Really shows what Russia actually thinks about the supposedly annexed territories on the East of the Dnipro. The worst of the flooding is in regions that Russia claims are part of their own country.
I do wonder whether the dam was booby trapped and it either went off on its own or UA were trying to cross and it went off.
Just seems an odd thing to do as there doesn't seem to be an obvious strategic advantage for either side.
Yes, booby trap enemy infrastructure for the Lols, but set it off on purpose? /shrug.
It will make Ukraines counter offensive much harder.I do wonder whether the dam was booby trapped and it either went off on its own or UA were trying to cross and it went off.
Just seems an odd thing to do as there doesn't seem to be an obvious strategic advantage for either side.
Yes, booby trap enemy infrastructure for the Lols, but set it off on purpose? /shrug.
*Zelenskiy: Russian Forces Blew Up Kakhovka Hydroelectric Power Station Overnight From Inside
How anyone can still support Russia at this stage is beyond me.
If the increasing rumours that the counter offensive has started are true, then flooding the river as a barrier is strategic
Have Russia admitted it was them who blew it up? i would be v surprised if they did and until they do i imagine those who support Russia with blame Ukraine and vice versa.How anyone can still support Russia at this stage is beyond me.
How?
All evidence suggests the offensive is to the East, this is going to effect everything West. Crossing the Dnipro near Kherson always seems a big ask for the Ukraine armed forces.
Have Russia admitted it was them who blew it up? i would be v surprised if they did and until they do i imagine those who support Russia with blame Ukraine and vice versa.
this is showing imo the positives and negatives of nuclear deterrent. Yes it is stopping all out world war (for now at least) but OTOH Russia can pretty much do what ever the hell they please and the west is powerless to stop them.
i wonder where Russia will draw the line.......? limited localised tactical nuclear weapons against "military targets"? it would not surprise me.
i hope you are right..... what a mess!. i will google and check out the video you suggest, thanksNot really tbh, if you've not watched that Perun video on the Escalation Ladder then it's worth it. He mirrored some of my thoughts over the effectiveness and willingness to use the nuclear deterrant and it's not all that likely over this conflict.
Don't forget, Russia was a nuclear power in the 70's/80's when they invaded Afghanistan, and the US did the same there, openly supplied the Afghans with enough military support that the nuclear backed oppressor was defeated and left the country and that was in the middle of the cold war when nuclear weapons seemed more likely to be used than now.
The cost of using the nuclear escalation isn't worth it to the Russians especially since this conflict isn't leading to a direct existential threat for Russia (well, not by the offensive actions of Ukraine and it's supporters)
Russia will never admit to anything but their the only ones in a position to take such an action. Most likely they rigged up the dam to explode while they were running away from the right bank of the river just incase the Ukrainians followed them across.Have Russia admitted it was them who blew it up? i would be v surprised if they did and until they do i imagine those who support Russia with blame Ukraine and vice versa.
it would not surprise me that much if it was a botch as well... not that Russia would ever admit it but i could imagine a scenario where they put in the explosives as a contingency..... which then accidentally got set off.
this is showing imo the positives and negatives of nuclear deterrent. Yes it is stopping all out world war (for now at least) but OTOH Russia can pretty much do what ever the hell they please and the west is powerless to stop them.
i wonder where Russia will draw the line.......? limited localised tactical nuclear weapons against "military targets"? it would not surprise me.