I know there is a Ukraine thread, but this isnt about the politics.
What impact will this have then? looking at Google maps the area effected will be huge, basically upstream looks like a lake more than a river. You cant see a new dam being constructed any time soon so will it all drain out to just a river again ?
Will the volume of water be enough to change the salt content of the Black Sea
Will the shift in water be enough to cause earth quakes ?
News coming out is very sketchy, but it's a massive body of water. How long is that water going to take to get 50km or so to Kherson ?
I was looking in the wiki page for the reservoir earlier. 18 cubic kilometres of water, or about 18 billion tonnes in weight. I don't know what that is in swimming pools but it'd be a bloody lot.
I saw something on Twitter about how this good for Russia's fresh water supply.
Not sure how?
. I don’t know what that is in swimming pools but it’d be a bloody lot.
18,000,000,000/2,500 = 7,200,000 Olympic pools
Roughly 7.2 million Olympic swimming pools
Flooding like that can spread effluent and cause disease.
Loads of stuff about this on the BBC website - the fact the damn was a hydro-electric plant & the waters behind supplied a nuclear power plant's cooling system makes this a real worry.
That along with the environmental damage this will cause.
This is a worrying escalation, even by Russian standards, or a clear sign that there military don't understand the consequences of their actions beyond military objectives.
Attacking a dam in this manner could be classed as a war crime according to the Geneva Convention. Essentially it's akin to a weapon of mass destruction because of the unwarranted harm it may cause on civilian populations.
I saw something on Twitter about how this good for Russia’s fresh water supply
I dont think the russians were even vaguely thinking that far ahead
https://twitter.com/VolodyaTretyak/status/1666015265971118082
Wonder if it went because of ****eries, recklessness and incompetance rather than explosives
Wonder if it went because of ****eries, recklessness and incompetance rather than explosives
No. Russian spite. And explosives.
They're scum.
Maybe 10,12 years from now they'll release a movie about it.
You cant see a new dam being constructed any time soon so will it all drain out to just a river again ?
Depends to what depth the dam has been damaged. I doubt it's all the way down to the original river bed though still a major breach.
Will the volume of water be enough to change the salt content of the Black Sea
No idea.
Will the shift in water be enough to cause earth quakes ?
I can't imagine why it would.
How long is that water going to take to get 50km or so to Kherson ?
It's already arrived, there is flooding in Kherson.
I saw something on Twitter about how this good for Russia’s fresh water supply.
A canal from just behind the dam feeds fresh water to Crimea. If the water level falls significantly that feed will be disrupted.
Apparently the canal is already flowing in the wrong direction.
Dunno tbh, I'm not in any way pro-Russian but the strategic benefits to Ukraine can't be denied.
As always there are two sides and somewhere in between, the truth.
That said, this is a tragedy regardless.
Dunno tbh, I’m not in any way pro-Russian but the strategic benefits to Ukraine can’t be denied.
Such as?
I was looking in the wiki page for the reservoir earlier. 18 cubic kilometres of water, or about 18 billion tonnes in weight. I don’t know what that is in swimming pools but it’d be a bloody
Loch Ness holds 7.45 km3 of water. So, almost 2.5 times Loch Ness
As always there are two sides and somewhere in between, the truth.
Not in every case. Either the Russians blew it up or the Ukranians did. Threy can't both (or neither) have done it.
Either the Russians blew it up or the Ukrainians did.
Or the Russians were incompetent or didn't care if it failed so didn't manage the dam. Still their fault.
Such as?
I assume you haven't read the reports?
That dam is used to supply water to Crimea for one; no dam, no water.
It's also going to be significantly easier to cross the river upstream of the dam with a 30m head of water gone.
Finally the IAEA seem confident that the nuclear power station downstream has enough diversity of supply to maintain cooling. The Ukrainians will know fine what resources the power station has at it's disposal, there's no way they want another nuclear disaster in their country.
Or the Russians were incompetent or didn’t care if it failed so didn’t manage the dam. Still their fault.
There's also the possibility of a rogue element on either side that neither would want to acknowledge. My point was that whatever the official word is on either side there's a good chance the reality is somewhat different.
Already mentioned up thread but it was widely reported last year that the Russians had mined the dam, so it seems - intentionally or not - they caused it to blow.
If that was blown up on purpose it looks like a mix of desperation or stupidity. IIRC the dam was pretty much the only remaining crossing of the Dnipro until you go far north east to the other end of the lake so with that gone there's basically no chance for Ukraine to do a ground assault into eastern Kherson unless their sappers are very good at (re)building bridges.
Of course the key water supply into Crimea is borked too, the Kursk bridge is damaged (some nice big cracks appeared in it a few weeks back) and I'm wondering if the Russians are unsure that they can actually hold Crimea agains a sustained ground assault...hence the desperation.
The Nuclear power station in Zaphoriza is pretty much on cold shut down except one reactor that is still warm (but on near shutdown) and there's a separate lake for cooling water so it should (fingers crossed...blimey are we really thinking about this...) be ok.
If the dam was blown up (its been heavily shelled and mined over the last 15 months) and then regardless of who did it (timing is very convenient/suspicious...cough*russia*cough) thats a clear breach of the Geneva Convention.
Probably won't find out what really happened for years yet though.
I dont think the russians were even vaguely thinking that far ahead
Oh, they were, they already had the propaganda blaming Ukraine for it ready to go. It’s what they do, standard Russian playbook. Exactly the same with Russian tourists visiting Salisbury to see the world famous cathedral.
Dunno tbh, I’m not in any way pro-Russian but the strategic benefits to Ukraine can’t be denied.
The strategic benefit of the dam, with its road across the top, was that it allowed Ukrainian armoured vehicles access into Crimea. Now it doesn’t, because much of the road networks are under metres of water, and Leopard, Challenger, T-60 tanks and Bradley fighting vehicles can’t swim very well.
muddy@rseguy beat me to the last bit there!
regardless of who did it (timing is very convenient/suspicious…cough*russia*cough) thats a clear breach of the Geneva Convention.
Just one more clear breach, along with deliberate targeting of civilian targets to add to the ever growing pile of folders on someone’s desk. Like Russia gives a shit. I mean, who are the victims here?
Clear breach of the geneva convention? What about the dambusters raid?
The allies being shits 70 years ago doesn't excuse this. We also firebombed Dresden which was undoubtedly a war crime, doubt we'd do it today but the Russians quite happily bomb residential blocks across Ukraine.
well said
I mean, who are the victims here?
As always, the civilians. Always has been, always will be. Kill enough and you get to write up the history books.
We can bleat on about 'Geneva convention' but its all pretty much hypocrisy. Superpowers will do what they want, and there's not going to be any comeback.
Today it's Ukraine/Russia, tomorrow it could be Africa/America, or India/whomever.
As they say. The oldest crimes in the newest ways.
Clear breach of the geneva convention? What about the dambusters raid?
The 'Geneva convention' relates to 4 separate agreements. The bit I think you are referring to was agreed in 1949 and enacted in 1950, after WWII
Clear breach of the geneva convention? What about the dambusters raid?
Dambusters - 1943
Geneva Convention - 1949
Not to mention that the Ruhr dams were hugely strategic as they provided electricity and water to the steel factories. In the Ukraine it seems they just wanted to knock a river crossing out.
There are 4 Geneva conventions dating back well before that. there was a geneva convention in place during WW2. dambusters raid was clearly a war crime as was the destruction of dams in libya during the gulf war
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geneva_Conventions
NATO will attack non-military targets.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/1999/apr/24/balkans3
"Journalists who are not members of armed forces and engaged in professional missions in areas of armed conflict shall be considered as civilians. They shall be protected under international humanitarian law provided that they take no hostile action".
Don't get me wrong - I am not defending the Russians in any way - just pointing out the inconsistencies / double standards on this.
Not to mention that the Ruhr dams were hugely strategic as they provided electricity and water to the steel factories.
I don't think they were "hugely" strategic and the damage caused was very quickly repaired. The cost in civilian deaths was high though, and many of the civilians were Allied nationals.
I am not suggesting that staging the raid was wrong though. But had the Allies lost the war it would probably have been classed as a war crime.
Geneva Convention – 1949
And dams only covered from 1977. And both sides regarded the attacks as legitimate military not terror attacks during WW2.
”Journalists who are not members of armed forces and engaged in professional missions in areas of armed conflict shall be considered as civilians.”
Shutting down propaganda being transmitted isn’t covered but that.
Back on topic… today’s destruction was predicted last year, and was expected to be at this time, to remove the advantage of hard summer ground for any advancing Ukrainian forces, especially tanks. I find it odd that the media coverage seems to be treating this as a total surprise, and not mentioning why it was to be expected… and even giving credence to the idea it might be accidental or a Ukrainian attack.
just pointing out the inconsistencies / double standards on this.
It isnt really. Quite a lot of the "strategic" bombing carried out in WWII would, rightly, be considered a war crime if our governments did it now.
Part of the reason why was after WWII people looking at the devastation caused and campaigning for it not to happen again.
Its part of why bomber campaign didnt get a memorial for many years.
Its also worth noting they did start off trying to precision bomb but the technology simply wasnt up to the task in most cases (although Ruhr dams are an example of them succeeding in this). Even bombing cities they sometimes missed and attacked some other poor place instead.
The most extreme being the USAF fifty plane bomb raid on Schaffhausen in Switzerland after going about 150 miles off target.
Shutting down propaganda being transmitted isn’t covered but that.
Which pretty much makes every journalist a target by at least one side.
I find it odd that the media coverage seems to be treating this as a total surprise, and not mentioning why it was to be expected…
I think its because although it was a possibility it is a risky option for the Russians. Its not far off destroying the village in order to save it.
Its not far off destroying the village in order to save it.
The Russians aren’t trying to save anything. They’ll flatten the village, town, city, county if they consider it to their military advantage.
Isn't there already a Ukraine thread that has argued these things endlessly?
Back on thread. On the radio this morning they were talking about the potential impact on grain production. I wasn't able to catch what was said, and i'm not familiar with the role the dam plays in agriculture in the region, but according to the Kyiv Independent wheat prices rose 3% already.
It appears all the land mines are being washed up and are being carried along with the flow.
The scale of ground/water pollution has got to be huge.
Just on the wireless that the initial surge has moved down stream. Does that mean the volume of the lake has already passed through, or there is an initial surge at breach that then becomes a steady flow.
The Delta looks a stunning natural region (not agricultural) which I assume will now be under water for some time.
I wasn’t able to catch what was said, and i’m not familiar with the role the dam plays in agriculture in the region
The reservoir was used to supply irrigation canals for the region. So those are all going to run dry.
