Ukraine Invasion - Please do not post videos showing attacks/similar

Status
Not open for further replies.
Sankari said:
The video shows an explosion from the dam itself; there's no sign of a missile or artillery attack.
Click to expand...
its an old video from 2022

current version is that construction failed from accumulated damage of many previous shellings
explains how the situation and timing doesn't really make sense to either side
 
bigmike20vt said:
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.
Click to expand...

I think more likely it was Russia than Ukraine.

Pros
Russia holds the site, so has opportunity now
Ukraine apparently "punished" for offensive early on
Likely restricts Ukrainian mobility
No loss for Russia if they are losing that land anyway
Long-term strategic problem and cost for ukraine
Flooding causes civilian pain for Ukraine

Cons
Affects zaporizhya plant, which Russia hold
Affects water supply to Crimea
Cost to Russia if they retake that land in future
 
bigmike20vt said:
i hope you are right..... what a mess!. i will google and check out the video you suggest, thanks
Click to expand...

There's no guarantees as not everyone is a rational actor at all times, but the chances at the moment of a widespread nuclear exchange over this conflict are currently pretty small, hence why we are now reaching the end of our own "military supply" escalation ladder ie: there's not much more to give after the 4th Gen fighter planes.

The video is here to save you searching :)

 
bigmike20vt said:
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.
Click to expand...

This argument is way more in depth than this statement intimates. The worldwide political consequences of Russia using any form of nuclear weapon on a non nuclear power, and the precedent it sets cannot be overstated.

The consequences wouldn't just come from the West either. We have already heard that China hasn't been too keen on the nuclear sabre rattling, while the West is reported to have told Russia there would be a severe conventional response to such actions. There has to be a consequence or any nuclear power can wander into another country and do as they please.
 
Mercenary Keyboard Warrior said:
Russia can move a load of forces from the South more Easterly since they can probably assume its going to be difficult for Ukraine to try to capture the south of Kherson now.
Click to expand...
Not sure the total number of forces Russia had in Kherson but looking at all the open source data it looks like a few thousand at most. A lot of troops that fled Kherson have been redeployed to reinforce Lhasank, others sent in Vuldahadar, what's left is looks like a screening force to counter any Ukrainian crossings to the left bank of the Dnipro. Whatever is left I can't see it being enough to make much of a difference at a strategic level.
 
Okay so I might just be thick, but people are saying it will make crossing the river more difficult, but once the dam is empty, won't the flooding downstream subside? The only long lasting effect would be lower river levels upstream, which might help one side or the other on an offensive?
 
potatolord said:
Cons
Affects zaporizhya plant, which Russia hold
Affects water supply to Crimea
Cost to Russia if they retake that land in future
Click to expand...
Viewing through a western lens. To know Russia you have to think like a Russian.

Affects zaporizhya plant, which Russia hold
Russian Mentality: If it melts it show the West we mean business and all it cost us was a bit of contaminated land a handful of troops that we don't care about.

Affects water supply to Crimea
Russian Mentality: We can boat it in if required otherwise the people their can find their own water

Cost to Russia if they retake that land in future
Russian Mentality: The workers will pay for it out of their taxes
 
godinman said:
Okay so I might just be thick, but people are saying it will make crossing the river more difficult, but once the dam is empty, won't the flooding downstream subside? The only long lasting effect would be lower river levels upstream, which might help one side or the other on an offensive?
Click to expand...

Maybe everything is going to be silted up the eyeballs?
 
Freddie1980 said:
Viewing through a western lens. To know Russia you have to think like a Russian.

Affects zaporizhya plant, which Russia hold
Russian Mentality: If it melts it show the West we mean business and all it cost us was a bit of contaminated land a handful of troops that we don't care about.

Affects water supply to Crimea
Russian Mentality: We can boat it in if required otherwise the people their can find their own water

Cost to Russia if they retake that land in future
Russian Mentality: The workers will pay for it out of their taxes
Click to expand...


Yes, at the moment I don't think Putin cares about anything other than his own political future - he's probably told his generals to win at any cost.
 
Freddie1980 said:
Viewing through a western lens. To know Russia you have to think like a Russian.

Affects zaporizhya plant, which Russia hold
Russian Mentality: If it melts it show the West we mean business and all it cost us was a bit of contaminated land a handful of troops that we don't care about.

Affects water supply to Crimea
Russian Mentality: We can boat it in if required otherwise the people their can find their own water

Cost to Russia if they retake that land in future
Russian Mentality: The workers will pay for it out of their taxes
Click to expand...

Yep, I fully accept all of that, but those cons still exist.

Funnily enough, I'm one of the posters who have consistently pointed out the Russian mentality is different.
 
Last edited:
alec said:
its an old video from 2022

current version is that construction failed from accumulated damage of many previous shellings
explains how the situation and timing doesn't really make sense to either side
Click to expand...

Thanks, didn't realise that was an old video.
 
alec said:
its an old video from 2022

current version is that construction failed from accumulated damage of many previous shellings
explains how the situation and timing doesn't really make sense to either side
Click to expand...
If the Russians were not there in the first place there would be no previous shelling..
 
The Germans did a similiar thing during the Itatian campaign in Northern Italy during WW2 - the subsequent waterlogging of the land significantly slowed the advance of the allied forces.

For sure the Russians did this - it's inconceivable that the Ukranians would blow up one of the few (or only - I'm not too sure) river crossings in that area prior to their anticipated counter-attack (and hopefully, significant advance)
 
Freddie1980 said:
Not sure the total number of forces Russia had in Kherson but looking at all the open source data it looks like a few thousand at most. A lot of troops that fled Kherson have been redeployed to reinforce Lhasank, others sent in Vuldahadar, what's left is looks like a screening force to counter any Ukrainian crossings to the left bank of the Dnipro. Whatever is left I can't see it being enough to make much of a difference at a strategic level.
Click to expand...

Sorry my tenses probably confused here.
But the main point remains, shorter front line and its a front line thats 1) a lot closer to Russia itself, and 2) far less likely to be able to be cut off.
 
godinman said:
Okay so I might just be thick, but people are saying it will make crossing the river more difficult, but once the dam is empty, won't the flooding downstream subside? The only long lasting effect would be lower river levels upstream, which might help one side or the other on an offensive?
Click to expand...

Will be similar to pre dam going up.
Unless they were adding lots of water to the reservior then once the drain completes a normal level will be flowing downstream
 
For those wondering what the area will look like when the water level drops in a few days

The Germans drew maps of the area in 1943 after the last time the Russians blew the dam

You can see a large wet lands area will be uncovered and further north, the one big river will split into many smaller streams



 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom