Who really benefits from the collapse of the dam in Ukraine?

The collapse of the Kakhovka dam is one of the events leading up to the usual blame game between Kiev and Moscow. Both sides accuse the other of crossing the dam and causing flooding in the valley. As with last year’s Nordstream pipeline explosions, Western suspicion immediately fell on Russia, but it denies responsibility for the action. It is not yet clear whether the dam was deliberately attacked or caused by a structural failure.

The collapse of the Kakhovka dam

Ukrainian President Zelensky made it clear that Russia bears “criminal responsibility”. “The consequences of the tragedy will become clear in a week. Everything will become clear when the waters recede,” he said. To understand who benefited from this operation, let’s examine the results from the restructuring provided by the mainstream media and regional experts.

For months, the Russians and Ukrainians have accused each other of breaking the dam. At first glance, Moscow had more reason to do so, fearing that a Ukrainian counteroffensive would use the road above the dam to draw troops down the river into the Russian-controlled area, thereby advancing into the Crimea. The Ukrainian advantage (depriving Crimea of ​​water) seems very subtle. But what will happen now? David Gendelman, a prominent military analyst, Print right now it’s hard to say who will benefit the most tactically. But in principle, the flood hinders the movement of those who have to move forward (Ukrainians) and helps those who are stationary (Russians). The Russians had also placed explosives on the dam in early October. But to thwart a counterattack, the Russians could more “safely” blow up the highways and railways. Instead, it appears to be a deliberate tactic to destroy Ukraine’s critical infrastructure to condition its economy for who knows how many years. Until the end of August, other strike actions should be considered, because everyone is aiming for a turning point in the war before the fall, which complicates the movement of men and equipment. But let’s go in order.

Because this is good for Ukraine

According to an analysis by the BBC, there are some elements that suggest Ukrainians are responsible for the dam failure. The reason is simple: the Russians would have suffered the most. “The flooding of the ground downstream forced soldiers and civilians to evacuate to the east, away from Kherson and the broad banks of the Dnipro River,” says British public television’s analysis. “This will give Kherson residents a limited respite. those who had to live with artillery and rocket attacks.” Therefore, the Russians had to move their troops stationed near the dam, thus keeping the Ukrainian inhabitants of Kherson quiet for a while.

The other key element concerns the water supply of Russian-occupied Crimea. The peninsula is rather arid and depends on fresh water from a canal near the collapsed dam. We remember that Crimea was annexed by Russia in 2014 and became the first disputed territory between Kiev and Moscow. Being in the hands of Russia and depriving the region of water resources is a move befitting yellow-dark blue troops.

Finally, according to the BBC, “the collapse of the Kakhovka dam must be seen in the broader context of the Ukrainian war and more specifically in light of the summer counteroffensive that signals that Ukraine has already begun”. The collapse of the dam will therefore be part of a counteroffensive by Kiev, which is determined to retake the strip of land that has fallen for months in the city of Harson and connects Crimea to the eastern part of Donbass in Ukraine. Volodymyr Zelensky was able to break through the Russian defensive lines south of Zaporizhzhia, dividing this region in two, and isolate the Crimea with an important strategic victory.

Because it’s good for Russia

But reversing the analysis, the collapse of the dam could be slightly advantageous for Vladimir Putin’s plans. The collapse represents a slowdown in the Ukrainian counteroffensive, which the Russians have not been desperate for in recent months by building fortification lines and demolishing roads to block the Ukrainian advance into the Sea of ​​Azov. It is unclear how Kiev plans to advance in the southern region, but the option of having an armored brigade crossing the wide Dnipro River would be a major risk, exposing the army to missile and drone fire, as well as Russian artillery. With the collapse of the dam and the flooding of large areas, the advance of the Ukrainian troops further narrowed, making the entire east coast in front of Kherson inaccessible.

According to an analysis on Twitter by journalist Andrea Brascayko“The governor of the invaders in Kherson said that there is no threat to the water supply to Crimea via the North Crimean Canal,” said an expert on the region. The hypothesis of damage to the territory annexed by Russia will therefore be bypassed. Finally, a historical fact. It’s not the first time a dam has been blown into the Dnipro River, as Soviet troops had already done this in 1941. During the Second World War, Stalin ordered the Zaporizhzhia hydrostation to be blown up to block the advance of the Nazi troops. According to some reconstructions, thousands of people (figures fluctuate between 20,000 and 100,000) died in the floods. A human sacrifice accepted to achieve a strategic military goal.

Back in the present, the Russians would resort to the same strategy, interpreting the movement of their troops and possible deaths in the area as a “calculated risk”, only then would they realize the disaster he had caused and the media impact of the story. retroactively disclaim any related liability. The third hypothesis is that which attributes the collapse to poor maintenance, as has emerged from a series of satellite images of the Russians running the plant in recent months. While this was not a deliberate attack, the responsibility for failing to manage such vital infrastructure for the region will remain.