I'm afraid that the answer is that people who are afraid of the escalation simply don't feel that this their war, or a war that the US/UK/France/Germany should in any way be involved in.
To them I think the Ukrainians and Russians are generally the same (as are all Eastern Europeans generally), corrupt thieving kleptocrats by and large whose fate really has no impact on the Western world, hence why get involved, let them thrash it out between themselves, the Western world has its own problems to worry about.
The notion that letting a dictator like Putin grow in power is somehow a danger to global security also seems distant and elusive, after all, the US has done business in the past with many such dictators, the world did not end as a result.
I guess maybe poisoning people on UK territory probably crossed a line, making it slightly "their" conflict as well, but not to the point of actually risking any more than absolutely necessary. Putin has generally been careful about not directly treading on Western interests (quite the opposite actually), which was part of a conscious strategy of delineating spheres of influence between the East and West in Europe.
Let me play devil's advocate a bit. Your argument is based on purported rationality of Russian elites, while fear of nuclear attack in the West is rather grounded in Russian irrationality. Yes, oligharchs and apparatchiks who keep their families in London or Monaco would rather opt our from tactical attack scenario, but there are still those who have no ties with the West. What if Putin decides to sacrifice interests of the first group to prove that he is serious after all? He can still use the latter as a political base for prolonged, ultimate conflict with the West.
In such case, these people would have nothing to lose except Matushka Rossyia - same as their grandads who were dying for Joseph Stalin in The Great Patriotic War (as they call WW2). Russian propaganda is already exploring this trope, although so far it has been corroborated with lots of manipulation to prove that Russia is the victim, not the invader. But how will brainwashed Russian society react to tactical strike against Ukraine? Will they denounce Putin's regime finally, escape in swarms to Georgia/Kazakhstan/Mongolia or rather unite around Kremlin to protect the Fatherland? We do not know that, but we know that this is still majority of Russian population. And it can eventually reject the elite, as it did after 1917 revolution, when Whites have been pushed out by Reds with the popular support.
Of course, this silent majority will not win any war against NATO. But old Kermlin man may at some point realize that he is terminally ill, and start another patriotic war with nothing to lose for himself. We have seen this in the endless B class movies. The 9/11 also seemed to be B movie plot until is has really happened.
I'm actually more cynical about it. Thanks to Snowden (et al) we know, that every smarphone, smartwatch, SIri-, Alexa- or Google- compatible speaker or even a smart vacuum cleaner, is a listening device for US intelligence. I'm not saying it's good, I'm not saying it's bad, I'm just saying this is a proven fact. If there is a TikTok application running on one of these devices, Chinese are listening, too.
Maybe Putin does not use any of these, but people in his entourage do. Lavrov is frequently seen with an iPhone, for instance. So the moment they actually make the decision to arm the warheads, Americans will know it - maybe not from Lavrov's phone, but his assistant will text his lover to go to their dacha because it is no longer safe to be in Moscow.
It is actually irrelevant if they are rational or not. US intelligence is too far ahead of them - in terms of satellite reconassance and ubiquitousness of their listening devices. Russia is unable to do anything in secrecy, that's why their failed their original Blitzkrieg, you can't have one without the element of surprise. They can't do a surprise nuclear attack, either.
That assumes that the US is competent enough to quickly enough pick up this signal, process it efficiently and react appropriately. I can imagine the Biden administration, which took its sweet time to decide about the F-16s because of internal disagreements, being caught in a decision paralysis between the "hawks" (Blinken) and "chickens" (Sullivan), while the Russians are madly forging ahead.
The US technology is light years ahead of Russian, but the human & organisational side of their security services have some flaws, as shown by the Jack Teixeira leak (the guy should have never been given access to Top Security materials). Ukrainian security services avoid sharing sensitive stuff with the Americans, and they have some reason for it.
Just as we shouldn't have overestimated Russia, we should not overestimate the US, IMO.
They are a leaky cauldron, all right - Snowden was also a proof. But that's failure of counterintelligence, not intelligence. I make two assumptions, I don't think either is far-fetched.
First: then can identify crucial sources, such as "Soloviev's Apple Watch" or "Ksenya Shoigu's iPhone". And keep special track of them (they don't need to survey entire Moscow).
Second: the progress we see with Large Language Models (such as GPT) proves that Americans have the technology of machine analysis natural conversations in real time. Since even the freely available GPT allows us to simulate "conversation of Lavrov and his mistress about the imminent nuclear war", I guess this technology can also DETECT such conversation.
So I imagine some red light bliking if these crucial sources ("Peskov mistress Roomba robot") will suddenly detect suspicious conversations around them. Like in American thriller, someone would come to their boss saying "sir, Gerasimov just phoned his lover to leave Moscow ASAP".
I agree, they must have some technical ability to detect such phrases. What I'm worried about more is the organisational ability to respond quickly, especially at the higher levels. But maybe Russia trying to use nukes would push the doves into the hawk camp.
It seems that Ukrainians (or their allies inside Russia) understand the role of the elites very well - the recent drone strike at Moscow targeted the area where the elites have dachas (Novaya Riga and Rubliovka). It's a class war!
I think the blackmail risk works two-ways. That is, the more time they try to blackmail the West and it doesn't work, the less effective the blackmail becomes. They have overplayed this hand a lot, it was actually doing something at the beginning of the war, but now every time they do it, they make it more likely US will step through yet another border, because it becomes clear how meaningless the threat is.
Russia managed to complete a lot of achievements in this war. Lost lives of their soldiers, ruined economy, ruined, unrecoverable economic ties with the West, ruined resources export, ruined diplomatic relations, ruined position of RU-friendly agents (regardless if paid or just uninformed) in western societies, ruined image of a great, powerful empire. All gone, not coming back, and for nothing. And each point on that list was a real, big strength Russia had before the war.
Could someone please eastsplain to me the mainstream narrative that it was Russia that blew up the Novaya Kakhovka dam? Why would they jeopardise the water supply to Crimea? What's the strategy behind flooding mainly the left bank of the Dnieper without evacuating their soldiers first? Do you also believe that it is Russia that is shelling Shebekino? Is it Russia that blew up the Kerch bridge?
Can you wait for the next note? The very brief explanation is that in the "dog eat dog" of the Russian world, nobody thinks in the bigger picture. The army commander blowing up the dam does not give a rats ass about water supply to Crimea or about the survival of the Russian soldiers of different formation (there are frequent cases of infighting between troops loyal to Shoigu, Prigozhin, Kadyrov, Donbas warlords etc.).
Crimea had no water supply from the north since 2014 until 2022. They must have adapted to this situation. Hence, blowing up the dam in 2023 doesn't make a big difference for Crimea re water supply. It's unlikely their water needs increased significantly since February 2022.
OK, I'll wait for the next note. I'll just take note that I'm getting conflicting eastsplanations here. "Blowing up the dam in 2023 doesn't make a big difference for Crimea! The Russians know that they won't be able to hold Crimea, so they blew up the dam to cut off its water supply!" It's like listening to flat earthers give various mutually incompatible reasons why the Earth is flat.
You didn't ask for facts (which are not disputed - it was the Russians), you asked for the reasons. But who can know for sure what goes on in the Russki soldat's brain mush?
Of course the facts are disputed. Even the US have repeatedly said that it is not certain who blew up the dam. It is certain only in the minds of people believing in a black and white world, who don't even listen to what their allies say.
These two facts alone are sufficient to establish that the Russians did it:
1) The Russians had control of the dam for a year now,
2) It takes a significant amount of explosives, carefully placed, to cause such a sudden and catastrophic dam breach.
Perhaps the question whether it was fully intentional or not, can still be asked. Questions about motives are irrelevant, when only one party had the means.
The dam was exactly on the front line. Ukraine can fly drones over Moscow. Do you think it's unable to plant explosives in a place that's not more than a few dozens of metres away from the territory it controls?
"Could someone please eastsplain to me the mainstream narrative that it was Russia that blew up the Novaya Kakhovka dam?" → Why don't you have a look at this thread from Timothy Snyder: https://twitter.com/TimothyDSnyder/status/1666480705637851136
"Why would they jeopardise the water supply to Crimea?" → maybe they already know they can't hold it, so they're making sure it's destroyed for Ukraine, too.
"What's the strategy behind flooding mainly the left bank of the Dnieper without evacuating their soldiers first?" → how do you know that at least some soldiers haven't been evacuated?
"Do you also believe that it is Russia that is shelling Shebekino?", "Is it Russia that blew up the Kerch bridge?" → what's your point, you're asking these questions as if shelling Shebekino or blowing up that bridge were things that Ukraine should be ashamed of?
Besides, the soldiers on the islands were different formation than those in Kakhovka. It was already visible when Russian military bloggers shared stories of Ukrainian advances on the islands, with the repeated question - why our artillery does nothing about it? It did nothing about it, because it was assigned to other units.
What makes you think the Russian commanders care about the lives of the soldiers they pushed into the trenches without giving them food, equipment or training?
And why would the Russians prevent the evacuation of civilians in the flooded zones, if they weren't simply trying to create as big humanitarian disaster as possible, to distract the Ukrainians from the counteroffensive and punish them for resisting the invasion? It's a continuation of the winter attacks on energy infrastructure. Freeze them in winter, flood them in summer.
What kind of distraction is this? Ukraine cannot do much to help the Ukrainians on the left bank. How exactly is it going to distract the Ukrainians from the counter-offensive, the main part of which wasn't going to take place in that area anyway?
Why would Russia hinder civilian evac efforts, if its goals weren't to create maximum civilian suffering in Ukraine? And that's consistent with Russia blowing up the dam.
You haven't answered my question. Let me repeat, in case you missed it: How exactly is it going to distract the Ukrainians from the counter-offensive, the main part of which wasn't going to take place in that area anyway?
Soldiers with insufficient supplies can be used to stop or at least slow down the counter-offensive (if that weren't true, Ukraine would have retaken its territory long time ago). Soldiers who aren't evacuated in time and get flooded are useless.
The main thing stopping Ukraine from retaking the left bank of Dnipro was the Dnipro itself.
Russia pissed away 10s of 1000s of soldiers to take Bakhmut just for its symbolic value. Why wouldn't they sacrifice much less soldiers to commit an act of terror? Of course they would.
"The main thing stopping Ukraine from retaking the left bank of Dnipro was the Dnipro itself" -> Then, why would Russia make the level of the Dnipro go down permanently, at least until the dam is rebuilt?
"Russia pissed away 10s of 1000s of soldiers to take Bakhmut just for its symbolic value." -> It was not Russia, it was Prigozhyn, who mase it for his private aims.
"Why wouldn't they sacrifice much less soldiers to commit an act of terror? Of course they would." -> They wouldn't, because this particular act of terror puts them at disadvantage in many ways.
" It was not Russia, it was Prigozhyn, who mase it for his private aims." - this is the moment when you are almost close to understand it. You see, you can apply to literally everything Russia does. Nobody thinks of the bigger picture (Russia as such). In theory it should be Putin, but he is notably absent in this war. Prigozhin has his private aims, Shoigu has his private aims, Gerasimov has his private aims, and the guy who made the decision of blowing the dam has private aims. He just doesn't care about Crimea water supply or survival of the soldiers on the islands.
And this, how bloody convenient: just before the explosion, Russia passed a law prohibiting the investigation of exactly such catastrophes. What an amazing coincidence.
Or perhaps a bridge is not a river dam, ever thought about it? And Ukraine never got anywhere near to totally destroying the Kerch bridge, *because* they had no easy access to it. Unlike Russia to the dam.
Blowing up a dam from artillery or aerial strike is usually impossible. It was tested during the World War 2. Ever heard of the Dambusters? This operation required special bouncing bombs, Ukraine do not have them (nor the aerial superiority to fly there). Even on Russian TV they said Ukraine could not have done it because this dam was designed to survive nuclear war. It required physical access to plant the explosives in the machine room. HIMARS can't do it.
Just wondering, does this all mean that you also don't think that Russia is planning/considering blowing up the Zaporizhzhia power plant? Because the potential consequences of such a decision would be very similar to the consequences of using nukes.
As I wrote many times to you, I don't believe the sentence "Russia is planning something" makes any sense. It's a multiplayer game. "Battle Tsarskoye", so to speak. I wouldn't exclude the possibility that there is a general / warlord / oligarch, who is planning/considering this, with complete disregard of the consequenes for the others. Just as Prigozhin did not give a flying yeb about the lives of the Russian helicopter and airplane crews he ordered to shoot down.
OK, let me ask it another way: do you think we shouldn't worry about the possibility of the nuclear power plant getting blown up, just as you think we shouldn't worry about Russian nukes, as you argued in this note?
Not sure if I understand you. You don't rule it out, do you mean that it's a more realistic possibility than Russia using nukes? Why? Blowing up the nuclear power plant would be in effect very similar to dropping a nuke on it, wouldn't it?
Both create radioactive fallout, don't they? And in both cases they can wait for weather conditions that make the fallout go west. According to your theory, if they really want to blow up the power plant, we should see the "rush of heavily botoxed women sporting grotesquely inflated lips", shouldn't we?
And is there a reason why blowing up the plant shouldn't trigger a full NATO response, when a nuke should?
I'm afraid that the answer is that people who are afraid of the escalation simply don't feel that this their war, or a war that the US/UK/France/Germany should in any way be involved in.
To them I think the Ukrainians and Russians are generally the same (as are all Eastern Europeans generally), corrupt thieving kleptocrats by and large whose fate really has no impact on the Western world, hence why get involved, let them thrash it out between themselves, the Western world has its own problems to worry about.
The notion that letting a dictator like Putin grow in power is somehow a danger to global security also seems distant and elusive, after all, the US has done business in the past with many such dictators, the world did not end as a result.
I guess maybe poisoning people on UK territory probably crossed a line, making it slightly "their" conflict as well, but not to the point of actually risking any more than absolutely necessary. Putin has generally been careful about not directly treading on Western interests (quite the opposite actually), which was part of a conscious strategy of delineating spheres of influence between the East and West in Europe.
Let me play devil's advocate a bit. Your argument is based on purported rationality of Russian elites, while fear of nuclear attack in the West is rather grounded in Russian irrationality. Yes, oligharchs and apparatchiks who keep their families in London or Monaco would rather opt our from tactical attack scenario, but there are still those who have no ties with the West. What if Putin decides to sacrifice interests of the first group to prove that he is serious after all? He can still use the latter as a political base for prolonged, ultimate conflict with the West.
In such case, these people would have nothing to lose except Matushka Rossyia - same as their grandads who were dying for Joseph Stalin in The Great Patriotic War (as they call WW2). Russian propaganda is already exploring this trope, although so far it has been corroborated with lots of manipulation to prove that Russia is the victim, not the invader. But how will brainwashed Russian society react to tactical strike against Ukraine? Will they denounce Putin's regime finally, escape in swarms to Georgia/Kazakhstan/Mongolia or rather unite around Kremlin to protect the Fatherland? We do not know that, but we know that this is still majority of Russian population. And it can eventually reject the elite, as it did after 1917 revolution, when Whites have been pushed out by Reds with the popular support.
Of course, this silent majority will not win any war against NATO. But old Kermlin man may at some point realize that he is terminally ill, and start another patriotic war with nothing to lose for himself. We have seen this in the endless B class movies. The 9/11 also seemed to be B movie plot until is has really happened.
I'm actually more cynical about it. Thanks to Snowden (et al) we know, that every smarphone, smartwatch, SIri-, Alexa- or Google- compatible speaker or even a smart vacuum cleaner, is a listening device for US intelligence. I'm not saying it's good, I'm not saying it's bad, I'm just saying this is a proven fact. If there is a TikTok application running on one of these devices, Chinese are listening, too.
Maybe Putin does not use any of these, but people in his entourage do. Lavrov is frequently seen with an iPhone, for instance. So the moment they actually make the decision to arm the warheads, Americans will know it - maybe not from Lavrov's phone, but his assistant will text his lover to go to their dacha because it is no longer safe to be in Moscow.
It is actually irrelevant if they are rational or not. US intelligence is too far ahead of them - in terms of satellite reconassance and ubiquitousness of their listening devices. Russia is unable to do anything in secrecy, that's why their failed their original Blitzkrieg, you can't have one without the element of surprise. They can't do a surprise nuclear attack, either.
That assumes that the US is competent enough to quickly enough pick up this signal, process it efficiently and react appropriately. I can imagine the Biden administration, which took its sweet time to decide about the F-16s because of internal disagreements, being caught in a decision paralysis between the "hawks" (Blinken) and "chickens" (Sullivan), while the Russians are madly forging ahead.
The US technology is light years ahead of Russian, but the human & organisational side of their security services have some flaws, as shown by the Jack Teixeira leak (the guy should have never been given access to Top Security materials). Ukrainian security services avoid sharing sensitive stuff with the Americans, and they have some reason for it.
Just as we shouldn't have overestimated Russia, we should not overestimate the US, IMO.
They are a leaky cauldron, all right - Snowden was also a proof. But that's failure of counterintelligence, not intelligence. I make two assumptions, I don't think either is far-fetched.
First: then can identify crucial sources, such as "Soloviev's Apple Watch" or "Ksenya Shoigu's iPhone". And keep special track of them (they don't need to survey entire Moscow).
Second: the progress we see with Large Language Models (such as GPT) proves that Americans have the technology of machine analysis natural conversations in real time. Since even the freely available GPT allows us to simulate "conversation of Lavrov and his mistress about the imminent nuclear war", I guess this technology can also DETECT such conversation.
So I imagine some red light bliking if these crucial sources ("Peskov mistress Roomba robot") will suddenly detect suspicious conversations around them. Like in American thriller, someone would come to their boss saying "sir, Gerasimov just phoned his lover to leave Moscow ASAP".
I agree, they must have some technical ability to detect such phrases. What I'm worried about more is the organisational ability to respond quickly, especially at the higher levels. But maybe Russia trying to use nukes would push the doves into the hawk camp.
It seems that Ukrainians (or their allies inside Russia) understand the role of the elites very well - the recent drone strike at Moscow targeted the area where the elites have dachas (Novaya Riga and Rubliovka). It's a class war!
I think the blackmail risk works two-ways. That is, the more time they try to blackmail the West and it doesn't work, the less effective the blackmail becomes. They have overplayed this hand a lot, it was actually doing something at the beginning of the war, but now every time they do it, they make it more likely US will step through yet another border, because it becomes clear how meaningless the threat is.
Russia managed to complete a lot of achievements in this war. Lost lives of their soldiers, ruined economy, ruined, unrecoverable economic ties with the West, ruined resources export, ruined diplomatic relations, ruined position of RU-friendly agents (regardless if paid or just uninformed) in western societies, ruined image of a great, powerful empire. All gone, not coming back, and for nothing. And each point on that list was a real, big strength Russia had before the war.
Could someone please eastsplain to me the mainstream narrative that it was Russia that blew up the Novaya Kakhovka dam? Why would they jeopardise the water supply to Crimea? What's the strategy behind flooding mainly the left bank of the Dnieper without evacuating their soldiers first? Do you also believe that it is Russia that is shelling Shebekino? Is it Russia that blew up the Kerch bridge?
Can you wait for the next note? The very brief explanation is that in the "dog eat dog" of the Russian world, nobody thinks in the bigger picture. The army commander blowing up the dam does not give a rats ass about water supply to Crimea or about the survival of the Russian soldiers of different formation (there are frequent cases of infighting between troops loyal to Shoigu, Prigozhin, Kadyrov, Donbas warlords etc.).
Crimea had no water supply from the north since 2014 until 2022. They must have adapted to this situation. Hence, blowing up the dam in 2023 doesn't make a big difference for Crimea re water supply. It's unlikely their water needs increased significantly since February 2022.
OK, I'll wait for the next note. I'll just take note that I'm getting conflicting eastsplanations here. "Blowing up the dam in 2023 doesn't make a big difference for Crimea! The Russians know that they won't be able to hold Crimea, so they blew up the dam to cut off its water supply!" It's like listening to flat earthers give various mutually incompatible reasons why the Earth is flat.
You didn't ask for facts (which are not disputed - it was the Russians), you asked for the reasons. But who can know for sure what goes on in the Russki soldat's brain mush?
Of course the facts are disputed. Even the US have repeatedly said that it is not certain who blew up the dam. It is certain only in the minds of people believing in a black and white world, who don't even listen to what their allies say.
These two facts alone are sufficient to establish that the Russians did it:
1) The Russians had control of the dam for a year now,
2) It takes a significant amount of explosives, carefully placed, to cause such a sudden and catastrophic dam breach.
Perhaps the question whether it was fully intentional or not, can still be asked. Questions about motives are irrelevant, when only one party had the means.
The dam was exactly on the front line. Ukraine can fly drones over Moscow. Do you think it's unable to plant explosives in a place that's not more than a few dozens of metres away from the territory it controls?
"Could someone please eastsplain to me the mainstream narrative that it was Russia that blew up the Novaya Kakhovka dam?" → Why don't you have a look at this thread from Timothy Snyder: https://twitter.com/TimothyDSnyder/status/1666480705637851136
"Why would they jeopardise the water supply to Crimea?" → maybe they already know they can't hold it, so they're making sure it's destroyed for Ukraine, too.
"What's the strategy behind flooding mainly the left bank of the Dnieper without evacuating their soldiers first?" → how do you know that at least some soldiers haven't been evacuated?
"Do you also believe that it is Russia that is shelling Shebekino?", "Is it Russia that blew up the Kerch bridge?" → what's your point, you're asking these questions as if shelling Shebekino or blowing up that bridge were things that Ukraine should be ashamed of?
AFAIK the RU soldiers weren't warned or evacuated, because that would have tipped off the Ukrainians about the plan.
Besides, the soldiers on the islands were different formation than those in Kakhovka. It was already visible when Russian military bloggers shared stories of Ukrainian advances on the islands, with the repeated question - why our artillery does nothing about it? It did nothing about it, because it was assigned to other units.
What makes you think the Russian commanders care about the lives of the soldiers they pushed into the trenches without giving them food, equipment or training?
And why would the Russians prevent the evacuation of civilians in the flooded zones, if they weren't simply trying to create as big humanitarian disaster as possible, to distract the Ukrainians from the counteroffensive and punish them for resisting the invasion? It's a continuation of the winter attacks on energy infrastructure. Freeze them in winter, flood them in summer.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/jun/08/russian-forces-accused-of-blocking-flood-evacuation-efforts
What kind of distraction is this? Ukraine cannot do much to help the Ukrainians on the left bank. How exactly is it going to distract the Ukrainians from the counter-offensive, the main part of which wasn't going to take place in that area anyway?
Why would Russia hinder civilian evac efforts, if its goals weren't to create maximum civilian suffering in Ukraine? And that's consistent with Russia blowing up the dam.
You haven't answered my question. Let me repeat, in case you missed it: How exactly is it going to distract the Ukrainians from the counter-offensive, the main part of which wasn't going to take place in that area anyway?
Because they have a massive humanitarian disaster on their hands. The state capacity of Ukraine is stretched to the limits.
BTW, the long-term economic damage of this disaster will be huge, which also factors in the war plans.
Soldiers with insufficient supplies can be used to stop or at least slow down the counter-offensive (if that weren't true, Ukraine would have retaken its territory long time ago). Soldiers who aren't evacuated in time and get flooded are useless.
The main thing stopping Ukraine from retaking the left bank of Dnipro was the Dnipro itself.
Russia pissed away 10s of 1000s of soldiers to take Bakhmut just for its symbolic value. Why wouldn't they sacrifice much less soldiers to commit an act of terror? Of course they would.
"The main thing stopping Ukraine from retaking the left bank of Dnipro was the Dnipro itself" -> Then, why would Russia make the level of the Dnipro go down permanently, at least until the dam is rebuilt?
"Russia pissed away 10s of 1000s of soldiers to take Bakhmut just for its symbolic value." -> It was not Russia, it was Prigozhyn, who mase it for his private aims.
"Why wouldn't they sacrifice much less soldiers to commit an act of terror? Of course they would." -> They wouldn't, because this particular act of terror puts them at disadvantage in many ways.
What am I missing here? Is Dnipro now easier to cross for the Ukrainian troops because of lower water level?
It isn't now, but when the flood is over, the river will be much narrower. What is it that you don't understand?
" It was not Russia, it was Prigozhyn, who mase it for his private aims." - this is the moment when you are almost close to understand it. You see, you can apply to literally everything Russia does. Nobody thinks of the bigger picture (Russia as such). In theory it should be Putin, but he is notably absent in this war. Prigozhin has his private aims, Shoigu has his private aims, Gerasimov has his private aims, and the guy who made the decision of blowing the dam has private aims. He just doesn't care about Crimea water supply or survival of the soldiers on the islands.
From a Ukrainian military expert: https://english.nv.ua/nation/military-expert-explains-russia-s-decision-to-destroy-kakhovka-dam-details-preparations-50330954.html
Seismic observations indicate an explosion at the dam: https://twitter.com/michaeldweiss/status/1666780964905680899
The only party which could have carried out an explosion to destroy the dam is Russia, which was in control of it for months.
And this, how bloody convenient: just before the explosion, Russia passed a law prohibiting the investigation of exactly such catastrophes. What an amazing coincidence.
The only party which could have carried out an explosion to destroy the Kerch bridge is Russia, which was in control of it for years.
Or, perhaps, such a line of argumentation is utter bullshit.
Or perhaps a bridge is not a river dam, ever thought about it? And Ukraine never got anywhere near to totally destroying the Kerch bridge, *because* they had no easy access to it. Unlike Russia to the dam.
(Sorry for replying to myself, the edit function doesn't work.)
Also, Ukraine got nowhere near to destroying the bridge. They only damaged it.
Why? Because they had no easy access to it. But Russia had easy access to the dam.
Blowing up a dam from artillery or aerial strike is usually impossible. It was tested during the World War 2. Ever heard of the Dambusters? This operation required special bouncing bombs, Ukraine do not have them (nor the aerial superiority to fly there). Even on Russian TV they said Ukraine could not have done it because this dam was designed to survive nuclear war. It required physical access to plant the explosives in the machine room. HIMARS can't do it.
Some "Telegram evidence" of Russian soldiers discussing how "things got out of hand" with the dam explosion: https://twitter.com/EuromaidanPR/status/1668977536821256194
Just wondering, does this all mean that you also don't think that Russia is planning/considering blowing up the Zaporizhzhia power plant? Because the potential consequences of such a decision would be very similar to the consequences of using nukes.
As I wrote many times to you, I don't believe the sentence "Russia is planning something" makes any sense. It's a multiplayer game. "Battle Tsarskoye", so to speak. I wouldn't exclude the possibility that there is a general / warlord / oligarch, who is planning/considering this, with complete disregard of the consequenes for the others. Just as Prigozhin did not give a flying yeb about the lives of the Russian helicopter and airplane crews he ordered to shoot down.
OK, let me ask it another way: do you think we shouldn't worry about the possibility of the nuclear power plant getting blown up, just as you think we shouldn't worry about Russian nukes, as you argued in this note?
Yes, I don't rule it out as a possibility.
Not sure if I understand you. You don't rule it out, do you mean that it's a more realistic possibility than Russia using nukes? Why? Blowing up the nuclear power plant would be in effect very similar to dropping a nuke on it, wouldn't it?
Absolutely not. Blowing up a nuclear power plant is not in the least similar to dropping a nuke on anything.
Both create radioactive fallout, don't they? And in both cases they can wait for weather conditions that make the fallout go west. According to your theory, if they really want to blow up the power plant, we should see the "rush of heavily botoxed women sporting grotesquely inflated lips", shouldn't we?
And is there a reason why blowing up the plant shouldn't trigger a full NATO response, when a nuke should?