Comments by "Reformed Sauron" (@ReformedSauron) on "HUGE News: Kakhovka Dam in Ukraine is Destroyed" video.

I found it hard to believe that it Russia wants to occupy and Amex parts of this land that they would destroy through floods pieces of that land that could be of use. They probably would have also value to the reservoir for its strategic physical barrier.
36
The one good thing about the power plant being where it is is that there's probably all sorts of water nearby that isn't just from the dam. They can redirect if they have to. It is a peninsula.
22
What a guy.
5
At best it's a stalemate, at worst they are losing.
5
@pale_saint still doesn't make sense why Russia would want to flood territory they intend to annex. All the while risking a nuclear power plant of their own, and in Crimea which is supermajority Russian ethnic to boot? If this was Russian it is likely an accident, because I don't see Moscow giving that command when it will do just as much damage to them.
5
It would take a large explosive in the right part on the inside if it was just the turbines. You wouldn't even need a missile for that technically speaking. You would just need someone to get inside.
4
It does seem like it's a desperate move. I see little reason for Russia to do this. If anything, keeping that reservoir intact is actually a strategic advantage for Russia. It's an excellent physical barrier on the map. So long as the Russians hold one side they pretty much only have to worry about their Northern flank. I don't imagine that Ukraine has too many more fighting men left in comparison to the sheer bulk Russia probably has even despite the fact both sides have had heavy casualties.
4
The reservoir was always a buffer. Now the reservoir will be lower making it less of a buffer. The Russians valued that reservoirs a solid front line. Ukrainians were not able to cross to the East and Russians were not able to cross it once Russia fortified the Eastern shore. It's pretty much a solid border so there's no reason to destroy that advantage. Ukrainians have everything to gain by destroying or lessening such an advantage.
3
They already were having a hard time processing a regular river. If anything the rising water which will eventually dissipate will increase Ukraine's chances, albeit not too much. That reservoir and the river are valuable strategic buffers. The gains from flooding is temporary, that reservoir was a permanent gain. If anything was keeping both sides from crossing to either side. The river will be considerably nearer and shallower when the flood waters subside, making it less of a barrier. Russia wants that barrier. The barrier however has been a thorn in Ukraine's side. I just don't see the point in Russia doing it. They didn't need to do it when they already have that benefit in the first place.
3
Which would be wise to do in a war.
3
@williamzk9083 with the Ukrainian air force pretty much destroyed, there's no reason they wouldn't have air superiority over the whole of Ukraine. I also don't think they are there to conquer the whole country. Just the east.
3
I don't think that's the case here. I just think it's part of a war escalation. Not everything is part of some grand plan. They certainly are not infallible.
2
Do ukrainians have had an impossible time crossing the river once the Eastern shore was entirely taken by the Russians to begin with. The Russians may have a hard time crossing into the western shore, but the ukrainians have a hard time crossing east of it. Having the water in the reservoir high is an even better advantage for either side defending it. Russia however seems to have concentrated most of their fighting to the north so they aren't interested in going back after Kherson. They also are not going to want to flood Crimea downstream. Seeing as how so many men were spent in Bakhmut (in the North east) I don't think there is much stuffing left for an effective counteroffensive anyways at this point this year. At the end of the day, the side with the larger pool of soldiers is going to run out of manpower slower than the side with the smaller pool.
2
@ASS_ault the river was stopping Ukrainians for the most part anyway. So... I'm not buying it.
2
I would think the draining of a reservoir would be a hindrance to Russia because it would lessen the physical barrier.
2
I don't think they have a reason to cross that River. That river is an excellent physical barrier as it is along with the reservoir. I think their goal is to get to the river and stop. They've made a few inroads past the river but really they can only hold the East bank. If they can just secure that bank they pretty much can sit pretty until the other side folds.
2
@iratespartan13 I think they got Ballsy and wanted to bring people to the table. I don't think Russia's goal was ever to take the whole of the country but rather the Eastern portions up until the river. In the end they don't need either Odessa or curse on because they already captured several warm water ports including Mariopol. That river would make for an excellent new border. Losing Kherson was definitely a womb to their pride but it was not critical to keeping their gains. Also Kirsten was more of an offshoot attack- it wasn't bolstered on any sides but the backend. The entire east of the river is bolstered entirely from any side other than the west across the river. Russia is going to focus on solidifying.
2
If it is Ukraine and I think that is more likely than not, it means they probably don't have enough stuffing to pull off another all-out counteroffensive. Which means they spent the majority of their best manpower in. Bakhmut. The lines are either going to say roughly the same or the Russians are going to press an advance. One of those two.
2
@Thriceee more likely to lessen Russian defenses along the east Bank of the river which they hold entirely. The Russians however have made advances on the Northern front while the southern front has been more or less solidified. Despite the fighting they advanced in Bakhmut- and it doesn't matter whether or not the town is now effectively useless because the town itself was not important, it is the location on the map the town of Bakhmut it's on that was important and they managed to take it in the end. Other than a mine, the town was effectively not very interesting to the Russians to begin with outside of its strategic location. Both the Russians and Ukrainians have called back mute the "Key to the Donbas", right up until Bakhmut fell. Honestly I think Ukraine spent the cream of its crop of what is left in that battle. I don't think they had as many men left. Both sides took heavy casualties but one has a larger soldier pool by far, and unfortunately for Ukraine dead men don't fire guns. The smaller pool runs out first. That means the one dwindling close to the end is going to do desperate things. It's probably Ukraine.
2
Given how most of the fighting age men in the country either fled at the onset of the war or have been committed to the war and our half-eaten through now, Ukraine probably does not have nearly as much manpower as it started out with. I have no doubt both sides have taken heavy casualties, but if the IS defense department leaks they say not to look at are anywhere close to accurate, Ukraine is taking casualties greater than Russia by about four to five times over. It doesn't matter how many guns and bullets you send them if there aren't enough men to use them properly enough to hold Russia back. Dead men don't fire guns. It's going to roll on a bit longer though regardless. At this point Ukraine will never get Russia off of their territory. The front lines will either stabilized in their current position more or less with each side taking a little and losing a little every now and then, or Ukraine's back will be broken and Russia takes a lot more which will probably for some sort of negotiation even if the US does not approve of it because other countries will get so desperate they would come to the table. I think either of those are still more likely than nuclear war but nuclear war unfortunately is also a small possibility now.
2
@ASS_ault Russia clearly holds back enough. They have not yet used the largest non-nuclear ordinance. Which means it must not be that dire yet.
2
Maybe a temporary one on the southern end of the fighting. That would open up the north to increased fire.
1
@DFPercush nevertheless it is a country filled with other rivers. Most of them also have their own cooling pools. If they were wise they scrammed the plant when it became a war zone in the first place. If they haven't I bet they have at this point after the dam went.
1
Neither side is a good guy in this. Russia may be the aggressor but Ukraine is basically Russia with smaller boots. It also appears to be the country all of our most corrupt launder their money and the government there is okay with it. F*** em both.
1
I think the Russian is passed over Chernobyl entirely. They kind of just went around.
1
@borissokachev1471 we should just let the to duke it out alone.
1
@unbindingfloyd probably because they don't have that much stepping left to make an effective counteroffensive. They wasted so much of their best manpower on a battle they ultimately lost for a town that's most important asset which is a strategic location on the map. Talk about a desperate move. There's no sense for Russia to do this. In an act of desperation the Dutch flooded their own country in the second World War just to stave off the Germans for a month or two.
1
@ianc7866 that doesn't matter if they have air superiority, which Russia absolutely does. Artillery systems are far less mobile than aircraft. I don't see a benefit for Russia. I do, however, see a benefit for them keeping that dam intact. This is an act of desperation but I don't think it was the Russians.
1
I'm not even sure if the power plant was working. I think the wise thing to do is shut them off in a war zone. Even if it was on however I think they probably would have screamed it if the dam blew. I sure as hell hope so anyway...
1
Not a good idea. Even dropping one knew could trigger one side to think that they are about to launch another.
1
MikeGoesBadaBoom the winter snows have been gone for more than 2 months... What counteroffensive? I think the best ukrainians can hope for right now is to maintain what they have. Crimea is overwhelmingly ethnically Russian and an extremely important base and jumping-off point for them. They aren't going to want it affected. In fact, I think Russia likes the idea of having a large physical barrier in the form of a high reservoir. They don't want to drain it. If they did they would have blown it a long time ago. That barrier is a boon.
1
@adolfolerito6744 they still have yet to claim back 4 regions. The frontlines have roughly stayed the same for over a year with each side gaining a little and losing a little.every few months. Ukraine is incapable of getting Russia off of its territory, despite all of the arms and money of the West. The best Ukraine can hope for is a stalemate, the worst they can hope for is outright defeat. If we take the emotion out of it and look at straight-up odds, my bet's on the country with the bigger soldier pool by a lot. If those lease documents the government says not to look at or anywhere close to true it means that the casualties for Ukraine are far higher than they report themselves-- and we already know our government lies to us. I sympathize for their independence but they didn't come for the whole country (though it was still wrong to attack), but drop that Ukraine is a free country BS. It is basically Russia with smaller boots and Zelinskyy is just Putin with less manpower and no nukes. Most of the territory that is currently under occupation is 2/3 ethnically Russian anyway. I think it's these occupied people had to choose which iron boot they were under they would at least choose a Russian one. In the end there is no good side of this war only victimized Ukrainian people, victimized by Western governments, Russian government, and their own.
1
😂
1
That's far to the North. Chernobyl will be fine.
1
This was going to happen at some point anyway when the United States was weak. Obama was weak so they did a test run in Crimea. They would have done it between 2016 and 2020 but it was Trump that got into office so they called it off. Weaknesses back on the menu in the US now. The strong men of the world feared the orange.
1
I would prefer not to get closer to World War 3.
1
 @ASS_ault how do you stop River crossings by lowering the water level? When you're ready to play a good game of logic come back because that's just dumb.
1
Satire? I sure as hell hope so.
1
MikeGoesBadaBoom literally a bunch of now public documents that they just don't talk about on the MSM. And a laptop which parts of are public... yes it most certainly does exist. Sounds like he lied.
1
Dead men don't fire guns. Doesn't matter how many weapons you send them if Russia has a larger pool of soldiers. Even with both sides taking heavy casualties the one with a smaller soldier pool runs out first.
1
MikeGoesBadaBoom they better hurry because I've been hearing that counteroffensive has been coming for two months since the snows have melted. I don't think they have enough for a truly strong counteroffensive any more in terms of manpower. They just lost the longest Battle of the war. Russia didn't need Bakhmut because there was something important about the town, Russian needed Bakhmut because the town occupied an important position on the map. They got it too. Ukraine is never going to get them off their territory.
1
Honestly I don't think in the end even the globalists want an outright nuclear war. Even if they got to their bunkers it would mean their life's work was forfeit and they would lose most of their wealth. They would die of old age before they would ever be able to safely return to the surface. That being said they are playing a dangerous game.
1
I doubt there's much stuffing in their forces for much of a counteroffensive. If there was they would have started a counteroffensive the soon as the snows melted two months ago. I think they spent most of the forces they could have used in a counteroffensive in Bakhmut.
1
The dams in Ukraine were nowhere near as numerous or as big back in WWII. They were also not nearly as economically important. Most of that big reservoir he's talking about didn't even exist back then. Russia has nothing strategic to gain from this, and in fact if that reservoir drains more they actually lose a strategic advantage by having a physical barrier lessened. With that reservoir remaining high they really only need to focus on Ukrainian fighting from the north. If it lowers however they need to pay attention to fighting on both sides. I don't think it was the Russians dude.
1
To be fair neither government is great.
1
Not if we didn't want to be in a war. No way they don't get seen either.
1