam suggests that, yes, they were telling the truth about the cultural, ethnic and infrastructure vandalism of the illegal invasion.

O.

[jeremyp]

Not sure.Same for the Ukrainians. They lost 7000 soldiers since the counter-offensive started according to Russia.

How quaint. Spud believes the Russian propaganda.

[Aruntraveller]

How quaint. Spud believes the Russian propaganda.

believes it?

I think he is writing it for Putin.

[ad_orientem]

How quaint. Spud believes the Russian propaganda.

He missed out the death stars in Ukrainian losses.

[Spud]

I am.

And according to creditable sources it's less than that, but still not zero. There is a difference, though, between losing professional troops who are achieving something trying to reclaim towns from an occupying invasion force which has been stealing your children and throwing untrained, barely armed savages out without a coherent plan.

The visible damage that four independent media organisations and the UN observers have looked at from three different drone footage sources who all concluded that the damage was consistent with explosions within the structure, not damage from an external source.


The claims were publicised by Zelensky, but came from Ukrainian dam-workers who escaped the area after the Russians occupied. Are the impartial, arguably not, but has their account been borne out by the evidence? Wholesale flooding of the Dnipro downstream of what used to be the dam suggests that, yes, they were telling the truth about the cultural, ethnic and infrastructure vandalism of the illegal invasion.

O.

Achieving what? They haven't reclaimed much territory, and yes they have admitted to significant losses. But of course they won't say anything that makes us question their war.

Whichever side is wisest will back down. Life is worth more than land.

[Outrider]

Achieving what?

This early it's difficult to say - there seems to be some minor reclamation of territory, but it's not clear if that's an accelerating clearing of the opposition or just a selected withdrawal by the Russian invaders.

They haven't reclaimed much territory, and yes they have admitted to significant losses.

They've admitted to losses. To anyone directly involved those losses are significant, of course, and Ukraine has less of those human resources to lose, but whether those losses are 'significant' we won't be able to tell until the action's completed and we see what they've achieved.

But of course they won't say anything that makes us question their war.

It's not their war, it's their country, it's their homes, it's their children. It's Putin's war. It's Russia's war.

Whichever side is wisest will back down. Life is worth more than land.

Tell Putin, he's the one killing his own people and Ukrainians for someone else's land. Not that it's just land, of course, it's about Putin being able to prop up his fundamentally corrupt nation by expansion just like the Romans did until they couldn't do it any more and their Empire collapsed.

O.

[Spud]

Tell Putin, he's the one killing his own people and Ukrainians for someone else's land.

Indeed, but we also need to point whoever is behind the Ukrainian policy of using lethal force against their enemy, to the teaching of Romans 12:17-21,

17Do not repay anyone evil for evil. Carefully consider what is right in the eyes of everybody. 18If it is possible on your part, live at peace with everyone.

19Do not avenge yourselves, beloved, but leave room for God’s wrath. For it is written: “Vengeance is Mine; I will repay, says the Lord.”b

20On the contrary,

“If your enemy is hungry, feed him;

if he is thirsty, give him a drink.

For in so doing,

you will heap burning coals on his head.”c

21Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.

[Aruntraveller]

Matthew 10:34 “Don’t imagine that I came to bring peace to the earth! I came not to bring peace, but a sword.”

Random quotes don't cut it.

[ad_orientem]

Indeed, but we also need to point whoever is behind the Ukrainian policy of using lethal force against their enemy, to the teaching of Romans 12:17-21,

17Do not repay anyone evil for evil. Carefully consider what is right in the eyes of everybody. 18If it is possible on your part, live at peace with everyone.

19Do not avenge yourselves, beloved, but leave room for God’s wrath. For it is written: “Vengeance is Mine; I will repay, says the Lord.”b

20On the contrary,

“If your enemy is hungry, feed him;

if he is thirsty, give him a drink.

For in so doing,

you will heap burning coals on his head.”c

21Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.

Wtf? Just when you thought Spud couldn't get any lower.

[Spud]

Matthew 10:34 “Don’t imagine that I came to bring peace to the earth! I came not to bring peace, but a sword.”

Random quotes don't cut it.

Jesus didn't come to make people kill their family members. I'd say the 'sword' refers to division - which is how Luke words it.

[Aruntraveller]

“You will hear of wars and rumors of wars, but see to it that you are not alarmed. Such things must happen, but the end is still to come.

God seems convinced wars are necessary.

All over the place on this issue for such an enlightened being.

[ad_orientem]

Wtf? Just when you thought Spud couldn't get any lower.

Sorry, Spud, I was too tame. You're Moderator: content removed and a genocide supporter. Fuck off!

[ad_orientem]

One more reason we should have no sympathy for ruSSians and why ruSSians being eaten by sharks is based AF.

https://archive.is/F1mbq

[Spud]

God seems convinced wars are necessary.

All over the place on this issue for such an enlightened being.

Self defense can be necessary, Luke 22:36. In this case the people of Donbass are the victims. They have the right to self defense. If Ukraine stops taking weapons from NATO the war can end.

[Aruntraveller]

Self defense can be necessary, Luke 22:36. In this case the people of Donbass are the victims. They have the right to self defense. If Ukraine stops taking weapons from NATO the war can end.

Away with the fairies.

When I read your posts I sometimes think you'd agree with Russia invading the UK because we enjoy Chicken Kiev and the term offends Putin.

You are one weird guy.