The Ukraine War: Casus Belgorod

[SeanF]

5 hours ago, The Anti-Targ said:

Sure, but Ukraine would be able to take them starting from east of the dam, they don't need to start at or near the dam. And as one Ukraine supporting commentator says, while the Dnipro downstream of the dam has become a lot wider for a long time, the upstream part of the river will become a lot narrower and there's almost 3x the length of the upstream part to defend. It's a massive self-inflicted wound by Russia, if this is what they intended.

Russia has done a lot of awful stuff this war, but there has been method to the madness, even when it's failed. This is just madness if what had happened was what was intended. And that will be Russia's defense for all those who want to believe it "We wouldn't do this because it harms us much more than it harms Ukraine, therefore it must be Ukraine."

I said strategically it makes no sense for Ukraine to bust the dam because they want the dam to stay intact to help with post-war recovery. But tactically it has harmed Russia more than Ukraine, so if Ukraine was into short term thinking blowing the dam would be an option. Though to make the most of it they would have withdrawn all their forces from the islands on the Dnipro just before blowing the dam, but it seems those forces got taken by surprise and had to withdraw across the flood waters. And there will be conspiracy theories purporting to have hidden evidence of exactly that.

Armies in retreat will frequently destroy things out of spite.

[Gorn]

Regarding the theory that Ukraine did it, Soviet dams were designed to withstand strategic bombing with half-ton bombs, and only a direct nuclear strike could destroy them from the outside. A 40 kg howitzer shell would have the same effect on it as a firecracker.

[Maithanet]

5 hours ago, The Anti-Targ said:

I said strategically it makes no sense for Ukraine to bust the dam because they want the dam to stay intact to help with post-war recovery. But tactically it has harmed Russia more than Ukraine, so if Ukraine was into short term thinking blowing the dam would be an option. Though to make the most of it they would have withdrawn all their forces from the islands on the Dnipro just before blowing the dam, but it seems those forces got taken by surprise and had to withdraw across the flood waters. And there will be conspiracy theories purporting to have hidden evidence of exactly that.

Russia does not care about tactically harming their troops.  And operationally, this makes perfect sense for Russia.  Crossing the Dnipro is now impossible for Ukraine for several weeks (if not longer).  The troops used to defend those areas can now be shifted to wherever is hottest on the front as Ukraine's offensive gets going.  With a single war crime, Russia was able to create a reserve of several brigades.

[Derfel Cadarn]

Ukraine claiming they haven’t actually started their counterattack yet

 

[Padraig]

9 hours ago, The Anti-Targ said:

Russia has done a lot of awful stuff this war, but there has been method to the madness, even when it's failed.

I know people love to speculate but this statement is doing so much heavy lifting to justify what follows it.

On 6/6/2023 at 3:35 AM, ThinkerX said:

Something I have started to wonder about...

Suppose the Russian Rebels do somehow seize control of a major Russian City or three.

And this.  Speculating about something that is so extremely unlikely.

[ThinkerX]

1 hour ago, Padraig said:

I know people love to speculate but this statement is doing so much heavy lifting to justify what follows it.

And this.  Speculating about something that is so extremely unlikely.

Why is the prospect of these Russian Rebels taking and holding a major Russian city 'extremely unlikely?' What, exactly, does Russia have in place to prevent this from happening? 

[Werthead]

51 minutes ago, ThinkerX said:

Why is the prospect of these Russian Rebels taking and holding a major Russian city 'extremely unlikely?' What, exactly, does Russia have in place to prevent this from happening? 

I think the idea of the Russian brigades taking and capturing a city contested is improbable because of their numbers.

Them arriving in a city with little or no military presence and disgruntled locals agreeing to keep their heads down and off the streets to see how it plays out is possible. The brigades are holding several small villages on this basis. However, the areas they are holding close to the border are also well within range of Ukrainian artillery support. To take Belgorod, for example, they would have to move out of effective Ukrainian artillery range, then contest the city street by street, admittedly with Russian troops of uncertain loyalty and calibre.

It's not impossible for them to achieve this but I think it is unlikely.

Somewhat more likely at this moment (although still not probable) is Prigozhin marching on Moscow or doing something batshit and everyone ducks for cover, local warlords and mercenaries start looking out for themselves and maybe these partisans can then make some headway in capturing territory, although in reality they'd be more likely to strike deals with local government, swapping support for security etc.

ETA: Having said all of that, Russian forces have confirmed they have pulled out of Novaya Tavolzhanka on the Belgorod-Ukraine border and ceded it to the Russian partisan forces. That's a town of about 6,000 people.

ETA2: This guy will be supporting the Australian cricket team for the rest of his life:

 

Edited June 7, 2023 by Werthead

[Clueless Northman]

9 hours ago, Maithanet said:

The troops used to defend those areas can now be shifted to wherever is hottest on the front as Ukraine's offensive gets going.  With a single war crime, Russia was able to create a reserve of several brigades.

I've seen Russians arguing Ukraine could've done it so that it could ship several brigades to the offensive in the East. This is it, it works for both sides, which is why that's not a valid argument - if one side can reduce troops in Kherson and send them elsewhere, the other side can do it just as well. No gain at all. If someone did it, better look for something that advantages only one side.

 

10 hours ago, Gorn said:

Regarding the theory that Ukraine did it, Soviet dams were designed to withstand strategic bombing with half-ton bombs, and only a direct nuclear strike could destroy them from the outside. A 40 kg howitzer shell would have the same effect on it as a firecracker.

That's probably Soviet exaggeration. But then this only goes for the dam itself, and Russia obviously didn't nuke it. The upper installations built on top of the bottom dam - bridge, power station, sluices and the like - aren't made to resist a major bombing, they will suffer just like any random building in any city. Would be interesting to see if the water level plateaus soon and there's still a sizable lake left or if the berach goes to the bottom of the dam, would be indication of the damages. Though the lock might be way deeper and, if destroyed, might allow flow of water that would drain pretty much the whole lake.

[The Anti-Targ]

I'm not sure this level of destruction of the dam is uniquely advantageous to either side. Which is why I think that while the action was intentional, by Russia, the outcome was not intended or expected.

They probably didn't ask any engineers with expertise in dams about the risks and just thought "If we can damage the top of the dam in one location without causing a major disaster we can surely damage another section and still leave the dam 95% intact."

[Maithanet]

1 hour ago, Clueless Northman said:

I've seen Russians arguing Ukraine could've done it so that it could ship several brigades to the offensive in the East. This is it, it works for both sides, which is why that's not a valid argument - if one side can reduce troops in Kherson and send them elsewhere, the other side can do it just as well. No gain at all. If someone did it, better look for something that advantages only one side.

But that logic doesn't withstand scrutiny.  The Russians already had a (large) foothold on the north bank of the river and they couldn't hold it.  There is basically zero chance that Russia would attempt to cross the Dnipro again anytime soon.  Ukraine was already in a position where they can hold that ground with the tiniest of forces.

[mcbigski]

13 hours ago, Gorn said:

Regarding the theory that Ukraine did it, Soviet dams were designed to withstand strategic bombing with half-ton bombs, and only a direct nuclear strike could destroy them from the outside. A 40 kg howitzer shell would have the same effect on it as a firecracker.

I just wish our dams in US could only be breached by 'a direct nuclear strike'.  I'm not an engineer, but I rather doubt that the Soviets built all of their dams to not only withstand century or more floods, but also direct nuclear strikes.  What, do you read the NYT or something?  Laughable.

2 hours ago, The Anti-Targ said:

I'm not sure this level of destruction of the dam is uniquely advantageous to either side. Which is why I think that while the action was intentional, by Russia, the outcome was not intended or expected.

They probably didn't ask any engineers with expertise in dams about the risks and just thought "If we can damage the top of the dam in one location without causing a major disaster we can surely damage another section and still leave the dam 95% intact."

Again, not a civil engineer, but I'm pretty sure that degrading 5% and only 5% of a dam isn't an achievable outcome, even if assuming that you knew knocking out 5% but not 10% of a dam's damming would lead to your goal.

I'm pretty sure both the Russians and Ukrainians can figure out which side down river from a dam is going to take the brunt of the flooding. 

So if it's mostly Russian aligned villages getting swamped, where are the incentives?

[Makk]

18 minutes ago, mcbigski said:

I just wish our dams in US could only be breached by 'a direct nuclear strike'.  I'm not an engineer, but I rather doubt that the Soviets built all of their dams to not only withstand century or more floods, but also direct nuclear strikes.  What, do you read the NYT or something?  Laughable.

Again, not a civil engineer, but I'm pretty sure that degrading 5% and only 5% of a dam isn't an achievable outcome, even if assuming that you knew knocking out 5% but not 10% of a dam's damming would lead to your goal.

I'm pretty sure both the Russians and Ukrainians can figure out which side down river from a dam is going to take the brunt of the flooding. 

So if it's mostly Russian aligned villages getting swamped, where are the incentives?

When in the entire history of warfare has a dam been blown by the side about to conduct an offensive in that area? And these are not Russian villages, they are Ukrainian, they are nothing to Russia. If Ukraine was going to blow up that dam they would have done so in the opening weeks of the war to stop Russia capturing Kherson in the first place.

While it is true this is not really that beneficial for Russia (it will only strengthen the defense in that area for a couple of weeks), Russia has time and time again performed stupid, inhumane and shortsighted acts that shoot themselves in the foot. Why anyone would even contemplate thinking this could have been Ukraine, let alone come to the conclusion that it probably was, staggers me.

I do believe the main reason this was done was to appear ruthless and give all parties pause for thought when they make threats about nuking things or triggering other mass destruction events.

[mcbigski]

1 minute ago, Makk said:

When in the entire history of warfare has a dam been blown by the side about to conduct an offensive in that area? And these are not Russian villages, they are Ukrainian, they are nothing to Russia. If Ukraine was going to blow up that dam they would have done so in the opening weeks of the war to stop Russia capturing Kherson in the first place.

While it is true this is not really that beneficial for Russia (it will only strengthen the defense in that area for a couple of weeks), Russia has time and time again performed stupid, inhumane and shortsighted acts that shoot themselves in the foot. Why anyone would even contemplate thinking this could have been Ukraine, let alone come to the conclusion that it probably was, staggers me.

I do believe the main reason this was done was to appear ruthless and give all parties pause for thought when they make threats about nuking things or triggering other mass destruction events.

In the entire history of warfare, are you saying no one has ever destroyed a dam for a tactical advantage?  Even pre Isaac Newton, people advanced enough to walk mostly upright can tell up from down.

Your best bet is to block me and listen exclusively to the Associated Press.

[Makk]

5 minutes ago, mcbigski said:

In the entire history of warfare, are you saying no one has ever destroyed a dam for a tactical advantage?  Even pre Isaac Newton, people advanced enough to walk mostly upright can tell up from down.

Your best bet is to block me and listen exclusively to the Associated Press.

It happens frequently in warfare, always from the defending side though.

Edit Also it wouldn't just be the Associated Press (not that I have read anything from them) that believes it was the Russians, it is pretty much 90%+ of any media, governments or specialist analysis on the war that isn't Russian.

Edited June 8, 2023 by Makk

[karaddin]

This historical example doesn't really shed any light on which side would have done it, but it certainly speaks to "factions in war sometimes think flooding will help them when it very much didn't" - the 1642 Yellow River flood was instigated by both sides of the conflict and resulted in the destruction of the city of Kaifeng killing 300,000 civilians.

[Padraig]

6 hours ago, Makk said:

Edit Also it wouldn't just be the Associated Press (not that I have read anything from them) that believes it was the Russians, it is pretty much 90%+ of any media, governments or specialist analysis on the war that isn't Russian.

The Associated Press or any other mainstream media hasn't declared that Russia was responsible.  Sure, they have reported that governments and specialists have pointed the finger at Russia (and reported that Russia has pointed the finger at Ukraine).  And there have presumably being some opinion pieces published on the issue.

That is all very normal and above board. It would be impossible to be 100% sure of anything at this stage.

mcbigski has his own sources of news, which are undoubtedly impeccable, but he never shares with us.  So, we'll never know why he alone can be 100% sure.

[Week]

24 minutes ago, Padraig said:

mcbigski has his own sources of news, which are undoubtedly impeccable, but he never shares with us.  So, we'll never know why he alone can be 100% sure.

He's still on the ivermectin drip, so the sources are really sound.

[Tongue Stuck to Wall]

8 hours ago, mcbigski said:

I just wish our dams in US could only be breached by 'a direct nuclear strike'.  I'm not an engineer, but I rather doubt that the Soviets built all of their dams to not only withstand century or more floods, but also direct nuclear strikes.  What, do you read the NYT or something?  Laughable.

Again, not a civil engineer, but I'm pretty sure that degrading 5% and only 5% of a dam isn't an achievable outcome, even if assuming that you knew knocking out 5% but not 10% of a dam's damming would lead to your goal.

I'm pretty sure both the Russians and Ukrainians can figure out which side down river from a dam is going to take the brunt of the flooding. 

So if it's mostly Russian aligned villages getting swamped, where are the incentives?

No, "mainstream" media has not been saying the a) the Ukrainians are not capable of culpability; and b) you can degrade a dam selectively to control the level of flooding that occurs:

Following the destruction of the Kakhovka Dam on early Tuesday morning, Kyiv and Moscow launched a series of accusations about who's responsible, but according to a report from The Washington Post in late December, a Ukrainian military officer suggested blowing up the dam could be a means for a last resort.

Ukraine's Major General Andrey Kovalchuk, the former commander of November's Kherson Counteroffensive, tells The Post how he intended to blow up the dam.

"Kovalchuk considered flooding the river," The Post writes. "The Ukrainians, he said, even conducted a test strike with a HIMARS launcher on one of the floodgates at the Nova Kakhovka dam, making three holes in the metal to see if the Dnieper's water could be raised enough to stymie Russian crossings but not flood nearby villages. The test was a success, Kovalchuk said, but the step remained a last resort. He held off."

And before you go off on the Post (although why would you as that portion of the article actually supports your assertion re: culpability), the italicized selection above was from Newsmax yesterday. 

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

9 hours ago, mcbigski said:

So if it's mostly Russian aligned villages getting swamped, where are the incentives?

You mean “Russian occupied villages”. Not “Russian aligned”.  Being occupied by Russian troops doesn’t mean you agree with Russian occupation.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

8 hours ago, Makk said:

When in the entire history of warfare has a dam been blown by the side about to conduct an offensive in that area? And these are not Russian villages, they are Ukrainian, they are nothing to Russia. If Ukraine was going to blow up that dam they would have done so in the opening weeks of the war to stop Russia capturing Kherson in the first place.

While it is true this is not really that beneficial for Russia (it will only strengthen the defense in that area for a couple of weeks), Russia has time and time again performed stupid, inhumane and shortsighted acts that shoot themselves in the foot. Why anyone would even contemplate thinking this could have been Ukraine, let alone come to the conclusion that it probably was, staggers me.

I do believe the main reason this was done was to appear ruthless and give all parties pause for thought when they make threats about nuking things or triggering other mass destruction events.

The Russian invasion of Ukraine was pretty irrational given that it has turned Russia into a pariah State and resulted in the deaths of more than 200,000 Russian citizens in under two years.