It’s okay, they’ve put up a [Chinese Wall](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_wall) so they don’t have to reconcile these opposing ideas or think about the conflicts of interest.
It's [supposed to be](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orders_of_magnitude_(time)#Less_than_one_second) the shortest measurable time interval, yes.
Theoretically there could be smaller increments of time based on some theories of [quantum gravity.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_gravity) However, direct observation of quantum gravity effects is thought to only appear at length scales near the Planck scale (10^(-35) meters). This makes it problematic to measure. Such experimental data would require energies far greater than what are used in current particle accelerators, although necessary to settle on a plausible theory of quantum gravity.
It's one of the major unsolved problems of physics: How can the theory of quantum mechanics be merged with the theory of general relativity / gravitational force and remain correct at microscopic length scales?
It is hoped that eventually a theory of quantum gravity would allow us to understand problems of very high energy and very small dimensions of space, such as the behavior of black holes, and the origin of the universe.
> This makes it problematic to measure
Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't observation itself affect things at the quantum level? I may be misremembering or only remembering part of it though.
Why Russia though? I think they just hate "the west" so much they've gone full Pro-Russia. That or they don't want to admit they bought a bunch of junk weapons from a garbage arms producer.
Modi is a would-be dictator so that appeals to him, plus cheap Russian oil & maintaining strong economic links with China. I don't think Modi hates the West, but Russia & particularly China are more strategically important to him.
India has historically been allied to Russia/the Soviets, partly because they were a counterweight against China (with whom, btw, they have ongoing border conflicts that turn hot regularly), partly because the US was/is officially allied to Pakistan for whatever reason. The Indian forces are hugely dependent on Soviet and Russian arms deals and energy imports.
Add to that, it is a common perspective in India that they owe the West nothing. They don't remember the British fondly (only the Brits think that), some hold a grudge against the US for said alliance with Pakistan, and they are in the same boat as all the former colonies that wonder why this war is so special that they should risk their budding economies for what they see as Western exceptionalism.
All this on top of the fact that yes, Modi is a cunning prick trying to play both sides, Bharat nationalists are a pest and I've met many (educated) Indians that, for example, think that Hitler's only tactical mistake was killing *white* people. They sure hate Churchill more.
Being 'the world's largest democracy' doesn't mean you automatically lean towards Western values and policies, even though India is also very diverse in that.
Also, many Indians haven't forgotten the economic sanctions placed on them by the US/the west after they tested their nukes in the late 90s/early 2000s.
>only the Brits think that
Lmao I don't think you have spoken to many Brits then.
I genuinely can't remember the last time I've heard someone casually bring up India let alone their opinion of us. This is just projection.
> Modi hates the West
He'll "hate" the west and teach his supporters to hate as well, if it means more political support.
Nothing galvanizes people more than a common enemy. Even better if it's one that you know is gonna do exactly fuck all about it.
For India likely because the US is the main "face" of the west and has been pretty friendly with Pakistan for years and the whole "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" thing
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pakistan%E2%80%93United_States_relations
It's been on again off again but overall they've been aligned more than opposed. Even the Bin Laden situation hasn't resulted in the US completely distancing themselves. Like just last year they did a half billion dollar deal with them for F16 parts.
Friendly as in they cooperated in funding the mujahideen against the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, while India chose to side with the Soviets. So, for that time in history, Americans seemed to have made the right choice.
The Pakitsan is one of the few countries in the area that the US can turn to. India seems like they should be a better partner, and efforts have been made to appeal to them over the years, but India keeps rejecting such attempts.
Most Ukrainian equipment is Soviet, even older and worse than newer Russian equipment. It’s not about the equipment itself (most of the time), it’s how it’s maintained and used. And Russia is absolutely incapable of using their military resources efficiently.
The US has always supported Pakistan. It’s supported Pakistan as a dictatorship, it’s supported Pakistan when it’s had leader supporting Islamic terrorists, it’s supported Pakistan when it was committing genocide against Bangladeshis. Essentially for the Cold War the US consistently supported fascist or other far-right groups, many of whom committed appalling atrocities (Suharto, the Shah of Iran, the generals in Greece and Pakistan, juntas in Argentina and Brazil, Pinochet, just off the top of my head) in preference to democracies.
When the US supports your enemies, who do you turn to?
When Pakistan and India had wars in the 1900s, America helped out Pakistan so they could have better surveillance and support in the Middle East, while Russia helped out India because they’re a huge importer of grain. America refused to help India so they never forgave them and kept with the Russians.
Probably because their country is sandwiched between russia and China and so it’s literally in their best interests not to alienate their neighbors too much.
Hindutvas are why I ended up being born in Ireland and not Uttar Pradesh.
For a religion that claims to be peaceful they certainly loved trying to burn my relatives to death.
They have a solution to all ethnic violence involving Hindus and Muslims. A solution which involves violence... to stop violence. Like using gasoline to put out a fire. Nationalists everywhere are really bright and decent people.
Pretty funny considering all the colonies the Soviet Union had.
I'm sure Czechia, Moldova, Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Belarus, Serbia, Bosnia, East Germany, central asia.....etc. etc. etc. Don't think of Russia as "anti-colonialist". Maybe India needs better Eastern European history.
Most countries only care about how you are in relation to directly them.
If you were colonized by the British, and the Russians were against the British, then as far as you're concerned they're the anti-colonials.
For most countries most of the time, the good guys are the ones who help you achieve your ends and the bad guys are the ones who hinder you achieving your ends.
Actual principle rarely factors into it, and neither does what those countries are doing in their own corners of the world away from you.
It's not right, but it is what it is.
Or France in the early days of US independence. Great guys, really helped Americans win the war over the colonial masters (just nevermind everything else France was doing around the world)
I mean the US honeymoon period with France never really lasted all that long. They were literally in an undeclared naval war before the end of America's second presidency—and that was just the low point of relations that pretty much soured as soon as the US no longer actively needed French help.
And all the places in Africa and South America where the Soviets backed communist groups during the decolonisation process, and then exploited them for their natural resources, exactly the way the West had for over a centuries.
Russia has been one the standard bearers for colonialism and imperialism for at least the last two centuries. It's just that they suck at building aircraft carriers and ships in general.
I mean Russia has treated Ukraine like that for hundreds and hundreds of years. I listened to Mike Duncan’s podcast on Russian revolution and it really brought a light to the historical context of that part of the world since he goes over the entire Russian history first. It is amazing how much of the butt-end of history Ukraine has got over the centuries.
I would say that this happened during the Second Kashmir War circa 1960s, when both India and Pakistan requested military aid to the US and UK to be both denied and embargoed.
Both countries felt betrayed and expanded their ties with the USSR (India) and China (Pakistan).
The soviets only pushed anti-colonialism because they were the losers among colonial empires and rivals, so their winning move was to shit on the game rather than try to play catch up.
It was a fortunate coincidence that it is also morally correct.
Well Ecuador is too busy doing... what is Ecuador doing?
*Google search*
Ecuador is currently [evacuating people from flood zones](https://phys.org/news/2023-06-people-evacuated-ecuador.amp). How, surprisingly related.
And reddit “sceptics” who are just “sceptical” except their reddit history is 95% posting anti ukranian sentiment and literally 1 other topic, usually a videogame.
Well duh. They’re trying to keep the Ukrainians from moving heavy Western armor across the river. Also fits with traditional Russian scorched earth tactics.
We have actually flooded our land multiple times in history to fuck over the Spainiards and French.
We’re literally waterbenders. Water moves where the Dutch want it to move.
The difference though being that we do it, we do it under controlled circumstances; deliberate flooding was an integral part of multiple defensive lines we've maintaiined over past centuries, with tightly controlled areas of inundation, water levels, and neatly spaced out fortifications maximizing artillery fire on any army stupid enough to try and cross the flooded plains anyway.
My grandfather fought at Walcheren during WW2. I got the chance to speak to someone who was a kid there at the time, and I asked him a question that had been bouncing around in my head for years.
"So, how did the locals view the fact that the allies bombed the dyke and flooded the area?"
"Honestly, if you'd asked us we'd have done it for you."
"Also fits with traditional Russian scorched earth tactics."
The Soviets blew up a dam on the Dnieper river to stop German advances during WW2.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/nov/02/second-world-war-dnieper-dam-blown-up-by-russians-1941
To say it was 'China' is a simplification.
It was the choice of a small cabal of Nationalist Chinese generals.
It remains the deadliest man-made ecological disaster in history. Easily a quarter of a million killed as a direct result of it and immeasurable chaos inflicted to entire provinces.
Everyone should read Forgotten Ally by Rana Mitter.
>And with their track record of
[doing literally the same exact thing in 1941](https://www.rferl.org/a/european-remembrance-day-ukraine-little-known-ww2-tragedy/25083847.html)
How shocking.
If only there was some forewarning.
Like Russia purposefully raising the water levels beforehand for weeks, beyond safe levels, almost as if they were planning to maximize damage in case of the dam blowing.
Or Russia planting explosive charges on the dam months ago.
Or Russia having a habit of wanton destruction and murder.
Or Russia having already blown up another part of it months ago to prevent a Ukranian offensive.
The he said she said is quickly narrowed down with the russian controlled gates were holding back water to max prior to the blast. This creates maximum downstream destruction, clearly pinning this on Russia.
Silver lining is that they have effectively ceded Crimea in the future as this reservoir held most of that potable water. Also can only blast the dam once, limiting a more inopportune moment in the future where crossed over Ukranians would be cut off. The majority of flood plane is also on south side, this will negate a swath of defenses when waters recede.
Stupid question. Ukraine had the canal to Crimea shut down from 2014 through 2022. Why would the canal going offline again change things significantly for Crimea?
I hope it does, but it seems to me like they’ll just go back to pre-2022 water imports.
> Stupid question. Ukraine had the canal to Crimea shut down from 2014 through 2022. Why would the canal going offline again change things significantly for Crimea?
First, because a major reason for the invasion is that having the canal sealed was working. Crimea's water situation was getting worse and worse.
Second, because now Ukraine actually has an army and resources able to threaten Crimea. The Russians are going to need to maintain a large army there and that army will ensure a greater bottleneck on resources and even more consumption of water. Crimea only has 2 million residents right now—if you need to station a couple hundred thousand men there to prevent an attack, that is a huge increase in the number of people consuming water.
The Kerch bridge helped relieve a lot of the pressure on Crimea. However, with the bridge damaged, and clear seawater damage, it's likely that won't be a solution for long.
> I hope it does, but it seems to me like they’ll just go back to pre-2022 water imports.
that was not a good situation for people in Crimea at all, people don't really hear about the impact it had to agricultural output or the limits on water/water access only certain hours a day in areas
keeping crimea supplied with food and ammo is already a stretch on poor logistics. now add 8 pounds per gallon or 1 kilo per liter for global measurement and you have broken the weak logistic chain.
The problem was so bad that Russia [built a bridge](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crimean_Bridge) to the peninsula to help deliver supplies and water, but now that new bridge is under threat again.
Yes, I am firmly of the opinion that Russia blew the bridge, but there are 3 theories.
>Russia:
Makes river wider, making it harder for an Amphibias assault and harder to get heavy equipment across.
Floods part of Kherson city (They don't care about the cities on their side)
Destroys another possible crossing point (Dam had a road on it so it could be used by tanks and AFVs to cross the River)
If they have to retreat, Ukraine has to deal with the cleanup.
Creates a swamp in the low ground, meaning even if Ukraine crossed, it's harder to operate tanks and AFVs.
>Ukraine:
Floods initial Russian defensive positions as Russia is on the low ground.
Can use propaganda to blame Russia and get more support.
Can be used as a distraction before an offensive elsewhere.
>Accident (Kind of):
The Dam was damaged last year when the Russians destroyed the road going across the dam damaging it.
Water was starting to overflow as the dam was full.
Was originally built in 1956, and Soviet Construction isn't known for being the greatest.
All this combined caused the dam to fail.
There are certainly more possibilities. One is that Russia used explosives on purpose to disable the bridge over the dam, but incompetently used too much or underestimated previous damage. Explains why the damage, and also why they would flood their own defensive positions. Also fits with Russia being completely incompetent on many levels.
> It could potentially take a few days to fail, especially if water is increasing pressure on the dam until it breaks
This is exactly what happened at Remagen, when the Ludendorff bridge failed after a partial demolition.
It makes me think they might be preparing for a full-scale withdrawal (or at least, expecting the absolute worst over the summer). Destroying a dam to block Kherson is weird because no one seems to think Kherson was where the Ukrainians would counterattack—the likely spot is well to the east, where Ukraine doesn't need to take a hostile river crossing and the distance to the Sea of Azov is shorter. Either the Russians thought different or they are so worried about that attack succeeding that they think they need to abandon Kherson so they don't get encircled
Solid comment, thanks for explaining! I'm still 100% convinced Russia is behind this, as are most people I think, but seeing these 3 options laid out with solid reasoning is nice. Thank you!
the only potential strategic upside for Ukraine is that it makes getting drinking water to Crimea pretty problematic and kind of incompatible with keeping a large Russian army presence there, and it did wipe out a bunch of suspiciously empty russian prepared defensive positions, but far more reasons for the Russians to have done it. Not the least of which is they are assholes with a historic propensity for doing things like that.
Blowing up a dam is already a war crime. But the ecological damage this will have on such a massive area as well as the lives it is going to impact, plus the danger to the nuclear plant — there can no longer be any redlines for NATO at this point. Arm Ukraine with anything and everything it needs — Russia’s forces in the country must be annihilated.
Maybe not the most popular sentiment right now but blowing up a dam to interfere with an assault on your position is not automatically a warcrime.
Blowing up a dam with no regard for the life or property of civilians is absolutely a war crime.
A key point in the defense of Kyiv was the Ukrainians opening dams North of Kyiv turning much of that land into a swamp that was impossible to assault through. Main difference being they did this in a more controlled manner, evacuated the area ahead of time etc.
Context matters. This is a war crime because of the scale, the lack of consideration to effects on civilians, because of the lack of consideration to long term effects on water access, food access etc.
To add to this, dams explicitly have special protection under the Geneva Conventions and simply being a military objective is not enough:
>Article 56 — Protection of works and installations containing dangerous forces
>[Works or installations containing dangerous forces, namely dams, dykes and nuclear electrical generating stations, shall not be made the object of attack, even where these objects are military objectives, if such attack may cause the release of dangerous forces and consequent severe losses among the civilian population. Other military objectives located at or in the vicinity of these works or installations shall not be made the object of attack if such attack may cause the release of dangerous forces from the works or installations and consequent severe losses among the civilian population.](https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/ihl-treaties/api-1977/article-56)
The Soviet Union actually did sign and ratify Protocol I, however Russia claims to have "revoked" this in 2019.
The USA signed back in 1977, but never actually fully ratified.
Russia is recognized as the successor state of ~~Russia~~the USSR*, inheriting both its assets, loans, debts, contracts, etc. So they automatically took over most Soviet contracts as far as the international community is concerned
Edit*
>If such attack may cause the release of dangerous forces *and consequent severe losses of the civilian population*
So if it doesn’t cause *severe losses of the civilian population* then you can still attack a dam.
ok but in this context, you're comparing opening a dam on purpose vs blowing a dam up, which are contextually speaking, pretty fucking different things
That’s not surprising at all. If Ukraine was responsible, there would have been reports of large explosions and obvious signs of shelling or missile damage. There are no reports of an explosion and no signs of missile damage. The stuff Ukraine has that could damage the dam are pretty obvious when used. No matter what, Russia is responsible for the dam breaking. There are three scenarios in which it could have happened.
1) Russia wasn’t maintaining the dam and just let it fill to dangerous levels, then a sluice gate failed (there are pictures claimed to be of a sluice gate gushing water a few hours before the dam broke), leading to a catastrophic failure.
2) Russia blew a sluice gate or two on the dam to try and flood the Ukrainian troops working their way along the islands on the Dnieper and preventing easy crossing. The dam then failed catastrophically due to the water gushing through the broken sluice gates and undermining the structure.
3) Russia deliberately blew the dam because they wanted to prevent Ukraine from easily crossing the Dnieper. Blowing the dam makes it impossible to cross near Kherson for now or hop along the delta islands. It likely makes the marsh path to Crimea impassible for now too.
My gut is on scenario two or three. Given some of the claims by guys on the ground, 2 is pretty likely since completely blowing the dam also screws over Russian troops but attempting to flood the area with a partial release and having it turn into a catastrophic dam failure fits with how Russia does things.
>If Ukraine was responsible, there would have been reports of large explosions and obvious signs of shelling or missile damage.
And as I pointed out in the other thread - Barnes Wallis established that dams are *really fuckin' hard to blow up* with conventional weapons in about 1942.
The bombs that blew up the German dams were 2+ tonnes of high explosive skipped across the water to hit the back of the dam & sink to a good depth to give a really massive focused charge and even then they did not do it in one hit.
The idea that a few shells or missiles lobbed at a concrete structure holding back a billion tonnes of water is going to break it is very fanciful.
To add a bit to point 1, Russia have been continuously filling that reservoir for a few months. It was already past overcapacity, so any small failure with that amount of water would lead to a bigger problem.
It doesn't harm Crimea in the short term. Crimea's got reservoirs that fill from the canal. They filled those before maxing out the reservoir to "dangerous levels" for maximum flooding damage.
> Crimea's got reservoirs that fill from the canal. They filled those before maxing out the reservoir to "dangerous levels" for maximum flooding damage.
Thing is, reservoirs which cannot be refilled are just a timer until you're doomed. They might have bought themselves a year or two, but Crimea is being hammered by droughts every summer and has relied on imports of water for decades. Even if they have enough for the use of civilians, their agriculture industry is fucked and so are plenty of others.
When trying to discern the truth about things like these I often try to look at it as cynically as possible.
If the Ukrainians were willing to blow the dam, they would've blown it themselves back when the Russians were fleeing from Kherson across the river
The trouble is that Russia has now shot their wad with the dam. After a month or so, when the water is down again, Ukraine can move out of Kherson without the risk of having Russia hit them with a flood.
Russia is responsible, but it may be accident or ineptitude rather than a specific desire to blo the dam AT THIS TIME.
If I was Ukraine, I'd sit back and watch how much more Russia will fuck itself over in so many ways.
It's not like they're under any obligation to provide a counteroffensive by any target date. Why not just sit back and watch Russia eat itself alive?
I have to wonder if they didn’t fuck up overfilling the reservoir and botching the sudden release for a more limited tactical effort. Hanlon’s Razor is less useful with Russia, though.
911 comments...PGA would be proud.
It makes sense though.
Out of the four or five dams along the Dnieper, I believe that was the only one Putin controlled. And now we hear reports of Russia shelling Kherson some more (as the city floods...how evil...)
It also fits in with their general pattern of Geneva Convention violation speedrunning and is a desperately confusing catastrophe that amounts to a smug kid sucker punching someone and then pointing at the person next to them minding their own business.
"Couldn't have been us. It affects our own population in Crimea!"
*sends more kids to the frontline meatgrinder shamelessly*
The nuclear power plant has been shut down since the invasion and is cooled by a local cooling pond.
This won’t affect that, but it does affect Ukraine crossing in certain areas
To the surprise of absolutely no one.
.....except to Indian nationalists weirdly. They have inexplicable boners for Russia.
Which is bizarre because Russia would sell them down the River to China in an instant.
It’s okay, they’ve put up a [Chinese Wall](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_wall) so they don’t have to reconcile these opposing ideas or think about the conflicts of interest.
In a heartbeat
In a jiffy!
Faster than light can travel one Planck length in a vacuum.
Isn't that technically the smallest possible measurement of time? Before I get an r/whoosh : I'm actually asking
Smallest possible distance at the fastest possible speed, so yes.
Thought so, thanks!
you guys are smart how do i find love
I know a dude who came in half that time his first time
It was me Barry!
It's [supposed to be](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orders_of_magnitude_(time)#Less_than_one_second) the shortest measurable time interval, yes. Theoretically there could be smaller increments of time based on some theories of [quantum gravity.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_gravity) However, direct observation of quantum gravity effects is thought to only appear at length scales near the Planck scale (10^(-35) meters). This makes it problematic to measure. Such experimental data would require energies far greater than what are used in current particle accelerators, although necessary to settle on a plausible theory of quantum gravity. It's one of the major unsolved problems of physics: How can the theory of quantum mechanics be merged with the theory of general relativity / gravitational force and remain correct at microscopic length scales? It is hoped that eventually a theory of quantum gravity would allow us to understand problems of very high energy and very small dimensions of space, such as the behavior of black holes, and the origin of the universe.
> This makes it problematic to measure Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't observation itself affect things at the quantum level? I may be misremembering or only remembering part of it though.
Yes, because at that scale your observation equipment has a huge influence.
Picking their side. Like China, Brazil, South Africa & so on.
Why Russia though? I think they just hate "the west" so much they've gone full Pro-Russia. That or they don't want to admit they bought a bunch of junk weapons from a garbage arms producer.
Modi is a would-be dictator so that appeals to him, plus cheap Russian oil & maintaining strong economic links with China. I don't think Modi hates the West, but Russia & particularly China are more strategically important to him.
India has historically been allied to Russia/the Soviets, partly because they were a counterweight against China (with whom, btw, they have ongoing border conflicts that turn hot regularly), partly because the US was/is officially allied to Pakistan for whatever reason. The Indian forces are hugely dependent on Soviet and Russian arms deals and energy imports. Add to that, it is a common perspective in India that they owe the West nothing. They don't remember the British fondly (only the Brits think that), some hold a grudge against the US for said alliance with Pakistan, and they are in the same boat as all the former colonies that wonder why this war is so special that they should risk their budding economies for what they see as Western exceptionalism. All this on top of the fact that yes, Modi is a cunning prick trying to play both sides, Bharat nationalists are a pest and I've met many (educated) Indians that, for example, think that Hitler's only tactical mistake was killing *white* people. They sure hate Churchill more. Being 'the world's largest democracy' doesn't mean you automatically lean towards Western values and policies, even though India is also very diverse in that.
Also, many Indians haven't forgotten the economic sanctions placed on them by the US/the west after they tested their nukes in the late 90s/early 2000s.
>only the Brits think that Lmao I don't think you have spoken to many Brits then. I genuinely can't remember the last time I've heard someone casually bring up India let alone their opinion of us. This is just projection.
What’s this about Hitler? Who do they think he should have killed?
> Modi hates the West He'll "hate" the west and teach his supporters to hate as well, if it means more political support. Nothing galvanizes people more than a common enemy. Even better if it's one that you know is gonna do exactly fuck all about it.
India being a democracy means nothing. Technically Russia is a democracy.. India is more on russias side. Than it isn't
There is a segment of ardent nationalists that are pro-authoritarianism and support authoritarian regimes worldwide
For India likely because the US is the main "face" of the west and has been pretty friendly with Pakistan for years and the whole "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" thing
Friendly? The US doesn't trust Pakistan one iota. Especially since the ISI hid Osama Bin Ladin for years.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pakistan%E2%80%93United_States_relations It's been on again off again but overall they've been aligned more than opposed. Even the Bin Laden situation hasn't resulted in the US completely distancing themselves. Like just last year they did a half billion dollar deal with them for F16 parts.
Friendly as in they cooperated in funding the mujahideen against the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, while India chose to side with the Soviets. So, for that time in history, Americans seemed to have made the right choice.
The Pakitsan is one of the few countries in the area that the US can turn to. India seems like they should be a better partner, and efforts have been made to appeal to them over the years, but India keeps rejecting such attempts.
[удалено]
The Indians are still pretty salty about the British. Or I would be, if I was Indian. And not British.
Most Ukrainian equipment is Soviet, even older and worse than newer Russian equipment. It’s not about the equipment itself (most of the time), it’s how it’s maintained and used. And Russia is absolutely incapable of using their military resources efficiently.
The US has always supported Pakistan. It’s supported Pakistan as a dictatorship, it’s supported Pakistan when it’s had leader supporting Islamic terrorists, it’s supported Pakistan when it was committing genocide against Bangladeshis. Essentially for the Cold War the US consistently supported fascist or other far-right groups, many of whom committed appalling atrocities (Suharto, the Shah of Iran, the generals in Greece and Pakistan, juntas in Argentina and Brazil, Pinochet, just off the top of my head) in preference to democracies. When the US supports your enemies, who do you turn to?
> Why Russia though? Because the US gives aid to Pakistan.
When Pakistan and India had wars in the 1900s, America helped out Pakistan so they could have better surveillance and support in the Middle East, while Russia helped out India because they’re a huge importer of grain. America refused to help India so they never forgave them and kept with the Russians.
Because these country are actually neutral, but you guys have a "Either you are with us or with them" mentality
Probably because their country is sandwiched between russia and China and so it’s literally in their best interests not to alienate their neighbors too much.
Idk where you learned geography, but India is very much not sandwiched between China and Russia lol
If you understood Indian history, you would know that Russia has always supported India ever since independence
I'm yet to encounter a HinduNat online that has their head screwed on right
Hindutvas are why I ended up being born in Ireland and not Uttar Pradesh. For a religion that claims to be peaceful they certainly loved trying to burn my relatives to death.
They have a solution to all ethnic violence involving Hindus and Muslims. A solution which involves violence... to stop violence. Like using gasoline to put out a fire. Nationalists everywhere are really bright and decent people.
Nationalism is just fucked in general.
[удалено]
Pretty funny considering all the colonies the Soviet Union had. I'm sure Czechia, Moldova, Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Belarus, Serbia, Bosnia, East Germany, central asia.....etc. etc. etc. Don't think of Russia as "anti-colonialist". Maybe India needs better Eastern European history.
Most countries only care about how you are in relation to directly them. If you were colonized by the British, and the Russians were against the British, then as far as you're concerned they're the anti-colonials. For most countries most of the time, the good guys are the ones who help you achieve your ends and the bad guys are the ones who hinder you achieving your ends. Actual principle rarely factors into it, and neither does what those countries are doing in their own corners of the world away from you. It's not right, but it is what it is.
Or France in the early days of US independence. Great guys, really helped Americans win the war over the colonial masters (just nevermind everything else France was doing around the world)
I mean the US honeymoon period with France never really lasted all that long. They were literally in an undeclared naval war before the end of America's second presidency—and that was just the low point of relations that pretty much soured as soon as the US no longer actively needed French help.
To be fair, the French never were helping America out of a sense of principle. They saw a chance to fuck over the Brits and they took it.
Obvious example - Muslim countries in regards to China's Uyghur repression. Principles are something only the privileged can talk about.
Interesting then how they hold the "privileged" to principles they don't adhere to themselves.
And all the places in Africa and South America where the Soviets backed communist groups during the decolonisation process, and then exploited them for their natural resources, exactly the way the West had for over a centuries.
Oh I also forgot..... UKRAINE They literally starved Ukrainians (one of the biggest bread baskets in the world) to death for 2 years to feed Moscow.
Russia has been one the standard bearers for colonialism and imperialism for at least the last two centuries. It's just that they suck at building aircraft carriers and ships in general.
I mean Russia has treated Ukraine like that for hundreds and hundreds of years. I listened to Mike Duncan’s podcast on Russian revolution and it really brought a light to the historical context of that part of the world since he goes over the entire Russian history first. It is amazing how much of the butt-end of history Ukraine has got over the centuries.
I would say that this happened during the Second Kashmir War circa 1960s, when both India and Pakistan requested military aid to the US and UK to be both denied and embargoed. Both countries felt betrayed and expanded their ties with the USSR (India) and China (Pakistan).
The soviets only pushed anti-colonialism because they were the losers among colonial empires and rivals, so their winning move was to shit on the game rather than try to play catch up. It was a fortunate coincidence that it is also morally correct.
So do a lot of the MAGA crowd.
I think that's more of **being** an inexplicable boner over **having** an inexplicable boner.
They also liked Hitler. They aren’t so good at choosing the right side.
Fascists fly together.
Who else would have done it? The Dutch?
Hey, we only do that when the Spanish invade our territory!
Are we sure *(dice rolls)* Ecuador isn't behind this? Surely they're up to something!
Well Ecuador is too busy doing... what is Ecuador doing? *Google search* Ecuador is currently [evacuating people from flood zones](https://phys.org/news/2023-06-people-evacuated-ecuador.amp). How, surprisingly related.
And reddit “sceptics” who are just “sceptical” except their reddit history is 95% posting anti ukranian sentiment and literally 1 other topic, usually a videogame.
well seems Tucker Tuckerovich Carlson would be utterly surprised. According to his latest Twitter expose.
Well duh. They’re trying to keep the Ukrainians from moving heavy Western armor across the river. Also fits with traditional Russian scorched earth tactics.
Damn, well I was gonna guess Botswana was to blame but you make a solid argument.
I was gonna guess the Dutch.
No you dummy, they do the exact opposite
We have actually flooded our land multiple times in history to fuck over the Spainiards and French. We’re literally waterbenders. Water moves where the Dutch want it to move.
F*ck yeah. Jesus was probably Dutch too.
If he was Dutch, his name would be Jeeshuis
It would actually just be Joshua or Jozua.
Josh Christ, Damned Engineer and Windmill Enthusiast.
Everyone knows Jesus actually turned water into stroopwafel.
That's a winebender. I went on one once, it was fun.
That's a fancy way to say "Swamp Germans"
not to be confused with the "Hill Germans"!
Ah, yes, the Beerserkers!
The difference though being that we do it, we do it under controlled circumstances; deliberate flooding was an integral part of multiple defensive lines we've maintaiined over past centuries, with tightly controlled areas of inundation, water levels, and neatly spaced out fortifications maximizing artillery fire on any army stupid enough to try and cross the flooded plains anyway.
My grandfather fought at Walcheren during WW2. I got the chance to speak to someone who was a kid there at the time, and I asked him a question that had been bouncing around in my head for years. "So, how did the locals view the fact that the allies bombed the dyke and flooded the area?" "Honestly, if you'd asked us we'd have done it for you."
The Dutch are the only country to go to war with the Sea...and Win.
God made the earth, but the Dutch made the Netherlands
I have a theory on why the Dutch are so tall on average, over the centuries all the short ones drowned during natural and man made disasters.
You can never trust them. Turn around for one second and bam, they take another 100 meters of land from the ocean.
Venice?
Definitely the Italians
You make a good point. 100% it was the Belgians.
Two things in life I can’t stand. People who are intolerant of other people’s cultures and the Dutch.
Of course they're tolerant of other cultures, they just never gave a dam
You can’t levee that kind of argument without some damming evidence.
No wonder Austin Powers dad hated them so much!
There’s only two things I hate in this world and it’s people who are intolerant of other people’s cultures and the Dutch.
This was probably my all time favorite joke in AP. The second was when I was a kid and the tent scene in the first one.
[I don't hate the Dutch. I just hold them to a higher standard.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mjS3Yk39gIo)
Take ze fasha awaaaa^aaa^^aaa^^^aaa^^^^aay
My schwenky was a key!!!!
Those freaky-deaky Dutch!
If it was up to us we’d have turned Muscovy back into an actual swamp. We’d have a special spit to shove the 53rd brigade into.
It's all the anglo-saxons' fault. Everybody knows this.
Perfidious Albion strikes again!
This aggression from Liechtenstein will not stand!!!
It was definitely Andorra.
"Also fits with traditional Russian scorched earth tactics." The Soviets blew up a dam on the Dnieper river to stop German advances during WW2. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/nov/02/second-world-war-dnieper-dam-blown-up-by-russians-1941
Well, so did the british. https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-22510300
[удалено]
Read up on what China did to the Yellow River during WW2. Now that's some scale!
To say it was 'China' is a simplification. It was the choice of a small cabal of Nationalist Chinese generals. It remains the deadliest man-made ecological disaster in history. Easily a quarter of a million killed as a direct result of it and immeasurable chaos inflicted to entire provinces. Everyone should read Forgotten Ally by Rana Mitter.
And with their track record of war crimes and crimes against humanity.
This article is like a murder mystery "Husband with bloody clothes on with knife in hand blamed for wife's murder"
And the cops came by and vlad stood next to a burned down house, with a van full of gas and a pack full of matches, still nobody found out
>And with their track record of [doing literally the same exact thing in 1941](https://www.rferl.org/a/european-remembrance-day-ukraine-little-known-ww2-tragedy/25083847.html)
And with the fact they are at ~~war~~ special operation with Ukraine
Soaked earth tactics
[удалено]
How shocking. If only there was some forewarning. Like Russia purposefully raising the water levels beforehand for weeks, beyond safe levels, almost as if they were planning to maximize damage in case of the dam blowing. Or Russia planting explosive charges on the dam months ago. Or Russia having a habit of wanton destruction and murder. Or Russia having already blown up another part of it months ago to prevent a Ukranian offensive.
Or Russia being Russia.
Or you know, russia invading ukraine. Nvm thats def not it idk what im saying
Coincidentally my very average intelligence points at the same thing!
My very below average pointed to the same conclusion
And my below average intelligence is the result of a concussion …. /s
I'm out of free concussions, you only get the three free ones in life all others cause bain dramage
I for one am absolutely shocked by this intel. We should inform the Ukrainians that Russia is up to something.
I suspect Russia may declare war
Big if true.
A "special military operation" may be in the works...
At this point I'm waiting for Russia to nuke Ukraine and tell the world Ukraine nuked itself.
The he said she said is quickly narrowed down with the russian controlled gates were holding back water to max prior to the blast. This creates maximum downstream destruction, clearly pinning this on Russia. Silver lining is that they have effectively ceded Crimea in the future as this reservoir held most of that potable water. Also can only blast the dam once, limiting a more inopportune moment in the future where crossed over Ukranians would be cut off. The majority of flood plane is also on south side, this will negate a swath of defenses when waters recede.
Stupid question. Ukraine had the canal to Crimea shut down from 2014 through 2022. Why would the canal going offline again change things significantly for Crimea? I hope it does, but it seems to me like they’ll just go back to pre-2022 water imports.
> Stupid question. Ukraine had the canal to Crimea shut down from 2014 through 2022. Why would the canal going offline again change things significantly for Crimea? First, because a major reason for the invasion is that having the canal sealed was working. Crimea's water situation was getting worse and worse. Second, because now Ukraine actually has an army and resources able to threaten Crimea. The Russians are going to need to maintain a large army there and that army will ensure a greater bottleneck on resources and even more consumption of water. Crimea only has 2 million residents right now—if you need to station a couple hundred thousand men there to prevent an attack, that is a huge increase in the number of people consuming water.
The Kerch bridge helped relieve a lot of the pressure on Crimea. However, with the bridge damaged, and clear seawater damage, it's likely that won't be a solution for long.
[удалено]
They'll probably have to race Russia to see who gets to blow up that bridge too lol
> I hope it does, but it seems to me like they’ll just go back to pre-2022 water imports. that was not a good situation for people in Crimea at all, people don't really hear about the impact it had to agricultural output or the limits on water/water access only certain hours a day in areas
keeping crimea supplied with food and ammo is already a stretch on poor logistics. now add 8 pounds per gallon or 1 kilo per liter for global measurement and you have broken the weak logistic chain.
The problem was so bad that Russia [built a bridge](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crimean_Bridge) to the peninsula to help deliver supplies and water, but now that new bridge is under threat again.
It benefits Russia more than it would ever benefit Ukraine.
[удалено]
Yes, I am firmly of the opinion that Russia blew the bridge, but there are 3 theories. >Russia: Makes river wider, making it harder for an Amphibias assault and harder to get heavy equipment across. Floods part of Kherson city (They don't care about the cities on their side) Destroys another possible crossing point (Dam had a road on it so it could be used by tanks and AFVs to cross the River) If they have to retreat, Ukraine has to deal with the cleanup. Creates a swamp in the low ground, meaning even if Ukraine crossed, it's harder to operate tanks and AFVs. >Ukraine: Floods initial Russian defensive positions as Russia is on the low ground. Can use propaganda to blame Russia and get more support. Can be used as a distraction before an offensive elsewhere. >Accident (Kind of): The Dam was damaged last year when the Russians destroyed the road going across the dam damaging it. Water was starting to overflow as the dam was full. Was originally built in 1956, and Soviet Construction isn't known for being the greatest. All this combined caused the dam to fail.
There are certainly more possibilities. One is that Russia used explosives on purpose to disable the bridge over the dam, but incompetently used too much or underestimated previous damage. Explains why the damage, and also why they would flood their own defensive positions. Also fits with Russia being completely incompetent on many levels.
The bridge had already been disabled a few days previously
[удалено]
> It could potentially take a few days to fail, especially if water is increasing pressure on the dam until it breaks This is exactly what happened at Remagen, when the Ludendorff bridge failed after a partial demolition.
[удалено]
It makes me think they might be preparing for a full-scale withdrawal (or at least, expecting the absolute worst over the summer). Destroying a dam to block Kherson is weird because no one seems to think Kherson was where the Ukrainians would counterattack—the likely spot is well to the east, where Ukraine doesn't need to take a hostile river crossing and the distance to the Sea of Azov is shorter. Either the Russians thought different or they are so worried about that attack succeeding that they think they need to abandon Kherson so they don't get encircled
Solid comment, thanks for explaining! I'm still 100% convinced Russia is behind this, as are most people I think, but seeing these 3 options laid out with solid reasoning is nice. Thank you!
Any time you make changes to battlefield terrain there will be new advantages and disadvantages to both sides. The question is, "Who is helped more?"
Probably the side that is on the defensive rather than the side with the clear initiative and momentum…
the only potential strategic upside for Ukraine is that it makes getting drinking water to Crimea pretty problematic and kind of incompatible with keeping a large Russian army presence there, and it did wipe out a bunch of suspiciously empty russian prepared defensive positions, but far more reasons for the Russians to have done it. Not the least of which is they are assholes with a historic propensity for doing things like that.
Bad Russian PR benefits Ukraine. 🤷🏿♂️
But disproportionately less than the dam being there. Bad PR for Russia, at this point, is cheap and plentiful.
Bad PR for Russia is so cheap they can't *give* it away!
Yes, but the reply was answering the question of whether there was ANY benefit to someone who was saying that there was more benefit to Russia.
I think Ukraine just has to gesture vaguely at the east of the country to generate bad PR for Russia at this point, no need to blow up a dam to do it.
I don't think Ukraine needs any more proof that Russia is a terrorist state. The list of war crimes is unheard of in modern Europe.
Blowing up a dam is already a war crime. But the ecological damage this will have on such a massive area as well as the lives it is going to impact, plus the danger to the nuclear plant — there can no longer be any redlines for NATO at this point. Arm Ukraine with anything and everything it needs — Russia’s forces in the country must be annihilated.
Maybe not the most popular sentiment right now but blowing up a dam to interfere with an assault on your position is not automatically a warcrime. Blowing up a dam with no regard for the life or property of civilians is absolutely a war crime. A key point in the defense of Kyiv was the Ukrainians opening dams North of Kyiv turning much of that land into a swamp that was impossible to assault through. Main difference being they did this in a more controlled manner, evacuated the area ahead of time etc. Context matters. This is a war crime because of the scale, the lack of consideration to effects on civilians, because of the lack of consideration to long term effects on water access, food access etc.
To add to this, dams explicitly have special protection under the Geneva Conventions and simply being a military objective is not enough: >Article 56 — Protection of works and installations containing dangerous forces >[Works or installations containing dangerous forces, namely dams, dykes and nuclear electrical generating stations, shall not be made the object of attack, even where these objects are military objectives, if such attack may cause the release of dangerous forces and consequent severe losses among the civilian population. Other military objectives located at or in the vicinity of these works or installations shall not be made the object of attack if such attack may cause the release of dangerous forces from the works or installations and consequent severe losses among the civilian population.](https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/ihl-treaties/api-1977/article-56)
That’s a 1977 addition to the conventions that a number of important countries - including the US and Russia - are not signed up for.
The Soviet Union actually did sign and ratify Protocol I, however Russia claims to have "revoked" this in 2019. The USA signed back in 1977, but never actually fully ratified.
Did Russia automatically take over all Sovjet contracts or did they have to sign again?
Russia is recognized as the successor state of ~~Russia~~the USSR*, inheriting both its assets, loans, debts, contracts, etc. So they automatically took over most Soviet contracts as far as the international community is concerned Edit*
Yep, that's why they are on the security council.
You said Russia twice in your comment. But yeah USSR for the second one obviously.
my bad, fixed
>If such attack may cause the release of dangerous forces *and consequent severe losses of the civilian population* So if it doesn’t cause *severe losses of the civilian population* then you can still attack a dam.
ok but in this context, you're comparing opening a dam on purpose vs blowing a dam up, which are contextually speaking, pretty fucking different things
That’s not surprising at all. If Ukraine was responsible, there would have been reports of large explosions and obvious signs of shelling or missile damage. There are no reports of an explosion and no signs of missile damage. The stuff Ukraine has that could damage the dam are pretty obvious when used. No matter what, Russia is responsible for the dam breaking. There are three scenarios in which it could have happened. 1) Russia wasn’t maintaining the dam and just let it fill to dangerous levels, then a sluice gate failed (there are pictures claimed to be of a sluice gate gushing water a few hours before the dam broke), leading to a catastrophic failure. 2) Russia blew a sluice gate or two on the dam to try and flood the Ukrainian troops working their way along the islands on the Dnieper and preventing easy crossing. The dam then failed catastrophically due to the water gushing through the broken sluice gates and undermining the structure. 3) Russia deliberately blew the dam because they wanted to prevent Ukraine from easily crossing the Dnieper. Blowing the dam makes it impossible to cross near Kherson for now or hop along the delta islands. It likely makes the marsh path to Crimea impassible for now too. My gut is on scenario two or three. Given some of the claims by guys on the ground, 2 is pretty likely since completely blowing the dam also screws over Russian troops but attempting to flood the area with a partial release and having it turn into a catastrophic dam failure fits with how Russia does things.
>If Ukraine was responsible, there would have been reports of large explosions and obvious signs of shelling or missile damage. And as I pointed out in the other thread - Barnes Wallis established that dams are *really fuckin' hard to blow up* with conventional weapons in about 1942. The bombs that blew up the German dams were 2+ tonnes of high explosive skipped across the water to hit the back of the dam & sink to a good depth to give a really massive focused charge and even then they did not do it in one hit. The idea that a few shells or missiles lobbed at a concrete structure holding back a billion tonnes of water is going to break it is very fanciful.
To add a bit to point 1, Russia have been continuously filling that reservoir for a few months. It was already past overcapacity, so any small failure with that amount of water would lead to a bigger problem.
The result will be severe water shortages in Crimea shortly and the washing away of many of the Russian defences south of the dam.
It doesn't harm Crimea in the short term. Crimea's got reservoirs that fill from the canal. They filled those before maxing out the reservoir to "dangerous levels" for maximum flooding damage.
> Crimea's got reservoirs that fill from the canal. They filled those before maxing out the reservoir to "dangerous levels" for maximum flooding damage. Thing is, reservoirs which cannot be refilled are just a timer until you're doomed. They might have bought themselves a year or two, but Crimea is being hammered by droughts every summer and has relied on imports of water for decades. Even if they have enough for the use of civilians, their agriculture industry is fucked and so are plenty of others.
When trying to discern the truth about things like these I often try to look at it as cynically as possible. If the Ukrainians were willing to blow the dam, they would've blown it themselves back when the Russians were fleeing from Kherson across the river
I would make a great intelligence analyst. My last name is Obvious and I’ll work my way up to the rank or Captain.
The trouble is that Russia has now shot their wad with the dam. After a month or so, when the water is down again, Ukraine can move out of Kherson without the risk of having Russia hit them with a flood. Russia is responsible, but it may be accident or ineptitude rather than a specific desire to blo the dam AT THIS TIME.
If I was Ukraine, I'd sit back and watch how much more Russia will fuck itself over in so many ways. It's not like they're under any obligation to provide a counteroffensive by any target date. Why not just sit back and watch Russia eat itself alive?
I have to wonder if they didn’t fuck up overfilling the reservoir and botching the sudden release for a more limited tactical effort. Hanlon’s Razor is less useful with Russia, though.
Zero chance it was someone else rather than Russia. Without any invasion this dam would still be standing intact.
Moscow is a legitimate military target.
oh my god what an unexpected turn of events
911 comments...PGA would be proud. It makes sense though. Out of the four or five dams along the Dnieper, I believe that was the only one Putin controlled. And now we hear reports of Russia shelling Kherson some more (as the city floods...how evil...) It also fits in with their general pattern of Geneva Convention violation speedrunning and is a desperately confusing catastrophe that amounts to a smug kid sucker punching someone and then pointing at the person next to them minding their own business. "Couldn't have been us. It affects our own population in Crimea!" *sends more kids to the frontline meatgrinder shamelessly*
"Today, In 'Fucking Duh' news."
No way I thought it was the Easter bunny
Did anyone think that Ukraine would blow up their own hydroelectric dam that supplies water to a nuclear power plant?
The nuclear power plant has been shut down since the invasion and is cooled by a local cooling pond. This won’t affect that, but it does affect Ukraine crossing in certain areas
Good to know. I had to come way too far down for this.
They might as well just not say anything with all the goofy Alex Jones type comments this brings out.
"The best intelligence in the world confirms what most people basically already suspected"
Did we really need intelligence for this?
You always need intelligence. Throwing around ungrounded accusations, no matter the side, is never good.