Doc Holliday said:
whiterock said:
Doc Holliday said:
We're gonna find out whose right.
If this thing continues for the next two years or surpasses a trillion dollars...ya'll have some explaining to do.
BTW none of this is going as planned:
Ukraine dammed up the canal after the 2014 Russian seizure of Crimea, creating significant hardship. They can't stop the canal now, but they can deny the source of the water. Repairing the dam would require Russia to control both sides of the lake and lower Dnieper. Status quo is, Ukraine owns the north bank, so Russia will not be able to repair the dam, even if it retains everything east of the Dnieper. That creates a new basis for negotiation - water rights for Crimea.
Second implication: The lake was a secure flank for the Russian army positions between Kherson and Zapo. That flank has been compromised. Yes, the river barrier remains and it will take a few days/weeks for the bottom to dry out, but the Russian positions at Kherson and Zapo are now inadequate. This requires more Russian troops & fortifications.
Meanwhile, irregular Russian forces are operating in force inside Russia on the eastern end of conflict.
Ukraine turning up the heat on depleted and overextended Russian forces.
Wouldn't flooding deny Ukraine an opportunity to launch an offensive along the 100kms from the dam to the ocean and free up thousands of Russian soldiers to deploy along this front to reinforce their lines further north?
Yes. I think that is the most important fact to focus on. The flooding is a SHORT TERM benefit to Russia. The lake will take many days to drain and weeks to dry out enough to traverse the bed, and there still is a river flowing thru it, so it remains a formidable obstacle
for now. And the flooding downstream eliminates the small Ukrainian toehold on the western side of the Dnieper, as well as rendering any river crossings effectively impossible. But all of that is short-term benefit. By Labor Day, certainly next winter, the loss of the lake is a strategic detriment for Russia, as it does make the former lake portion of their left flank just as vulnerable as the pre-flood lower Dnieper. ALL of it, lower Dnieper AND the former lake becomes tactically crossable. So Russia gets a 12 week breather to redeploy troops eastwards, but by Thanksgiving, they will need MORE troops on the western flank than they had when the dam blew up. And all their fortifications on both the Kherson and the Zapo fronts are angled assuming the Lake is there as a secure flank. So now, Russia has to add fortifications to plan for crossings thru the old lake bed. and they have to do those fortifications without all the troops they're going to redeploy eastwards. (Ex: Masada was impregnable, until Rome built a massive earthen ramp right up to the top of the existing fortifications at the rim of the mesa. Then it was indefensible, without additional fortifications the defending Zealots did not have the manpower to build or defend.)
I would assume most of Russian troops to be redeployed from Kherson front eastward will be headed to the Russian portion of the front, given the partisan activity going on there. That is a threat to the stability of Russia itself.
The list of short/long term pros/cons for Russia blowing up the dam is long.
The list of short/long term pros/cons for Ukraine blowing up the dam is long.
The way to wade thru the two lists it is to understand there is a hot war going on. Both sides are dead set on victory. Russia is all in...no reserves. Ukraine is about to throw its reserves into the fray. This is a desperate moment - a massive Russian offensive culminated in an army shattering zero-gain stalemate so disappointing that we are seeing skirmishes between Russian units and Russian mercenaries. A plucky Ukraine has tremendous opportunity it might not be able to fully exploit due to limitations on supply, but they're going to sally forth anyway, hoping luck and skill can overcome all. Whether it turns out like Lord Nelson at Trafalgar or Lord Cardigan at Balaclava remains to be seen. NEITHER side can afford to give much weight to long term considerations. Decisions are made to affect outcomes of battles going on
right now. And in that calculus, the benefits to blowing the dam all flow to Russia.
Russia did it.
(Tucker Carlson is wrong).
Russia did it to free up troops to go staunch the bleeding in Belgorod and beef up the Russian portion of the Ukrainian border.
Desperate?
Yep.
Russia is now in the realm of cutting off fingers to save the hand.
