Comments by "seneca983" (@seneca983) on "Disaster Day in Ukraine: Kakhovka Dam Destroyed, Ukraine Suffers Heavy Defeat, Incl 8 Leopard Tanks" video.

  1. I'd say it's more likely that Russia destroyed the dam (though it's still very uncertain).
    3
  2. While we don't know who did it I'd say it's more likely that it's more likely that Russia destroyed the dam.
    1
  3.  @GavinMaGrath  "I'd like to ask you what motive Russia has to do it?" They might prefer to destroy it over Ukraine getting it back. Also, this probably makes it more difficult for Ukraine to cross the Dnieper because of the flooding and the (previously damaged) bridge now being gone. I don't claim this as certain; I'm only saying that Russia seems a more likely culprit than Ukraine.
    1
  4.  @neilsaunders6009  Here are some reasons. These are not decisive arguments but I think they're reasons to lean more to the side of the Russians having done this: -Back when the Ukrainians were bombarding the bridge going along the dam with HIMARS in preparation for the Kherson offensive, they judiciously avoided damaging the dam by bombarding the part at the southern end where the bridge curves away from the dam. This seems to indicate that they don't want to damage the dam. -The Ukrainians would probably most prefer to recapture the dam intact because it's a valuable asset whereas the Russians might prefer to destroy it over the Ukrainians getting it back. -The dam was still under Russian control. That would make it easier for them to blow up the dam since they can lay explosives (or have them laid in advance) rather than having to try bombard the dam with something. -I see no obvious reason for the Ukrainians to destroy the dam now (rather than earlier). The most advantageous time would probably have been during the Kherson offensive before the Russian troops withdraw to the Left Bank possibly trapping them and hindering supply. If the motivation were to reduce the water supply to Crimea it would also make sense to destroy the dam as early as possibly as opposed to only now. If the reason was to make crossing the Dnieper upstream of the dam easier it would also have made sense to destroy it earlier. -As far as I know, the Russians haven't after their withdrawal from the Right Bank crossed the Dnieper whereas the Ukrainians have (though these have been rather small scale operations). Thus the flooding seems to affect Ukrainian operations more than Russian ones. -A few months ago the Russians had left one of the sluice gates open lowering the water level a lot in the reservoir. This may indicate that they prefer some flooding downstream, possibly to make the Ukrainian crossings more difficult. -Recently they have done the opposite and let the reservoir fill to a very high level. This is suspicious and may indicate a motive to cause flooding.
    1
  5.  @seeker2118  What? Of course I did write it. It's not even that long. Given to say by whom?
    1
  6.  @seeker2118  Yes, I did. A commenter called Neil Saunders asked for the reasons for my belief in both threads so I just copy-pasted the response I wrote to both of them. Otherwise, some people might only see one of those threads and think I don't have an answer.
    1
  7.  @seeker2118  An accident is possible. However, if it's deliberate I think Russia is the more likely culprit (though this is still uncertain).
    1
  8.  @seeker2118  "In the end I don't subscribe to the idea of Ukraine regaining any territory so Russia will have to foot the bill." But this is just your assessment and the Russians/Ukrainians might not be so optimistic/pessimistic. I just don't think it makes any sense for Ukraine to time the destruction of the dam to the start of their offensive. If they wanted to destroy the dam (e.g. to reduce Crimea's water supply) it would have made far more sense to destroy the dam much earlier.
    1
  9. 40:05 "It seems that the water levels in the Kakhovka reservoir have been rising to extremely high levels." How would that "point to some Ukrainian responsibility for this breach"? It's the Russians who have been in control of the dam's sluice gates. Earlier they let the water level fall very low and now they have let it rise very high. I'm not sure what was the reason for those choices but they were clearly Russian choices. If the high water level was what caused the dam to fail then that is an indication of Russian responsibility (even if in that case the dam failure might have been inadvertent).
    1
  10. 10:00 I don't think Crimea's water supply all that much points to Ukraine having destroyed the dam. If that was the goal it would have made more sense for Ukraine destroy the dam much earlier, e.g. right after they recaptured Kherson.
    1