NYT:
Internal Blast Probably Breached Ukraine Dam, Experts Say (Cautiously)
"Experts cautioned that the available evidence was very limited, but they said that an internal explosion was the likeliest explanation for the destruction of the dam, a massive structure of steel-reinforced concrete that was completed in 1956. And local residents reported on social media that they heard a huge explosion around the time the dam was breached, at 2:50 a.m."
"A blast in an enclosed space, with all of its energy applied against the structure around it, would do the most damage. Even then, the experts said, it would require hundreds of pounds of explosives, at least, to breach the dam. An external detonation by bomb or missile would exert only a fraction of its force against the dam, and would require an explosive many times larger to achieve a similar effect." (…)
"Over more than a year of heavy fighting, the Kakhovka dam had been damaged repeatedly, and each side has accused the other of shelling it. The Russians captured it last year when they advanced to the Dnipro and beyond, but months later the Ukrainians pushed Russian forces off the west bank, turning the river — and the dam — into part of the boundary between the warring sides. The Russians held onto the dam, itself."
"It is not clear, though, that the kind of damage the dam had sustained was anywhere near enough to cause it to break down."
""Dams do fail; it's absolutely possible," said Gregory B. Baecher, a professor of engineering at the University of Maryland and member of the National Academy of Engineering, who has studied dam failures. But, he said, "I look at this and say, 'Gosh, this looks suspicious.'"" (…)
"Some Western military analysts struck a cautionary note about trying to assign blame quickly, or even about saying whether the dam collapse was intentional."
""It's too early to tell," said Michael Kofman, the director of Russian studies at CNA, a research institute in Arlington, Va. The disaster, he said, "ultimately benefits nobody.""
My comments:
Firstly, congrats to NYT for publishing an interesting article that's balanced, covering all possibilities. Did not expect that from NYT.
My initial reaction was that the Russians blew up the dam, to stop a counteroffensive. After destroying whole cities it's no doubt that the Russians are also capable of destroying a dam, if that's a military necessity in order to stop massive attacks.
On the other hand, we have seen that Kyiv is crazy enough to use Nazis to invade Russia (!)
NBC:
Who are the anti-Putin groups behind the dramatic raid into Russia?
"Two militant groups with neo-Nazi ties have emerged from relative obscurity to claim responsibility for the Belgorod attack, taunt the Kremlin and promise more to come." (…)
"The Russian Volunteer Corps, or RVC, says it's made up of Russians fighting on Ukraine's side and against Putin's government. The group made headlines in March when it claimed to be behind a smaller raid in the Bryansk region."
"Its commander, Denis Kapustin, who also goes by the last name of Nikitin, is a white nationalist and ex-soccer hooligan who shares neo-Nazi views."
Ukraine obviously has a right to attack Russia, including attacks on the Kremlin, but the point is that when Kyiv must rely on Nazis and cowboys to fight a war, then things can easily get out of control. Rogue elements in Ukraine's military could have blown up the dam after it had already been weakened by shelling and explosions earlier in the war.
After having read the arguments from both sides in the dam spectacle I'm not sure whether this destruction will serve Russia more than it favors Ukraine. Time will tell.
But all this would not have happened if NATO hadn't expanded eastward. NATO got egg all over its face. And the Russians are covered in blood. No good guys in this war, except those Ukrainian soldiers who are real nationalists fighting for their homeland when Ukraine has been tragically caught in the middle of a proxy war between two great powers. Only way for them to get rid of Russia is to retake Crimea, because that destabilizes the regime in Moscow, probably taking the war to a new level when Kremlin most likely nukes America, which means that Russia will no longer be focused on wrecking Ukraine. Ukraine will be free after WW3.
Mad Max freedom is better than the AI panopticons of the US and China/Russia.
Ukraine today is already Mad Max, so - all in all - how much extra does Ukraine have to lose if quickly escalating the war to a global inferno in the northern hemisphere?
If this war doesn't escalate to a global level, how will Ukraine look after 5 or 10 years of fighting? If the war just continues as it does today, Ukraine will be a wasteland in any case.
No comments:
Post a Comment