Scrutable

EACLucifer wrote: Tue Jun 06, 2023 7:28 am Russians have blown the Kakhovsky Dam, which impounded one of the largest reservoirs in Europe, on one of the largest rivers in Europe, the Dnipro. This is a serious warcrime in of itself, and also risks cutting the supply of cooling water to the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Powerplant at Enerhodar, risking catastrophe there.

Yes, it looks like Ukraine had most to lose from this. It would appear to complicate any plans for an attack across the lower Dnipro. Even if Ukraine wasn't planning that Russia would need to station troops there.

The Zaporizhzhia plant is very concerning. I hope that there is a way to avoid a catastrophe.

There's reports of Russians using artillery to disrupt the evacuation of citizens from Kherson endangered by the rapid rise of the Dnipro after the destruction of the Kakhovsky Dam.

EACLucifer wrote: Tue Jun 06, 2023 9:02 am There's reports of Russians using artillery to disrupt the evacuation of citizens from Kherson endangered by the rapid rise of the Dnipro after the destruction of the Kakhovsky Dam.

The bastards are boasting about it. There's people that are at extreme risk of being killed by the floodwaters with no land routes out, and the Russians are shelling the people trying to save them.

ETA: They also appear to have abandoned civilians on the occupied side of the river to their fate, too.

I'm confused. We've just had lots of events celebrating the 80th anniversary of the Dambusters Raid.

Is this another instance of "it's OK if we do it"?*

* rhetorical

gosling wrote: Tue Jun 06, 2023 2:33 pm I'm confused. We've just had lots of events celebrating the 80th anniversary of the Dambusters Raid.

Is this another instance of "it's OK if we do it"?*

* rhetorical

No. It shouldn't have been perpetrated either. Just like Dresden shouldn't have been firebombed in February '45.

gosling wrote: Tue Jun 06, 2023 2:33 pm I'm confused. We've just had lots of events celebrating the 80th anniversary of the Dambusters Raid.

Is this another instance of "it's OK if we do it"?*

* rhetorical

There was no restriction on doing it them, unlike now - Wikipedia on deliberate breaching of dams

I think most celebrations of the Dambusters Raid have caveats now: impressive feat of aviation and navigation etc., but lots of debate about its effectiveness (beyond morale) and acknowledgement of its casualties

insignificant wrote: Tue Jun 06, 2023 3:25 pm

gosling wrote: Tue Jun 06, 2023 2:33 pm I'm confused. We've just had lots of events celebrating the 80th anniversary of the Dambusters Raid.

Is this another instance of "it's OK if we do it"?*

* rhetorical

There was no restriction on doing it them, unlike now - Wikipedia on deliberate breaching of dams

I think most celebrations of the Dambusters Raid have caveats now: impressive feat of aviation and navigation etc., but lots of debate about its effectiveness (beyond morale) and acknowledgement of its casualties

The BBC carefully referred to "commemorations" rather than celebrations.

gosling wrote: Tue Jun 06, 2023 2:33 pm I'm confused. We've just had lots of events celebrating the 80th anniversary of the Dambusters Raid.

Is this another instance of "it's OK if we do it"?*

* rhetorical

Britain generally has a pretty f.cked up view of its past atrocities and position in world history, but I don't think that means all British people cannot criticise atrocities committed by other countries.

gosling wrote: Tue Jun 06, 2023 2:33 pm I'm confused. We've just had lots of events celebrating the 80th anniversary of the Dambusters Raid.

Is this another instance of "it's OK if we do it"?*

* rhetorical

Three key points. Firstly, what is and what is not acceptable conduct in war changes over time. It was once widely accepted that if a town did not surrender before Murum aries attigit, the occupants would be killed or enslaved when it was overrun. In the second world war, area bombing of cities in an attempt to destroy war industry was widely practised, and indeed initiated by Nazi Germany. In the aftermath of that awful conflict, there were attempts to make conflict more humane, to better protect civilians. One of those changes was the introduction of the principle that works and installations containing dangerous forces should not be attacked.

Secondly, the goal of the Operation Chastise was to cripple German war industry by depriving it of water and electricity, war industry they were using to perpetrate a war of aggression against multiple nations, including the systematic use of genocide. The destruction of the Kakhovsky Dam does not meaningfully impact Ukraine's war industry, just floods both recently liberated and still occupied civilian areas, and risks desertifying some of the richest arable land in the world. Additionally, Russia is the aggressor nation in this case.

Thirdly, the fact that Operation Chastise caused disproportionate casualties among civilians and allied prisoners of war is widely noted, and quite possibly a factor in why the raid was not repeated. We can note the courage of those that took part in the raid, noting just how dangerous it was and how many it did not return, and note that their aim was to speed the defeat of Nazi Germany while acknowleding the impact on enslaved Poles and civilians, and that the war in which it took place was of a character we are seeking to ensure never occurs again.

A notable feature of Operation Chastise is that the Allies failed to get the best effect from the destruction, by not attempting to disrupt the dam reconstruction work.
This was noted by Barnes Wallis himself (with dismay at the missed opportunity to delay the restoration of hydroelectric power to the Ruhr region), and also by Albert Speer (with surprise and, I guess, less dismay).

A long post outlining a theory as to Russian intentions, and how that played out in their changing statements, with sources

Volodymyr Tretyak talks about the possibility the Russians may have intended to only blow one or more of the floodgates to submerge the Dnipro delta islands Ukrainian forces had been advancing across, and f.cked it up destroying the entire dam. Worth noting that the word "Racist" in this is probably actually meant to be "Rushist" or "Raschist", and is a portmanteau of "Russian" and "Fascist", rather than a direct reference to those holding and acting on ethnic prejudices, though Raschists do also tend to be racists as well.

EACLucifer wrote: Tue Jun 06, 2023 4:44 pm

gosling wrote: Tue Jun 06, 2023 2:33 pm I'm confused. We've just had lots of events celebrating the 80th anniversary of the Dambusters Raid.

Is this another instance of "it's OK if we do it"?*

* rhetorical

Three key points. Firstly, what is and what is not acceptable conduct in war changes over time. It was once widely accepted that if a town did not surrender before Murum aries attigit, the occupants would be killed or enslaved when it was overrun. In the second world war, area bombing of cities in an attempt to destroy war industry was widely practised, and indeed initiated by Nazi Germany. In the aftermath of that awful conflict, there were attempts to make conflict more humane, to better protect civilians. One of those changes was the introduction of the principle that works and installations containing dangerous forces should not be attacked.

Secondly, the goal of the Operation Chastise was to cripple German war industry by depriving it of water and electricity, war industry they were using to perpetrate a war of aggression against multiple nations, including the systematic use of genocide. The destruction of the Kakhovsky Dam does not meaningfully impact Ukraine's war industry, just floods both recently liberated and still occupied civilian areas, and risks desertifying some of the richest arable land in the world. Additionally, Russia is the aggressor nation in this case.

Thirdly, the fact that Operation Chastise caused disproportionate casualties among civilians and allied prisoners of war is widely noted, and quite possibly a factor in why the raid was not repeated. We can note the courage of those that took part in the raid, noting just how dangerous it was and how many it did not return, and note that their aim was to speed the defeat of Nazi Germany while acknowleding the impact on enslaved Poles and civilians, and that the war in which it took place was of a character we are seeking to ensure never occurs again.

Its a bit more complicated than that.

The Geneva Protocols didn't spring from thin air but were based upon centuries long traditions and practices which constituted the rules of how wars were fought. From medieval Europe onwards there norms about killing or harming non-combatants (consider the codes of chivalry and the rules about warfare advanced by the church). If you want to go back further you can look at the rules by which the Greek fought wars against each other. Certainly there were many caveats, and often the rules only applied to certain types of people (eg not to non-Christians).

By the late 19th these rules started to be codified as international law. Notably the 1907 Hague Convention (which was ratified by the UK) sates that: "The attack or bombardment, by whatever means, of towns, villages, dwellings, or buildings which are undefended is prohibited."

The German bombing of UK urban areas during WW1 was condemned by the British government as being barbaric. More relevant, during the late 1930s the German bombing of the town of Guernica during the Spanish civil war and the Japanese bombing of cities in China led to worldwide condemnation. The League of Nations (forerunner to the UN) passed a resolution which stated that "The intentional bombing of civilian populations is illegal". By 1939 there was widespread condemnation by states including Britain of bombing of towns and cities.

But that doesn't mean that the UK's WW2 bombing was illegal. A key principle of the laws of war is proportionality. It is acceptable to kill civilians as long as the deaths are proportionate to achieving a military objective. It was argued at the time, and as you write, that bombing German towns and cities was necessary in order to degrade Germany's armed forces - such as that railways or factories were military targets. I have sympathy with that argument, though it doesn't necessarily follow that because bombing was justified in general that every example was justified.

Acting Kherson Region Governor Vladimir Saldo explains why Russia blew the dam:

"From the military point of view, the operational and tactical situation favors Russian forces," he said during a Soloviev Live TV broadcast, speaking about how the Ukrainian military's attack on the Kakhovka HPP would affect the defensive capabilities of Russian forces in the region.

Saldo added that, by destroying the plant’s dam, Kiev sought to distract attention from the heavy losses suffered by the Ukrainian armed forces in the combat zone. But, at the same time, this catastrophe will not give any advantages to the Ukrainian troops from a tactical point of view, he said.

"They hurt themselves with this. Because the calculation was that blowing up the dam would give some strategic or operational advantages to the Ukrainian forces. <...> They will not be able to do anything. Our armed forces have an open space to see who is trying to cross [the Dnieper River] and how. <...> And it will be impossible to pass through the bed of the Kakhovka Reservoir if they try to do so," Saldo explained.

https://tass.com/defense/1628889

TimW wrote: Thu Jun 08, 2023 8:05 am Acting Kherson Region Governor Vladimir Saldo explains why Russia blew the dam:

"From the military point of view, the operational and tactical situation favors Russian forces," he said during a Soloviev Live TV broadcast, speaking about how the Ukrainian military's attack on the Kakhovka HPP would affect the defensive capabilities of Russian forces in the region.

Saldo added that, by destroying the plant’s dam, Kiev sought to distract attention from the heavy losses suffered by the Ukrainian armed forces in the combat zone. But, at the same time, this catastrophe will not give any advantages to the Ukrainian troops from a tactical point of view, he said.

"They hurt themselves with this. Because the calculation was that blowing up the dam would give some strategic or operational advantages to the Ukrainian forces. <...> They will not be able to do anything. Our armed forces have an open space to see who is trying to cross [the Dnieper River] and how. <...> And it will be impossible to pass through the bed of the Kakhovka Reservoir if they try to do so," Saldo explained.

https://tass.com/defense/1628889

Nicely done.

"Ukraine did it, but it only benefits Russia and harm's Ukrainian offensive options"

Switzerland's legislature votes down roughly $5.5 billion aid package for Ukraine 98-90. Its largest party, the right-wing Swiss People's Party, also plans to boycott Zelensky's address to the legislature in a week's time.

https://twitter.com/zakavkaza/status/16 ... 5377138688

Russians shelling evacuation efforts in Kherson oblast again.

Seismic evidence confirms explosion brought down the Kakhovsky Dam

Russia also shells the evacuation efforts.

There must be a suitable response.

More circumstantial evidence that Russia blew up the dam.

https://twitter.com/Info_Rosalie/status ... 32386?s=20

8/ Something I noted about the earliest accounts talking about this on Twitter was that they had a fairly consistent number of tweets in their feeds.

As with many such attacks, Russian social media troll accounts get the accusations in before the incident is well known.

jimbob wrote: Fri Jun 09, 2023 6:29 am More circumstantial evidence that Russia blew up the dam.

https://twitter.com/Info_Rosalie/status ... 32386?s=20

8/ Something I noted about the earliest accounts talking about this on Twitter was that they had a fairly consistent number of tweets in their feeds.

As with many such attacks, Russian social media troll accounts get the accusations in before the incident is well known.

Aside from the whole shelling the rescue workers aspect, another piece of circumstantial evidence is that the Russians are playing it down, ie denying the existence of a zoo in Nova Kakhovka. If Ukraine had done it, Russia would be playing up the impact as much as they could.

New York Times is reporting that US satellites detected a heat spike consistent with a large explosion just before the Kakhovsky Dam collapsed.

EACLucifer wrote: Fri Jun 09, 2023 2:17 pm New York Times is reporting that US satellites detected a heat spike consistent with a large explosion just before the Kakhovsky Dam collapsed.

Also seismographs detected a large explosion around the right time.

Meanwhile, I saw it reported that Shoigu claimed it was Ukraine, and this is where we fall about laughing, in an attempt to stop Russian offensive activities in that region.

And here's another example of hilarious Russian lying:

TASS wrote:Attacks on civilians violate international law — UN about Ukrainian attacks on evacuees
Stephane Dujarric, spokesman for the UN Secretary-General, noted that all those affected by the collapse of the dam need help, regardless of whether they are in areas controlled by the government of Ukraine or in areas controlled by the Russian military

UNITED NATIONS, June 10. /TASS/. Attacks on civilians and civilian infrastructure contradict the international humanitarian law, Spokesperson for the UN Secretary-General Stephane Dujarric said on Friday, commenting on Ukraine’s shelling of civilians evacuating from flood-hit areas of the Kherson Region.

"All of the people impacted by the destruction of the dam need help, whether they are in areas controlled by the Government of Ukraine or whether they're areas under the control of the Russian military. And I would also add that any targeting of or hitting of civilians or civilian infrastructures is contrary to International Humanitarian Law," he said.
https://tass.com/world/1630439

Compare the truth:

United Nations wrote: Question: Yesterday, a group of countries here in the UN condemned the shelling by Russian forces of evacuation areas in the Kherson region, in the disaster zone. I wonder whether the Secretary-General would like to join this condemnation.

Spokesperson: What I can tell you, first of all, we have no direct information on what happened, but what I can tell you is that all of the people impacted by the destruction of the dam need help, whether they are in areas controlled by the Government of Ukraine or whether they're areas under the control of the Russian military. And I would also add that any targeting of or hitting of civilians or civilian infrastructures is contrary to International Humanitarian Law.
https://press.un.org/en/2023/db230906.doc.htm

TimW wrote: Sat Jun 10, 2023 3:04 pmCompare the truth:

United Nations wrote: Question: Yesterday, a group of countries here in the UN condemned the shelling by Russian forces of evacuation areas in the Kherson region, in the disaster zone. I wonder whether the Secretary-General would like to join this condemnation.

Spokesperson: What I can tell you, first of all, we have no direct information on what happened, but what I can tell you is that all of the people impacted by the destruction of the dam need help, whether they are in areas controlled by the Government of Ukraine or whether they're areas under the control of the Russian military. And I would also add that any targeting of or hitting of civilians or civilian infrastructures is contrary to International Humanitarian Law.
https://press.un.org/en/2023/db230906.doc.htm

Real quote's still horribly soft, though. We know who's shelling evacuation points, its the Russians, name them. And while the exact details of what happened to the dam may not be quite 100% securely confirmed, we can safely rule out the Russian claims about it.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-65871232

Russia appears to have moved to take direct control of Wagner, after months of infighting between defence officials and the private military group.

Deputy Defence Minister Nikolai Pankov said on Saturday "volunteer formations" will be asked to sign contracts directly with the ministry of defence.

The vaguely worded statement is widely believed to target the group.

But in a furious statement on Sunday, Wagner boss Yevgeny Prigozhin said his forces would boycott the contracts.

Prigozhin is running out of options. I hope he realises that he's going to have to use violence and sooner rather than later.

Great news - the more Russia fights with itself the better for Ukraine.