• Shrike502@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Okay, I’ll bite. What, in your personal opinion, is the reason for Russian military do blow up the dam? What is the benefit?

      • vegai@lemmy.worldOP
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago
        1. To slow down Ukraine crossing Dnepr and attacking Crimea.

        2. General scorched earth strategy

        • FaceDeer@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          And I could easily flip the question around to OP. Why would Ukraine blow up their own dam, flooding their own territory and potentially crippling their own nuclear power plant? And making a counteroffensive across the Dnipro river that much harder?

          It’s not to deprive Crimea of water ahead of the counteroffensive, Crimea’s reservoirs are full right now so they’ve got a year’s worth in the tank. That’s about the only possible benefit I can think of that Ukraine might have got out of this, and even if it were so it would be a trivial benefit compared to the costs. Crimea’s water supply isn’t going to make a difference to the actual fight that’s about to happen there.

      • Senokir@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        My speculation as to why they would do such a horrible thing is because they know they can’t hold the position and want to cause as much damage as possible before they leave. Why would they bomb civilian targets like apartment buildings?

      • AngryAvocado@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        One thing would be that Russia has already set a precedent with a long campaign to attack and destroy civilian infrastructure (power and heat specifically) just before winter to cause bigger humanitarian crisis.

      • balerion@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        It’s… it’s a war zone, dude. What do you think happened? The dam just exploded all by itself?

          • Krause [he/him]@lemmygrad.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Fired a what at whom?

            https://apnews.com/article/russia-ukraine-g-20-summit-nato-biden-government-and-politics-c76bead57a11bc8397a30ee7bb06264e

            Poland, NATO say missile strike wasn’t a Russian attack

            PRZEWODOW, Poland (AP) — NATO member Poland and the head of the military alliance both said Wednesday that a missile strike in Polish farmland that killed two people appeared to be unintentional and was probably launched by air defenses in neighboring Ukraine.

            “Ukraine’s defense was launching their missiles in various directions, and it is highly probable that one of these missiles unfortunately fell on Polish territory,” said Polish President Andrzej Duda. “There is nothing, absolutely nothing, to suggest that it was an intentional attack on Poland.”

            Edit: downvoted for correcting misinfo quoting NATO and the Polish government, that’s pretty funny :P

            • lntl@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              1 year ago

              I mentioned Polen middle thing as similar to Nord steam thing: No Russian involvement

              • Krause [he/him]@lemmygrad.ml
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                I see, I read it as a serious claim of them doing it since it was a pretty common talking point a few months ago, sorry hehe :P

          • Krause [he/him]@lemmygrad.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            Putin is not a communist and no serious communist claims otherwise, being against NATO and the US’s proxy war against Russia does not mean that I support Putin and his horrible government.

  • lntl@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    Is Russia capable of this? Yes.

    Is Ukraine capable of this? Yes.

    Could the US or China have done this covertly? Yes.

    Which one really did it? We’ll never know, but think about why you believe what you do from a story such as the one linked.

    • FuzzyDunlop@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Which one really did it? We’ll never know

      Oh, we will, be reassured that we will find out eventually.

      Could the US or China have done this covertly? Yes.

      So this is what we find on Lemmy? A russian apologist as top post?

      First post and this is what I read. mmmkay “The USA or China could have destroyed this dam covertly”, right… The good old russian strategy of making you doubt everything you read. The goal of the russian propaganda is not to lie, the goal is to make you trust nothing, and specially not journalists.

      A quick look at your history and you constantly bash the Ukrainian resistance.

      • lntl@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        Yikes! I dunno about that. I’m just saying that we should think critically about what we hear the media.

        • FuzzyDunlop@slrpnk.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          “Think critically” you say? So where are your facts? Because thinking critically is all about the facts. You have brushed away all the facts and declared “We will never know”. So where are your facts?

          For example the russians had control of the dam, not the ukrainians. It’s just an example. What do you make of it? Come on, show us your “critical thinking”.

          • JillyB@beehaw.org
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            1 year ago

            The article was behind a paywall so apologies if this is covered:

            The dam sluices were Russian controlled but the dam is on the front line. It easily could have been attacked by either side. Both sides will see flooding but moreso the Russian side because it’s flatter. Breaching the dam will empty the canal providing much-needed water to Crimea. The lower water level upstream could threaten the safety of an offline nuclear plant upriver. I can’t tell which side controls the plant, so I’m not sure who that would affect more.

            Russia could have easily done this to distract Ukraine ahead of it’s counteroffensive and to make the river harder to cross. Also, Ukraine is likely more concerned about helping Ukrainians than Russia. But Ukraine could have done it for the reasons stated. We’re definitely still in the fog of war and it’s ignorant to assume we know all the details.

            • FuzzyDunlop@slrpnk.net
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              The dam sluices were Russian controlled but the dam is on the front line. It easily could have been attacked by either side.

              Wrong, you don’t destroy a dam just like that. It takes preparation and a lot of explosives at the right points. This is not a Micahel Bay movies we’re talking about.

              Both sides will see flooding but moreso the Russian side because it’s flatter. Breaching the dam will empty the canal providing much-needed water to Crimea. The lower water level upstream could threaten the safety of an offline nuclear plant upriver. I can’t tell which side controls the plant, so I’m not sure who that would affect more.

              And Putin doesn’t care about all of that. He has proven it again and again.

              I can’t tell which side controls the plant

              Russia, They took control of the plant, which is illegal, all nations around the globe know perfectly that no army should take control of a civilian power plant. Every other army is trained to carefully avoid the nuclear power plants. For some reason Russia keeps ignoring the international laws.

              But Ukraine could have done it for the reasons stated.

              Nonsense, but keep trying

              We’re definitely still in the fog of war and it’s ignorant to assume we know all the details.

              Textbook Russian propaganda here -> “Nobody knows for sure”… Well, keep telling you that, nobody believes you west of Russia.

              The dam was under Russian control and they sabotaged it to slow down the Ukrainian counter offensive. It’s fine, Ukraine knew it was a possibility and they have plans accounting for it.

            • PolandIsAStateOfMind@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              The lower water level upstream could threaten the safety of an offline nuclear plant upriver.

              The plant is in the cold shutdown right now, so while it still need some water as cooling, the amount is way lower than in case of normal work, so even in the worst case of complete dam destruction it will not be affected as it is now.

              I can’t tell which side controls the plant, so I’m not sure who that would affect more.

              Currently Russia.

              Russia could have easily done this to distract Ukraine ahead of it’s counteroffensive and to make the river harder to cross.

              Problem is, nobody proven that offensive is even real, not to mention that it was prepared there. Currently the most intensive fights are being waged somewhere else. Also Russia recently hit at least two or three huge UA ammo depots which probably really did hampered any preparations. And the battle of Bakhmut was colossal meat grinder where regardless if we agree on exact numbers, Ukraine lost some of their best soldiers remaining (exactly those who would spearhead the offensive) and Russia lost mercenaries.

              Both sides will see flooding but moreso the Russian side because it’s flatter.

              Also basically all Russian defensive positions along the river were destroyed, countering the guy above on similar level i could say UA surely hit it because it will make their attack much easier when the flood lessens.

              Finally, UA already had plans for exactly that action last year, as they admitted to WaPo:

    • tookmyname@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      I agree with your sentiment. But I’m usually more suspicious of the invading force trying to annex huge regions of a sovereign country. The US, Russia, China are all imperialist in their own way. Russia is the invading force. And none of this would be happening if Russia was not there.

  • CarlMarks@lemmygrad.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Love to see the immediate certainty that Russia did it based on… UA saying so. Impressive media criticism. I’m sure Iraq’s WMDs will turn up any day now, too.

    • FaceDeer@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      And also based on it making total sense for Russia to have done it, and no sense at all for anyone else to have done it.

      • CarlMarks@lemmygrad.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        It also “made sense” to most Americans that Iraq had WMDs. Colin Powell even said so, and he was greatly respected despite his participation in covering up the My Lai Massacre.

          • CarlMarks@lemmygrad.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Accusations of whataboutism are a thought-terminating cliché that, ironically, usually just help the accuser avoid engaging with a critical argument.

            The relevance here is that using “it sounds right to me” to decide whether a media narrative is true will lead a person to make big mistakes. And I am criticizing the general lack of media criticism in this thread.

    • tookmyname@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      FYI:

      The Bush administration, not US intelligence, claimed there were WMDs in Iraq. US intelligence agencies disputed the Bush administration claims repeatedly under oath. Not defending US intelligence in general, just clarifying the specifics of your example.

      • CarlMarks@lemmygrad.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        There was kabuki theater around this, so far as intelligence was involved. Mostly the official faces quietly did nothing. None actively contradicted the narrative. And of course, Tenet (the CIA director at the time) called it a “slam dunk”. Most of them were never under oath about any of this - it’s not like the US actually investigates or punishes its own war crimes or violations of the UN Charter. In reality, invading Iraq was a Washington consensus position to destabilize that country further after over a decade of civilian-targeted sanctions. Our liberal hero, Joe Biden, happily laid the propaganda on thick through his position as chair of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, bringing in hack after hack to testify and make the case via the media apparatus. Very few people in power even publicly questioned the case for a war of aggression, let alone did anything to oppose it, and media narratives were more or less lockstep with them despite record-setting protests. Actually, scratch that: there was a pervasive culture of anti-brown, islamophobic rhetoric that questioned the patriotism (read: right to belong) of anyone who pushed back. Ask anyone that looked vaguely South Asian or Arab at the time.

        Of course, I don’t want to gice the impression that possessing WMDs has ever been a consistent, valid, or legal justification for being a target of a war of aggression. The only country to use nukes on civilians was the US and I don’t see them invading themselves with a “coalition of the willing” since then, though they have certainly been very aggressive.

        But I digress. Of course US intel is going to be doing shady things, that’s not really debated. The thing I think is most relevant here is the parallel of a lack of media criticism and how easy it is to get folks, and particularly Americans, to absorb headlines and claims without looking any deeper into sourcing, into the history at hand, or even just for now, admitting that there is very little information or ways to get a good handle on the sequence of events, and it’s okay to not have a hot take. Opposing a jingoistic fervor is essential to opposing fascism.

        • tookmyname@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          It’s obviously a little bit of column A and column B. And my comment exaggerated a bit.

          But the deliberate mischaracterization, the cherry picking of reports, and omissions of evidence that Iraq no longer perused WMDs or biological weapons, the omissions of reports that Iraq had no relations with Al-Queda, etc, the act of calling reports with “low confidence” “certain,” etc etc we’re all done by the White House who wanted to go to war regardless of the so called intelligence. And that is what the bipartisan senate committee reports concluded in 2002, 2003, and 2008.

          I know Wikipedia is not a source, but it cites these reports and the testimony of many intelligence officials. I thinks it is clear who wanted to paint the Iraq invasion as unavoidable and who did not with respect to these two groups.

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Senate_Report_on_Iraqi_WMD_Intelligence?wprov=sfti1