(Thread IKs:
fatherboxx)
|
Supposed secondary explosions at the dam. I have no idea how accurate this video is. Link of video.
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2023 18:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 12:16 |
|
|
Wibla posted:Very interesting timing on that release I guess someone could see it that way. I think my own personal take would be that necessarily assuming that the Russians did something is not necessarily as clear as it might have been or it makes me think I should be more aware of what the Ukrainians are willing to do and risk to survive. I should stay on guard of my own assumptions. Invariably, there is so much going on that we will not and cannot know. Initially, I thought the pipe line would certainly be more linked to Russian action and might have been tempted to think the same with the dam today. Now, I feel like it could be the Russians ended the dam or that the Ukrainians have a calculus that they think this is the best move for them. More generally to the leak itself, I think also that we still don’t know how much documentation was released in the discord link and it will take time for the media to consume and report. Could WaPo accelerated this story because of the dam actions today? Certainly. It would make sense to highlight parallels. But I’m not ruling out that it was serendipitous either. As we have seen in this war, not everything is 4d chess. I think we’ll continue to see more documentation of the leak continue to come out regardless of what is happening on a particular day of the war.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2023 18:54
|
|
Almost like something needed a distraction, eh?
|
https://twitter.com/vonderleyen/status/1666115669149077504 the eu seems ready to go all in on this being a deliberate act by russia either way, good to hear humanitarian relief seems like it will be expedited, apparently the entire region around the dam is going to be having issues with their drinking water supply for the foreseeable future
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2023 19:00
|
|
|
Herstory Begins Now posted:can you link the source on this please? Sorry, bungled up the URL in the quote. https://www.garant.ru/news/1628124/
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2023 19:04
|
|
|
Might have been a deliberate attack. https://twitter.com/RALee85/status/1666130934373003279
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2023 19:11
|
|
|
Paladinus posted:Sorry, bungled up the URL in the quote. thanks!
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2023 19:19
|
|
|
OddObserver posted:Didn't Crimea spent 9 years without that "water supply"? During the interregnum it was done first with tanker ships and then with the train line over the bridge. Now the canal is gone, the bridge is badly damaged, and the ships are occupied also feeding fuel and ammunition to the troops that reinforced that front. Pulling those troops elsewhere might relive that a bit but its going to be a strain to hold it all at once. Local sources were strained with just the civilians and garrison. In the long run it makes Crimea indefensible, or at best very hard to defend, even if it might blunt a southern thrust. it also long term opens the line north of the dam.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2023 20:49
|
|
|
us ambassador to the un robert woods stated before an emergency security council meeting that the us does not have any specific evidence pointing to either ukraine or russia for the deliberate destruction of the dam, but believe that it's highly likely to have been russia based on who has what to gain and the negative impacts on the ukrainian people
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2023 22:51
|
|
|
Barrel Cactaur posted:During the interregnum it was done first with tanker ships and then with the train line over the bridge. Now the canal is gone, the bridge is badly damaged, and the ships are occupied also feeding fuel and ammunition to the troops that reinforced that front. Pulling those troops elsewhere might relive that a bit but its going to be a strain to hold it all at once. Local sources were strained with just the civilians and garrison. In the long run it makes Crimea indefensible, or at best very hard to defend, even if it might blunt a southern thrust. it also long term opens the line north of the dam. On the other hand, as I recently noted the Russians are claiming to have stockpiled two years worth of water in Crimea. Presumably the Russians are hoping that in two years' time the war will be settled one way or another and they'll be able to get more water under better conditions then. That is of course assuming that the Russians actually DO have two years worth of water and someone hasn't been selling bootleg bottled water out of the reservoirs or some silly poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2023 23:08
|
|
|
GhostofJohnMuir posted:us ambassador to the un robert woods stated before an emergency security council meeting that the us does not have any specific evidence pointing to either ukraine or russia for the deliberate destruction of the dam, but believe that it's highly likely to have been russia based on who has what to gain and the negative impacts on the ukrainian people All the usual idiots on Twitter going "hurr durr why Russia blow up their own dam" naturally don't know jack about history, specifically when the Soviets blew up the Dnipro dam to block the Nazis in 1941. Sure this move hurts them as well, even saw unconfirmed reports of Russian troops getting swept away by the waters, but that's never stopped Putin or the Russian state historically before. I get why such self-harm might be baffling to folks, but it makes so much less sense for Ukraine to do this to the land they want to retake. Russia deliberately doing this is objectively the only explanation.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2023 23:16
|
|
|
Tomn posted:On the other hand, as I recently noted the Russians are claiming to have stockpiled two years worth of water in Crimea. Presumably the Russians are hoping that in two years' time the war will be settled one way or another and they'll be able to get more water under better conditions then. That is of course assuming that the Russians actually DO have two years worth of water and someone hasn't been selling bootleg bottled water out of the reservoirs or some silly poo poo. very much worth nothing that if Ukraine recaptured the left bank it's not like Crimea was going to be getting more water anyways
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2023 23:18
|
|
|
Herstory Begins Now posted:very much worth nothing that if Ukraine recaptured the left bank it's not like Crimea was going to be getting more water anyways Well, at least not until Ukraine can take it back. Which is still a tall order but Russia going full scorched-earth on this key piece of infrastructure I'd say indicates they are very concerned about exactly that. Speaking of, these photos show the progress of destruction by water after the initial breach: https://twitter.com/GeoConfirmed/status/1666080545518804993?s=20 There was also a vid somewhere of a secondary explosion near the south bank behind the dam, but it is a warzone so could have been regular shelling and not additional sabotage.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2023 00:01
|
|
|
I really highly doubt that Ukraine would pull something like this. There is too much civilian damage. I've been watching a constant stream of videos all day from Ukrainian civilians in waste-deep water trying to rescue pets and babushkas. "Best" case scenario, Russia neglected to care for the dam and it broke due to neglect. Worst case scenario, Russia blew it with explosives. We'll only find out if there is posting about Russian military losses on the left bank. Anecdotal stories don't really count, as they can be embellished or made up for propaganda. Once Z-bloggers start lamenting the losses of the 69420th motor division in the flood, we'll know it was a neglect/accident thing. If there's very little confirmation of Russian losses, then they likely pulled out and then blew it on purpose.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2023 00:23
|
|
|
Orthanc6 posted:All the usual idiots on Twitter going "hurr durr why Russia blow up their own dam" naturally don't know jack about history, specifically when the Soviets blew up the Dnipro dam to block the Nazis in 1941. Sure this move hurts them as well, even saw unconfirmed reports of Russian troops getting swept away by the waters, but that's never stopped Putin or the Russian state historically before. I get why such self-harm might be baffling to folks, but it makes so much less sense for Ukraine to do this to the land they want to retake. Russia deliberately doing this is objectively the only explanation.. Edit: Denmark (but maybe just Churchill?) deliberately destroyed their own dam. I think I hallucinated the rest of that Vaginaface fucked around with this message at 00:37 on Jun 7, 2023 |
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2023 00:28
|
|
|
Vaginaface posted:
I still can't parse this, what dam are you talking about?
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2023 00:52
|
|
|
Vaginaface posted:
I think you're referring to the Belgians opening their canal locks in October 1914, at the start of the First World War.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2023 00:56
|
|
|
Vaginaface posted:
Denmark doesn't have those kind of dam's and wasn't saved in WW2 by any such actions. Denmark was invaded in the morning of the 9th of April and surrendered a few hours later and spend the rest of the war occupied by the nazis, so certainly not saved. You might be thinking of Norway, though it was for completely different reasons and happened after they were occupied. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norwegian_heavy_water_sabotage
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2023 01:04
|
|
|
The Soviets blew up the Dniepr dam to slow the Nazi advance. Looks like the Russians are going for that again. E: that strategy to delay advance, not that the Ukrainians are nazis in case there’s any doubt.
Delthalaz fucked around with this message at 01:21 on Jun 7, 2023 |
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2023 01:18
|
|
|
Blowing up your own dams as a defensive measure is something that's been practiced ever since dams were a thing - it's a long-standing tradition in China for instance from ancient times straight through to WW2 when Chiang Kai Shek flooded the Yellow River to stop the Japanese. The Dutch also made extensive use of deliberate flooding in war throughout their history - unsurprising given their geography. It's frequently effective but rarely something you do if you can avoid it given the serious and inevitable long-term consequences and human cost. Generally it's something you resort to when you figure that the consequences of not flooding the dams would be worse. It does become rather more attractive as a defensive measure if it's not actually YOUR dam you're blowing up and you don't really care that much about the economic consequences.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2023 01:27
|
|
|
Tomn posted:Blowing up your own dams as a defensive measure is something that's been practiced ever since dams were a thing - it's a long-standing tradition in China for instance from ancient times straight through to WW2 when Chiang Kai Shek flooded the Yellow River to stop the Japanese. The Dutch also made extensive use of deliberate flooding in war throughout their history - unsurprising given their geography. It's frequently effective but rarely something you do if you can avoid it given the serious and inevitable long-term consequences and human cost. Generally it's something you resort to when you figure that the consequences of not flooding the dams would be worse. How much defense are they actually getting from it, though? Ukraine wasn't going to attack across the Dnipro, and blowing the dam won't slow them down if they're going for Melitopol from Zaporizhzhia. It's just vandalism that Ukraine has to clean up.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2023 01:31
|
|
|
Comstar posted:If Russia had not invaded, the Dam would be there. This bears repeating. gently caress Putin, and gently caress Russia. Any explosion that blows out windows 80km away would be tens of thousands of kilos of TNT. I've heard 10,000 pounds of explosives go off when I was 15km away. It's loud as gently caress but didn't know break any windows. cant cook creole bream posted:While I don't disagree, this is a weak argument. You could just as well argue that the dam only broke because Ukraine didn't immediately surrender. You're making a false dichotomy. Ukraine is not responsible for the destruction of its land and killing of its people because it chose to defend itself. Russia, the country that actually instigated the use of deadly force to impose it's will upon a sovereign country, bears that responsibility.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2023 01:35
|
|
|
Deteriorata posted:How much defense are they actually getting from it, though? Ukraine wasn't going to attack across the Dnipro, and blowing the dam won't slow them down if they're going for Melitopol from Zaporizhzhia. Worse than vandalism, it will likely destroy irrigation to more than two oblasts,.affecting agricultural output even after the war.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2023 01:44
|
|
|
Deteriorata posted:How much defense are they actually getting from it, though? Ukraine wasn't going to attack across the Dnipro, and blowing the dam won't slow them down if they're going for Melitopol from Zaporizhzhia. It didn't have to be a full-on attack across the Dnipr. If I was the UKR commander and planning for an offensive somewhere else, I'd still put a few hundred SoF teams on the islands and marshes around the lower Dnipr to do as much damage to the troops in sight to hold them there during the real attack. That area must have also been an excellent entry point for covert teams since they recaptured Kherson. I'd expect some russian idiot tried to flush the Ucrainians out in winter with opening the gates; it didn't work; and now tried to blow "a little bit of the dam", maybe to release 15-20% of the water all in one go to wash the area of pesky saboteurs. It didn't work out the way they wanted.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2023 02:01
|
|
|
Ynglaur posted:Any explosion that blows out windows 80km away would be tens of thousands of kilos of TNT. I've heard 10,000 pounds of explosives go off when I was 15km away. It's loud as gently caress but didn't know break any windows.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2023 05:43
|
|
|
Tomn posted:On the other hand, as I recently noted the Russians are claiming to have stockpiled two years worth of water in Crimea. Presumably the Russians are hoping that in two years' time the war will be settled one way or another and they'll be able to get more water under better conditions then. That is of course assuming that the Russians actually DO have two years worth of water and someone hasn't been selling bootleg bottled water out of the reservoirs or some silly poo poo. Two years of water very much depends on what you include as supplied. For a hard rationing, that takes ~3-6 gallons a day including food preparation, for 3 million people (an extreme estimate but you want padding), 730 days. 6,570,000,000 gallons for a rough estimate. that's not total unrealistic, you would expect a 1x5 mile lake to hold about that volume. you can see small lakes and assume 30% supplementation by wells, this is entirely realistic going to immediate siege rationing. The more you include the more water you need. Washing and basic sanitation bumps up usage by an order of magnitude. 65 gallons per day for residential usage (Still roughly possible but its a STRETCH, based on visible sources your 5% reservoir and severely taxing the wells, and hoping for literally 100%+ replenishment). Per capita maximal usage is about 1000 gallons per person including agriculture and industry. That was the reservoir that just got destroyed, you don't have that kind of reserve in Crimea, you would see it in satellite photos. It would be 10 miles wide and 50 miles long.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2023 05:54
|
|
|
Reporting from Ukraine proposed a theory about the dam. Basically the Russians wanted to prevent Ukrainians from launching attacks in the Kherson direction because that would pull away troops from the main assault. So they decided to flood the islands in the middle of the river. Only they hosed it up. Badly. https://youtu.be/RQbQXUxfhGM (disregard the clickbait thumbnail, his videos always have those but the content isn't sensational like that.)
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2023 07:34
|
|
|
Barrel Cactaur posted:Two years of water very much depends on what you include as supplied. For a hard rationing, that takes ~3-6 gallons a day including food preparation, for 3 million people (an extreme estimate but you want padding), 730 days. 6,570,000,000 gallons for a rough estimate. that's not total unrealistic, you would expect a 1x5 mile lake to hold about that volume. you can see small lakes and assume 30% supplementation by wells, this is entirely realistic going to immediate siege rationing. Crimea's natural water supply without the canal is like 430 million cubic meters in a drought year, which if my math is right is something like 100 gallons per person per day for that same 3 million figure. I don't know about Ukraine, but that's only a little below typical American residential usage. The canal, (including the reservoirs filled by it) is not necessary to sustain the Crimean people. It is necessary to sustain Crimean factories and rice farms and so on. Which are important for keeping the Crimean economy going and making it an attractive place to live and an attractive place for a country to control, but all the same if the Crimean people are going without water it will be a policy choice rather than a mechanical necessity.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2023 08:42
|
|
|
Tomn posted:On the other hand, as I recently noted the Russians are claiming to have stockpiled two years worth of water in Crimea. If that's an unofficial claim, then crimea probably has less than six months water. If it's an official claim, probably less than three.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2023 08:58
|
|
|
Household water usage is insignificant compared to agricultural usage. Agricultural water rights are politically important. A water supply for agriculture on Crimea was undoubtedly one of the Russian Government's reasons for invading Ukraine. Maybe it wasn't high on a list of reasons to invade, but it was there. The Russian government has been aggressively dumping capital into desalination plants on Crimea. It is not cheap and has serious environmental effects. Not having access to this water is going to have serious financial implications for the russian government if continue to control and occupy Crimea. In my opinion, for the Russian Government to say 'gently caress it let's blow this piece of poo poo up' signals that they are flailing or scrambling to cut losses.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2023 10:11
|
|
|
Chill Monster posted:Household water usage is insignificant compared to agricultural usage. In Ukraine specifically? Because that's absolutely not true for a lot of countries.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2023 10:45
|
|
|
TheRat posted:In Ukraine specifically? Because that's absolutely not true for a lot of countries. I don't know if it varies a lot by climate or population density or the economic mix of the country, but the UK uses 5% for households, 5% for misc industry and 90% for agriculture.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2023 10:49
|
|
|
spankmeister posted:Reporting from Ukraine proposed a theory about the dam. Basically the Russians wanted to prevent Ukrainians from launching attacks in the Kherson direction because that would pull away troops from the main assault. So they decided to flood the islands in the middle of the river. Only they hosed it up. Badly. I don't know. If that had been the intent, they could probably have achieved it by opening more sluice gates, no?
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2023 11:13
|
|
|
According to World Bank (*), Europe + Central Asia in 2014 had a roughly 1/3 split between domestic, industry and agriculture.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2023 11:14
|
|
|
TheRat posted:In Ukraine specifically? Because that's absolutely not true for a lot of countries. High income countries are much lower, but most of that difference is water going to industrial usages instead. In all cases, household water consumption is relatively a minor portion. I am not sure I would call it insignificant, but people do vastly overestimate how much people use personally compared to industrially/agriculturally. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2023 11:17
|
|
|
Hannibal Rex posted:I don't know. If that had been the intent, they could probably have achieved it by opening more sluice gates, no? Yeah, if you're going for plausible deniability, blowing a big hole in the dam you control with explosives seems like the least plausibly deniable option. It does seem like a criminally reckless and spiteful approach that does the most damage to the area and requires the least thinking/planning to pull off, though, which is pretty in line with Russian activities in Ukraine.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2023 13:46
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/Archer83Able/status/1666433131543511040
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2023 15:48
|
|
|
Chill Monster posted:Not having access to this water is going to have serious financial implications for the russian government if continue to control and occupy Crimea. i mean do we think Putin had a long thoughtful rumination on whether to approve blowing it up after consulting with advisors across the government on the long-term implications of that action or do we think some general said "yo we could blow this up and impede Ukrainian attacks" and Putin was like "YOLO gently caress it" without consulting Nabiulina or Minselkhoz in the slightest like if he were the sort of person nowadays to take the former approach i don't think we'd be in this situation in the first place
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2023 16:48
|
|
|
Kofman with a surprising take but as always I'd trust him here https://twitter.com/KofmanMichael/status/1666477698607087616?t=nuC9VRz7agilJxVYlzBLYg&s=19
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2023 17:53
|
|
|
This article does a pretty good job summing up the water situation in Crimea. https://storymaps.arcgis.com/stories/24d9bf858143449fa30fa6db4cd6e48a Agriculture uses about 84% of the the water in Crimea. Insignificant probably wasn't the correct term to describe household water usage, but you get my point. Access to this water is so important that I imagine Putin to be utterly furious over losing it, especially after briefly regaining it. I think it is most likely that the dam failing/being destroyed was not planned by either side, and was actually an accident/result of earlier damage done to the dam. It's also entirely plausible that the Russian army blew up the dam intentionally, but if so, it was likely some low ranking idiot acting quickly and not thinking about the consequences, and his head will be rolling soon Chill Monster fucked around with this message at 18:09 on Jun 7, 2023 |
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2023 18:01
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 12:16 |
|
|
Chill Monster posted:This article does a pretty good job summing up the water situation in Crimea. It could also mean that the Russians are willing to trade the long term disruption of water supplies to Crimea for the potential short term disruption to Ukraine. Or that the Russians don't think they can hold Crimea and are going scorched earth.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2023 18:21
|
|