https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2022/12/29/ukraine-offensive-kharkiv-kherson-donetsk

<quotes>

Russia had to arm and feed its forces via three crossings: the Antonovsky Bridge, the Antonovsky railway bridge and the Nova Kakhovka dam, part of a hydroelectric facility with a road running on top of it.

The two bridges were targeted with U.S.-supplied HIMARS launchers and were quickly rendered impassable. "There were moments when we turned off their supply lines completely, and they still managed to build crossings," [Ukrainian Maj. Gen. Andriy] Kovalchuk said.

Kovalchuk considered flooding the river. 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.

<quotes>

So, did they finally do it, and discover that it had far worse consequences than they had predicted through their tests ?

Or did their testing merely lead to the dam ultimately collapsing ?

On Sun, 11 Jun 2023 19:13:12 +0100, The Happy Hippy wrote:

> https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2022/12/29/ukraine-offensive-
kharkiv-kherson-donetsk
>
> <quotes>
>
> Russia had to arm and feed its forces via three crossings: the
> Antonovsky Bridge, the Antonovsky railway bridge and the Nova Kakhovka
> dam, part of a hydroelectric facility with a road running on top of it.
>
> The two bridges were targeted with U.S.-supplied HIMARS launchers and
> were quickly rendered impassable. "There were moments when we turned off
> their supply lines completely, and they still managed to build
> crossings," [Ukrainian Maj. Gen. Andriy] Kovalchuk said.
>
> Kovalchuk considered flooding the river. 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.
>
> <quotes>
>
> So, did they finally do it, and discover that it had far worse
> consequences than they had predicted through their tests ?
>
> Or did their testing merely lead to the dam ultimately collapsing ?

It could still be Russia although I'm tending to go with an 'unintended
consequences of previous damage with general crappy construction' theory.

Russia's best bet is to make supporting Ukraine morally untenable or too
dangerous for the West. Russia has no problem attacking civilian
infrastructure in Ukraine so I think they'd do it if they saw an
advantage, I'd just like to see more proof before I pick a side.

On Sun, 11 Jun 2023 23:12:53 GMT
TWP <ngspammersad@yahoo.com> wrote:

> On Sun, 11 Jun 2023 19:13:12 +0100, The Happy Hippy wrote:
>
> > https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2022/12/29/ukraine-offensive-
> kharkiv-kherson-donetsk
> >
> > <quotes>
> >
> > Russia had to arm and feed its forces via three crossings: the
> > Antonovsky Bridge, the Antonovsky railway bridge and the Nova
> > Kakhovka dam, part of a hydroelectric facility with a road running
> > on top of it.
> >
> > The two bridges were targeted with U.S.-supplied HIMARS launchers
> > and were quickly rendered impassable. "There were moments when we
> > turned off their supply lines completely, and they still managed to
> > build crossings," [Ukrainian Maj. Gen. Andriy] Kovalchuk said.
> >
> > Kovalchuk considered flooding the river. 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.
> >
> > <quotes>
> >
> > So, did they finally do it, and discover that it had far worse
> > consequences than they had predicted through their tests ?
> >
> > Or did their testing merely lead to the dam ultimately collapsing ?
> >
>
>
> It could still be Russia although I'm tending to go with an
> 'unintended consequences of previous damage with general crappy
> construction' theory.

I haven't seen any evidence of poor construction being to blame. It has stood for almost 70 years without problem.

That to me feels like a prepared excuse should it be proven that Ukraine's attack on the dam led to its failure.

> Rssia's best bet is to make supporting Ukraine morally untenable or
> too dangerous for the West.

That's going to be difficult when the west collectively ignores the evidence that it is, chooses to believe Zelensky's lies over truth.

Many outside the western hegemony know that Ukraine isn't the entirely innocent party the west pretends it is as we pursue regime change in Russia. Many don't support the west, with some even supporting Russia.

Only America's rightwing, and others on the right in Europe, have spoken up but they are simply ignored, aren't making a dent in the official narrative.

> Russia has no problem attacking civilian
> infrastructure in Ukraine

Nor does Ukraine as we have seen from their attack on the Kerch bridge, more worryingly their shelling of the Zaporizhzhia nuclear plant, and their admitted attacks on the Kakhovka dam.

Ukraine in recent weeks has taken to attacking civilian infrastructure in Russia.

And, while not conclusively proven yet, the west has plenty of evidence that Ukraine blew up the Nord Stream pipeline.

> so I think they'd do it if they saw an advantage

Probably. The west does it, Ukraine does it, everyone does it, so it would be surprising if Russia did not.

> I'd just like to see more proof before I pick a side.

You are meant to believe what you are told to believe :-)