Here is a non partisan analysis of the dams destruction and potential
motives and consequences, no conclusion reached but gets into why each
side would or would not have wanted this cascade of water.

Brings up a point that I haven't seen mentioned before, that when Russia
took over the dam the water level behind it was historically low, by
manipulating the sluices [and winter snow runoff] they built it up to a
historically high level - Just in time to release it.
It is very clear that this will hinder any plans Ukraine might have had
to drive south towards Crimea and hence frees up scarce Russian manpower
for use elsewhere, so that reason alone points to Russian sabotage, to
gain a tactical military advantage, as I pointed out the day it happened.

He also gets into the finer points of scenarios for the large nuclear
facility upstream, and the consequences for civilians.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=04sg2uHQK7w
--
Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for
light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter.

On Fri, 9 Jun 2023 10:37:43 -0400
JeSSe <zo@so.org> wrote:

> Here is a non partisan analysis of the dams destruction and potential
> motives and consequences

I would suggest others watch it, draw their own conclusions, and ask themselves why someone who is partisan is recommending it to them.

Spaniel tells us how destroying the dam benefits Russia, which we all figured out anyway, but is less than convincing when acknowledging that would lose them the southern region and of course Crimea.

The best he can offer is that Putin knows he's so fucked that he's decided to throw in the towel, sacrifice the whole of Crimea, to defend occupied land in the east.

That makes no sense except when applying "mad mullah" theory.

The Happy Hippy wrote:
> On Fri, 9 Jun 2023 10:37:43 -0400
> JeSSe <zo@so.org> wrote:
>
>> Here is a non partisan analysis of the dams destruction and potential
>> motives and consequences
>
> I would suggest others watch it, draw their own conclusions, and ask themselves why someone who is partisan is recommending it to them.

If something is rather neutral and factual, then grown adults and Putin
whores alike might gleen something from it.

>
> Spaniel tells us how destroying the dam benefits Russia, which we all figured out anyway,

What do you mean "we", you have not uttered a peep about benefits to
Russia ,, Unless I do all your figuring for you.

> but is less than convincing when acknowledging that would lose them the southern region and of course Crimea.

I didn't glean that from the vid, in fact he proposes that this release
of water frees up Russian manpower to use elsewhere.

Doesn't take a Clausewitz to see that things are bleak for Putrid, have
been for quite some time, he has lost the initiative, drained his
manpower, wrecked his equipment and hence will more than likely take a
beating no matter what he does ,, In other words, no this release of
water doesn't win him the war, its a temporary reprieve from what
otherwise might have been [another] rout.

>
> The best he can offer is that Putin knows he's so fucked that he's decided to throw in the towel, sacrifice the whole of Crimea, to defend occupied land in the east.
>
> That makes no sense except when applying "mad mullah" theory.

That may or may not be the case, as I have said before when attempting
to predict the future, we don't know the order of battle. We don't know
the situation on the ground, we don't know who truly has the advantage
and is ready to use it.
Both sides lie, of course ,, Our press lies, and/or repeats lies, so
neither of us is in the best position to make accurate predictions.

I would only say, why couldn't he be mad ?
Threatening the world with nuclear annihilation for over a year would
qualify to many as mad. His options defending his conquest of Crimea
might well be reduced to near 0 ,, Or not, we just don't know.

I would only say:

* He's weak, else we'd have heard about smashing Ukrainian losses
* Ukraine is drained, but in a better position for offense due to help
from NATO nations, primarily USA

If you can agree with that, then the dam busting makes sense. There is
practically nothing Ukraine has gained, and in fact it has hampered
Ukraines initiative.
So, either Russia did it, or it was a failure with timing just
coincidentally just when Russia needed it.

--
Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for
light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter.