On June 6th, Ukraine’s Kakhovka dam was destroyed, unleashing vast quantities of water that are now flooding downstream areas. The question, as in the case of the Nord Stream sabotage, is whodunnit?
The potential culprits are the two warring parties, Ukraine and Russia, each of whom has already blamed the other. There’s also the possibility that the dam failed on its own due to damage sustained during the war.
Let’s consider that possibility first. Satellite imagery shows that a section of the road fell into the water on June 2nd, which suggests the dam may have been deteriorating for some time. Indeed, it was damaged twice in November by shelling and/or controlled explosions, with each side blaming the other as usual. In addition, the water level was at a 30-year high.
However, “local residents reported on social media that they heard a huge explosion around the time the dam was breached”, according to the New York Times, which all but proves the dam did not simply fail on its own.
Was it Russia? Unlike with the Nord Stream sabotage, Russia did have a plausible motive: to thwart a Ukrainian counter-offensive in the Kherson region. And even if that seems tenuous, Russia could always benefit from a false flag attack. Back in October, Zelensky accused of Russia of plotting to blow up the dam.
There’s also precedent: Russia has been bombing Ukraine’s infrastructure for months and has already destroyed several other dams – though to my knowledge it hasn’t previously denied responsibility for doing so.
What’s more, “engineering and munitions experts” quoted in the New York Times said that “an attack from outside the dam” was “less plausible” than an “internal explosion” – which points the finger at Russia, since they were in control of the dam. However, the experts did not completely rule out an external attack.
Yet there are reasons to doubt Russian culpability.
According to experts quoted in a Moscow Times article last October, “blowing the dam would not give Russia any significant military advantages and would jeopardize water supplies to Russian-controlled areas”. The article quoted Michael Kofman as saying that destroying the dam “would mean Russia essentially blowing its own foot off”.
Indeed, the dam provided water for the North Crimean Canal – the source of around 85% of Crimea’s water. Ukraine had blocked the canal in 2014 following Russia’s annexation of Crimea, but it was reopened by Russian forces in the early weeks of the war.
Some people claim that restoring Crimea’s water supply was a major reason why Putin launched his invasion. Russia had accused Ukraine of “genocide” for blocking the canal, and Crimea’s “water crisis” was seen as an “impossible problem for Putin”. Given all this, it seems difficult to believe that Russia would intentionally sabotage the dam.
What about Ukraine? It too had a plausible motive: washing away Russian minefields and fortifications on the left bank of the Dnieper. And like Russia, Ukraine could always benefit from a false flag attack.
Just as Zelensky accused Russia of plotting to blow up the dam, Russian General Sergei Surovikin accused Ukraine of doing the same thing. In fact, the two sides had been trading accusations for months.
What’s more, Ukrainian General Andriy Kovalchuk actually “considered flooding the river”, as the Washington Post reported in December. The Ukrainians “even conducted a test strike with a HIMARS launcher on one of the floodgates”. Although the “test was a success”, the step “remained a last resort” so they “held off”.
Either side could be behind the attack, and I think Russia being responsible is more plausible than in the case of Nord Stream. However, the fact that the dam’s destruction has once again put Crimea’s water supply in jeopardy suggests to me that Ukraine’s the more likely culprit. New evidence may yet tip the scales the other way.
Stop Press: Tucker Carlson broaches the whodunnit question in his first show for Twitter. He reckons it was the Ukrainians.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
So, the suit is that the surgery wasn’t done by the NHS but it is all their fault that this person went instead to a butcher in Serbia to have it done.? Can they not sue the surgeon responsible for the work carried out.? My view would be that this is ‘misadventure’. Perhaps he/she could have had a zip fitted instead and something akin to a light bulb socket so that they could have decided what kind of genitalia they wanted, day by day. They sound awfully confused..
I wish it had gone to a butcher in Serbia then we wouldn’t have to read about all this ‘woe is me’ crap
So, justice is when proles have to pay taxes to enable rich people to have medically pointless cosmetic surgery at their whim but can’t get a dentist appointment for an urgent procedure within a year?
This entity should certainly wish that justice never catches up with it.
Sounds like everyone would have saved money and/or time if the NHS had just got on with it and botched the first operation. He’d have got his compo, the NHS wouldn’t have to do the other two operations and the sawbones in Serbia wouldn’t have had to be paid. Result.
Yes but would you let your young child sit on this Santa’s lap?
https://x.com/benonwine/status/1869743200849858728
I’m confused what day it is today: gender is a construct day, gender is fluid day or souls have a fixed gender day.
Maybe this is a leap day when we have to believe something else instead…
I believe a third of those who have surgery asked to be changed back which is why the NHS used to insist on years of therapy before any surgery.
Once the NHS has refused to turn them back for the second time, they usually go abroad and have it done there.
Needless to say when it goes wrong they go back to the NHS for free surgery again.
The only surprise is Serbia rather than Thailand.
Making the taxpayers pay for this is “negligence, discrimination and a breach of human rights”.
WTAF?
They’re trolling us.
Personally I couldn’t give s shit, either way.
If we needed any more proof that being trans gender is a form of mental illness then surely this man/woman/man provides it.
The Telegraph article refers to him as ‘he’. The Express and GB News are referring to him as ‘she’ – did they miss the bit where the third surgery was botched? How botched would the surgery have to be before they would have to acknowledge that he is still a ‘he’?
Probably finding it hard to keep up.
Lady Nutter.
Should have been sectioned in the first instance, theres a reason why you have lots of councilling etc, why should taxpayers pay for their stupid fantasys?, its still a man.
Why should taxpayers fund treatment for a mentally-challenged narcissist?
Another disturbed, gay man who gets off wearing women’s clothes and fantasises about having his parts chopped off. He needs mental health help not physical health interventions.
If the system allows it, people are going to exploit it.
No elective cosmetic surgery should be available on the NHS for free.
If there is a clinical need that is different.
Nice legs
Looks like a man in drag. Will always look like a man in drag.
If proof were needed that this is a mental health issue and not a surgical issue. He wasn’t changing his dress or even having a reversible boob job. Psychiatry not surgery was needed in the first place.