>"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."
It fits just fine. Ukraine was pressured into this offensive by its western partners and was publicly dragging its feet for months. They knew it wouldn't be successful.
Washing their hands of one of the fronts while doing a massive amount of damage to the Russian side of the Dnieper that they knew they were never going to recapture probably seemed like a good trade off.
The narrative that Russia blew it up and did more damage to themselves because they were terrified of the counter offensive, on the other hand, matches with reality about as well as "Russia blew up nordstream 2" did. Their public stance before the offensive was that it would be a catastrophic failure because it lacked air support and was at a munitions disadvantage and lo and behold that's exactly what happened.
So why on earth would they blow up a dam that would do far more damage to the areas they controlled?
> So why on earth would they blow up a dam that would do far more damage to the areas they controlled?
Because actions like this are less about Russia winning and more about Ukraine losing.
They did this to cause decades of damage to Ukraines industry and an ecocide.
It’s the same reason they fire missiles into civilian buildings, destroy power plants during winter, rape and torture children, execute teenagers and fire on civilians.
L
The terror and damage destruction is the point.
Destruction of this dam was also a war crime by Russia.
They gain a lot by trying to cover up another of there war crimes and to muddy the water with their firehose of falsehood propaganda method.
>They did this to cause decades of damage to Ukraines industry and an ecocide.
"They did this to cause decades of damage to Ukraines industry and an ecocide" and ended up doing more damage to the side they controlled doesn't make any sense at all. Not unless you assume that Russia is some irrational cartoonist supervillain that would cut off its own nose to spite its face.
"They did this because they were terrified of the counter offensive" made more sense than that.
They went to Ukraine to take the land required to give them a buffer against NATO-aligned forces, which have called for the destruction of Russia for years - and thats exactly what they've created.
Whether you like that answer or not, has no bearing on whether the cartoon-character in your head reflects reality. It clearly doesn't.
> They went to Ukraine to take the land required to give them a buffer against NATO-aligned forces, which have called for the destruction of Russia for years - and thats exactly what they've created.
Interesting cause the victory article they accidentally posted then quickly deleted didn’t even mention NATO once.
But do you know what it did talk about?, the tragedy of Ukrainian independence and fixing that historical “mistake” of 1991.
That sounds more like imperialism than wanting a buffer state to me.
It fits just fine. Ukraine was pressured into this offensive by its western partners and was publicly dragging its feet for months. They knew it wouldn't be successful.
Washing their hands of one of the fronts while doing a massive amount of damage to the Russian side of the Dnieper that they knew they were never going to recapture probably seemed like a good trade off.
The narrative that Russia blew it up and did more damage to themselves because they were terrified of the counter offensive, on the other hand, matches with reality about as well as "Russia blew up nordstream 2" did. Their public stance before the offensive was that it would be a catastrophic failure because it lacked air support and was at a munitions disadvantage and lo and behold that's exactly what happened.
So why on earth would they blow up a dam that would do far more damage to the areas they controlled?