[RD] Russia Invades Ukraine: War News Thread: Round 6

[red_elk]

Motive and opportunity all say Russia, by applying just the lightest touch of Occam's Razor.

And considering Russia has lied blatantly and egregiously about all manner of things for years – all of which retroactively bleedin' obvious – why on earth would you even begin to think anyone believes anything Russia says these days? Unless they also have ulterior motives for the convenience of officially believing in something Russia claims?

Considering Ukraine has interest to damage Russian defensive positions on the left bank and that the flooding will last only several days, it has motives.
Also considering that Ukraine has been caught blatantly lying multiple times during this conflict and that it apparently started counter-offensive which doesn't seem to go well, everything points to Ukraine as perpetrator.

For Russia, the only outcome is additional problems with defense and with water supply in Crimea.

 

[Senethro]

Considering Ukraine has interest to damage Russian defensive positions on the left bank and that the flooding will last only several days, it has motives.
Also considering that Ukraine has been caught blatantly lying multiple times during this conflict and that it apparently started counter-offensive which doesn't seem to go well, everything points to Ukraine as perpetrator.

For Russia, the only outcome is additional problems with defense and with water supply in Crimea.

10 years of self-imposed voluntary propagandist duty since flight MH17 and you're still using the line about everything actually being done by Ukraine.

Get some new material you clown.

 

[Bamspeedy]

For Russia, the only outcome is additional problems with defense and with water supply in Crimea.

So Ukraine has an easier chance to cross the river that is/just recently flooded? Interesting.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1666091520532029448

 

[red_elk]

So Ukraine has an easier chance to cross the river that is/just recently flooded? Interesting.

Yes, depending on whether Russia was prepared for this scenario or not, in couple of weeks crossing river may be easier for Ukraine than few days ago.
It comes down to how much work is required for Russia to rebuild positions, restore minefields, etc.

 

[Bamspeedy]

And it was just a coincidence water level at the dam was at 30 year high mark before it was destroyed.....

 

[keli]

Considering Ukraine has interest to damage Russian defensive positions on the left bank and that the flooding will last only several days, it has motives.
Also considering that Ukraine has been caught blatantly lying multiple times during this conflict and that it apparently started counter-offensive which doesn't seem to go well, everything points to Ukraine as perpetrator.

For Russia, the only outcome is additional problems with defense and with water supply in Crimea.

It will take days for the flood to subside. Then weeks of good weather for the ground to dry so heavy weaponry might be stationed there. Then you have to cross a river where infrastructure is completely destroyed and minefields are everywhere. Furthermore, why do you assume the river will be narrower after the excess water poured down?

Meanwhile, Russia was in complete control of the dam for a year.

Last time you said that the Ukrainian counter-offensive goes badly you lost Kherson. So better watch your back this time as well.

 

[LordofDread]

And it was just a coincidence water level at the dam was at 30 year high mark before it was destroyed.....

Or it's just a coincidence that this water also cools the NPP at Zaporizhzhia. I don't know about the water level, but better save a bit more, in case you need it during a dry summer.

Ukraine has started targeting this dam since over a year now. There is enough material around. It was one of only two possible passages for Russian troops over the Dnjepr. The other one was a bridge over the Dnjepr, but badly damaged. So naturally, Ukraine targeted this strategic passway since then.

Pro Selensky guys here should simply be happy now, since this gives him at least some strategic advantage. Instead of having to cross a reservoir/artificial lake, UA just can cross the river there now (as they did at other sites on the same river). And the Russian defensive lines in the area are flooded now. People have to get evacuated by Russia/regional government while the Russian Army has to adjust their now more defensive strategy.

If you think Ukraine would not destroy a dam that potentially harms civilians, in order to get a strategic advantage, Selensky has really done a good job on you.

 

[Gorbles]

Or it's just a coincidence that this water also cools the NPP at Zaporizhzhia. I don't know about the water level, but better save a bit more, in case you need it during a dry summer.

Ukraine has started targeting this dam since over a year now. There is enough material around. It was one of only two possible passages for Russian troops over the Dnjepr. The other one was a bridge over the Dnjepr, but badly damaged. So naturally, Ukraine targeted this strategic passway since then.

Pro Selensky guys here should simply be happy now, since this gives him at least some strategic advantage. Instead of having to cross a reservoir/artificial lake, UA just can cross the river there now (as they did at other sites on the same river). And the Russian defensive lines in the area are flooded now. People have to get evacuated by Russia/regional government while the Russian Army has to adjust their now more defensive strategy.

If you think Ukraine would not destroy a dam that potentially harms civilians, in order to get a strategic advantage, Selensky has really done a good job on you.

I don't think anybody is refusing to consider the possibility that Ukraine could theoretically have done it, if we examined this singular act completely devoid of anything approaching context. This is war, after all.

The problem is context. Russia were in control of the territory. A rough analysis has already been done on the payload required to break a dam of this size and strength. These two combined suggest it's a lot less likely than another, immediately-obvious explanation. While this logic is of course not infallible (what opinion could be), putting words into peoples' mouths is a far, far, far less convincing approach. But obviously one you thought had merit.

 

[Birdjaguar]

With the flood, Russia has shortened its necessary defensive line (by about 60 miles) for weeks if not months. this will allow it to pull troops from the area to shore up other places.

 

[LordofDread]

With the flood, Russia has shortened its necessary defensive line (by about 60 miles) for weeks if not months. this will allow it to pull troops from the area to shore up other places.

I have to take your word on this, and without knowing more, this could be a reason to destroy the dam. Still there is risk involved, for all I know Russian air defense could now be simply under water in the area and therefore make space for Ukrainian drone attacks. But I don't want to specualte over things I barely know. All I know is, that UA has targeted the dam before, because it was a strategic important "bridge" for the Russian army. And I don't condemn them for this. Russia would have done the same.

 

[saamohod]

Ukraine has started targeting this dam since over a year now.

The hell are you talking about?
Ukraine was targeting the road bridge that connected the two river banks when Russia was occupying the northern bank, in order to disrupt the Russian supplies. It paid off and Russians retreated across the river and blew up the bridge behind themselves. The dam was never targeted nor hit by Ukraine. Needless to say you can't harm the dam structure with the lightweight HIMARS rockets, unless you fire the whole US arsenal at it.

 

[Gedemon]

[...] and that it apparently started counter-offensive which doesn't seem to go well [...]

still no visual clues about that, except the video of a Ka-52 firing a missile at a tractor?

 

[Birdjaguar]

Benefits to Putin by destroying the dam:

• Destroys more Ukrainian major infrastructure while they are able to do easily
• Forces UA offensive to not attack from Kherson area and drive towards Crimea narrowing their opportunities
• Shortens Russian defensive lines by 60 miles
• Puts nuclear plant at risk to further destroy Ukrainian infrastructure
• Makes life for Ukrainians on the Russian side of the lower river more miserable and likely refugees

 

[Janskey]

This isn't really news, more like a reminder, but the Russian information warfare doctrine has been spelled out pretty clearly in an article by Yuri Kuleshkov and comrades in
“Информационно-психологическое противоборство в современных условиях: теория и практика” (Information-Psychological Warfare In Modern Conditions: Theory And
Practice), Vestnik Akademii Voyennykh Nauk No. 1 (46), 2014, p. 106. A pretty thorough analysis by Keir Giles (his books are also recommended) is available for free in English @ https://www.ndc.nato.int/news/news.php?icode=995

Among other things, this includes burying actually useful information in a flood of rubbish, repeating the same points over and over etc. Sound familiar?

This might be hard to understand for someone living farther away from Russia, but they're really not great neighbors for anyone, at least with their current government (and like-minded people). E.g. we in Finland are constantly harassed by GPS jamming near the border (https://yle.fi/a/74-20015779 ; https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/mar/09/finland-gps-disturbances-aircrafts-russia - not that it does any real harm), and it's been going on long before the war and our NATO application. Because this is what normal , I mean petty, countries do. Nothing or no-one is a small enough target for their pettiness, either.

 

[keli]

This isn't really news, more like a reminder, but the Russian information warfare doctrine has been spelled out pretty clearly in an article by Yuri Kuleshkov and comrades in
“Информационно-психологическое противоборство в современных условиях: теория и практика” (Information-Psychological Warfare In Modern Conditions: Theory And
Practice), Vestnik Akademii Voyennykh Nauk No. 1 (46), 2014, p. 106. A pretty thorough analysis by Keir Giles (his books are also recommended) is available for free in English @ https://www.ndc.nato.int/news/news.php?icode=995

Among other things, this includes burying actually useful information in a flood of rubbish, repeating the same points over and over etc. Sound familiar?

This might be hard to understand for someone living farther away from Russia, but they're really not great neighbors for anyone, at least with their current government (and like-minded people). E.g. we in Finland are constantly harassed by GPS jamming near the border (https://yle.fi/a/74-20015779 ; https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/mar/09/finland-gps-disturbances-aircrafts-russia - not that it does any real harm), and it's been going on long before the war and our NATO application. Because this is what normal , I mean petty, countries do. Nothing or no-one is a small enough target for their pettiness, either.

What’s actually fascinating is that Russian average citizens also take part in this flooding as evident in this thread.

 

[LordofDread]

The problem is context. Russia were in control of the territory. A rough analysis has already been done on the payload required to break a dam of this size and strength. These two combined suggest it's a lot less likely than another, immediately-obvious explanation. While this logic is of course not infallible (what opinion could be), putting words into peoples' mouths is a far, far, far less convincing approach. But obviously one you thought had merit.

That is the sort of thinking I do like. I don't know much about structural mechanics, but if we postulate that the dam has been damaged before, then there are, with a high probability, sites on the dam that are weaker than others. Those spots are most certainly known to the one in control - the only question remains if you can know these spots from some distance. So the necessary "payload" on a weak spot could be much lower than rough calculations would suggest in normal times.

The Russian news agency TASS reported that the sliders were destroyed during the fighting: (translated by google)

"At about 2 a.m., the Kakhovka hydroelectric power station was attacked several times by the Ukrainian Armed Forces, which led to the destruction of the sliders. As a result, the water began to drain uncontrollably from the reservoir. 14 out of 28 pillars of the power plant have been destroyed, and the collapse continues."

I don't trust Russian media neither, so this could be wrong or true. Maybe the pillars were destroyed because of the uncontrollable drain of water? This gives an enormeous pressure on those?

 

[Zardnaar]

I don't think Ukraine has any missiles xapable of blowing up the dam.

Kerchief Bridge something similar. It's really hard to blow up a bridge without aircraft dropping a large bomb.

Combination of required accuracy and big payload.

The can damage kerchief bridge with HIMARs but bringing it down requires large guided bomb. USAF could do it.

They struggled in Vietnam it's more a recent development last 30-40 years.

Wasn't a Russian bomber or any other bomber. No reports of missile strikes most of which couldn't do it.

More or less leaves explosives.

 

[Birdjaguar]

but if we postulate....

This is where your argument breaks down. By choosing any number of unsupported assumptions one can create scenarios that follow and seem sensible.

If we postulate that the Russian Army is the second most powerful arm in the world with the best leadership and training, then we will only need a week to conquer the Ukraine. Bad assumptions do not make what follows true.

 

[red_elk]

still no visual clues about that, except the video of a Ka-52 firing a missile at a tractor?

Not much. Several abandoned French-made tanks, 4 MRAP vehicles and absence of changes in territorial control.
Can understand why Ukraine needed distraction.

 

[LordofDread]

Benefits to Putin by destroying the dam:

• Destroys more Ukrainian major infrastructure while they are able to do easily
• Forces UA offensive to not attack from Kherson area and drive towards Crimea narrowing their opportunities
• Shortens Russian defensive lines by 60 miles
• Puts nuclear plant at risk to further destroy Ukrainian infrastructure
• Makes life for Ukrainians on the Russian side of the lower river more miserable and likely refugees

Benefits to Selenskyj by destroing the dam:

• Destroy more major infrastructure in order to deprive Russian military and civilians of electricity
• Enables UA to redeploy more troops to the main counter attack (Bachmut region and others), because the Kherson area does not need much defending for weeks or even months
• Shortens Ukrainian offensive/defensive lines by 60 miles, enabling them to concentrate their firepower
• Puts nuclear plant possibly at risk, so if it should get critical he can blame it on Russia
• Makes life for Ukrainians on the Russian side of the lower river more miserable and likely refugees
• Creating chaos and binding resources from local authorities and soldiers
• Getting more weapons and $ from the west, by blaming the destruction of the dam on Russia