Ukraine and the Russian invasion, 2022-24

[Pickman's model]

I have read assertions that Ukrainian shelling was insufficient to destroy the dam. At the same time, we also know the Russians mined the area. Is there any chance, unwittingly, the two sides could have damaged it together?

I guess there are 6 possible scenarios
1. Russians deliberately
2. Russians accidentally
3. Combination, but mainly natural causes / wear-and-tear
4. Ukrainians deliberately
5. Ukrainians accidentally
6. Combination Rus / Ukr accidentally

The most plausible explanation seems to be 2, followed by 6, then followed by 3. Either way, you could argue, as the occupying power Russia is more culpable for 3 and 6, especially as they should be maintaining the dam and they also employed explosives to a vulnerable infrastructure.

If the area was mined that would be like a mine field, to stop people approaching Russian positions. Mines are not, in the main, sufficient to or located where they could blow up a dam

 

[maomao]

If the area was mined that would be like a mine field, to stop people approaching Russian positions. Mines are not, in the main, sufficient to or located where they could blow up a dam

The verb 'mine' can just mean digging under things to lay explosives. As in the battle of Messiness in WW1 which was the biggest pre-atomic man-made explosion but not produced with purpose made 'mines'.

 

[Pickman's model]

The verb 'mine' can just mean digging under things to lay explosives. As in the battle of Messiness in WW1 which was the biggest pre-atomic man-made explosion but not produced with purpose made 'mines'.

And you think that's the sense it's been used in in recent days in the press, placing explosives under enemy positions?

 

[Pickman's model]

The verb 'mine' can just mean digging under things to lay explosives. As in the battle of Messiness in WW1 which was the biggest pre-atomic man-made explosion but not produced with purpose made 'mines'.

Further to my previous post the bbc reports dislodged mines as a danger in the flood Ukraine dam: Dislodged mines a major concern as residents flee Kherson which doesn't sound like dislodged diggings to me, but anti-tank / anti-personnel mines washed away by the water

 

[FabricLiveBaby!]

Good point, well made, Mr Snyder.

 

[maomao]

Further to my previous post the bbc reports dislodged mines as a danger in the flood Ukraine dam: Dislodged mines a major concern as residents flee Kherson which doesn't sound like dislodged diggings to me, but anti-tank / anti-personnel mines washed away by the water

Yes, it can mean both and is clear from the context.

 

[Pickman's model]

Yes, it can mean both and is clear from the context.

Yeh. To be clear, you think that the russian mines and Ukrainian shells came into context as RedRedRose wondered.

 

[maomao]

Yeh. To be clear, you think that the russian mines and Ukrainian shells came into context as RedRedRose wondered.

RRR's post was unclear because they talked about mining the 'area' rather than the dam but not for the reason you gave.

 

[Pickman's model]

RRR's post was unclear because they talked about mining the 'area' rather than the dam but not for the reason you gave.

The South China Morning Post makes it clear landmines and not subterranean deposits of explosives were the mines referred to as being around the dam Ukraine dam destruction increases threat of ‘moving landmines’. Clearly other explosives were at work, to destroy the dam, but those aren't really likely to have been tunnelled in - a much simpler operation, either placing explosives in or on (ie on its surface, not the top of) the dam would be easier and quicker

 

[Artaxerxes]

Even by urban standards this is top notch pedantry

 

[RedRedRose]

I was picking up on fact that this was an outcome neither side wanted: its flooded Russian held territory, created a humanitarian/ecological disaster, and possibly prevented a southern counteroffensive. Furthermore, you have talk of shelling and mines in the direct vicinity. [/wild speculation]

 

[Flavour]

There can be absolutely no doubt Russia did this on purpose. Of course they did. And right at the time a counteroffensive was starting, in order to stall it. Putting Kiev in a difficult position.

 

[RedRedRose]

Anyways, good points about coverage of the story by Timothy Snyder

 

[platinumsage]

I have read assertions that Ukrainian shelling was insufficient to destroy the dam. At the same time, we also know the Russians mined the area. Is there any chance, unwittingly, the two sides could have damaged it together?

I guess there are 6 possible scenarios
1. Russians deliberately
2. Russians accidentally
3. Combination, but mainly natural causes / wear-and-tear
4. Ukrainians deliberately
5. Ukrainians accidentally
6. Combination Rus / Ukr accidentally

The most plausible explanation seems to be 2, followed by 6, then followed by 3. Either way, you could argue, as the occupying power Russia is more culpable for 3 and 6, especially as they should be maintaining the dam and they also employed explosives to a vulnerable infrastructure.

Why are those things more likely than "Russians deliberately"

Was the Dambusters Raid most likely caused by undercover German forces mistakenly loading bouncing bombs onto Lancaster Bombers before they were flown by British pilots in error over reservoirs in Germany as they accidentally flipped the launch switches?

 

[The39thStep]

Why are those things more likely than "Russians deliberately"

Was the Dambusters Raid most likely caused by undercover German forces mistakenly loading bouncing bombs onto Lancaster Bombers before they were flown by British pilots in error over reservoirs in Germany as they accidentally flipped the launch switches?

Given the fact that the 'success' of the bombing raid was all over the front pages of the press the next day probably not.

 

[MickiQ]

I don't think many people question the belief that the Russians did it and they did it deliberately. As to whether they thought the consequences through properly or if it is part of some grand strategy rather than some local commander thinking "Oh Fuck it let's do this for the LOL's" is a very different question.

 

[TopCat]

I don't think many people question the belief that the Russians did it and they did it deliberately. As to whether they thought the consequences through properly or if it is part of some grand strategy rather than some local commander thinking "Oh Fuck it let's do this for the LOL's" is a very different question.

Britain cannot yet say Russia is responsible for the destruction of the Nova Kakhovka dam, prime minister Rishi Sunak has said on Wednesday.

The US “cannot say conclusively” who was responsible for the destruction of the dam, national security council spokesperson John Kirby said on Tuesday.

 

[A380]

I have read assertions that Ukrainian shelling was insufficient to destroy the dam. At the same time, we also know the Russians mined the area. Is there any chance, unwittingly, the two sides could have damaged it together?

I guess there are 6 possible scenarios
1. Russians deliberately
2. Russians accidentally
3. Combination, but mainly natural causes / wear-and-tear
4. Ukrainians deliberately
5. Ukrainians accidentally
6. Combination Rus / Ukr accidentally

The most plausible explanation seems to be 2, followed by 6, then followed by 3. Either way, you could argue, as the occupying power Russia is more culpable for 3 and 6, especially as they should be maintaining the dam and they also employed explosives to a vulnerable infrastructure.

Haven’t you missed the obvious??

7. NATO did it….

 

[existentialist]

I have read assertions that Ukrainian shelling was insufficient to destroy the dam. At the same time, we also know the Russians mined the area. Is there any chance, unwittingly, the two sides could have damaged it together?

I guess there are 6 possible scenarios
1. Russians deliberately
2. Russians accidentally
3. Combination, but mainly natural causes / wear-and-tear
4. Ukrainians deliberately
5. Ukrainians accidentally
6. Combination Rus / Ukr accidentally

The most plausible explanation seems to be 2, followed by 6, then followed by 3. Either way, you could argue, as the occupying power Russia is more culpable for 3 and 6, especially as they should be maintaining the dam and they also employed explosives to a vulnerable infrastructure.

I find Occam's Razor a useful tool in these situations...

 

[The39thStep]

Haven’t you missed the obvious??

7. NATO did it….

with shovels

 

[LDC]

Amazing that the same people now very keen to say it's not conclusive who did it (which is true as funnily enough it's hard to get access atm, as it's a destroyed area largely under water in Russian occupied territory) would be the same people that if it had been announced conclusive proof had been found would be decrying it all saying it's too soon to know.

And it's the same people who scream loudly and endlessly when a Ukrainian soldier wears a far right badge who are very silent (or at best "We can't know for sure who did it.") on massive environmental and war crimes when they're very likely to have been committed by Russia

 

[platinumsage]

Even the Russian media is claiming the Russians did it.

 

[Pickman's model]

Britain cannot yet say Russia is responsible for the destruction of the Nova Kakhovka dam, prime minister Rishi Sunak has said on Wednesday.

The US “cannot say conclusively” who was responsible for the destruction of the dam, national security council spokesperson John Kirby said on Tuesday.

Two is not many people

 

[Pickman's model]

Even by urban standards this is top notch pedantry

maomao and I like to keep our hand in now and then, to prove we still have the auld magic

 

[planetgeli]

Britain cannot yet say Russia is responsible for the destruction of the Nova Kakhovka dam, prime minister Rishi Sunak has said on Wednesday.

The US “cannot say conclusively” who was responsible for the destruction of the dam, national security council spokesperson John Kirby said on Tuesday.

Oh c'mon TC. These are just politically diplomatic statements - and by people you'd otherwise normally be happy with a bullet in their head.

Do you have any updates on what Prince Harry might have said?

 

[Pickman's model]

Oh c'mon TC. These are just politically diplomatic statements - and by people you'd otherwise normally be happy with a bullet in their head.

Do you have any updates on what Prince Harry might have said?

He's said that any suggestion he's involved emanates from newspapers who've hacked his phone

 

[LDC]

Oh c'mon TC. These are just politically diplomatic statements - and by people you'd otherwise normally be happy with a bullet in their head.

Do you have any updates on what Prince Harry might have said?

I mean they're also factually correct statements, it is likely impossible at the moment given access to the area to prove conclusively who did it, but that doesn't negate the overwhelming likelihood that Russia is responsible.

 

[nogojones]

Even the Russian media is claiming the Russians did it.

OK. That's sown a seed of doubt for me now

 

[two sheds]

Furious MPs condemn Corbyn's response to Salisbury nerve agent attack

Labour leader accused of 'policy of appeasement' after refusing to directly blame Russia for poisoning former spy

www.independent.co.uk

Just sayin'

 

[bluescreen]

Even the Russian media is claiming the Russians did it.