Comments by "" (@tomk3732) on "Is there a military reason behind the Nova Kakhovka disaster?" video.

  1. Remove the "mine" crap and just concentrate on previous shelling and water level as well as luck of maintenance for 30 years.
    3
  2. FYI, so far confirmed in this war it was Ukraine blowing dams - it was said that the dam near Kiev was blown and river was the defender of the nation. No talk about Ukraine drowning (and admitting) 1000s of animals.
    2
  3. The dam was repeatedly hit by HIMARS. Why don't you go and fix it yourself under fire first from HIMARS and then from Ukies on the other side of the river. How about maintenance from 1992 till 2022 -- we all know Ukraine did not build anything from Soviet times so maintenance was non existent for the dam. The gates were also damaged - you can read it in old Russian reports. If you want the truth, and only the truth - google for damage images. But be warned, you may not be able to handle the truth.
    2
  4.  @EliasRinghauge  Ukraine was not and is not interested in any UN truces over anything. Even now they are not interested in say any UN effort to jointly save civilians etc.
    2
  5.  @larshildebrandt3835  how could they manage to maintain it when it was under fire? Ukraine hit the dam with Himars multiple times, proven by pictures. When Russian troops moved out of the other side of the river there was no agreement on management. Russia did not damage the dam, Ukraine did. Ukraine even now refuses any UN involvment. So how is this all Russia's fault?
    2
  6.  @idoit5067  Nope, they rejected.
    2
  7.  @greenl7661  like Ukraine would have agreed to it, Lol. They have refused to agree to any such zones. Why do you think Russia would mind?
    2
  8.  @greenl7661  Russia is totally fine with it. UA said no. UA said no to presence of any observers or UN troops. Last time I checked it was UA attacking the power plant not Russia that controls it.
    2
  9. Like Ukraine, whom shelled NPP many times cares about "nuclear disaster" - you only hear "nuclear disaster" from RT.
    2
  10.  @dinodudedanny6324  Who exactly owned the dam from the time it was build - starting in 1992? Ukraine... who did not maintain it? I do not recall Russia having control over it from 1992 till 2022.
    2
  11. Main cause of the disaster looks like damage to the dam by early HIMARS strikes combined with high water level. That seems to be 70% probable cause.
    2
  12. No, Ukraine refused!!! Russia asked for international help in the area. Ukraine refused! Ukraine refused Turkish proposal - Russia welcomed it! stop spreading fake news.
    2
  13. Why on earth would Russians mine Zaporizhzhia NPP??? Or are you also believing that Russians shell Zaporizhzhia NPP while their own troops are there????
    2
  14. But it scorched mostly Russia - so deployed by Ukraine?
    1
  15. Spot on. One sane person among the sheep. Also gates were damaged. I bet there were no engineers monitoring this at all.
    1
  16. Nope - they need to move more troops towards Kherson. It puts bigger strain on Russia where 80% of flooding is.
    1
  17. Russia army seems to be in great state - look how they smashed Ukrainian offensive!!! Leopards burning together with Bradly IFVs.
    1
  18.  @larshildebrandt3835  no talk about how Ukraine damaged the dam and the gates? Russia multiple times said both this and shelling of the nuclear power plant are disasters in the making. So I guess now we have to look for a lucky UA artillery hit to the diesel generators to have a little meltdown and I am sure you błame Russia for not taking out all M777 in the area.
    1
  19.  @greenl7661  NO. That is a lie. UA explicitly denied ANY presence of UN troops. You can Google it. UA said NO. Same as UA said no to any negotiations.
    1
  20.  @andersjjensen  Yep, how delusional one has to be to think that Russians shelled themselves.
    1
  21. LOL, 70% it collapsed due to damage from previous strikes by Ukraine and high water level 20% Ukraine blew it up to bring attention away from failed offensive (same as attacks on Belogrod were done to take news away from fall of Bakhmut) 10% it was Russia in an accident as no sane person would do it deliberately. Vast majority of damage from this is to the lower Russian side. Almost all dead are on Russian side. Long term damage is on Russian side. Satellite phots support collapse on its own theory. This is why US is not saying "it was Russia" - if they had even a blip of evidence they would point a finger.
    1
  22. Which shows why it could not be Russia. They have nothing at all to gain from this. Its a disaster for them. Dozens of civilians killed. 1000s of troops needed to run. Lots of equipment lost. Lots of positions lost. Defensive mine fields lost. etc. etc.
    1
  23. Exactly - Russians said the gates were badly damaged - satellite show slow collapse over few days. There are images of the damage to the dam. Timing was just coincidence.
    1
  24. They were not.
    1
  25. What positions???? Really - where??? There were no Ukrainians anywhere - most troops flooded were Russian. Offensive totally defeated... so why blow up the dam? A dam which will mostly flood your land, kill mostly your people???!!!
    1
  26. Yeah, one of the main reason of the operation is becoming a failure for Russia and they blame Russia for it ;)
    1
  27. There was never emergency option - the dam bursting is a disaster for Russia - it never was an option to blow it up.
    1
  28. Most of the losses were for Russia - it is almost impossible for Russia to have done this. Sat photos support it was simply a dam that failed. Water levels were record high.
    1
  29. LOL! The incursion into Belogrod was to cover fall of Bakhmut. It was a butt of jokes on pro Russian channels. Patric L traveled to the area and in English did a whole episode showing that none of claimed areas were taken over by Ukraine.... by actually walking the streets with a camera. Stop trying to blame this on Russia - they are biggest loose in this disaster.
    1
  30.  @KevinWarburton-tv2iy  No they do not. Explosion or collapse cause same seismic event. Potential damage to whom exactly? Are you high? 80% damage is to Russian side. You seriously are suggesting Russians decided to kill their own people?
    1
  31. But they are winning militarily! Ukraine offensive is failing in spectacular fashion.
    1
  32. Even this super pro Ukraine guy cannot see how flooding so much land and their own troops benefits Russia. It benefits Ukraine only a little bit. Since neither is really benefited a lot, most likely it was simply a dam failure as shown on sat photos. Or Ukraine did it - after all, they have more to gain and they do strange things when they loose - to draw attention to failed offensive. They drew attention from Bakhmut defeat by invading Russia proper. They blew up the dam to draw attention away from failure of offensive.
    1
  33. Well and Russian controlled Kherson - they are the biggest victim and most civilians killed are Russians. 80% of towns flooded are on Russian side.
    1
  34. New problem for the Russians.
    1
  35. Panic b/c of what exactly????
    1
  36. Nope. A lot of Russian troops - even seen by Ukrainians - were killed by flooding waters. No troops were moved from the area - in fact more may need to be added as a lot of defensive positions were wiped out.
    1
  37. The gates were damaged. You can see the damage from phots. Gates were damaged by UA b/c when Russians held the other bank they intentionally kept levels in the reservoir low and flooding the area - being accused by UA of flooding. The reason for this was Russia was afraid UA will blow the dam with reservoir full and trap their troops. So UA keep hitting the dam. One of the reason for Russian eventual evacuation from the region.
    1
  38. The dam was damaged including the gates.
    1
  39. Exactly - Russians said the gates were damaged. There are pictures of damage. There are sat photos showing the dam slowly giving in. Over few days.
    1
  40. By far the most likely scenario is that the dam - as per sat phots - failed by itself. It started failing at location where HIMARS hit. Then it failed completely (well not really - just the top). Biggest looser from this is Russia. They loose some water supply to Crimea, cooling water for nuclear plant, a lot of mine fields, fortified positions, etc. 80% plus of land flooded is on Russian side. Ukraine is not a winner, but certainly better off than Russia. Regarding resource drain - its mostly for Russia - as most of flooded ground is on Russian side. Most civilians killed are on Russian side. Ukraine before considered blowing the dam - they already used HIMARS strikes on the dam. They did threaten to blow up the dam before. Russia never attacked the dam or threaten to blow it up. Russians moved out of Kherson b/c they were afraid of the dam being blown.
    1
  41. Does not make sense as flooding the islands means flooding equally low land on Russian side. No explanation - logical - points finger at Russia.
    1