And I could easily flip the question around to OP. Why would Ukraine blow up their own dam, flooding their own territory and potentially crippling their own nuclear power plant? And making a counteroffensive across the Dnipro river that much harder?
It’s not to deprive Crimea of water ahead of the counteroffensive, Crimea’s reservoirs are full right now so they’ve got a year’s worth in the tank. That’s about the only possible benefit I can think of that Ukraine might have got out of this, and even if it were so it would be a trivial benefit compared to the costs. Crimea’s water supply isn’t going to make a difference to the actual fight that’s about to happen there.
Ukraine doesn’t need more justification. Russia is occupying their territory. It doesn’t make sense for Ukraine to cause yet more internal displacement and risk a nuclear meltdown for something it already has.
Ukraine doesn’t need more justification. Russia is occupying their territory.
That doesn’t justify Ukraine’s shelling of the eastern territories in the Donbass. If that requires military intervention by Russia, that’s unfortunate for the western propaganda narrative of Russian military aggression.
I’m not speaking of morality. I’m speaking of whether it would convince anyone that Ukraine should be “allowed” to do anything in particular. Most people have already chosen a position. This dam will make little difference, but it will have an impact on Ukraine.
What’s the point of flooding a region by destroying your “assets” when you could mass bombing like a deaf these villages.
After all, the west sells the war like an hegemonic move with mass slaughtering traits. Why Russia is not so heavy on using aviation, then?
US were using tomahawks on Syria for less than that.
If destruction and high toll number (aka ethnic cleansing) was the goal, they won’t deliver like a grocery shop.
At least in the US, most people are not tracking this in anything but generalities. If they even know this dam was breached, they won’t know the significance. It’s also doesn’t have quite the visual impact of row after row of bombed out apartments or bound bodies from a massacre.
To slow down Ukraine crossing Dnepr and attacking Crimea.
And I could easily flip the question around to OP. Why would Ukraine blow up their own dam, flooding their own territory and potentially crippling their own nuclear power plant? And making a counteroffensive across the Dnipro river that much harder?
It’s not to deprive Crimea of water ahead of the counteroffensive, Crimea’s reservoirs are full right now so they’ve got a year’s worth in the tank. That’s about the only possible benefit I can think of that Ukraine might have got out of this, and even if it were so it would be a trivial benefit compared to the costs. Crimea’s water supply isn’t going to make a difference to the actual fight that’s about to happen there.
To justify more retaliation against Russia. Our dick of minister Charles Michel called it a war crime.
And what happens on year 2?
Ukraine doesn’t need more justification. Russia is occupying their territory. It doesn’t make sense for Ukraine to cause yet more internal displacement and risk a nuclear meltdown for something it already has.
I never said it was the sovereign Ukraine…
That doesn’t justify Ukraine’s shelling of the eastern territories in the Donbass. If that requires military intervention by Russia, that’s unfortunate for the western propaganda narrative of Russian military aggression.
I’m not speaking of morality. I’m speaking of whether it would convince anyone that Ukraine should be “allowed” to do anything in particular. Most people have already chosen a position. This dam will make little difference, but it will have an impact on Ukraine.
deleted by creator
You really think Ukraine needs more justification for retaliation against Russia at this point?
What’s the point of flooding a region by destroying your “assets” when you could mass bombing like a deaf these villages.
After all, the west sells the war like an hegemonic move with mass slaughtering traits. Why Russia is not so heavy on using aviation, then?
US were using tomahawks on Syria for less than that.
If destruction and high toll number (aka ethnic cleansing) was the goal, they won’t deliver like a grocery shop.
I forgot a part. The thing is not Ukraine would need more justification but the West.
This is a proxy war with the help of a formerly comedian, Zelensky.
At least in the US, most people are not tracking this in anything but generalities. If they even know this dam was breached, they won’t know the significance. It’s also doesn’t have quite the visual impact of row after row of bombed out apartments or bound bodies from a massacre.
As if they needed any other justification to retaliate.
They’ve been invaded and NATO is already supporting Ukraine financially and militarily.