It really needs to be stated that the dams destruction is a massive catastrophe for Ukraine, and as much as people say "Russia had no reason to do it", Ukraine had far far less reason to do it.
It provides water for drinking and heavy industry and agriculture for the entire central part of the country most of which is still under Ukrainian control. Lots of manufacturing capacity that was still online, had to be shut down. It still caused a ton of damage in Kherson, and the Russian positions it "destroyed" are irrelevant because Ukraine hasn't actually made any big push to the other side there, just some minor skirmishes. And Russia has now had, at this point, plenty of time to rebuild those positions. So Ukraine is going to be eating an economic cost of billions or tens of billions, and gained nothing from the destruction of the dam.
The most likely cause is that Russia had prepped it for demolition in case of a significant Ukrainian attack across the river, and then either misinterpreted a small attack or triggered it by accident.
So what do you say to the fact, that due to height differences, the east, under russian control(with no immediate threat of being conquered) was hit way harder? The nuclear plant, the water supply to crimea? As of russian position, they are russian motherland since last autumn. So no matter how fake the referendum was, from their point of view, they were hurting themself.
But sure, it is a massive catastrophe for Ukraine, like the whole war is.
I say that unless the fact that the Russian side was lower resulted in meaningful military benefits for Ukraine, it's basically irrelevant. Russia lost some equipment but not really that much. Not enough to come even close to making it worth it for Ukraine, or enough to refute the idea that Russia did it.
Since when has Russia ever been terribly concerned with "hurting itself" if they thought it would hurt the enemy too. And I just explained why this hurts Ukraine badly.
"The destruction of the dam, Russian President Vladimir Putin said in a news conference a week after the event, "ruined their counteroffensive in this direction." It was a comment that didn’t fit particularly well with his claim that the Ukrainians had destroyed the dam themselves."
>> “If Russia invades — that means tanks or troops crossing the border of Ukraine — then there will be no longer a Nord Stream 2. We will bring an end to it.”
But of course this is a totally different thing, amirite?
Nord Stream 2 did "end" the same day that Russia invaded. Its approval was revoked by the German government, as per the agreement that had been negotiated with the German government in exchange for the US dropping sanctions on the project.
> It is clear who is guilty. The Ukrainian side strived for this.
> You know, I won't say 100 percent things right now that I'm not sure about. By and large, we did not record any large explosions before the destruction occurred. In any case, that's what they reported to me. But they purposefully hit the Kakhovskaya hydroelectric power station repeatedly with HIMARS - that’s what it’s all about. Maybe they had some kind of backfill there, I don’t know now, maybe they once again added something insignificant, and destruction began.
> But as we understand, we are definitely not interested in this, because these will have dire consequences for those territories that we control and which are Russian. This is the first.
> And the second. Unfortunately, I’ll say a strange thing, but nevertheless, unfortunately, this thwarted their counteroffensive in this direction. Unfortunately - why? Because it would be better if they attacked there. It’s better for us, because it would be very bad for them to attack there. But since such a spill occurred, then, accordingly, the offensive did not take place.
> The Ministry of Emergency Situations and the military are working actively there, as well as local authorities. All people will be provided with assistance in accordance with Russian legislation and standards.
>> For clarity: I still do not rule out the possibility that the Russians may have dealt an additional blow to the Kakhovka dam in phase 4, but the dam was actually so severely damaged four days before the collapse that it was beyond saving
It provides water for drinking and heavy industry and agriculture for the entire central part of the country most of which is still under Ukrainian control. Lots of manufacturing capacity that was still online, had to be shut down. It still caused a ton of damage in Kherson, and the Russian positions it "destroyed" are irrelevant because Ukraine hasn't actually made any big push to the other side there, just some minor skirmishes. And Russia has now had, at this point, plenty of time to rebuild those positions. So Ukraine is going to be eating an economic cost of billions or tens of billions, and gained nothing from the destruction of the dam.
The most likely cause is that Russia had prepped it for demolition in case of a significant Ukrainian attack across the river, and then either misinterpreted a small attack or triggered it by accident.