FancyCat

Two threads indicating one, how vital the region is for the economy of Ukraine, and two, even if part of it is a front line, destroying the dam, essentially will make this "recently annexed" region of Russia economically devastated. Sure, the chance for Ukraine deliberately to have done it is possible, but there is exceedingly little benefit for Russia to destroy the dam unless it understands it has little time left as a annexed region of Russia. Honestly it is appalling that the dam was even mined and wired for explosives in the first place. The dam, like ZNPP should have been placed into UN oversight and military objects near it, banned from being nearby.

Excerpts, truly, Russia should burn for its crimes. Also, if Russia intended on staying in the region and holding a defense line, they wouldn't be only allowing Russian passport holders to flee, and would actually be undertaking evacuation efforts and efforts to aid the populace.

Sadly, Russia is all too willing and even eager to disable international organizations from assisting the disaster relief, so I'm unsurprised about lack of ICRC and UN assistance on the occupied side, but I do think the implication of NS1 and NS2 does cause some general unease about strong statements. Also, i do think the refrain from a very strong Western or International response is due to the brazenness of the dam collapse, if indeed Russia opted for such a violation of IHL, a member of the P5, the West needs to get its ducks in order to accuse Russia of such a action, in order to avoid Iraq 2's lack of WMDs and accusations of Western hypocrisy and Russia mounting a strong non-Western aligned PR response.

On that note, we have been criticizing the Russian campaign against civilian targets, we should note Russia is targeting by design healthcare facilities, civilian warehouses and emergency response, Russia's campaign against the energy infrastructure last winter was designed to freeze Ukraine and her inhabitants to death, the Russian civilian targeting campaign is designed to make as much of unoccupied Ukraine as uninhabitable as possible, destroying Ukrainian society and economy.... By all measures, if Russia expects to lose control of the region, allowing a bridge for easy access to the left bank of the river is militarily incompetent. Allowing Ukraine to easily recover her economic agricultural and energy potential is from the aspect of total war, also incompetent. If I want to hold Crimea, but expect the water to dry up when Ukraine retakes the dam, (as Ukraine shown by stopping water in 2014), there's really no negative to blowing the dam. sure Crimean agriculture and water supply will be affected but the reservoirs are full, and if Ukraine has crossed to the left bank, Crimea is about to become the Frontline, the agriculture and tourism on Crimea is gonna dry up anyway. If Ukraine succeeds in cutting the land bridge, the positions in Kherson oblast are not defendable anyhow so destroying the defense line on the left bank is fine, Russia cannot hold without the land bridge to Mariupol. Honestly, I'm 100% on Russia did this deliberately.

If I were Russia and I expected to lose control of the dam very soon, and I didn't mind killing civilians, destroying the dam, i.e, destroying the social and economic potential in a region I don't expect to hold and expect to shortly be liberated and used for my enemy.... Well, I might just blow the dam.

It's ridiculous to suggest Ukraine would destroy the dam. The negatives for Ukraine are exceeding vast.

I like the emphasis on the mid-level intelligence officers (i assume the big dogs have palaces, or the like?) here. I wanna point the usefulness of IAEA Director General Rafael Grossi, and the IAEA since the beginning of 2023, has permanent teams monitoring all nuclear plants in Ukraine, not just ZNPP. It's a major failing that Ukraine's request for monitoring the Kakhovka dam was ignored. https://meduza.io/en/news/2022/10/21/zelensky-says-russia-is-preparing-a-terrorist-attack-on-kakhovka-dam

Chief of Staff for Navalny suggests not sabotage but engineering failure. Will not endear Navalny to Ukraine. Of course, lets see how the U.S intel changes their stance.

The article states that both the U.S and the European country that got the intel both informed Germany, who's intelligence agency briefed German lawmakers of the intel.

If the U.S pulls out the smoking gun on the dam, what do you think will be the Western reply? I'm thinking ATACMS. Also, what do you think Ukraine is gonna do? I'm 100 percent thinking more attacks in Russia proper, including Ukrainian ground units attacking Belgorod.

Article states the European agency also informed Germany, aside from the U.S also informing Germany. So it's not Germany definitely that sourced it.

The thing about this new intelligence regarding the destruction of NS1 and NS2 is that the intelligence was shared with Germany in June, I don't think Ukraine would deliberately bomb Nordstream after Germany and other Western partners were aware of it.

Excerpts: https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2023/06/06/nord-stream-pipeline-explosion-ukraine-russia/

Any bridgehead across the flooded region needs to contend with crap logistics, wouldn't make sense for Ukraine to do that.

Meh, if you think the offensive is going to be successful, then Ukraine was gonna retake the dam and the canal soon enough anyway so water supply to Crimea was gonna stop soon enough anyway. That road would have been key to supplying forces on the left bank.

You can plant explosives underwater right? Wouldn't that mitigate visible damage?

https://tass.com/russia/1535583 Enough water for 2 years.