Ukraine

[Bristol Red Rover]

Experts are saying no artillery shell in the World could have done that much damage, everything points towards the Russians

As well as multiple mines floated down to it, multiple himars could also be responsible. As could previous wired mines from Ukraine, or even special forces mining it more recently.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Whilst the destruction of the dam has caused huge damage to the north of the river, it has actually caused greater damage to the southern, Russian occupied side. Reports that their stores & fortifications are under water and the troops are in a blind panic.

Seems they underestimated the force of water they were unleasing - and forgot that their bank is lower than the Ukrainian side.

https://twitter.com/AleksandrX13/status/1665985163547877377

Which does suggest that its not all clear that Russia did it. On balance, and especially looking at who benefits, it would appear Russia would be the most likely. However, a benefit to Ukraine is lowering the river upstream to make crossing it easier. They have been continually trying to for several months and lost a lot of troops in the process. That, and Ukraine apparently wanting to attack it with mines last year to trap Russians suggests its not as black and white as the pro western media try to say.

So you're arguing that there's a possibility that for the first time in recorded history, an attacking side has flooded an entire battlefield.

And you're saying that they've done that so they they can advance across 30 miles of sediment covered land upstream?

Whatever vestige of self respect you may have had has now evaporated. You are beyond embarrassment.

[Bristol Red Rover]

Whilst the destruction of the dam has caused huge damage to the north of the river, it has actually caused greater damage to the southern, Russian occupied side. Reports that their stores & fortifications are under water and the troops are in a blind panic.

Seems they underestimated the force of water they were unleasing - and forgot that their bank is lower than the Ukrainian side.

https://twitter.com/AleksandrX13/status/1665985163547877377

Which does suggest that its not all clear that Russia did it. On balance, and especially looking at who benefits, it would appear Russia would be the most likely. However, a benefit to Ukraine is lowering the river upstream to make crossing it easier. They have been continually trying to for several months and lost a lot of troops in the process. That, and Ukraine apparently wanting to attack it with mines last year to trap Russians suggests its not as black and white as the pro western media try to say.

So you're arguing that there's a possibility that for the first time in recorded history, an attacking side has flooded an entire battlefield.

And you're saying that they've done that so they they can advance across 30 miles of sediment covered land upstream?

Whatever vestige of self respect you may have had has now evaporated. You are beyond embarrassment.

Do you know the details of how the Dnieper will be if a few metres lower? How that might benefit transportation of troops?

[DonnyBazR0ver]

Soldiers from the Russian 205th motorised brigade contacted home in late 2022 telling their relatives exactly what they were doing.

In October, a telegram from one Soldier tells how they are getting ready to mine the dam and in an intercepted video call from another soldier to his father? in December says they have mined the dam and plan to blow it if they have to retreat and referred to it as their 'leaving present".

Could this be manufactured evidence? Is it actual proof the Russians actually triggered the mines? Of course not but those investigating will be gathering this stuff.

[Bristol Red Rover]

This image from the Beeb reportedly showing road damage on 2 June is interesting. Could be the damn had been partially weakened by previous something or other or was in need of repair?

[BillyStubbsTears]

Have some self respect man.

The thought that a dam that has worked perfectly well for 70 years would suddenly, spontaneously collapse the very week that Ukraine's offensive starts! Grow up man.

The obvious issue with the road damage is that it was cut by the occupying troops to prevent any access by Ukraine SF while they were finishing the demolition charge placement.

[BillyStubbsTears]

I swear if Putin dropped a nuke on Kyiv, there'd be useful idiots in the West saying "Well, let's analyse whether Ukraine did it themselves to gain an advantage. Or whether it was a natural event. And anyway, NATO is to blame."

What on earth will it take for some people to be jolted into seeing was a creature Putin is?

[Bristol Red Rover]

I swear if Putin dropped a nuke on Kyiv, there'd be useful idiots in the West saying "Well, let's analyse whether Ukraine did it themselves to gain an advantage. Or whether it was a natural event. And anyway, NATO is to blame."

What on earth will it take for some people to be jolted into seeing was a creature Putin is?

"Come on you yellows"

[Bristol Red Rover]

By the way, just across that river, t'other side of the dam, are Ukraine's with rifles, howitzer and missiles. Maybe not too wise to be standing on top of the dam with a target on you whilst hitting a concrete road with a shovel. Just a thought.

[normal rules]

According to some experts, previous fighting in August and November last year could have contributed.

“I think that structural failure resulting from the impact of earlier damage associated with the war remains a possibility,” says Mark Mulligan, professor of physical geography at University College London.

A second theory is that Russia, which controls the dam, deliberately allowed water levels to rise in the reservoir behind the dam – making a collapse more likely and more impactful.

According to analysis of satellite imagery, carried out by the US Foreign Agricultural Service, water levels rose sharply over the last few months.

“The very high level of water in the reservoir coupled with previous damage, leading to uncontrolled flows of water through the dam, could lead to catastrophic structural failure,” says Mulligan.

An out and out deliberate attack on this dam would not seem to benefit either side. So a combination of some or all of the above seems very plausible.

[BillyStubbsTears]

I'm struggling to understand why an academic who deals with river flows would think himself a suitable person to speak to the media on structural engineering and war strategy.

[Bristol Red Rover]

I'm struggling to understand why an academic who deals with rivet flows would think himself a suitable person to speak to the media on structural engineering and war strategy.

Though he may well be aware of river flows,  including the build up mentioned. It make sense that Russia might have held back the flow as it gave them a potential weapon. Ukraine would have done the same. It was v strongly suggested that Ukraine would attack the dam with himars in order to inconvenience the Russian retreat from the North-East bank last year - indeed one reason why Russia moved sharpish.

I don't know what damage it did receive, don't recall any. But that pressure could easily have been the problem. As said, the flooding is not really great for either side's aims, and both sides had soldiers trapped in the floods.

Maybe your expertise should be offered,  I'm sure the Mexborough Mail would be grateful.

[Colin C No.3]

So an army in retreat blows up a dam to slow down advancing forces…check.

The result being hundreds of civilians have their homes flooded, are cut off from family & basic household needs….check.

The leader of the advancing force, (Zelensky) that countries President, goes to the site to ascertain the damage & what actual impact it has had on the citizens in the flooded areas of his territory…..check.

The leader (Putin) of the army who blew the dam does nothing except blame the advancing forces of blowing the dam…Mmm.

[Filo]

Experts are saying no artillery shell in the World could have done that much damage, everything points towards the Russians

As well as multiple mines floated down to it, multiple himars could also be responsible. As could previous wired mines from Ukraine, or even special forces mining it more recently.

Experts looking at footage of one blast say the blast is upwards, so that blast would not be from missiles or shells, as the blast from those would be outwards.

Next theory please!

[glosterred]

Experts are saying no artillery shell in the World could have done that much damage, everything points towards the Russians

As well as multiple mines floated down to it, multiple himars could also be responsible. As could previous wired mines from Ukraine, or even special forces mining it more recently.

Experts looking at footage of one blast say the blast is upwards, so that blast would not be from missiles or shells, as the blast from those would be outwards.

Next theory please!

It woz 617 who dun it

Après moi le déluge

[Filo]

Ukraine have an intercepted phone call From a Russian soldier to another man, he tells the other man that the Russian sabotage group blew up the dam, though it didn’t go to plan, it was only meant to scare people

Over to you BRR

[BessieBlue]

A dam is a massive structure - widening toward the base. To destroy such a thing a mine would need to be placed in contact with the dam at depth within the water. A blast near the surface might cause the crest to crumble but it wouldn't result in significant failure. If the mine were to explode within the water but remote from the face of the dam this would be unlikely to result in significant damage - the surrounding water would cushion the explosion. The combination of the weight of deep water and an explosion against the face of the dam would be the trigger to destroy the dam. I doubt missiles or shells would be effective in destroying the dam - you would either need a precisely placed bomb (aka Dambusters!!) or a mine located at a particular position. It seems the dam was located in Russian controlled territory so who might have the best opportunity to place such a device I wonder? 

[Dutch Uncle]

Ukraine have an intercepted phone call From a Russian soldier to another man, he tells the other man that the Russian sabotage group blew up the dam, though it didn’t go to plan, it was only meant to scare people

Over to you BRR

‘Only meant to blow the bloody doors off’   

[BillyStubbsTears]

The dam had big internal  hydroelectric turbine halls. If you're going to blow up a dam that size, it's far more effective to do it by getting explosives inside the structure.

Ockham's Razor. Look for the obvious answer on who had easiest access, most to gain tactically and least to lose strategically. All points one way.

But some folk will still bothsides this.

[Bristol Red Rover]

Interesting escalation being talked about.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/jun/07/nato-members-may-send-troops-to-ukraine-warns-former-alliance-chief

[Bristol Red Rover]

I can't see the first hand reports,  not looked much, but no reason to doubt it - it is said that the Ukraine Minister of Defence today said the Ukrainians may be ready to sign/negotiate a peace agreement with the Russians if they change the aims of their SMO. I'd assume that included not demilitarising Ukraine, and allowing them to join NATO and EU.

I can't see Russia agreeing to that, not nearly, not least due to the past record with Ukraine and agreements, eg Minsk. Meanwhile, you have to ask yourself why they would be wanting to do this? There's no doubt it would include at least accepting all current Russian territory belongs to them. The immediate motivation could be their huge losses in the current attacks. Longer term, to gain strength, plus use NATO as a buffer, to restart the war. We'll see.

[Bristol Red Rover]

The dam had big internal  hydroelectric turbine halls. If you're going to blow up a dam that size, it's far more effective to do it by getting explosives inside the structure.

Ockham's Razor. Look for the obvious answer on who had easiest access, most to gain tactically and least to lose strategically. All points one way.

But some folk will still bothsides this.

But it doesn't all point one way. Russia would have benefitted more by waiting for Ukraine to have more troops in the flood zone. Ukraine has since moved troops to the more active frontline. Both sides had some troops in the flood zone, neither seemed prepared to evacuate. It dies currently suggest an accident of some kind. Though of course that won't satisfy the reactive, jump to dogmatic conclusions folks on this. "come on you yellows!" "pen ref!" "cheats" etc etc

[Filo]

The dam had big internal  hydroelectric turbine halls. If you're going to blow up a dam that size, it's far more effective to do it by getting explosives inside the structure.

Ockham's Razor. Look for the obvious answer on who had easiest access, most to gain tactically and least to lose strategically. All points one way.

But some folk will still bothsides this.

But it doesn't all point one way. Russia would have benefitted more by waiting for Ukraine to have more troops in the flood zone. Ukraine has since moved troops to the more active frontline. Both sides had some troops in the flood zone, neither seemed prepared to evacuate. It dies currently suggest an accident of some kind. Though of course that won't satisfy the reactive, jump to dogmatic conclusions folks on this. "come on you yellows!" "pen ref!" "cheats" etc etc

Detonating explosives is not an accident

[silent majority]

https://www.bellingcat.com/news/uk-and-europe/2018/05/10/full-report-russian-officers-militants-identified-perpetrators-january-2015-mariupol-artillery-strike/

[Bristol Red Rover]

The dam had big internal  hydroelectric turbine halls. If you're going to blow up a dam that size, it's far more effective to do it by getting explosives inside the structure.

Ockham's Razor. Look for the obvious answer on who had easiest access, most to gain tactically and least to lose strategically. All points one way.

But some folk will still bothsides this.

But it doesn't all point one way. Russia would have benefitted more by waiting for Ukraine to have more troops in the flood zone. Ukraine has since moved troops to the more active frontline. Both sides had some troops in the flood zone, neither seemed prepared to evacuate. It dies currently suggest an accident of some kind. Though of course that won't satisfy the reactive, jump to dogmatic conclusions folks on this. "come on you yellows!" "pen ref!" "cheats" etc etc

Detonating explosives is not an accident

If that happened,  who detonated them?

[Filo]

The dam had big internal  hydroelectric turbine halls. If you're going to blow up a dam that size, it's far more effective to do it by getting explosives inside the structure.

Ockham's Razor. Look for the obvious answer on who had easiest access, most to gain tactically and least to lose strategically. All points one way.

But some folk will still bothsides this.

But it doesn't all point one way. Russia would have benefitted more by waiting for Ukraine to have more troops in the flood zone. Ukraine has since moved troops to the more active frontline. Both sides had some troops in the flood zone, neither seemed prepared to evacuate. It dies currently suggest an accident of some kind. Though of course that won't satisfy the reactive, jump to dogmatic conclusions folks on this. "come on you yellows!" "pen ref!" "cheats" etc etc

Detonating explosives is not an accident

If that happened,  who detonated them?

Ok, so you have gone from saying it was hit by multiple HIMARS to being an accident, I think you know who detonated the explosives, like the rest of us know

[Bristol Red Rover]

I said there were many possibilities. I don't know what happened. Some here are fixated on limited possibilities. Maybe we'll never know.

Meanwhile, significant issues I posted about above are far more important to watch.
1) talk of NATO troops being sent to Ukraine
2) Ukraine looking like it's prepared to concede significant territory in a peace deal. A massive u turn, coincidently (?) coming immediately after a disastrous offensive over recent days.

[Sprotyrover]

Interesting escalation being talked about.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/jun/07/nato-members-may-send-troops-to-ukraine-warns-former-alliance-chief

I would be wary of any ‘Goodwill’ from Poland if I was in the Ukraine Government, just look at a map of Poland in 1939!

[wilts rover]

I said there were many possibilities. I don't know what happened. Some here are fixated on limited possibilities. Maybe we'll never know.

Meanwhile, significant issues I posted about above are far more important to watch.
1) talk of NATO troops being sent to Ukraine
2) Ukraine looking like it's prepared to concede significant territory in a peace deal. A massive u turn, coincidently (?) coming immediately after a disastrous offensive over recent days.

'a disastrous offensive over recent days'

Ukrainian troops make significant advance on a 20km front towards Melitopol. The entire Russian front line defences collapse and are over-run.

Significant fighting (partisan/Special Ops?) reported in Melitopol itself. The two main rail lines into/out of the city are cut. Thus meaning the only way of supplying Crimea is by the Kerch bridge (which has already been damaged once).

If the Ukranians reach Melitopol then they will cut the land bridge between Russia and Crimea. Which means the Russian troops in that area will be almost cut-off.

There are a few maps and video clips of the fighting/advances on this feed:

https://twitter.com/Tendar/status/1667648741740892161

'a disastrous offensive over recent days'

[BillyStubbsTears]

It's impossible Wilts.

He's steeped in Kremlin propaganda.

Look at last year's Ukraine offensive.

1) The offensive isn't happening.

2) When it does happen, Ukraine are losing heavily.

3) When the Russian forces get routed, it's an orderly, planned retreat to give Russia a better position.

4) When even Russian commentators admit they were routed, the war is all the fault of NATO.