- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Latest Updates: Russia-Ukraine Conflict
Posted on 6/6/23 at 3:17 pm to doubleb
Posted on 6/6/23 at 3:17 pm to doubleb
quote:
Does anyone know if the explosions reported were from a missile or from explosives from inside the dam???
This is the $64000 question. It will probably take some time for the answer.
This post was edited on 6/6/23 at 3:18 pm
1
Posted on 6/6/23 at 3:34 pm to cypher
If you want to know what the likely long-term plans are for the Dnipro, then I recommend this interview with Ihor Syrota, General Director of the state-owned company Ukrhydroenergo.
Of course, he discusses why and how he thinks that Russia did it, but that's not the interesting part to me.
LINK
In other words, what Ukraine is now going to do is fully utilize the dams further upriver, especially at Zaporizhzhia, and essentially dry up the Dnipro downstream.
Now, he makes the point that I made earlier. There was no real tactical advantage to Russia's blowing the dam. If they wanted to flood Ukrainian positions on the islands in the Dnipro delta and their little area on the other side of the Dnipro, they could have simply opened all the floodgates, because the water level was at a 30-year high. They HAD the control station. There was no need to blow the dam, which is, again, part of why I personally think that failure is more likely.
In the longer term, with the water held upstream, Ukraine can build a new dam.
Of course, he discusses why and how he thinks that Russia did it, but that's not the interesting part to me.
LINK
quote:
We will see the peak tomorrow morning. Tomorrow it will stabilize, and on the third or fourth day it will begin to subside. We think that within 10 days all the water will have already gone to the Black Sea, and when the reservoir is empty, of course, the channel of the Dnieper to the Black Sea will also be with a small amount of water. There will be practically no water there at all if we block the DniproHES.
In other words, what Ukraine is now going to do is fully utilize the dams further upriver, especially at Zaporizhzhia, and essentially dry up the Dnipro downstream.
quote:
And you will cross this channel of the Dnieper on foot. There will be no such channel of the Dnieper, because the operation will be minimal. Moreover, we go into the summer, there is no such water.
Of course, we will store as much water as possible in the upper reservoirs and hope for a speedy de-occupation so that we can shut off the Kakhovka reservoir and work as much water as possible from all reservoirs to fill Kakhovka and provide people with drinking water, and then industry and agriculture. And most importantly, to save the channel of the Dnieper and the Kakhovka reservoir from the environmental catastrophe caused by the Russians.
Now, he makes the point that I made earlier. There was no real tactical advantage to Russia's blowing the dam. If they wanted to flood Ukrainian positions on the islands in the Dnipro delta and their little area on the other side of the Dnipro, they could have simply opened all the floodgates, because the water level was at a 30-year high. They HAD the control station. There was no need to blow the dam, which is, again, part of why I personally think that failure is more likely.
quote:
If they wanted to achieve, say, some "success" to stop the [AFU's] counteroffensive: they have a crane, nothing prevented them from raising 24 bolts, working almost all the water and achieving the same effect through water seals and flooding the entire zone.
That is, I do not see the logic and engineering approach here. Because it was possible to flood without undermining, achieve "success" and say at the world level: yes, we did not blow up anything, we flooded, so what, we stop the counteroffensive, this is such a question. If the units were blown up, well, the units were damaged. But when a station is blown up, I apologize, this is a slightly different qualification.
In the longer term, with the water held upstream, Ukraine can build a new dam.
quote:
Today we also worked with the design institute. We have already received calls from design institutes from both Switzerland and Italy, which give their proposals for assistance in quickly designing a new station. First of all, we will need to fence off and shut off the Kakhovka reservoir in order to provide water to the population. And, of course, prepare for the rapid restoration of the Kakhovka station.
Posted on 6/6/23 at 3:42 pm to GOP_Tiger
I should add that, whether or not Russia intentionally blew up the dam, they bear significant responsibility for allowing the water in the dam to reach a 30-year high. That kind of pressure on an already-damaged dam was unsafe. And why would Russia allow the water to get that high, unless they were planning something like this?
That's why, even without firm proof, Europe is flatly blaming Russia. I think that today is going to result in significant additional aid to Ukraine. And the calls from inside the US Capitol for Biden to send ATACMS will grow louder.
That's why, even without firm proof, Europe is flatly blaming Russia. I think that today is going to result in significant additional aid to Ukraine. And the calls from inside the US Capitol for Biden to send ATACMS will grow louder.
Posted on 6/6/23 at 3:46 pm to GOP_Tiger
Another reason to doubt that Russia intentionally blew up the dam:
CNN
Exclusive: Ukrainian troops witnessed Russian soldiers swept away in dam breach floodwaters
CNN
Exclusive: Ukrainian troops witnessed Russian soldiers swept away in dam breach floodwaters
quote:
Ukrainian troops witnessed Russian soldiers being swept up in flood waters and fleeing the east bank of the Dnipro River after the collapse of the Nova Khakovka dam, an officer in Ukraine's armed forces said. Many Russian troops were killed or wounded in the chaos, according to the officer.
Capt. Andrei Pidlisnyi said when the dam collapsed in the early hours of Tuesday morning “no one on the Russian side was able to get away. All the regiments the Russians had on that side were flooded.”
Pidlisnyi told CNN he believed the Russians had deliberately attacked the dam to disrupt Ukrainian forces’ plans for an upcoming offensive.
“Around 3 a.m., the enemy blew up the Kakhovka Hydro Power Plant in order to raise the water level to flood the approaches and the left bank of the Dnipro River, as well as the settlements located there. And to make it impossible for the Ukrainian armed forces to advance in the future," he claimed.
Pidlisnyi explained that the lie of the land around the river meant that Russia’s military — located on the east bank — suffered serious impacts in the dam’s breach. His unit was able to watch the events unfold through the use of drones and troops on the scene.
“The left [east] bank is lower than the right bank, so it is more flooded. The enemy’s positions right on the riverbank were also flooded. You need to understand that the enemy's positions are not only trenches but also ordinary civilian houses where they lived," Pidlisnyi said.
The Russian units in harm’s way may not have been warned, possibly to maintain the element of surprise, Pidlisnyi said.
Posted on 6/6/23 at 3:52 pm to GOP_Tiger
quote:
Another reason to doubt that Russia intentionally blew up the dam:
but both sides had to evacuate troops after the dam breach, so this "reason to doubt" both sides cancels each other out.
Posted on 6/6/23 at 3:53 pm to GOP_Tiger
A little more comic relief from the Russian MOD
https://twitter.com/Trollstoy88/status/1666073472735539208
https://twitter.com/Trollstoy88/status/1666073472735539208
quote:
"For 3 days of hostilities in all directions, the losses of the AFU amounted to 3.715 servicemen, 52 tanks, 207 armored vehicles, 134 vehicles, 5 aircrafts and 2 helicopters," - Shoigu.
Posted on 6/6/23 at 3:55 pm to Chromdome35
They forgot to add the US aircraft carrier full of f35s that they also sank
Posted on 6/6/23 at 3:56 pm to GOP_Tiger
Not surprising. Russian ruling class has never cared about their soldiers or citizens.
The fact their own soldiers got swept up its a statistic to them.
The fact their own soldiers got swept up its a statistic to them.
Posted on 6/6/23 at 3:56 pm to Chromdome35
quote:
"For 3 days of hostilities in all directions, the losses of the AFU amounted to 3.715 servicemen, 52 tanks, 207 armored vehicles, 134 vehicles, 5 aircrafts and 2 helicopters," - Shoigu.
That's quite an imagination. Again, if they want this stuff to be possibly believable, they need to scale these fantasies back a little.
Posted on 6/6/23 at 3:59 pm to notiger1997
In everything about the dam, there's been very little news today about what's happening in southern Donetsk Oblast.
Posted on 6/6/23 at 4:21 pm to GOP_Tiger
Are there just a bunch of jackass lurking trolls downvoting everything left and right with no direction other than it does not fit their desired narrative?
Lol bloated turds.
Lol bloated turds.
Posted on 6/6/23 at 4:44 pm to GOP_Tiger
quote:
In everything about the dam, there's been very little news today about what's happening in southern Donetsk Oblast.
Ah, here we go. From the best source: Biden administration leaks.
From Washington Post columnist David Ignatius:
quote:
Biden administration officials believe the offensive began on Monday with a Ukrainian thrust south along multiple axes. A major goal is to cut the land bridge across southeastern Ukraine that connects Russia with its occupation forces in Crimea, U.S. officials believe. Part of Ukraine’s strategy appears to be an attack along several lanes, so they can move forces among them to hit targets of greatest opportunity.
Administration officials were encouraged by better-than-expected progress Monday, as Ukrainian units pushed through heavily mined areas to advance between five and 10 kilometers in some areas of the long front. That raised hopes that Ukrainian forces can keep thrusting toward Mariupol, Melitopol and other Russian-held places along the coast — severing the land bridge.
quote:
It might take weeks before the results of the Ukrainian campaign are clear, but Kyiv has already succeeded in expanding the stalemated fighting in Bakhmut, the bitterly contested eastern city that was ground zero through the winter. This is now a campaign with multiple military and political fronts — and aftershocks that reach to Moscow, Beijing and Washington.
On the eve of the Ukrainian offensive, one notable development was the growing disarray of Russian forces. Yevgeniy Prigozhin, leader of the Wagner militia that did much of the fighting in Bakhmut, has been issuing almost daily tirades against the Russian army. He argued, for example, that its claims of routing Ukrainian forces this week in the Donetsk region were “simply wild and absurd science fiction.”
Posted on 6/6/23 at 4:52 pm to GOP_Tiger
Somehow I missed this post during the day. I had not factored in the dams up stream
I now change my theory.
1) Ukraine had to view the possibility of Russia blowing the dam to prevent a Ukrainian crossing in Kherson.
2) Russia would have had to consider the possibility of using the dam as a weapon and coupled with this they could have used the marshy area on the east back to their advantage. Less troops to defend.
3) Russia allowing the reservoir to ready 30 year year helps to reinforce both points above. At a higher water level you exponentially increase the dam as a weapon.
4) if dams up stream stop flow the previous reservoir will quickly dry. In 2-4 weeks Russia has an additional front line to defend. Gone is the natural barrier that allowed them to reduce troops and defenses in the area.
Looking at the map I always figured the best path if attack was east of Tomak. And looking at how Russia built up defenses in the area they anticipated the same tactic. Russia never considered a dry dnipor. Unless they can do something quickly their left flank to Crimea is lightly guarded
One question I have. Has Ukraine been lowering the water level by use of the dams farther north to be able to now stop water flow? Is this why the reservoir was at a 30 year high because they were preemptively lowering water levels to have capacity to sit off flow? Rainy season is now over.
I now change my theory.
1) Ukraine had to view the possibility of Russia blowing the dam to prevent a Ukrainian crossing in Kherson.
2) Russia would have had to consider the possibility of using the dam as a weapon and coupled with this they could have used the marshy area on the east back to their advantage. Less troops to defend.
3) Russia allowing the reservoir to ready 30 year year helps to reinforce both points above. At a higher water level you exponentially increase the dam as a weapon.
4) if dams up stream stop flow the previous reservoir will quickly dry. In 2-4 weeks Russia has an additional front line to defend. Gone is the natural barrier that allowed them to reduce troops and defenses in the area.
Looking at the map I always figured the best path if attack was east of Tomak. And looking at how Russia built up defenses in the area they anticipated the same tactic. Russia never considered a dry dnipor. Unless they can do something quickly their left flank to Crimea is lightly guarded
One question I have. Has Ukraine been lowering the water level by use of the dams farther north to be able to now stop water flow? Is this why the reservoir was at a 30 year high because they were preemptively lowering water levels to have capacity to sit off flow? Rainy season is now over.
Posted on 6/6/23 at 4:53 pm to SwampGar
quote:Seems to be the case.
Are there just a bunch of jackass lurking trolls downvoting everything left and right with no direction other than it does not fit their desired narrative?
I wish the site would attach names to votes and cut out the trolls, but that does not seem to be in the cards.
Posted on 6/6/23 at 4:59 pm to GOP_Tiger
quote:Hats off.
I try to play it straight.
Excellent posts today.
Posted on 6/6/23 at 5:03 pm to GOP_Tiger
quote:
That's why, even without firm proof, Europe is flatly blaming Russia.
I think some leaders in Europe have more or less said anything that breaks in Ukraine while occupied by Russia is Russia’s fault. I think a variation of this may have been said in connection with Ukrainian air defense missiles falling in Poland (at least I think that’s what happened. Hard for me to remember which was the real vs false narrative around that incident).
And I think that is the prevailing position in Europe - the Russian invasion is the proximate cause of all destruction caused by this war.
Posted on 6/6/23 at 5:06 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
OTOH, our employment of dollar reserve levers, swift system sanctions, unilateral asset seizures, etc. will eventually prove to have been a huge mistake. We showed our own slip on that one.
The sanctions strategy could possibly backfire, as well as using the dollar as reserve currency in a directly weaponized form, but I don't see how asset seizures will have much blowback.
Posted on 6/6/23 at 5:16 pm to ticklechain
quote:
Also video of it being shelled this morning
What video of it being shelled this morning?
Are you referring to these? If not please provide links.
https://twitter.com/chris__759/status/1666136629789044764 - Video x 2
There is a third video around but it is just the first video flipped around. As many commenters point out there is no noise beforehand from incoming fire which is unusual and slowing the video down shows no descending munitions.
The way the person capturing the footage runs at the beginning indicates they were responding to earlier explosions or, much less probably, because they knew they would happen.
Lastly these are both on the beach areas and appear to be in the process of being submerged so are more likely pre-laid mines being set off by the detritus thrown around by the breakwater.
Or perhaps this?
https://t.me/ok_spn/25014
This is new and not widely circulated yet from what I have seen.
I am very keen to see the preceding 40 minutes or so as that coincides approximately with when the dam is meant to have been blown up and if this is genuine looks like it was a set observational point. I do question why this wasn't released.
The explosion seems genuine rather than a superimposed image from the multiple splashes upstream as debris falls. Again there does not seem to be an incoming image of anything falling prior to the explosion and in size the blast resembles the other videos so there is the possibility that this was another disturbed mine.
I do concede the argument could be made that there has been sustained damage to the dam over the war and this was the straw that broke it, however explosions of that magnitude are not going to see such catastrophic failure unless there was a lot of it. Thus far there is only this video of anything blowing up on the dam itself, at least recently - even the November strike which was many times larger didn't cause the dam to fail though it was not a direct strike it, and may be a contributing factor to what has now happened.
Edit: Clarity
This post was edited on 6/6/23 at 5:23 pm
Posted on 6/6/23 at 5:17 pm to crazy4lsu
At a press conference today:
“Reporter: Lavrov said that F-16s have the ability to carry nuclear weapons. He says granting them will escalate the conflict.
Kirby:The first thing I would say to Lavrov is if you're worried about Ukraine's military capabilities,then you should withdraw your troops and leave”
Glad to see more and more in the US and Europe taking this line. Russia exerts force like water - it hallows out cracks, divisions and weaknesses. Push back with force.
“Reporter: Lavrov said that F-16s have the ability to carry nuclear weapons. He says granting them will escalate the conflict.
Kirby:The first thing I would say to Lavrov is if you're worried about Ukraine's military capabilities,then you should withdraw your troops and leave”
Glad to see more and more in the US and Europe taking this line. Russia exerts force like water - it hallows out cracks, divisions and weaknesses. Push back with force.
Posted on 6/6/23 at 5:34 pm to tigeraddict
quote:
I now change my theory.
1) Ukraine had to view the possibility of Russia blowing the dam to prevent a Ukrainian crossing in Kherson.
2) Russia would have had to consider the possibility of using the dam as a weapon and coupled with this they could have used the marshy area on the east back to their advantage. Less troops to defend.
3) Russia allowing the reservoir to ready 30 year year helps to reinforce both points above. At a higher water level you exponentially increase the dam as a weapon.
4) if dams up stream stop flow the previous reservoir will quickly dry. In 2-4 weeks Russia has an additional front line to defend. Gone is the natural barrier that allowed them to reduce troops and defenses in the area.
Looking at the map I always figured the best path if attack was east of Tomak. And looking at how Russia built up defenses in the area they anticipated the same tactic. Russia never considered a dry dnipor. Unless they can do something quickly their left flank to Crimea is lightly guarded
One question I have. Has Ukraine been lowering the water level by use of the dams farther north to be able to now stop water flow? Is this why the reservoir was at a 30 year high because they were preemptively lowering water levels to have capacity to sit off flow? Rainy season is now over.
Really interesting post, tigeraddict. It fits nicely with my earlier comment that the immediate tactical advantage is for Russia, since Ukraine cannot cross the Dnipro right now, but the long-term advantage is likely for Ukraine.
If the reservoir drains out in a few weeks, and Ukraine holds enough water back upstream so that the Dnipro does indeed become a river that can be crossed by foot, then Russia will absolutely not be able to defend all of that area -- and it hasn't even been extensively mined or fortified, because Russia wouldn't have expected it.
Page 2831 of 5046
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News