Russia, US, Ukraine, and the Future

[Alastor]

A series of assumptions? Name them.
The 30km radius is accurate, but fine, lets double it. Did anything else exploded with such force during that night in that area?

It is accurate? Really? How do you know? Who independently verified it for you? Aside of course from the people that published it? This is obviously minor, but it does indicate a trend. Your inability to realize on your own how much you are assuming, is not a surprise in this context.

I dont have access to the RT site.

You can blame your anti-free speech leaders for that.

Right, 21 out of the 22 gates malfunctioned... and no one thought to shoot holes in the gates with a BMP or something like that.

You are making up absurd excuses.

Perhaps. Or perhaps the dam was in the middle of a warzone and not properly maintained. Perhaps the Russian personnel responsible for the dam, in their incompetence and cowardice, so typical of all things Russian, didn't evaluate the dam's condition accurately until it was too late. Do you like that interpretation more?

And no, I'm not making absurd excuses. I am asking questions. Question you can't answer and worse you don't care to answer. Because you think you already know what happened. So why bother.

[Laser101]

1) The flooding has a catastrophic effect on the surrounding Ukrainian villages
2) The Ukranians are the more "level-headed", competent strategists. Not that they aren't in great fear of a Russian victory, but they are better trained and have much better discipline and leadership. Why would they do this to the people they swore to defend for little to no military use?
3) It seems much more likely that this was the attempt of some Russian commander to present a quick success to their higher ups and the Russian public.
4) Russian strategists are generally more pressured to present some success, they are more desperate and they probably are very afraid of a Ukrainian counteroffensive. So they are generally much more inclined to do something rash and irrational.

Obviously, points 1) and 2) are the most substantiated, but of course there is a small chance Ukrainians would do something pointlessly destructive like this to themselves, because they suddenly panic even though they have even built up the confidence for a counteroffensive. I'd say the chance for that to be the case is very small, though, and I cannot help but feeling slightly grumpy about the disdainful pre-judgement of the situation against the Ukrainians. It's one thing to assume it was the Russian side, which is engaged in an act of aggressive warfare, even involving warcrimes, that has nothing but contempt for the notion of international law anyhow. To ascribe this to the Ukrainians themselves is an entirely different caliber.

It'd be much more believable that the Ukrainians were responsible if the victims were Russians, but they are not. For the Ukrainians to even consider an action like this in a case where their own people are affected would require a truly desperate situation, and it's nowhere near that point currently. So that leaves the Russians, who have considerably less attachment to the local population and a much more clear strategic motive (trying to delay Ukraine's offensive).

Although apparently some intercepted communications suggested that the Russians had intended to cause a 'scare' at the dam rather than collapse it outright.

[Kyriakos]

Clear war crimes like shelling civilians and destroying critical infrastructure incline me to support massive ongoing sanctions for Putins Russian, and even more measures if required.

There’s no question Ukraine is a dodgy East European mess but on every quantifiable level Russia has behaved worse than them, from invading under laughable pretexts (worse than the US in Iraq even, which was frankly awful) to the numerous offences against civilians and now this utter garbage.

Ukraine should be supported to destroy the invading army, and arussias ability to invade other states limited.

The the feeble propaganda about nuclear weapons has repeatedly proved a paper tiger(on par with the rest of Russian lies about this war, which make US and even Ukrainian propaganda sound reasonable by comparison): Putins desperate and reprehensible threats are yet another reason his regime should be booted hard and repeatedly.

This filthy war started under false pretexts and escalated at all points by a cruel and merciless criminal must be stopped by destroying Russian capacity to continue if necessary.

All other points aside, US can't even "regime-change" north Korea. What are you talking about with changing the government in Russia?

[Mithradates]

It is accurate? Really? How do you know? Who independently verified it for you? Aside of course from the people that published it? This is obviously minor, but it does indicate a trend. Your inability to realize on your own how much you are assuming, is not a surprise in this context.

I believe that it is accurate because Im confident that the Norwegians know what they are doing and they will rather not ruin their reputation by saying inaccuracies. Also I had it "independently verified it for me" by Russia, Im sure they had their people double check everything what the Norwegians said, if Russia could prove that the NORSAR data is false/inaccurate that would be a win for them, if they could prove it, they would.

A US official said that satellites equipped with infrared sensors detected a heat signature consistent with a major explosion just before the dam collapsed, so there is that too.

Perhaps. Or perhaps the dam was in the middle of a warzone and not properly maintained. Perhaps the Russian personnel responsible for the dam, in their incompetence and cowardice, so typical of all things Russian, didn't evaluate the dam's condition accurately until it was too late. Do you like that interpretation more?

No, the dam was blown up.

And no, I'm not making absurd excuses. I am asking questions. Question you can't answer and worse you don't care to answer. Because you think you already know what happened. So why bother.

Yeah, you quote the propaganda about how Ukraine was responsible for the record high water level and when I point out that Russia raised it by leaving the sluice gates closed you start coming up with things like "maybe they couldnt open them". Russia had all the means to open/force open the gates, they deliberately chose not to do so.

I have the feeling you just want to finally catch Ukraine red handed to prove something about how the MSM is lying, and you cant accept that Ukraine is the "good guy". Ukraine has to be "good", not just because that is the right thing to do, but because they need to be "good" and, what was it: "more caring and loving and cuddly teddy bears" because they have to be like that to keep the Western support.

[Alastor]

Yeah, you quote the propaganda about how Ukraine was responsible for the record high water level and when I point out that Russia raised it by leaving the sluice gates closed you start coming up with things like "maybe they couldnt open them". Russia had all the means to open/force open the gates, they deliberately chose not to do so.

I have the feeling you just want to finally catch Ukraine red handed to prove something about how the MSM is lying, and you cant accept that Ukraine is the "good guy". Ukraine has to be "good", not just because that is the right thing to do, but because they need to be "good" and, what was it: "more caring and loving and cuddly teddy bears" because they have to be like that to keep the Western support.

God forbid we consider what the other side has to say. The horror, the horror.

And no btw, I don't believe that proving sth like that is possible. So it's not my goal.

Now if you are quite done trying to clumsily psychoanalyze me, I will ask the main question again. If Russia blew up the dam. Why? And no btw, it can't be "for the lulz", it can't be because Putin is "literally Hitler" and it can't be because "they are just that evil man", none of that nonsense. I want to hear a coherent, rational reason why. One that makes sense.

Early on, one was presented. That Ukraine was in the process of invading across the Dnieper. That caught me by surprise, as I expected the offensive to be in Zaporizhzhia. But it would be a convincing motive if true. It turned out that reasoning was not correct, as Russia had heavily fortified their bank of the river, which is now flooded (benefitting Ukraine), and Ukraine was in the process of only occupying ill-defended islets before that, while launching a large-scale offensive across the river would probably be too costly for them to pursue. Rybar seems to have been right that they were simply harassing Russia's defenses in Kherson to distract them from Zaporizhzhia. That is corroborated when you consider that the Ukrainians did end up attacking in Zaporizhzhia shortly after and just as I initially expected. As everyone, including Russia, expected in fact. So why flood Kherson when there is no major offensive ongoing or even expected?

This showed to me that the motive presented did not compute. I'm still looking for one that does. When I find one, when I find a motive for Russia to have done this, a convincing motive, or even a less convincing motive but accompanied by irrefutable evidence, not belief, not speculation, evidence, then I'll be content to believe they did it. They are obviously not saints. Until then, I'm simply reminding folks, that neither are the Ukrainians.

------
EDIT:
On a somewhat related note, Zelensky has apparently stopped being coy and finally acknowledged what the rest of the world has known for a few days now.
Ukraine's "spring" offensive is underway:
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-65866880
Now let's see what happens.

[Coughdrop addict]

I have the feeling you just want to finally catch Ukraine red handed to prove something about how the MSM is lying, and you cant accept that Ukraine is the "good guy". Ukraine has to be "good", not just because that is the right thing to do, but because they need to be "good" and, what was it: "more caring and loving and cuddly teddy bears" because they have to be like that to keep the Western support.

The apologists have been instructed by Russian propaganda to never believe anything the western legitimate free press says, so they don't. They are so heavily brainwashed that it never occurs to them to wonder why they have been instructed not to do so, which is because it reports facts Putin would rather they not know.

[Laser101]

Yeah, you quote the propaganda about how Ukraine was responsible for the record high water level and when I point out that Russia raised it by leaving the sluice gates closed you start coming up with things like "maybe they couldnt open them". Russia had all the means to open/force open the gates, they deliberately chose not to do so.

I have the feeling you just want to finally catch Ukraine red handed to prove something about how the MSM is lying, and you cant accept that Ukraine is the "good guy". Ukraine has to be "good", not just because that is the right thing to do, but because they need to be "good" and, what was it: "more caring and loving and cuddly teddy bears" because they have to be like that to keep the Western support.

Honestly Western support is redundant on this point; if Zelensky were caught responsible for this his own people would probably string him up (well, perhaps not literally) and he's perfectly aware of that. Besides, it's not as if the US has ever cared about the morality of those it supports anyway as long as they serve American interests (which is pretty much everyone's approach anyway).

[Alastor]

Honestly Western support is redundant on this point; if Zelensky were caught responsible for this his own people would probably string him up (well, perhaps not literally) and he's perfectly aware of that. Besides, it's not as if the US has ever cared about the morality of those it supports anyway as long as they serve American interests (which is pretty much everyone's approach anyway).

He's also perfectly aware that he wouldn't be caught responsible, even if he was responsible. His spin machine would just spin up an excuse and pin it on the Russians. Likewise for Putin btw and blaming the Ukrainians. A factor people keep forgetting is that Russia has formally annexed those lands, as far as Russia is concerned, that land is Russian. I do agree with you though that Zelensky doesn't have much to fear in terms of losing western support over sth like this. Morality is not the point. As long as his army can keep on killing Russians and he remains a useful pawn he will have support. Well, unless sth unexpected happens and the US turns its attention elsewhere at least.

[Lord Oda Nobunaga]

I have an immensely hard time believing that the dam breaking was an accident. The timing was so perfect that it managed to halt the Kherson offensive. I mean if it was an accident it must have been an act of God.

[nhytgbvfeco2]

A factor people keep forgetting is that Russia has formally annexed those lands, as far as Russia is concerned, that land is Russian.

Which means that the Putinist regime now cares about the people living there just as much as the people in the rest of Muscovy, which is to say, not at all.

Meanwhile, according to Muscovite sources:

First line of defence is breached, lets see if the Muscovites learned defence in depth.

[Morticia Iunia Bruti]

Ah they try to cut off the front protusion west of Vuhledar, which has only few roads for russian supplies.

[Alastor]

The timing was so perfect that it managed to halt the Kherson offensive.

What Kherson offensive? Is the Ukrainian military that big and well equipped that it can conduct a major offensive in Zaporizhzhia, offensives across the Donetsk frontier AND at the same time an amphibian invasion/landing across a major river? If anything by flooding the river and destroying Russia's defenses there (apparently Russia's bank was lower in altitude and as such more vulnerable to flooding and as Ukrainian sources have claimed Russia suffered far greater losses because of this flood than they did) it makes them more vulnerable to future attacks when the waters recede.

[Morticia Iunia Bruti]

Which means that the Putinist regime now cares about the people living there just as much as the people in the rest of Muscovy, which is to say, not at all.

Meanwhile, according to Muscovite sources:

First line of defence is breached, lets see if the Muscovites learned defence in depth.

Fall of Blahodatne official confimed by Ukrainian military: liberated by 68. Jaeger Brigade

https://twitter.com/JimmySecUK/statu...26273798766595

[nhytgbvfeco2]

What Kherson offensive? Is the Ukrainian military that big and well equipped that it can conduct a major offensive in Zaporizhzhia, offensives across the Donetsk frontier AND at the same time an amphibian invasion/landing across a major river? If anything by flooding the river and destroying Russia's defenses there, it makes them more vulnerable to future attacks when the waters recede.

I know you're used to the standards of "super powers" such as Muscovy only being able to launch a "grand super counter-counter offensive" on literally 1 town at a time, and even then take the better part of the year to take it, but yes, Ukraine can launch multiple. Kherson and Kharkiv counter offensives also took place at the same time.
As for "what Kherson offensive", I've already shown you pro-Muscovite sources confirming the Ukranians had crossed the river.
No matter, Ukraine will win. Slava Ukraini!

[Alastor]

I know you're used to the standards of "super powers" such as Muscovy only being able to launch a "grand super counter-counter offensive" on literally 1 town at a time, and even then take the better part of the year to take it, but yes, Ukraine can launch multiple. Kherson and Kharkiv counter offensives also took place at the same time.
As for "what Kherson offensive", I've already shown you pro-Muscovite sources confirming the Ukranians had crossed the river.
No matter, Ukraine will win. Slava Ukraini!

Right. Ukraine has a larger and better equipped army than Russia does. Which is why Ukraine is holding like 20% of Russia and not the other way around and we are continuously arming and training the poor, unfortunate underdog Russia.

In your fervour to attack Russia, you are discrediting your own point. But what else is new?

PS And you have shown me pictures of Ukraine attacking a bunch of islets and marshes, where exactly was that grand offensive? I mean does Ukraine even have enough vessels to ferry their army across? Especially under artillery shelling? Were they in the process of building bridges? Those are all reasonable questions I'm sure you have great non-answers to. Finally, the waters of the river WILL recede if they haven't already. Now with Russia's defenses destroyed and them having to rush to fix them. If Ukraine wanted to invade the Kherson and had the means to do it how exactly did this stop them anyway? Need I remind you the Ukrainian claim that this "hurt the Russians"?

[Mithradates]

God forbid we consider what the other side has to say. The horror, the horror.

I listened to them, what they said turned out to be propaganda.

If Russia blew up the dam. Why? And no btw, it can't be "for the lulz", it can't be because Putin is "literally Hitler" and it can't be because "they are just that evil man", none of that nonsense. I want to hear a coherent, rational reason why. One that makes sense.

According to the intercepted call and the early Telegram messages the Russians goal was not to totally destroy the dam, only to create a controlled flood and use that as a "warning shot" to scare and blackmail the Ukrainians, the controlled flood would force the Ukrainian troops back from the islands and would prevent any future attacks through the river because the Russians would threaten to blow up the dam and flood everything for real. Even explains why they kept the gates closed, this way the water level downstream was kept lower so that the controlled flooding would be more dramatic and the possibility of unleashing a reservoir filled to the max on Kherson would have been much more threatening. Also Ukraine would have needed to evacuate everybody downstream just to be safe.
Russia could have achieved more or less everything that just happened but without actually flooding everything.
If everything had gone according to plan, as long as Russia would control the dam, they could prevent Ukraine to cross the potential flood zone indefinitely, and they could have moved their troops to the more important parts of the front.

Early on, one was presented. That Ukraine was in the process of invading across the Dnieper. That caught me by surprise, as I expected the offensive to be in Zaporizhzhia. But it would be a convincing motive if true. It turned out that reasoning was not correct, as Russia had heavily fortified their bank of the river...

After the Kharkiv counter offensive, I think the Russians became (rightly) paranoid about where the next Ukrainian attacks would take place.

[Alastor]

I listened to them, what they said turned out to be propaganda.

No you didn't. Because RT is banned where you are, like you said. That's one. Second propaganda is bidirectional, not unidirectional. Remember that.

According to the intercepted call and the early Telegram messages the Russians goal was not to totally destroy the dam, only to create a controlled flood and use that as a "warning shot" to scare and blackmail the Ukrainians, the controlled flood would force the Ukrainian troops back from the islands and would prevent any future attacks through the river because the Russians would threaten to blow up the dam and flood everything for real. Even explains why they kept the gates closed, this way the water level downstream was kept lower so that the controlled flooding would be more dramatic and the possibility of unleashing a reservoir filled to the max on Kherson would have been much more threatening. Also Ukraine would have needed to evacuate everybody downstream just to be safe.
Russia could have achieved more or less everything that just happened but without actually flooding everything.
If everything had gone according to plan, as long as Russia would control the dam, they could prevent Ukraine to cross the potential flood zone indefinitely, and they could have moved their troops to the more important parts of the front.

You said the dam was blown up. If this was the intention why did they blow up the dam? Do you have examples of controlled explosions being used to merely damage dams before? Has this tactic been employed somewhere?

After the Kharkiv counter offensive, I think the Russians became (rightly) paranoid about where the next Ukrainian attacks would take place.

So you believe Russia did it because they are afraid basically. Ok, if that's a convincing motive for you then good for you. You have your answer. It's not a convincing motive for me. Not by itself. And anyone who doesn't accept your premise that Russians are cowards as the truth wouldn't find it convincing either.

[nhytgbvfeco2]

Right. Ukraine has a larger and better equipped army than Russia does.

Larger? no. Better equipped? At this point, yes.

Which is why Ukraine is holding like 20% of Russia and not the other way around and we are continuously arming and training the poor, unfortunate underdog Russia.

Ukraine doesn't seek to hold any Muscovite territory. Muscovy, the agressor that invaded to pursue its imperialist ambitions, holds Ukranian territory because it had the advantage at the early stages of the war, an advantage it has steadily lost.

In your fervour to attack Russia, you are discrediting your own point. But what else is new?

In what way? lol. I've stated facts. I'm sorry your feelings are hurt because the nation you so idolise sucks.

PS And you have shown me pictures of Ukraine attacking a bunch of islets and marshes, where exactly was that grand offensive? I mean does Ukraine even have enough vessels to ferry their army across? Especially under artillery shelling? Were they in the process of building bridges? Those are all reasonable questions I'm sure you have great non-answers to. Finally, the waters of the river WILL recede if they haven't already. Now with Russia's defenses destroyed and them having to rush to fix them. If Ukraine wanted to invade the Kherson and had the means to do it how exactly did this stop them anyway? Need I remind you the Ukrainian claim that this "hurt the Russians"?

Perhaps you have a short memory, but Ukranian forces were right outside Oleshky, which was not an island.


This is a new map, but obviously not updated in terms of coastline and control.

[Alastor]

Perhaps you have a short memory, but Ukranian forces were right outside Oleshky, which was not an island.
This is a new map, but obviously not updated in terms of coastline and control.

I'll ask again. What vessels? What bridges? What stops them from resuming their offensive, if they were about to conduct one, from a more favourable position a few days later?

Also, if you are going to present a map, at the very least present the context in which the map is provided in as well. Not everyone follows Rybar.

[Mithradates]

No you didn't. Because RT is banned where you are, like you said. That's one. Second propaganda is bidirectional, not unidirectional. Remember that.

I read your quote from the article and your further explanation about what was in the article too.
BS propaganda blaming Ukraine for something what Russia did.

You said the dam was blown up. If this was the intention why did they blow up the dam? Do you have examples of controlled explosions being used to merely damage dams before? Has this tactic been employed somewhere?

They messed it up, thats why the dam got destroyed. In last year November they blew up some parts of the dam so this was not the first, I dont know if anybody else used controlled explosions before to damage a dam.

So you believe Russia did it because they are afraid basically. Ok, if that's a convincing motive for you then good for you. You have your answer. It's not a convincing motive for me. Not by itself. And anyone who doesn't accept your premise that Russians are cowards as the truth wouldn't find it convincing either.

No, thats not what I said.