The Geneva Convention forbids wilful destruction of infrastructure in a way that is likely to cause significant harm to the civilian population.
It does qualify that to enable, for example, opening sluice gates to flood farmland or approaches likely to be taken by an invading force in your own nation. Blowing the Khakhovka dam is a war crime
Damn, how many people have died due to the flooding?
11 months ago
Anonymous
Crimeans will suffer, oh wait they're not Ukrainian civilians right now are they so I guess you're right
11 months ago
Anonymous
Oh wow, look, a contentious little frick in an era where every second person online acts that way. How original.
Here's a better question. Why does China openly threaten nuclear retaliation against those who attempt strikes on the Three Gorges Dam when, by your own standards, it's not a war crime?
>big flood without warning
it will probably be in the thousands
I thought warcrime in this case was define by the unnecessary destruction it causes. If it just thousands then it's probably not a warcrime. If it's in tens of thousands then maybe?
But if no one died then can it really be a crime?
11 months ago
Anonymous
>But if no one died then can it really be a crime?
Are you black?
11 months ago
Anonymous
Yeah and I have impregnated over 3 white girls!
11 months ago
Anonymous
You don't impregnate over them moron.
11 months ago
Anonymous
It doesn't actually have to directly kill anyone to be a war crime. There are numerous towns on both sides of the river where tens of thousands of people live and for the most part their homes and livelihoods have been destroyed. Even if they all got out in time they are now displaced refugees with nothing but the clothes on their backs.
That's without considering the damage to food production, the water supply to Crimea and the ecological harm.
11 months ago
Anonymous
>Power infrastructure has long been considered a valid military objective as long as it supports an enemy army's activities, even if the system also supports the civilian population, writes military law expert Michael Schmitt in the Articles of War blog run by the Lieber Institute for Law & Warfare at the United States Military Academy West Point. >Even if some of the targets could be considered military objectives, that is not the end of the story, says Katharine Fortin, associate professor of international law at Utrecht University. >The military must consider whether the damage and loss incurred by civilians in such attacks are excessive compared to the concrete and direct military advantage, she said.
For context the strikes on dams in Germany were conducted as part of a larger effort to shut down the German wartime economy, the civilian economy at the time seen as too intertwined to make any distinction. ODS and OIF featured the use of precision munitions on infrastructure targets, blowing through multiple stories and obliterating a telephone exchange in one case, showering a high voltage power line with effectively confetti causing it to trip temporarily in another. The strikes were carefully weighed, not to eliminate all possibility of civilians being hurt (as that's impossible), but to maximize the military utility. Even the time of the strikes was chosen, targeting infrastructure and office buildings at night while most people were at home.
Of course this doesn't register to a filthy vatnik like yourself.
11 months ago
Anonymous
Anon, don't bother. You know he argues in bad faith, I know he argues in bad faith, he knows he's arguing in bad faith, we all know.
11 months ago
Anonymous
Zigger irony aside. Half of crimean population came there after 2014 from r*ssia.
11 months ago
Anonymous
Oh wow, look, a contentious little frick in an era where every second person online acts that way. How original.
Here's a better question. Why does China openly threaten nuclear retaliation against those who attempt strikes on the Three Gorges Dam when, by your own standards, it's not a war crime?
11 months ago
Anonymous
Keep screeching, vatBlack person
Now everybody knows Russia did it. When 3 gorges gets hit, the entire world will blame Russia.
11 months ago
Anonymous
>When 3 gorges gets hit, the entire world will blame Russia.
Frick you. 3 Gorges is America's dam to destroy.
11 months ago
Anonymous
>Why does China openly threaten nuclear retaliation against those who attempt strikes on the Three Gorges Dam
When did they do this?
11 months ago
Anonymous
>big flood without warning
it will probably be in the thousands
11 months ago
Anonymous
[...]
[...]
I thought warcrime in this case was define by the unnecessary destruction it causes. If it just thousands then it's probably not a warcrime. If it's in tens of thousands then maybe?
But if no one died then can it really be a crime?
if even 100 civilians die, I'll eat my fricking hat.
11 months ago
Anonymous
People are really moronic when it comes to flash flooding. They do all sorts of dumb shit like hang around thinking it won't come, trying to swim through it and being battered by undercurrents, or trying to drive through a few inches of water that will sweep away a truck like a toy.
11 months ago
Anonymous
I think this was just a bit too slow to be considered a flash flood, at least in Kherson.
11 months ago
Anonymous
True, but old people move slowly. Some have been cut off from their families for a long time, and there's no state emergency response to help them.
11 months ago
Anonymous
The flood doesn't appear to be this catastrophic. It flooded nearby towns with about 3 feet of water judging by the pictures I've seen, which will require the evacuation of those cities, but it's not like it was a massive doomsday event such as blowing up the 3 Gorges Dam or the Itaipu Dam.
11 months ago
Anonymous
well the flooding will affect/displace hundreds of thousands, so possibly tens of thousands? it will take a while for lack of water supplies/food/camp illnesses to take hold, so I expect the death toll to mount over the next next week or two.
Also this dam was the source of the cooling for the Zaporizhzhia nuclear plant, so if this also causes that to melt down then it turns it into a major international nuclear incident as well.
11 months ago
Anonymous
That seems excessively pessimistic. Especially considering that the Zap NPP has been in cold shutdown for over a year.
Hmmm then the fire bombing of Dresden was a ....... nvm
bump
11 months ago
Anonymous
It was. Which is why the Wehrmacht officers that organized the firebombing of London were cleared of all charges.
Quite a lot of Germans were cleared of all charges (or only sentenced to a minor prison sentence rather than life sentences or death sentences)... because the allies did them, too.
This is what war crimes ultimately are... a prevention against escalation. "We won't do X until you do X first". If the enemy DOES do X first then you can either retaliate in the same manner, OR after the war you get to arrest (and potentially execute) the ones responsible if you didn't answer in the same way and kept your cool.
When americans attacked Baghdad they intentionally targeted critical infrastructure.
Talking loud about nation building while the city dissolved into chaos with no water, power or food.
The geneva circus is a meme, winner writes history, end of story.
IDK seems pretty explicit.
https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/customary-ihl/v2/rule42 >Article 56 of the 1977 Additional Protocol I provides: >1. Works and 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.
Yes, article 56 of the Geneva Gonventions you dipshit.
https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/ihl-treaties/api-1977/article-56 >Article 56 - Protection of works and installations containing dangerous forces
1. 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.
>Attacks on dams were restricted in Article 56 of the 1977 Protocol I amendment to the Geneva Conventions. Dams may not be lawfully attacked "if such attack may cause the release of dangerous forces from the works or installations and consequent severe losses among the civilian population", unless "it is used for other than its normal function and in regular, significant and direct support of military operations and if such attack is the only feasible way to terminate such support". Similar provisions apply to other sources of "dangerous forces", such as nuclear power plants.
>1977
The world should have stuck with the WW2 rulebook
11 months ago
Anonymous
I'm curious because I don't know, what other additions have been made since WWII? Specifically, what tactics that were used in WWII are now considered verboten?
11 months ago
Anonymous
Incendiaries are generally considered verboten now. Like White Phosphorous is only supposed to be used for illumination. But the logic here is similar to chemical weapons, in that fires can quickly spiral out of control and could pose just as much a risk to your own soldiers as they do everyone else.
>comparing that to blowing a dam on a Dniepro river >with Kherson downstream >Killing people isn't a warcrime though
Killing non combatants isn't a warcrime? >when those villages near Kiev were evacuated.
You are brown.
you cant have it both ways anon
a dam is a dam blowing a damn is a warcrime according to morons
soo
Nobody died because of them
who died because of the dam collapsing so far?
besides the truth
11 months ago
Anonymous
>a dam is a dam blowing a damn is a warcrime according to morons
No, opening sluices or levees to block the path of an invading army is not a war crime as per the Geneva Convention.
Blowing a dam in a country you invaded with no measures taken to protect the downstream civilian population is a war crime.
11 months ago
Anonymous
>No, opening sluices or levees to block the path of an invading army is not a war crime as per the Geneva Convention
where does it state this anon
ill wait
(not much cause we both know you just made it up) >Blowing a dam in a country you invaded with no measures taken to protect the downstream civilian population is a war crime.
but they didnt really blew it up now did they we know for a fact now that the dam had major damages and it was already spilling since late may
11 months ago
Anonymous
>where does it state this anon >ill wait >(not much cause we both know you just made it up)
Article 54, 1949 Geneva Convention >In recognition of the vital requirements of any Party to the conflict in the defence of its national territory against invasion, derogation from the prohibitions contained in paragraph 2 may be made by a Party to the conflict within such territory under its own control where required by imperative military necessity
>Article 54, 1949 Geneva Convention >Any destruction by the Occupying Power of real or personal property belonging individually or collectively to private persons, or to the State, or to other public authorities, or to social or cooperative organizations, is prohibited, except where such destruction is rendered absolutely necessary by military operations.
>except where such destruction is rendered absolutely necessary by military operations.
11 months ago
Anonymous
>Any destruction by the Occupying Power
You see, comrade, Ruzzia is not occupying Kherson oblast. It is Ukraine who is occupying Kherson oblast. Thus at most this is a warcrime from the hohol side.
11 months ago
Anonymous
> where does it state this
In the 1949 Geneva Convention, as the previous anon cited here:
>where does it state this anon >ill wait >(not much cause we both know you just made it up)
Article 54, 1949 Geneva Convention >In recognition of the vital requirements of any Party to the conflict in the defence of its national territory against invasion, derogation from the prohibitions contained in paragraph 2 may be made by a Party to the conflict within such territory under its own control where required by imperative military necessity
There's also some further clarification in the 1977 protocols.
There's a distinction made between flooding territory on your own internationally-recognized territory (legit if you believe it was needed in defense) and doing it on somebody else's territory during your invasion of their borders (war crimes, potentially even the larger charge of Crimes Against Humanity). The 1998 founding statute of the ICC criminalizes "intentionally launching an attack in the knowledge that such attack will cause incidental loss of life or injury to civilians or damage to civilian objects or widespread, long-term and severe damage to the natural environment which would be clearly excessive in relation to the concrete and direct overall military advantage anticipated". > we know for a fact now that the dam had major damages and it was already spilling since late may
If such a thing was known, then the Russian deliberate overloading of the reservoir in picrel would actually prove their culpability: they undertook it in advance with knowledge that it was recklessly unsafe.
11 months ago
Anonymous
>If such a thing was known, then the Russian deliberate overloading of the reservoir
do you know how to read what you posted anon?
also
did you know that they started doing significant repairs to the dam at 2019 but they had to stop because the goverment wanted to fund the construction of new roads?https://web.archive.org/web/20220228175821/https://uhe.gov.ua/media_tsentr/novyny/kakhovska-ges-stiykiy-rozvitok-ta-pidtrimka-regionu
also we know for a fact that the scientists called for an urgent repair since 2015
https://www.dl.begellhouse.com/journals/38cb2223012b73f2,514b0fce3618487c,2d4602e318532df7.html
i guess you didnt knew about it eh
>picrel is a week ago
Bullshit it is. Are you illiterate? The date in the headline is 6 June 2023 10:30.
>bullshit it is
dont tell me i quoted the moron that said >picrel
11 months ago
Anonymous
If, as you allege, the dam was known to have structural faults, then for the Russian controllers of the dam to raise water levels to record heights would have been, at best, recklessly irresponsible. A week ago, the Russian authorities weakened investigations of hazardous facilities, there's a screenshot in this pic if you can read Cyrillic. Now take into account the gauleiter mayor of Nova Kakhovka's bungled initial response to RIA Novosti, and the timing during AFU preparations for a counterattack. Seems pretty suspicious to me. > i guess you didnt knew about it eh
No, I got my own screenshots from the first page of results on Google News. Unlike you, I didn't just happen to have weblinks from 2019 and 2015, one of them on archive.org, handy within literally hours of the dam explosion.
Very organic of you, pidor. *~~*~~*~~
11 months ago
Anonymous
>If, as you allege, the dam was known to have structural faults, then for the Russian controllers of the dam to raise water levels to record heights would have been, at best, recklessly irresponsible.
thats a nice way of interpreting the photo while blatandly trying to hide the fact that there is a HUGE drop also
which the evil german within me wants to try and find the site that measures the level of water on all the previous dams
11 months ago
Anonymous
>which the evil german within me wants to try and find the site that measures the level of water on all the previous dams
that is actually quite interesting
if there is a sudden drop on the follow up dams it means that ukraine knew very well the condition of the dam and they knew that they had no choice but to relieve the pressure
11 months ago
Anonymous
> thats a nice way of interpreting the photo while blatandly trying to hide the fact that there is a HUGE drop also
If I was trying to hide it, I'd have cropped it out. It's right there in the open. Furthermore:
>which the evil german within me wants to try and find the site that measures the level of water on all the previous dams
that is actually quite interesting
if there is a sudden drop on the follow up dams it means that ukraine knew very well the condition of the dam and they knew that they had no choice but to relieve the pressure
> if there is a sudden drop on the follow up dams it means that ukraine knew very well the condition of the dam and they knew that they had no choice but to relieve the pressure
Those drops were not under Ukrainian stewardship. They were enacted by Russians.
Look at the timeline on the graph again. That abnormal drop occurs in and after the second half of 2022, and thus was also during Russian occupation and control of the reservoir and HPP.
There's multiple theories as to *why*, and a front-runner is that the drops in October and February were Russian attempts to siphon off as much as possible to fill cisterns in Crimea against an anticipated siege.
But the why doesn't matter -- this happened on Russia's watch, and the responsibility for it is theirs alone. Compare the levels to the pre-invasion norms going back several years: the Russians were up to something.
11 months ago
Anonymous
>Look at the timeline on the graph again. That abnormal drop occurs in and after the second half of 2022, and thus was also during Russian occupation and control of the reservoir and HPP.
hence why i said >we should also check the dams that ukraine is actually in control upstream
because if they have the same level of drop then the situation will be quite literally damning for them 100000000%
11 months ago
Anonymous
I'm trying to interpret what you're driving at. >we should also check the dams that ukraine is actually in control upstream > because if they have the same level of drop then the situation will be quite literally damning for them 100000000%
Who is "them" -- the Russians or the Ukrainians? And why would a commensurate flux in water levels be so very damning?
11 months ago
Anonymous
if the upstream dams have also a drop it means the ukranians opened the gates on PURPOSE
11 months ago
Anonymous
I think I see what you're driving at. And if the reverse is true and upstream reservoirs don't show similarly dramatic shifts in water level, you'd admit that constitutes proof positive that this was clearly the Russians acting unilaterally, rather than responding to some upstream manipulation by Ukrainians?
11 months ago
Anonymous
NTA but logically if all the other dams showed ahistorical build-ups it wouldn't have been intentional by Russia just a particularly rainy year. Or if a Ukranian-controlled Dam showed a large outflow down to extremely low level it would have been sent downriver.
Not that either is likely mind.
11 months ago
Anonymous
I think I see what you're driving at. And if the reverse is true and upstream reservoirs don't show similarly dramatic shifts in water level, you'd admit that constitutes proof positive that this was clearly the Russians acting unilaterally, rather than responding to some upstream manipulation by Ukrainians?
Keep in mind, Russians appear to have intentionally drained the reservoir, then closed the gates and let it refill to unprecedented levels. Even if Ukraine was releasing water from reservoirs upstream, Russia kept the gates closed on the Nova Kakhovka dam. They could've been opened at any point to return water levels back to normal, barring some kind of severe malfunction causing them to be stuck closed. Water levels were rising for months and nothing was done, points to it being intentional.
11 months ago
Anonymous
Yeh I don't think there's much of a chance of Ukraine doing anything here at all I just wanted to explain why the other anon might be interested in that data. From a personal perspective I think it's good to have because more data makes it harder for Russia to convincingly spin disinfo about it.
11 months ago
Anonymous
Yes, that's exactly what I believe -- this was done intentionally, and they spent months doing it. The initial Russian-controlled drop of water levels may have been to frick with Ukrainian infrastructure, article here: https://wusfnews.wusf.usf.edu/2023-03-22/a-shrinking-reservoir-signals-ukraine-and-russia-are-waging-a-dangerous-water-war
After that, they spent months building up the water level to a dangerous height. Even if they didn't intend to destroy the whole thing but rather lost control, it's obvious that their plan was to weaponize the dam by surging downstream levels, one way or another.
11 months ago
Anonymous
The initial drop was because this reservoir and dam is the primary supply for Crimea and they filled every single reservoir in Crimea to capacity in advance of the expected Ukrainian offensive. Otherwise the second half of what you're saying is correct.
11 months ago
Anonymous
The water from the reservoir has not reached Crimea since 2014. Even when the Russians unblocked the canal the water didn't make it to the peninsula due to issues with the unmaintained pumping system.
11 months ago
Anonymous
Huh, I was going off of another (western) news report that said that was their goal. Fair enough though. Christ the mainstream media is shit.
11 months ago
Anonymous
It's not clear what their goal was, perhaps they were planning on storing up water in preparation for the pumps to be reactivated. Perhaps they really were intending to flood miles and miles of their own occupied territory and wash their men into the Black Sea. We can only make guesses as to the motivation of the people who would orchestrate such a thing. One thing appears certain, however, there was some kind of plan being carried out, and it would seem that it has not gone very well.
11 months ago
Anonymous
> were intending to flood miles and miles of their own occupied territory and wash their men into the Black Sea. We can only make guesses as to the motivation of the people who would orchestrate such a thing.
Definitely and it was undeniably a Russian plan. Even before we address the lack of evidence any limited tactical benefit Ukraine can gain is more than outweighed by losing the southern approach for months and anyway the optics would be terrible for a nation reliant on western support. Combined this means blaming Ukraine is a schizo take.
So the question comes down to if Russia intentionally blew the dam and failed to inform the troops in the south or panicked and did it early thinking the offensive had started, if they planned to open the gates in a controlled manner and lost control completely or if they are really so incompetent they just filled it up too far and it collapsed from existing damage possibly from the explosion Russia was also responsible for back in November.
Middle option may be likely because this has fricked over Russian controlled land both agriculturally and in terms of washing away minefields, fortifications and draining a natural barrier far worse in the medium-long term to buy only a few months respite in the south. Or they really thought they'd lose so badly that that land would be taken anyway which means the situation is worse than anyone thinks and we might see a complete collapse this year.
11 months ago
Anonymous
>Even when the Russians unblocked the canal the water didn't make it to the peninsula due to issues with the unmaintained pumping system.
You are totally wrong
11 months ago
Anonymous
Then it seems the flow is intermittent at best. Because I'm looking at imagery from this year showing what is very clearly a dry canal.
11 months ago
Anonymous
>imagery from this year
Share plz
11 months ago
Anonymous
Two posts up the chain from the one you just replied to. Google maps imagery shows the flow of water in the canal stopped just before crossing the border into Crimea. Anon replied to me with imagery, also from google, that shows the same portion of the canal filled with water. To me this suggests that the flow is not consistent, perhaps they are having trouble keeping the pumping stations online?
11 months ago
Anonymous
There is a dam built after annexation to prevent waterflows. It was reopened in 2022. There are no reported pumping problems
11 months ago
Anonymous
I'm the Anon you were replying to. Yours seems like a reasonable theory, but check the article out. The RuAF might have had more than one agenda, and forcing the Ukrainians to release upstream supply to make up for the shortfall seems to have been part of it.
11 months ago
Anonymous
Yeh also possible. Or both goals at the same time.
11 months ago
Anonymous
is shooting a gun into the ground a crime?
is shooting a non-threatening person a crime?
"Kill a lot of people" is exactly what wars do. That's not what makes something a warcrime, and I hate anyone who believes this. Civilian casualties are not a warcrime in and of themselves. If that were the case, every single war in history has been conducted in a criminal manner.
The ACTUAL purpose of "war crime" even being a concept is to keep a lid on escalation, and punish malicious abuse of the conditions of war. The attack on the dam had a military purpose. It flooded out Ukrainian positions in Kherson, and delayed/denied their counteroffensive. But do you know what was a warcrime? Shelling relief efforts. What's the difference? Lack of military purpose.
>But it's a military target
Geneva Convention specifically states that it must not be destroyed even if it is a military target.
To qualify this, OP's pic happened before that additional protocol was signed, so the answer to OP'S question is 'Yes, it is a war crime now. It was not automaically a war crime in WW2.'
Stuff like this has to be seen on a case to case basis. I think if the dam for example powers some tank factory that is underground and impossible to destroy, it can become a valid target, but you'd have to ask a lawyer about it.
Just because something has military utility does not mean it's automatically not a war crime. If you launch an attack that kills 100000 civilians and 1 soldier that doesn't mean it's a legitimate military action because of the 1 soldier you also hit.
Considering Ukraine has basically no amphibious capability and, at least right now, did not appear to be seriously preparing for an offensive across that portion of the Dnieper, the military advantage was basically zero. If this was anything other than the dam collapsing due to neglect or an individual local commander misinterpreting a command and blowing it by mistake, someone is going to end up before the ICC. This is going to cause at the very least hundreds of millions in damage, displacing tens of thousands. It's probably killed hundreds already.
Did you really expect that Russia was justified in this attack when they spent this winter trying to attack civilian power and drinking water to freeze and make the civilian cities suffer for zero military purpose?
Russia probably didn't even withdraw their mobliks from the riverbank trenches because 1) opsec and 2) they obviously don't care about their own losses
If power and drinking water is dual use then it’s valid. That’s why the United States often strikes power and water infrastructure. It was 99% civilian then it’s a war crime, but it if was 50/50 mixed military use then they were valid targets
>While it might feel like a war crime, it isn't.
It most certainly is. Read Articles 35 of the Geneva Convention. >It is prohibited to employ methods or means of warfare which are intended, or may be expected, to cause widespread, long-term and severe damage to the natural environment. Care shall be taken in warfare to protect the natural environment against widespread, long-term and severe damage.
Yes. Causing damage to the environment is considered a war crime in the Geneva convention >b-b-but WW2 a-a-and
Wasn't part of the Geneva convention back then.
Article 15 of the Geneva makes acting dams and nuclear power plants even if used for military purposes a war crime if there's a chance acting the site would lead to civilian casualties.
This. As for why it happened, either its routine Russian barbarism or it is a deliberatevresponse to the current Ukrainian offensive, meant to disrupt it either through the large scale logistical issues it will cause or through area denial.
Causes severe civilian casualties. Not "the chance of any civilian casualties". Ukrainians have blown several smaller dams in this conflict. They have effected civilians. They were not warcrimes despite the cries to the contrary.
It is where dams are blown to, say, wipe out cites or to destroy large swathes of infrastructure (think Vajont Dam or Hurricane Katrina) where it gets into that territory.
This, I dunno about this. We will have to see what the damage is.
>Attacks on dams were restricted in Article 56 of the 1977 Protocol I amendment to the Geneva Conventions. Dams may not be lawfully attacked "if such attack may cause the release of dangerous forces from the works or installations and consequent severe losses among the civilian population", unless "it is used for other than its normal function and in regular, significant and direct support of military operations and if such attack is the only feasible way to terminate such support". Similar provisions apply to other sources of "dangerous forces", such as nuclear power plants.
/misc/ is split between two generals and i suspect a lot of people on the Ukraine side migrated here
Would explain how this place became obssesed with race over night
Either that or someone at Langley got a briefing saying PrepHole is a nazi site
Yes, article 56 of the Geneva Gonventions you dipshit.
https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/ihl-treaties/api-1977/article-56 >Article 56 - Protection of works and installations containing dangerous forces
1. 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.
This is what I don't understand. We go to war, i.e. you're supposed to destroy the other side. Then why not be allowed to use weakpoints and pressure the enemy with things like breaking dams or other 'underhanded' tactics?
If we're saying that there's protocols to play nice in going to war, then why not just force that you can't go to war at all?
Because you're moronic.
Things like the geneva convention and the laws of armed conflict exist mainly to protect civilian populations and non-combatants.
Armed conflict is the ultimate escalation of a disagreement. Violence is the last argument of kings and no entity or group of entities has the ability to completely stop the use of violence without the use of even greater violence. Since armed violence is effectively inevitable it's worthwhile to have rules and agreements in place to limit the damage and impact it can do.
On a more practical level following rules for warfare leaves the door open for a diplomatic resolution. Diplomacy requires trust, and if your opponents cannot trust you to to extend them even the slightest amount of decency and respect then no diplomacy can be done and the violence will not stop until one side is completely and utterly destroyed.
Having to waste resources on wiping out your opponent to the man because they refused to surrender to the people butchering their countrymen for sport is a huge waste of resources, so even if you're winning it's usually in your best interest to treat the enemy honorably so they will be ok with surrendering to you instead of forcing you to spend time, men, and material slaughtering them to the last.
>Since armed violence is effectively inevitable it's worthwhile to have rules and agreements in place to limit the damage and impact it can do.
>Diplomacy requires trust, and if your opponents cannot trust you to to extend them even the slightest amount of decency and respect then no diplomacy can be done and the violence will not stop until one side is completely and utterly destroyed.
That's my point. If the idea is to hurt the enemy as much as possible, then why have rules. Press on the sore spots. Kidnap civilians. Use tear gas. Bomb unevacuated cities. You said it yourself, if you want to hurt the enemy, then why have rules in place that limit how much you can hurt the enemy?
You're trying to hurt the enemy as much as possible so that they'll stop fighting. So if they know that you'll kidnap and bomb innocent cities, then they'll feel the pressure more. *Not* doing this just means you're engaging 'fairly' which just makes the war last longer, making it a drain on resources.
TL;DR: War is a game of chicken where the goal is to have the other side chicken out as soon as possible. Why have rules in place that keep you from making the enemy chicken out as soon as possible?
Better to have your enemy surrender then to have them fight to the death. Germans were far more likely to surrender to the US then the USSR. Likewise, Russian soldiers are far more likely to surrender to Ukraine. In Iraq entire units would surrender to the US because they new they would be treated well.
That doesn't really answer my question. If you have more force to make them surrender with, then they'll surrender faster than prolonging a war with rules of engagement.
They would not surrender at all if they know POWs and civilian population have been unnecessarily harassed and abused. The more you abuse them their willingness to fight only increases. And no rules of engagement and abiding by the laws of armed conflict do not prolong wars, it makes them shorter, because if this reason.
11 months ago
Anonymous
>The more you abuse them, the more their willingnes to fight only increases.
Sounds ass backwards to me. Have it your way.
11 months ago
Anonymous
Someone who knows their family has been killed in a bombing and will be tortured if captured will fight alot fricking harder then someone whose knows his family is safe and will be treated fairly when captured. I really don't know why you would think differently.
>If the idea is to hurt the enemy as much as possible, then why have rules.
Because the object of war is usually not to hurt the enemy as much as possible in the same way that the object of self defense is not to cause as much pain to your attacker as you possibly can. Hurting them is a necessary and unavoidable part of the process but it in and of itself is not the end goal.
If simply hurting your opponent was the main goal of war then nobody would ever accept surrenders. Why allow people to walk away or imprison them when it would hurt your enemy much more to just kill them all? The answer is because your objective isn't to kill everyone, your objective is to control their land, or their resources, or get them to agree to something, or any number of other reasons for which war is normally fought by people. War is politics by other means, unless we're talking about some African shithole conducting what is essentially tribal warfare with AK47s.
>You're trying to hurt the enemy as much as possible so that they'll stop fighting.
You're trying to get the enemy to stop fighting, preferably as quickly as possible. The method is irrelevant. Hurting them until they can't fight anymore is one way, but it's often quicker to convince/show them that they are going to lose and get that things will be better for them if they give up. Which requires convincing them that you actually are decent enough people that they can trust you to treat them well once they are in your power.
>If the idea is to hurt the enemy as much as possible, then why have rules.
Because the object of war is usually not to hurt the enemy as much as possible in the same way that the object of self defense is not to cause as much pain to your attacker as you possibly can. Hurting them is a necessary and unavoidable part of the process but it in and of itself is not the end goal.
If simply hurting your opponent was the main goal of war then nobody would ever accept surrenders. Why allow people to walk away or imprison them when it would hurt your enemy much more to just kill them all? The answer is because your objective isn't to kill everyone, your objective is to control their land, or their resources, or get them to agree to something, or any number of other reasons for which war is normally fought by people. War is politics by other means, unless we're talking about some African shithole conducting what is essentially tribal warfare with AK47s.
>You're trying to hurt the enemy as much as possible so that they'll stop fighting.
You're trying to get the enemy to stop fighting, preferably as quickly as possible. The method is irrelevant. Hurting them until they can't fight anymore is one way, but it's often quicker to convince/show them that they are going to lose and get that things will be better for them if they give up. Which requires convincing them that you actually are decent enough people that they can trust you to treat them well once they are in your power.
Cont.
>So if they know that you'll kidnap and bomb innocent cities, then they'll feel the pressure more.
No, they'll just get angry at the people who are bombing their cities and kidnapping their children. Do you think going out of your way to destroy their homes and families is going to make fighting them easier? What are they going to get so despondent at the death of their loved ones that they'll just lay down their weapons and let you kill them? Are they going to think "Wow these babykillers sure are good at killing our babies, we should surrender and put ourselves and all our babies at their mercy, I totally trust them to stop killing our children once they have us disarmed and helpless."?
All you've done is give them more reason to fight you and convinced people that may not have been willing to risk their lives in this war that you are now a threat worth risking their lives for.
>*Not* doing this just means you're engaging 'fairly' which just makes the war last longer, making it a drain on resources.
You know what takes a lot of resources? Killing millions of people because they have refused to surrender, rebuilding all the cities, industry, and infrastructure you flattened, and having to transport millions of your own citizens to live and work on the now empty land.
You know what takes considerably less resource? Accepting their surrender and working with their authorities to disarm their military and occupy/integrate their populace. It also makes the war much shorter, saving lives and resources in the long run. The thing is people won't surrender if they think they'll just die anyway, and people won't surrender if they hate you so much they'd rather kill you out of spite. Turning a conflict into a war of extermination when it doesn't have to be is what will cause a drain on your resources.
small list of terrorist attacks committed by the ukraine so far: >crimean bridge >kherson bridge >that one dam >multiple other dams no one talks about anymore >nordstream
>But what about wahwahwah
Choke on a dick.
Also, this ecological disaster will affect the entire Black Sea and the Danube Delta, a part of a NATO country. Hopefully this will mean the West will stop thinking twice about sending any sort of aid needed to throw the russians out of the country.
Just a reminder, the zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant requires the filled reservoir to function. while the power plant is disconnected from the gird, it still needs constant water circulation to keep cool. if that reservoir drains, we're going to have a meltdown.
this is is very bad news for everyone in the area, and a catastrophe for the world if anything happens to this plant.
We might start seeing Mi hellis flying and dumping soil over the spillway while under fire.
I think, in it's current state, with all the reactors in some level of shutdown, they should be able to transport in enough water to keep things under control. I'm not an expert though, so take this with a grain of salt.
It still requires an amount of water that's only being provided by the dam and its reservoir. Also consider that the Russians will bomb any attempt to transport that kind of water supply to the plant.
Why in the frick should anybody roll those kinds of dice with something like this? And if you're telling me that the Russians are still in control of it, then it's completely fricked.
it all depends on how much feul they have in their cooling pools and how long it has been cooling so you have to assume max capacity and just out of the reactor. I don't know the full specs of the plant nor do I want to do the math. But those pools take a fraction of the water needed to cool a working plant.
and yes the plant is on the south/east side of the river
depending on how "hot" the bars are you can also move them to an other plant
11 months ago
Anonymous
this guy did the math on the nuke plant, the cooling won't be a problem. the reactors have been off / in low power mode for ages. only needs a few hundred litres of water per day. plant has reserve water tanks that can provide coolant even if reservoir is lost.
https://nitter.1d4.us/energybants/status/1665947369442033664#m
I mean I’m a engineer who’s working on a dam project rn so I can say that it’d be a pretty shit engineer who designing the cooling pond without considering that
There's no such thing as war crimes.
There's only winners and losers. The winners get to impose their version of "justice" on the vanquished while their own heinous acts go unpunished.
That's how it is.
I want to collect some information here because threads about the dam busting keep getting axed.
It seems there were plans to blow the dam from as far back as October '22, maybe earlier. See picrel
At the end of May '23, The Russian government released a decree suspending several safety measures surrounding hydro infrastructure, including inspections, in the region.
https://web.archive.org/web/20230601110434/http://publication.pravo.gov.ru/document/0001202305310067
[...]
Around October '22, near the time of the telegram post mentioning plans to destroy the dam, the Russians began lowering the water level. This was taking place during and after the withdrawal from Kherson.
During this time they destroyed the road and rail connection at Nova Kakhovka.
Video of that here: https://www.reuters.com/video/watch/russia-media-shows-video-of-kherson-dam-id754537581?chan=8gwsyvzx
Then, throughout early 2023 they began raising the water levels in the reservoir, until they reached the maximum level that the facility could hold, at which point the dam burst and flooded areas downstream.
My theory is that the lowering of the water levels was done to facilitate the placement of demolition charges to ensure complete destruction of the dam, but that's just a guess on my part.
Now people in Crimea are saying the government ordered them to fill bathtubs and expect access to drinkable water to be cut soon. Even by zigger standards this is moronic as frick. Nobody is going to believe Ukraine did this to their own people when Russia controlled the dam and clear evidence points to them sabotaging it either through intentional destruction or lack of maintenance. Meanwhile Crimea just lost most of its fresh water and mines laid on the east coast of the Dnieper by Russia are being displaced and randomly exploding. Completely baffling how stupid Russia is being.
>in russian
that's actually Ukrainian. I doubt this picture - russians have gone really berserk on anything Ukrainian recently, it causes them acute butthurt, and a desire to retaliate against people witnessed doing anything that can be perceived pro-Ukrainian. Very unlikely it was in Crimea, or that it is authentic to begin with.
Around October '22, near the time of the telegram post mentioning plans to destroy the dam, the Russians began lowering the water level. This was taking place during and after the withdrawal from Kherson.
During this time they destroyed the road and rail connection at Nova Kakhovka.
Video of that here: https://www.reuters.com/video/watch/russia-media-shows-video-of-kherson-dam-id754537581?chan=8gwsyvzx
Then, throughout early 2023 they began raising the water levels in the reservoir, until they reached the maximum level that the facility could hold, at which point the dam burst and flooded areas downstream.
My theory is that the lowering of the water levels was done to facilitate the placement of demolition charges to ensure complete destruction of the dam, but that's just a guess on my part.
I want to collect some information here because threads about the dam busting keep getting axed.
It seems there were plans to blow the dam from as far back as October '22, maybe earlier. See picrel
At the end of May '23, The Russian government released a decree suspending several safety measures surrounding hydro infrastructure, including inspections, in the region.
https://web.archive.org/web/20230601110434/http://publication.pravo.gov.ru/document/0001202305310067
I didn't find this stuff, I just collected some things other anons had posted. Take it all with a grain of salt. The telegram post in particular I'm not too sure of, haven't gone through the trouble of trying to track down the original and verify it.
Sincerely, just chill and wait. There are a ton of theories and any of them could be right. We just have to wait for more info. We gain nothing from jumping to conclusions.
In the meantime, no matter who destroyed it, whether it was intentional or not, all those people are in fricks-ville and I hope there can be an at least unofficial ceasefire to get them help and out of the disaster area.
How is wildly jumping to conclusions resisting propoganda? That's a textbook method to open yourself up to it. I want you to explicitly tell me how waiting till we have more info in any way is a bad thing? What horrible fate awaits us for not flying off the handle?
Absolutely, I'm just trying to collect/disseminate what pieces of coherent information I can in the midst of the shit flinging going down.
Thank you for being reasonable but I feel like your methods and frames you use only encourage the behaviors of those like above which generally does far more harm than good.
The shit flinging will never cease, regardless of what I do.
https://i.imgur.com/yJDqHoE.jpg
see pic. it's in crimea. bottle says (in russian) only 1 per person and it costs 7 usd.
Seems dire, do you know when this photo was taken?
11 months ago
Anonymous
2 hours ago. they're rushing to buy water now that it costs 10 usd per bottle
11 months ago
Anonymous
https://i.imgur.com/yJDqHoE.jpg
see pic. it's in crimea. bottle says (in russian) only 1 per person and it costs 7 usd.
panic buying doesn't necessarily mean there is acute drinking water shortage, only that people fear that there will be.
are their fears warranted? probably, the ziggers probably already bottled all the water in their reservoirs and sold it at a 40x markup as tartar gamer girl bathwater
11 months ago
Anonymous
There is no water panic in crimea lol
Do these ruskies get killed once their army is forced out, are they forced labor to rebuild, whats the plan with orc noncombatants?
11 months ago
Anonymous
>There is no water panic in crimea lol
?t=90
11 months ago
Anonymous
>The shit flinging will never cease, regardless of what I do.
Fair point but that doesn't mean you should carelessly add fuel to the fire. I'm not saying don't gather intel and collate it, just be mindful of the effects it can have and try to mitigate the bad ones preemptively.
Holy shit reading this post made me turn gay.
Put on a dress and I'll frick the boy out of you and then it won't be gay anymore. Problem solved.
>and I hope there can be an at least unofficial ceasefire
Ziggers already shelled Kherson to frick with evacuation.
It's deliberate, the widepread destruction is deliberate, the risk of nuclear contamination from ZNPP is deliberate, and your fake "just chill" posting is deliberate. I hope you die from acute radiation sickness.
>Ziggers already shelled Kherson to frick with evacuation.
Then I hope it stops. I can acknowledge the unlikelihood of something while still advocating for it. Right? >the risk of nuclear contamination from ZNPP is deliberate
Oh cool, now we are compounding our wild speculations with no evidence for any of them. You just want to be outrage because you have the emotional maturity of a tadpole.
11 months ago
Anonymous
You keep being a useful idiot. I'm sure you'll manage to rationalize that away in the end.
>and I hope there can be an at least unofficial ceasefire
Ziggers already shelled Kherson to frick with evacuation.
It's deliberate, the widepread destruction is deliberate, the risk of nuclear contamination from ZNPP is deliberate, and your fake "just chill" posting is deliberate. I hope you die from acute radiation sickness.
>My theory is that the lowering of the water levels was done to facilitate the placement of demolition charges to ensure complete destruction of the dam
Why wouldn't placing charges inside the dam work better (the outer geometry of the dam built to resist pressure outward)
My thinking was that lowering the water would allow them to drill into the dam and place charges or something. Just a guess though, we don't even know for sure that there were explosives involved or not.
even if it was dried up even if you drilled every cm of it and placed anfo even if you loaded up the entire gravity part of it
it would still not do jack shit to it if it was made properly
the problem tho is that the dam is actually and probably fine because they built the gates ON TOP of the dam
>the problem tho is that the dam is actually and probably fine
Right, looks fine to me.
11 months ago
Anonymous
It's like some Zigger telling me the Kerch bridge was okay because the other lane was being used for traffic. >restricted to light loads >railway portion too damaged to run any heavy cargo as well >"it's fine bro, trust me"
11 months ago
Anonymous
the DAM was below the waterline anon the gates were built on top of it
I think I see what you're driving at. And if the reverse is true and upstream reservoirs don't show similarly dramatic shifts in water level, you'd admit that constitutes proof positive that this was clearly the Russians acting unilaterally, rather than responding to some upstream manipulation by Ukrainians?
well yeah
[...]
Keep in mind, Russians appear to have intentionally drained the reservoir, then closed the gates and let it refill to unprecedented levels. Even if Ukraine was releasing water from reservoirs upstream, Russia kept the gates closed on the Nova Kakhovka dam. They could've been opened at any point to return water levels back to normal, barring some kind of severe malfunction causing them to be stuck closed. Water levels were rising for months and nothing was done, points to it being intentional.
>then closed the gates and let it refill to unprecedented levels
the spillway of the dam was at 22 meters anon
those 17 meters were well withint its tolerance anyways
11 months ago
Anonymous
>the DAM was below the waterline anon the gates were built on top of it
Well then I guess we'll know the state of it once the reservoir drains. >those 17 meters were well withint its tolerance
Doesn't change the fact that the evidence points to Russia deliberately creating the conditions for catastrophic flooding.
Yeah, I just posted the web archive version because I was having some issues with the page loading. This way it'll still be visible even if the original page gets taken down for some reason.
Yes, and Ukraine will pay for their crimes! I'm joking but they obviously did it. morons saying otherwise are the same alphabet Black folk who said that Russia destroyed their own pipeline. https://web.archive.org/web/20221229064018/https:/www.washingtonpost.com/world/2022/12/29/ukraine-offensive-kharkiv-kherson-donetsk/
Russia had control of the dam and the Hydroelectric power plant. They recently jacked up the water levels to record, unsafe heights. Picrel is that a week ago, they didn't want their own people making any safety inspections for some reason. All culpability points to Russians planning something in advance, not any sort of accident or AFU activity
And - no joke - if you believe that Russia wouldn't have destroyed their own pipeline, why would you believe Ukraine would destroy their own dam and cause devastation downstream to their own citizens?
>And - no joke - if you believe that Russia wouldn't have destroyed their own pipeline,
That pipeline gave Russia power and influence over Germany. False flags for the sake of propaganda purposes only work when civilians are killed, like Israel doing 9/11.
>why would you believe Ukraine would destroy their own dam and cause devastation downstream to their own citizens?
Here's a fun opinion, the dam was damaged during the offensive months ago and it finally buckled during peak water season. Both side are full of shit and lie non stop in this war.
Any questions?
>Here's a fun opinion, the dam was damaged during the offensive months ago and it finally buckled during peak water season
So the Russians, being in control of the dam and knowing it was damaged: >closed off the sluice gates >allowed the water level to spike to unprecedented levels >did nothing even when the dam showed signs of giving way a few days ago
In addition to this the bit that collapsed was the turbine hall itself, so the operators of the dam knew full well it was not holding.
This, i was in charge of maintenance at that dam, im currently posting from my starlink phone floating atop a fart stained sofa pillow and can see snake island in the distance.
if it was ukraine it gives them a very good short term delay to gather more forces till its dried up(ASSUMING THE RUSSIANS ARE IDIOTS)
if it was russia assuming that they have few brain cells working they probably know that the next dam is 50 higher in elevation so if they manage to keep the gates close they can keep a huge area flooded indefinitely forcing the ukrainians to attack from the kherson area only or risk going through the npp
The Germans bombed many cities to ash in a just as destructive manner, if not more so, to Dresden.
It doesn't matter though. There's no doubt that the victors were safe from such persecution. But it's still one-sided to say on side did "worse" to the other.
>Ziggers commit yet another undeniable war crime for no reason but to murder civilians (absolutely gimping themselves in the process) >WHATABOUTWHATABOUTWHATABOUTWHATABOUTWHATABOUTWHATABOUTWHATABOUTWHATABOUT
>Ukraine wants to cross the Dnieper >but doesn't want to do it directly across from Kherson because it's been fortified and has multiple regiments in position >destroying the dam lowers the water level upstream, making it easier to cross, while also drowning Russian troops caught in the flood
name one flaw
Yes the river is now much wider making any crossing attempt more difficult. And Russia can now redeploy troops to other areas of the front to shore up their lines now that both sides have said the Ukrainian offensive has started.
>name one flaw
Okay: offering arguments for "Cui bono?" may help identify potential suspects, but do nothing to establish actual proof of guilt.
Russians have had control of the dam and the HPP for about a year or more now. There is literally zero concrete evidence of Ukraine launching some dambuster or other offensive capable of causing this destruction last night. If the AFU had, theoretically, launched such an attack, how did no eyewitnesses or surveillance cameras capture the smoking gun?
>There is literally zero concrete evidence of Ukraine launching some dambuster or other offensive capable of causing this destruction last night.
there is, they've fired HIMARs at the floodgates before.
https://nitter.net/mtracey/status/1666021219596902400#m
>there is, they've fired HIMARs at the floodgates before.
But HIMARS would do frick all to the structural integrity of the dam. Barnes Wallis didn't spend months developing the bouncing bomb just for you morons to think you can destroy a dam with a fricking fragmentation rocket.
>no security cameras or other footage of any Ukrainian assault last night >last night >"they've fired HIMARs at the floodgates before." >linked excerpt from Washington Post article mentions test firing in December >test was successful: floodgates perforated, dam was still intact >link shows that a HIMARS strike would not in fact have caused this sort of collapse >link shows zero evidence of any Ukrainian sabotage last night when the dam burst
I'm really not certain where you're going with this.
>Russia has been warning the UN that the Ukraine has been trying to blow the dam for a year now >Dam is blown up and floods the Russian side, and dooming Crimea's water supply
Gee, it must be the Russians sabotaging themselves again just like with Nordstream
>Russia has stated repeatedly that their troops are merely on annual military exercises and they have no intention of invading Ukraine >Russia has been warning that the U.S. allegations of an imminent invasion are NATO propaganda against the peaceful and trustworthy Russian Federation, which has absolutely no intention of violating Ukrainian state sovereignty >Russia has been warning of secret biolabs that the United States has constructed on the territory of non-NATO-member Ukraine >Russia has reported that the Moskva returned to port under its own power >Russia reports record turnout in a totally fair and unbiased referendum in territories where their control is less than 100% >Russia has publicly proclaimed that Kherson is Russia Forever! >Russia has announced the destruction of 56 of the 20 HIMARS sent to the AFU >Russia has announced destruction of a Bradley AFV before any were delivered to Ukraine >Russia has captured their first Leo 2 in April, but somehow drove this unique trophy vehicle into a nearby lake and all photo and video evidence are currently in the custody of Russia's totally hot girlfriend in Canada who definitely really exists. >Russia has been warning the UN that Ukraine has been trying to blow the Kakhova dam for a year now >Pyccкий мaльчик кpичит "Boлк! Boлк!"
Russia, whose occupation has had control of the dam and the city of Nova Kakhova for a year now, has presented not one shred of actual evidence from their own security cameras that could definitively link the dam collapse to Ukrainian action. Not one. But we should trust Russia's unfounded accusations because of their well-established reputation for probity and veracity.
Do people actually think it’s a war crime to blow up a dam to slow troop movements? Not a zigger and completely pro Ukrainian. Outside of this being an action in an illegal war how can you say it was wrong to do this(war crime wise)
Blowing the dam probably will not stop whatever Ukraine is planning, it places at risk a fairly nearby nuclear power plant which used that water as a coolant.
Atop this, they've displaced thousands of civilians, and vatBlack folk living in Crimea are about to have a rough time.
All in all, it is Russian stupidity on display.
Question for Knowers. Can a nuclear reactor be safely "shut down" to avoid a runaway reaction / meltdown? Can it be started back up without major work going into it first?
The saddest thing about this incident is that Ukraine didn't blow it themselves back when there were 50 thousand ziggers entrenched in the flood plain.
Trying to start mud season early in the south, make as much land impassable as possible, force the Ukrainians to attack along specific paths or in a different region altogether.
If Russia moves the troops that were in that area so they can reposition them on the other frontlines, and if Ukraine accounted for this and launch a coordinated assault on the thus free-from-Russians areas past the flood, with things such as these
and aerial transports, I'll laugh to no end. Though I'm not sure they have enough equipment to pull off something like that, but hey, they're full of surprises. I wouldn't be surprised if they accounted for the Russians to do such a thing, looks like they they did considering what they said months ago already.
I don't know how they'd even get something like those hovercraft to the area, it's not like they fit on a truck, and I think the Russians would notice an amphibious assault ship entering the Black Sea. They're limited to small river boats, old Soviet landing craft, and a handful of assorted bridging methods, pontooning included.
Golly, it's almost as if we're seeing a pattern of behavior from the Russian occupation or something. Filling a reservoir to max and then intentionally demolishing it to flood the area just prior to an expected AFU advance. I wonder what it could all mean?
Thankfully not, the flooding will even out before then. If it did, though, it would probably end up creating the biggest ecological disaster since the BP oil spill
Some other anon said that this was the worst ecological diaster since chernobyl (also caused by the mongol horde)
Why are they like this? Can they literally not help themselves?
>the worst ecological diaster since chernobyl
Specifically in Europe, I have no doubts that there have been others in different parts of the world.
The longer this war carries on the more I realize how dead on picrel was. There's just a massive cultural refusal for anyone to even consider taking into account the possibility of failure, because doing so will never benefit the individual in any way. The person who admits there may have been a mistake is the one who takes the fall, every time, without fail.
I'm starting to think the real winner in this war is Russia, no not because of the vatnik screeching or because of there so called great army, dear god its so pathetic but because of how it showed nato to be a big nothing burger.
If the nuclear plant goes into full meltdown i am starting to believe that nato would just write a strongly worded letter to the fricking United Nations. if blowing up a fricking dam and so far, what has been the response, nothing other then a very strong muh Russia bad.
So yeah NATO weak, Russia strong is what im starting to think since NATO can be taken hostage by fricking Hungry.
Why would NATO do anything now? Nobody in NATO countries got hurt because of this. If some nuclear shenanigans start, USA already promised to wipe out the russian fleet in response.
>I'm starting to think the real winner in this war is Russia, no not because of the vatnik screeching [...] but because of how it showed nato to be a big nothing burger.
it didnt show it really we knew that nato is just a propaganda tool since if nato gets involved on a third country it cant invoke article 5 because of article 6...
Why would warcrimes in a non-NATO country prompt a NATO response? They aren't the UN, they feel no need to directly intervene in conflicts that don't involve their members. They're already responding to Russia by emptying their warehouses for Ukraine, if anything this will just cause them to send even more aid.
The nuclear plant has likely been in shutdown for months and has its own reservoir for cooling, it should be fine. If it's not, THEN you can start getting your panties in a twist about NATO doing nothing. But until we know more whinging about NATO not immediately responding to muh nuclear meltdown is moronic.
This is Juan Mandingo from the Paris oblast and I have to say you're right, in fact this is so demoralizing I'm writing my Duma member right now to bring our country out of the useless HATO, no more spending of our taxes on foreign regimes!
Considering the amount of debris that will end up in the Black Sea, if they derivate enough, Ukraine really should snip up a bunch of those sea drones and send them blowing up ships in Sevastopol, debris might frick up radar signatures a bit.
German media reports that Ukraine most likely to be behind NS2 sabotage. CIA knew about detailed plans and had warned Germany. >https://www.n-tv.de/politik/CIA-soll-von-angeblichem-Nord-Stream-Plan-Kiews-gewusst-haben-article24173474.html >german speaking shills in full damage control mode in comment sections
> russia blew up their own dam
But why blow it up? Why not just open it to the max and let Ukraine flood? > russia blew up their own pipeline
But why blow it up? Why not just close it on the Russian end, and the oil stops flowing to Germany
>Why not just open it to the max and let Ukraine flood?
That's what the available evidence indicates they were trying to do when they weaponized the dam, yes. The Russians spent months filling the reservoir to dangerous heights, then decided they'd need more outflow than the gates could provide.
The RuAF had control of the dam and the HPP, so setting demolition charges was easy for them.
They took out what they thought was a small chunk, enough to flood the downstream area a meter or two and mess up AFU positions on small islands downstream. Then erosion took things out of control.
Of course, closing the gates and flooding the north sure sounds like a good idea
One that would benefit the russians, in fact, as it would also prevent rrossings in the north as well
Totally in Ukrainian interests to close the gates
dumbfrick
That's the normal outflow of the river, and in cubic meters per second it's a rounding error compared to what the Russians did when they blew the Kakhova HPP.
Pro-Russian accounts are grasping at absolutely anything to try and deflect blame for their frickup.
Bare a few statements here and there, countries and NATO have been awfully silent over the situation. You just know they're brewing a weapons package delivery that will make everything that has been done so far look like a joke.
My first reaction was that it wouldn't be but a lot of people seem to think otherwise. For example: archive dot ph /Uzh4e
But it's a military target
If it's gonna flood and kill a ton of people, it's a war crime to blow it.
Killing people isn't a warcrime though, neither is flooding areas since there's a historical precedent for it as means to impede troop movements.
The Geneva Convention forbids wilful destruction of infrastructure in a way that is likely to cause significant harm to the civilian population.
It does qualify that to enable, for example, opening sluice gates to flood farmland or approaches likely to be taken by an invading force in your own nation. Blowing the Khakhovka dam is a war crime
Damn, how many people have died due to the flooding?
Crimeans will suffer, oh wait they're not Ukrainian civilians right now are they so I guess you're right
I thought warcrime in this case was define by the unnecessary destruction it causes. If it just thousands then it's probably not a warcrime. If it's in tens of thousands then maybe?
But if no one died then can it really be a crime?
>But if no one died then can it really be a crime?
Are you black?
Yeah and I have impregnated over 3 white girls!
You don't impregnate over them moron.
It doesn't actually have to directly kill anyone to be a war crime. There are numerous towns on both sides of the river where tens of thousands of people live and for the most part their homes and livelihoods have been destroyed. Even if they all got out in time they are now displaced refugees with nothing but the clothes on their backs.
That's without considering the damage to food production, the water supply to Crimea and the ecological harm.
>Power infrastructure has long been considered a valid military objective as long as it supports an enemy army's activities, even if the system also supports the civilian population, writes military law expert Michael Schmitt in the Articles of War blog run by the Lieber Institute for Law & Warfare at the United States Military Academy West Point.
>Even if some of the targets could be considered military objectives, that is not the end of the story, says Katharine Fortin, associate professor of international law at Utrecht University.
>The military must consider whether the damage and loss incurred by civilians in such attacks are excessive compared to the concrete and direct military advantage, she said.
For context the strikes on dams in Germany were conducted as part of a larger effort to shut down the German wartime economy, the civilian economy at the time seen as too intertwined to make any distinction. ODS and OIF featured the use of precision munitions on infrastructure targets, blowing through multiple stories and obliterating a telephone exchange in one case, showering a high voltage power line with effectively confetti causing it to trip temporarily in another. The strikes were carefully weighed, not to eliminate all possibility of civilians being hurt (as that's impossible), but to maximize the military utility. Even the time of the strikes was chosen, targeting infrastructure and office buildings at night while most people were at home.
Of course this doesn't register to a filthy vatnik like yourself.
Anon, don't bother. You know he argues in bad faith, I know he argues in bad faith, he knows he's arguing in bad faith, we all know.
Zigger irony aside. Half of crimean population came there after 2014 from r*ssia.
Oh wow, look, a contentious little frick in an era where every second person online acts that way. How original.
Here's a better question. Why does China openly threaten nuclear retaliation against those who attempt strikes on the Three Gorges Dam when, by your own standards, it's not a war crime?
Keep screeching, vatBlack person
Now everybody knows Russia did it. When 3 gorges gets hit, the entire world will blame Russia.
>When 3 gorges gets hit, the entire world will blame Russia.
Frick you. 3 Gorges is America's dam to destroy.
>Why does China openly threaten nuclear retaliation against those who attempt strikes on the Three Gorges Dam
When did they do this?
>big flood without warning
it will probably be in the thousands
if even 100 civilians die, I'll eat my fricking hat.
People are really moronic when it comes to flash flooding. They do all sorts of dumb shit like hang around thinking it won't come, trying to swim through it and being battered by undercurrents, or trying to drive through a few inches of water that will sweep away a truck like a toy.
I think this was just a bit too slow to be considered a flash flood, at least in Kherson.
True, but old people move slowly. Some have been cut off from their families for a long time, and there's no state emergency response to help them.
The flood doesn't appear to be this catastrophic. It flooded nearby towns with about 3 feet of water judging by the pictures I've seen, which will require the evacuation of those cities, but it's not like it was a massive doomsday event such as blowing up the 3 Gorges Dam or the Itaipu Dam.
well the flooding will affect/displace hundreds of thousands, so possibly tens of thousands? it will take a while for lack of water supplies/food/camp illnesses to take hold, so I expect the death toll to mount over the next next week or two.
Also this dam was the source of the cooling for the Zaporizhzhia nuclear plant, so if this also causes that to melt down then it turns it into a major international nuclear incident as well.
That seems excessively pessimistic. Especially considering that the Zap NPP has been in cold shutdown for over a year.
bump
It was. Which is why the Wehrmacht officers that organized the firebombing of London were cleared of all charges.
Quite a lot of Germans were cleared of all charges (or only sentenced to a minor prison sentence rather than life sentences or death sentences)... because the allies did them, too.
This is what war crimes ultimately are... a prevention against escalation. "We won't do X until you do X first". If the enemy DOES do X first then you can either retaliate in the same manner, OR after the war you get to arrest (and potentially execute) the ones responsible if you didn't answer in the same way and kept your cool.
When americans attacked Baghdad they intentionally targeted critical infrastructure.
Talking loud about nation building while the city dissolved into chaos with no water, power or food.
The geneva circus is a meme, winner writes history, end of story.
IDK seems pretty explicit.
https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/customary-ihl/v2/rule42
>Article 56 of the 1977 Additional Protocol I provides:
>1. Works and 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.
>if such attack may cause the release of dangerous forces and consequent severe losses among the civilian population.
So it's not a warcrime.
>1977
The world should have stuck with the WW2 rulebook
I'm curious because I don't know, what other additions have been made since WWII? Specifically, what tactics that were used in WWII are now considered verboten?
Incendiaries are generally considered verboten now. Like White Phosphorous is only supposed to be used for illumination. But the logic here is similar to chemical weapons, in that fires can quickly spiral out of control and could pose just as much a risk to your own soldiers as they do everyone else.
>Killing people isn't a warcrime though
No, killing combatants isn't a war crime, killing civilians is
>dumping 150 tonns of fuel into a river is not a crime
try again, ziggy.
so i guess ukranians when they busted the dams north of kiev they also took a ticker to the tribunal
yes?
yes?
>comparing that to blowing a dam on a Dniepro river
>with Kherson downstream
>Killing people isn't a warcrime though
Killing non combatants isn't a warcrime?
>when those villages near Kiev were evacuated.
You are brown.
If you were to guess would you say American Infidel was brown or white?
I'd say he's probably yellow and living to the north.
you cant have it both ways anon
a dam is a dam blowing a damn is a warcrime according to morons
soo
who died because of the dam collapsing so far?
besides the truth
>a dam is a dam blowing a damn is a warcrime according to morons
No, opening sluices or levees to block the path of an invading army is not a war crime as per the Geneva Convention.
Blowing a dam in a country you invaded with no measures taken to protect the downstream civilian population is a war crime.
>No, opening sluices or levees to block the path of an invading army is not a war crime as per the Geneva Convention
where does it state this anon
ill wait
(not much cause we both know you just made it up)
>Blowing a dam in a country you invaded with no measures taken to protect the downstream civilian population is a war crime.
but they didnt really blew it up now did they we know for a fact now that the dam had major damages and it was already spilling since late may
>where does it state this anon
>ill wait
>(not much cause we both know you just made it up)
Article 54, 1949 Geneva Convention
>In recognition of the vital requirements of any Party to the conflict in the defence of its national territory against invasion, derogation from the prohibitions contained in paragraph 2 may be made by a Party to the conflict within such territory under its own control where required by imperative military necessity
Link:
https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/ihl-treaties/api-1977/article-54?activeTab=1949GCs-APs-and-commentaries
>Article 54, 1949 Geneva Convention
>Any destruction by the Occupying Power of real or personal property belonging individually or collectively to private persons, or to the State, or to other public authorities, or to social or cooperative organizations, is prohibited, except where such destruction is rendered absolutely necessary by military operations.
>except where such destruction is rendered absolutely necessary by military operations.
>Any destruction by the Occupying Power
You see, comrade, Ruzzia is not occupying Kherson oblast. It is Ukraine who is occupying Kherson oblast. Thus at most this is a warcrime from the hohol side.
> where does it state this
In the 1949 Geneva Convention, as the previous anon cited here:
There's also some further clarification in the 1977 protocols.
There's a distinction made between flooding territory on your own internationally-recognized territory (legit if you believe it was needed in defense) and doing it on somebody else's territory during your invasion of their borders (war crimes, potentially even the larger charge of Crimes Against Humanity). The 1998 founding statute of the ICC criminalizes "intentionally launching an attack in the knowledge that such attack will cause incidental loss of life or injury to civilians or damage to civilian objects or widespread, long-term and severe damage to the natural environment which would be clearly excessive in relation to the concrete and direct overall military advantage anticipated".
> we know for a fact now that the dam had major damages and it was already spilling since late may
If such a thing was known, then the Russian deliberate overloading of the reservoir in picrel would actually prove their culpability: they undertook it in advance with knowledge that it was recklessly unsafe.
>If such a thing was known, then the Russian deliberate overloading of the reservoir
do you know how to read what you posted anon?
also
did you know that they started doing significant repairs to the dam at 2019 but they had to stop because the goverment wanted to fund the construction of new roads?https://web.archive.org/web/20220228175821/https://uhe.gov.ua/media_tsentr/novyny/kakhovska-ges-stiykiy-rozvitok-ta-pidtrimka-regionu
also we know for a fact that the scientists called for an urgent repair since 2015
https://www.dl.begellhouse.com/journals/38cb2223012b73f2,514b0fce3618487c,2d4602e318532df7.html
i guess you didnt knew about it eh
>bullshit it is
dont tell me i quoted the moron that said
>picrel
If, as you allege, the dam was known to have structural faults, then for the Russian controllers of the dam to raise water levels to record heights would have been, at best, recklessly irresponsible. A week ago, the Russian authorities weakened investigations of hazardous facilities, there's a screenshot in this pic if you can read Cyrillic. Now take into account the gauleiter mayor of Nova Kakhovka's bungled initial response to RIA Novosti, and the timing during AFU preparations for a counterattack. Seems pretty suspicious to me.
> i guess you didnt knew about it eh
No, I got my own screenshots from the first page of results on Google News. Unlike you, I didn't just happen to have weblinks from 2019 and 2015, one of them on archive.org, handy within literally hours of the dam explosion.
Very organic of you, pidor. *~~*~~*~~
>If, as you allege, the dam was known to have structural faults, then for the Russian controllers of the dam to raise water levels to record heights would have been, at best, recklessly irresponsible.
thats a nice way of interpreting the photo while blatandly trying to hide the fact that there is a HUGE drop also
which the evil german within me wants to try and find the site that measures the level of water on all the previous dams
>which the evil german within me wants to try and find the site that measures the level of water on all the previous dams
that is actually quite interesting
if there is a sudden drop on the follow up dams it means that ukraine knew very well the condition of the dam and they knew that they had no choice but to relieve the pressure
> thats a nice way of interpreting the photo while blatandly trying to hide the fact that there is a HUGE drop also
If I was trying to hide it, I'd have cropped it out. It's right there in the open. Furthermore:
> if there is a sudden drop on the follow up dams it means that ukraine knew very well the condition of the dam and they knew that they had no choice but to relieve the pressure
Those drops were not under Ukrainian stewardship. They were enacted by Russians.
Look at the timeline on the graph again. That abnormal drop occurs in and after the second half of 2022, and thus was also during Russian occupation and control of the reservoir and HPP.
There's multiple theories as to *why*, and a front-runner is that the drops in October and February were Russian attempts to siphon off as much as possible to fill cisterns in Crimea against an anticipated siege.
But the why doesn't matter -- this happened on Russia's watch, and the responsibility for it is theirs alone. Compare the levels to the pre-invasion norms going back several years: the Russians were up to something.
>Look at the timeline on the graph again. That abnormal drop occurs in and after the second half of 2022, and thus was also during Russian occupation and control of the reservoir and HPP.
hence why i said
>we should also check the dams that ukraine is actually in control upstream
because if they have the same level of drop then the situation will be quite literally damning for them 100000000%
I'm trying to interpret what you're driving at.
>we should also check the dams that ukraine is actually in control upstream
> because if they have the same level of drop then the situation will be quite literally damning for them 100000000%
Who is "them" -- the Russians or the Ukrainians? And why would a commensurate flux in water levels be so very damning?
if the upstream dams have also a drop it means the ukranians opened the gates on PURPOSE
I think I see what you're driving at. And if the reverse is true and upstream reservoirs don't show similarly dramatic shifts in water level, you'd admit that constitutes proof positive that this was clearly the Russians acting unilaterally, rather than responding to some upstream manipulation by Ukrainians?
NTA but logically if all the other dams showed ahistorical build-ups it wouldn't have been intentional by Russia just a particularly rainy year. Or if a Ukranian-controlled Dam showed a large outflow down to extremely low level it would have been sent downriver.
Not that either is likely mind.
Keep in mind, Russians appear to have intentionally drained the reservoir, then closed the gates and let it refill to unprecedented levels. Even if Ukraine was releasing water from reservoirs upstream, Russia kept the gates closed on the Nova Kakhovka dam. They could've been opened at any point to return water levels back to normal, barring some kind of severe malfunction causing them to be stuck closed. Water levels were rising for months and nothing was done, points to it being intentional.
Yeh I don't think there's much of a chance of Ukraine doing anything here at all I just wanted to explain why the other anon might be interested in that data. From a personal perspective I think it's good to have because more data makes it harder for Russia to convincingly spin disinfo about it.
Yes, that's exactly what I believe -- this was done intentionally, and they spent months doing it. The initial Russian-controlled drop of water levels may have been to frick with Ukrainian infrastructure, article here: https://wusfnews.wusf.usf.edu/2023-03-22/a-shrinking-reservoir-signals-ukraine-and-russia-are-waging-a-dangerous-water-war
After that, they spent months building up the water level to a dangerous height. Even if they didn't intend to destroy the whole thing but rather lost control, it's obvious that their plan was to weaponize the dam by surging downstream levels, one way or another.
The initial drop was because this reservoir and dam is the primary supply for Crimea and they filled every single reservoir in Crimea to capacity in advance of the expected Ukrainian offensive. Otherwise the second half of what you're saying is correct.
The water from the reservoir has not reached Crimea since 2014. Even when the Russians unblocked the canal the water didn't make it to the peninsula due to issues with the unmaintained pumping system.
Huh, I was going off of another (western) news report that said that was their goal. Fair enough though. Christ the mainstream media is shit.
It's not clear what their goal was, perhaps they were planning on storing up water in preparation for the pumps to be reactivated. Perhaps they really were intending to flood miles and miles of their own occupied territory and wash their men into the Black Sea. We can only make guesses as to the motivation of the people who would orchestrate such a thing. One thing appears certain, however, there was some kind of plan being carried out, and it would seem that it has not gone very well.
> were intending to flood miles and miles of their own occupied territory and wash their men into the Black Sea. We can only make guesses as to the motivation of the people who would orchestrate such a thing.
Definitely and it was undeniably a Russian plan. Even before we address the lack of evidence any limited tactical benefit Ukraine can gain is more than outweighed by losing the southern approach for months and anyway the optics would be terrible for a nation reliant on western support. Combined this means blaming Ukraine is a schizo take.
So the question comes down to if Russia intentionally blew the dam and failed to inform the troops in the south or panicked and did it early thinking the offensive had started, if they planned to open the gates in a controlled manner and lost control completely or if they are really so incompetent they just filled it up too far and it collapsed from existing damage possibly from the explosion Russia was also responsible for back in November.
Middle option may be likely because this has fricked over Russian controlled land both agriculturally and in terms of washing away minefields, fortifications and draining a natural barrier far worse in the medium-long term to buy only a few months respite in the south. Or they really thought they'd lose so badly that that land would be taken anyway which means the situation is worse than anyone thinks and we might see a complete collapse this year.
>Even when the Russians unblocked the canal the water didn't make it to the peninsula due to issues with the unmaintained pumping system.
You are totally wrong
Then it seems the flow is intermittent at best. Because I'm looking at imagery from this year showing what is very clearly a dry canal.
>imagery from this year
Share plz
Two posts up the chain from the one you just replied to. Google maps imagery shows the flow of water in the canal stopped just before crossing the border into Crimea. Anon replied to me with imagery, also from google, that shows the same portion of the canal filled with water. To me this suggests that the flow is not consistent, perhaps they are having trouble keeping the pumping stations online?
There is a dam built after annexation to prevent waterflows. It was reopened in 2022. There are no reported pumping problems
I'm the Anon you were replying to. Yours seems like a reasonable theory, but check the article out. The RuAF might have had more than one agenda, and forcing the Ukrainians to release upstream supply to make up for the shortfall seems to have been part of it.
Yeh also possible. Or both goals at the same time.
is shooting a gun into the ground a crime?
is shooting a non-threatening person a crime?
Nobody died because of them
can you even commit a warcrime against yourself?
Governments can commit war crimes against their citizens, yes.
Ain't a crime if no one is able to charge us.
Good luck, we are behind 5,977 nukes.
That's allright, most of your reserve money is in our banks, Ukraine can use it for reconstruction.
Post HIV test results.
But Ranjeet, Indian only has 164 nukes.
"Kill a lot of people" is exactly what wars do. That's not what makes something a warcrime, and I hate anyone who believes this. Civilian casualties are not a warcrime in and of themselves. If that were the case, every single war in history has been conducted in a criminal manner.
The ACTUAL purpose of "war crime" even being a concept is to keep a lid on escalation, and punish malicious abuse of the conditions of war. The attack on the dam had a military purpose. It flooded out Ukrainian positions in Kherson, and delayed/denied their counteroffensive. But do you know what was a warcrime? Shelling relief efforts. What's the difference? Lack of military purpose.
It has no military significance and has served to displace and potentially kill a lot of civilians. It's not a war-crime, but it is very questionable.
>But it's a military target
Geneva Convention specifically states that it must not be destroyed even if it is a military target.
To qualify this, OP's pic happened before that additional protocol was signed, so the answer to OP'S question is 'Yes, it is a war crime now. It was not automaically a war crime in WW2.'
Always has been.
Stuff like this has to be seen on a case to case basis. I think if the dam for example powers some tank factory that is underground and impossible to destroy, it can become a valid target, but you'd have to ask a lawyer about it.
No. It has a military purpose to delay the Ukraine offensive. While it might feel like a war crime, it isn't.
Is it proportional to the advantage gained? Probably not.
Just because something has military utility does not mean it's automatically not a war crime. If you launch an attack that kills 100000 civilians and 1 soldier that doesn't mean it's a legitimate military action because of the 1 soldier you also hit.
Hence proportional. You have to argue that the military advantage was worth the collateral harm.
Considering Ukraine has basically no amphibious capability and, at least right now, did not appear to be seriously preparing for an offensive across that portion of the Dnieper, the military advantage was basically zero. If this was anything other than the dam collapsing due to neglect or an individual local commander misinterpreting a command and blowing it by mistake, someone is going to end up before the ICC. This is going to cause at the very least hundreds of millions in damage, displacing tens of thousands. It's probably killed hundreds already.
Did you really expect that Russia was justified in this attack when they spent this winter trying to attack civilian power and drinking water to freeze and make the civilian cities suffer for zero military purpose?
Russia probably didn't even withdraw their mobliks from the riverbank trenches because 1) opsec and 2) they obviously don't care about their own losses
If power and drinking water is dual use then it’s valid. That’s why the United States often strikes power and water infrastructure. It was 99% civilian then it’s a war crime, but it if was 50/50 mixed military use then they were valid targets
>While it might feel like a war crime, it isn't.
It most certainly is. Read Articles 35 of the Geneva Convention.
>It is prohibited to employ methods or means of warfare which are intended, or may be expected, to cause widespread, long-term and severe damage to the natural environment. Care shall be taken in warfare to protect the natural environment against widespread, long-term and severe damage.
Just because it has a military purpose it doesn't stop it being a war crime, but you already know this since it is bait.
Dropping Moon on the Earth has military purpose of destroying your enemy.
It doesn't work like that you clueless Black person.
This doggo is really cute, anyone know its name?
Alamy
Its good that Black person is on a leash, wouldn't want him to be hit by a car
Fitting that the modern day one is called Zigger
They even used the dog's name as a morse code message for the attack.
Look what they did
For shame
Instead of scorching the earth, they’re flooding it.
>Reddit will fight /misc/ to the last /k/ommando
>97% of the mouthbreathers on /misc/ came from /r/the_donald
Irony always finds a way.
>97% of nü K comes from Leddit and Quantico.
Cope always finds a way
>NO U
Try harder, this is embarrassing for you.
Yes. Causing damage to the environment is considered a war crime in the Geneva convention
>b-b-but WW2 a-a-and
Wasn't part of the Geneva convention back then.
Blowing up children's hospitals is also acceptable if you have reasonable grounds to suspect those children might grow up to become soldiers.
Article 15 of the Geneva makes acting dams and nuclear power plants even if used for military purposes a war crime if there's a chance acting the site would lead to civilian casualties.
This. As for why it happened, either its routine Russian barbarism or it is a deliberatevresponse to the current Ukrainian offensive, meant to disrupt it either through the large scale logistical issues it will cause or through area denial.
Causes severe civilian casualties. Not "the chance of any civilian casualties". Ukrainians have blown several smaller dams in this conflict. They have effected civilians. They were not warcrimes despite the cries to the contrary.
It is where dams are blown to, say, wipe out cites or to destroy large swathes of infrastructure (think Vajont Dam or Hurricane Katrina) where it gets into that territory.
This, I dunno about this. We will have to see what the damage is.
what would you say is the best dam to target inside Russia?
r8
>Attacks on dams were restricted in Article 56 of the 1977 Protocol I amendment to the Geneva Conventions. Dams may not be lawfully attacked "if such attack may cause the release of dangerous forces from the works or installations and consequent severe losses among the civilian population", unless "it is used for other than its normal function and in regular, significant and direct support of military operations and if such attack is the only feasible way to terminate such support". Similar provisions apply to other sources of "dangerous forces", such as nuclear power plants.
Yeah but like I give a shit, blow the dammed thing already and remember winners don't face trial
Only losers commit war crimes
If no one is willing or able to punish them for it is it really a war crime?
/misc/ is split between two generals and i suspect a lot of people on the Ukraine side migrated here
Would explain how this place became obssesed with race over night
Either that or someone at Langley got a briefing saying PrepHole is a nazi site
Yes, article 56 of the Geneva Gonventions you dipshit.
https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/ihl-treaties/api-1977/article-56
>Article 56 - Protection of works and installations containing dangerous forces
1. 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.
If you have garbage like that on hand to post you should probably reevaluate your life choices.
This is what I don't understand. We go to war, i.e. you're supposed to destroy the other side. Then why not be allowed to use weakpoints and pressure the enemy with things like breaking dams or other 'underhanded' tactics?
If we're saying that there's protocols to play nice in going to war, then why not just force that you can't go to war at all?
Because you're moronic.
Things like the geneva convention and the laws of armed conflict exist mainly to protect civilian populations and non-combatants.
Armed conflict is the ultimate escalation of a disagreement. Violence is the last argument of kings and no entity or group of entities has the ability to completely stop the use of violence without the use of even greater violence. Since armed violence is effectively inevitable it's worthwhile to have rules and agreements in place to limit the damage and impact it can do.
On a more practical level following rules for warfare leaves the door open for a diplomatic resolution. Diplomacy requires trust, and if your opponents cannot trust you to to extend them even the slightest amount of decency and respect then no diplomacy can be done and the violence will not stop until one side is completely and utterly destroyed.
Having to waste resources on wiping out your opponent to the man because they refused to surrender to the people butchering their countrymen for sport is a huge waste of resources, so even if you're winning it's usually in your best interest to treat the enemy honorably so they will be ok with surrendering to you instead of forcing you to spend time, men, and material slaughtering them to the last.
>Since armed violence is effectively inevitable it's worthwhile to have rules and agreements in place to limit the damage and impact it can do.
>Diplomacy requires trust, and if your opponents cannot trust you to to extend them even the slightest amount of decency and respect then no diplomacy can be done and the violence will not stop until one side is completely and utterly destroyed.
That's my point. If the idea is to hurt the enemy as much as possible, then why have rules. Press on the sore spots. Kidnap civilians. Use tear gas. Bomb unevacuated cities. You said it yourself, if you want to hurt the enemy, then why have rules in place that limit how much you can hurt the enemy?
You're trying to hurt the enemy as much as possible so that they'll stop fighting. So if they know that you'll kidnap and bomb innocent cities, then they'll feel the pressure more. *Not* doing this just means you're engaging 'fairly' which just makes the war last longer, making it a drain on resources.
TL;DR: War is a game of chicken where the goal is to have the other side chicken out as soon as possible. Why have rules in place that keep you from making the enemy chicken out as soon as possible?
Better to have your enemy surrender then to have them fight to the death. Germans were far more likely to surrender to the US then the USSR. Likewise, Russian soldiers are far more likely to surrender to Ukraine. In Iraq entire units would surrender to the US because they new they would be treated well.
That doesn't really answer my question. If you have more force to make them surrender with, then they'll surrender faster than prolonging a war with rules of engagement.
They would not surrender at all if they know POWs and civilian population have been unnecessarily harassed and abused. The more you abuse them their willingness to fight only increases. And no rules of engagement and abiding by the laws of armed conflict do not prolong wars, it makes them shorter, because if this reason.
>The more you abuse them, the more their willingnes to fight only increases.
Sounds ass backwards to me. Have it your way.
Someone who knows their family has been killed in a bombing and will be tortured if captured will fight alot fricking harder then someone whose knows his family is safe and will be treated fairly when captured. I really don't know why you would think differently.
>If the idea is to hurt the enemy as much as possible, then why have rules.
Because the object of war is usually not to hurt the enemy as much as possible in the same way that the object of self defense is not to cause as much pain to your attacker as you possibly can. Hurting them is a necessary and unavoidable part of the process but it in and of itself is not the end goal.
If simply hurting your opponent was the main goal of war then nobody would ever accept surrenders. Why allow people to walk away or imprison them when it would hurt your enemy much more to just kill them all? The answer is because your objective isn't to kill everyone, your objective is to control their land, or their resources, or get them to agree to something, or any number of other reasons for which war is normally fought by people. War is politics by other means, unless we're talking about some African shithole conducting what is essentially tribal warfare with AK47s.
>You're trying to hurt the enemy as much as possible so that they'll stop fighting.
You're trying to get the enemy to stop fighting, preferably as quickly as possible. The method is irrelevant. Hurting them until they can't fight anymore is one way, but it's often quicker to convince/show them that they are going to lose and get that things will be better for them if they give up. Which requires convincing them that you actually are decent enough people that they can trust you to treat them well once they are in your power.
Cont.
>So if they know that you'll kidnap and bomb innocent cities, then they'll feel the pressure more.
No, they'll just get angry at the people who are bombing their cities and kidnapping their children. Do you think going out of your way to destroy their homes and families is going to make fighting them easier? What are they going to get so despondent at the death of their loved ones that they'll just lay down their weapons and let you kill them? Are they going to think "Wow these babykillers sure are good at killing our babies, we should surrender and put ourselves and all our babies at their mercy, I totally trust them to stop killing our children once they have us disarmed and helpless."?
All you've done is give them more reason to fight you and convinced people that may not have been willing to risk their lives in this war that you are now a threat worth risking their lives for.
>*Not* doing this just means you're engaging 'fairly' which just makes the war last longer, making it a drain on resources.
You know what takes a lot of resources? Killing millions of people because they have refused to surrender, rebuilding all the cities, industry, and infrastructure you flattened, and having to transport millions of your own citizens to live and work on the now empty land.
You know what takes considerably less resource? Accepting their surrender and working with their authorities to disarm their military and occupy/integrate their populace. It also makes the war much shorter, saving lives and resources in the long run. The thing is people won't surrender if they think they'll just die anyway, and people won't surrender if they hate you so much they'd rather kill you out of spite. Turning a conflict into a war of extermination when it doesn't have to be is what will cause a drain on your resources.
why did hohols blow up their own dam though?
small list of terrorist attacks committed by the ukraine so far:
>crimean bridge
>kherson bridge
>that one dam
>multiple other dams no one talks about anymore
>nordstream
land denial
>But what about wahwahwah
Choke on a dick.
Also, this ecological disaster will affect the entire Black Sea and the Danube Delta, a part of a NATO country. Hopefully this will mean the West will stop thinking twice about sending any sort of aid needed to throw the russians out of the country.
>Choke on a dick.
did not read past this homosexual offer. kys
pidor, turning down an offer to suck wiener? something must really have you riled up today
>blow up their own dam
Russian forces set up dam to explode months ago.
Now it explodes.
'It was the Ukronazis'
Only if non-western powers do it
>wall of text
>random clip arts
Very reminiscent of Hillary shilling back in 2016. Probably the same shitskins doing it as well.
Actually obsessed.
2016 was 7 years ago.
Take your meds.
Reminder that only mobilegays and zoomers with five second attention spans whine about "muh wall of text"
Just a reminder, the zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant requires the filled reservoir to function. while the power plant is disconnected from the gird, it still needs constant water circulation to keep cool. if that reservoir drains, we're going to have a meltdown.
this is is very bad news for everyone in the area, and a catastrophe for the world if anything happens to this plant.
We might start seeing Mi hellis flying and dumping soil over the spillway while under fire.
The buffer zone WILL be established.
I think, in it's current state, with all the reactors in some level of shutdown, they should be able to transport in enough water to keep things under control. I'm not an expert though, so take this with a grain of salt.
if it's shut down then they only need water to cool the spent rods
those can't cause a meltdown and require a lot less water
It still requires an amount of water that's only being provided by the dam and its reservoir. Also consider that the Russians will bomb any attempt to transport that kind of water supply to the plant.
the plant is under russian control tough and it should take only a few hundred liters a day max
>Should
>Might
>Maybe
>Ought to
Why in the frick should anybody roll those kinds of dice with something like this? And if you're telling me that the Russians are still in control of it, then it's completely fricked.
the only nuclear powerplant to get completely fricked was and is still located on the ukraine, sweaty. hohols blew it up btw
it all depends on how much feul they have in their cooling pools and how long it has been cooling so you have to assume max capacity and just out of the reactor. I don't know the full specs of the plant nor do I want to do the math. But those pools take a fraction of the water needed to cool a working plant.
and yes the plant is on the south/east side of the river
depending on how "hot" the bars are you can also move them to an other plant
this guy did the math on the nuke plant, the cooling won't be a problem. the reactors have been off / in low power mode for ages. only needs a few hundred litres of water per day. plant has reserve water tanks that can provide coolant even if reservoir is lost.
https://nitter.1d4.us/energybants/status/1665947369442033664#m
The nuclear plant has its own cooling pond for such eventualities.
If it was a western reactor id say there’s nothing to worry about, but it’s not
yes it does, but that pond is small, and how knows if its retaining wall will hold when the water level on the other side drops.
I mean I’m a engineer who’s working on a dam project rn so I can say that it’d be a pretty shit engineer who designing the cooling pond without considering that
this was made and designed in the 1950's by soviet ukraine under stalin. who hated ukraine. im sure they used the best material
Oh. Let’s hope they at-least compacted the dam wall fill
water can be circulated with buckets of water and arms and legs
Call in the Bucket Brigade, we have work to do.
Few people are aware of this but nuclear reactors can actually be cooled with pressure washers.
I myself have three nuclear reactors I cool this way.
Surely they replaced the old RBMK reactors once Chernobyl revealed their shocking deficiencies. So the odds of cataclysm are low.
Depends. Is the 3-day Special Operation a war now?
There's no such thing as war crimes.
There's only winners and losers. The winners get to impose their version of "justice" on the vanquished while their own heinous acts go unpunished.
That's how it is.
Not even that even if russia loses they cant enforce it anyway so there is just no such thing as a warcrime in general.
Yes. Do it again 617.
We are so back
>it carries 4 missiles
lol, hah send the whole fleet!
I want to collect some information here because threads about the dam busting keep getting axed.
It seems there were plans to blow the dam from as far back as October '22, maybe earlier. See picrel
At the end of May '23, The Russian government released a decree suspending several safety measures surrounding hydro infrastructure, including inspections, in the region.
https://web.archive.org/web/20230601110434/http://publication.pravo.gov.ru/document/0001202305310067
Frick, forgot pic
Now people in Crimea are saying the government ordered them to fill bathtubs and expect access to drinkable water to be cut soon. Even by zigger standards this is moronic as frick. Nobody is going to believe Ukraine did this to their own people when Russia controlled the dam and clear evidence points to them sabotaging it either through intentional destruction or lack of maintenance. Meanwhile Crimea just lost most of its fresh water and mines laid on the east coast of the Dnieper by Russia are being displaced and randomly exploding. Completely baffling how stupid Russia is being.
Unironically source for this?
Agree with
You gotta back up these claims.
see pic. it's in crimea. bottle says (in russian) only 1 per person and it costs 7 usd.
>(in russian)
Lying homosexual detected, argument discarded.
>7USD
Are you willing to sell dollars at this price? Because market forces suggest that's closer to 1 USD.
>(in russian)
At least learn how the language of the country you are rooting for looks like
>in russian
that's actually Ukrainian. I doubt this picture - russians have gone really berserk on anything Ukrainian recently, it causes them acute butthurt, and a desire to retaliate against people witnessed doing anything that can be perceived pro-Ukrainian. Very unlikely it was in Crimea, or that it is authentic to begin with.
Around October '22, near the time of the telegram post mentioning plans to destroy the dam, the Russians began lowering the water level. This was taking place during and after the withdrawal from Kherson.
During this time they destroyed the road and rail connection at Nova Kakhovka.
Video of that here: https://www.reuters.com/video/watch/russia-media-shows-video-of-kherson-dam-id754537581?chan=8gwsyvzx
Then, throughout early 2023 they began raising the water levels in the reservoir, until they reached the maximum level that the facility could hold, at which point the dam burst and flooded areas downstream.
My theory is that the lowering of the water levels was done to facilitate the placement of demolition charges to ensure complete destruction of the dam, but that's just a guess on my part.
shit nice find anon.
I didn't find this stuff, I just collected some things other anons had posted. Take it all with a grain of salt. The telegram post in particular I'm not too sure of, haven't gone through the trouble of trying to track down the original and verify it.
Sincerely, just chill and wait. There are a ton of theories and any of them could be right. We just have to wait for more info. We gain nothing from jumping to conclusions.
In the meantime, no matter who destroyed it, whether it was intentional or not, all those people are in fricks-ville and I hope there can be an at least unofficial ceasefire to get them help and out of the disaster area.
Did you copy that off reddit or you're really are a homosexual like this?
I guess I am a homosexual, sorry I disagree
How is wildly jumping to conclusions resisting propoganda? That's a textbook method to open yourself up to it. I want you to explicitly tell me how waiting till we have more info in any way is a bad thing? What horrible fate awaits us for not flying off the handle?
Thank you for being reasonable but I feel like your methods and frames you use only encourage the behaviors of those like above which generally does far more harm than good.
The shit flinging will never cease, regardless of what I do.
Seems dire, do you know when this photo was taken?
2 hours ago. they're rushing to buy water now that it costs 10 usd per bottle
panic buying doesn't necessarily mean there is acute drinking water shortage, only that people fear that there will be.
are their fears warranted? probably, the ziggers probably already bottled all the water in their reservoirs and sold it at a 40x markup as tartar gamer girl bathwater
There is no water panic in crimea lol
Do these ruskies get killed once their army is forced out, are they forced labor to rebuild, whats the plan with orc noncombatants?
>There is no water panic in crimea lol
?t=90
>The shit flinging will never cease, regardless of what I do.
Fair point but that doesn't mean you should carelessly add fuel to the fire. I'm not saying don't gather intel and collate it, just be mindful of the effects it can have and try to mitigate the bad ones preemptively.
Put on a dress and I'll frick the boy out of you and then it won't be gay anymore. Problem solved.
>Ziggers already shelled Kherson to frick with evacuation.
Then I hope it stops. I can acknowledge the unlikelihood of something while still advocating for it. Right?
>the risk of nuclear contamination from ZNPP is deliberate
Oh cool, now we are compounding our wild speculations with no evidence for any of them. You just want to be outrage because you have the emotional maturity of a tadpole.
You keep being a useful idiot. I'm sure you'll manage to rationalize that away in the end.
Speculation is engaging. You seem to think posts by anonymous morons dictates national policy or something.
Absolutely, I'm just trying to collect/disseminate what pieces of coherent information I can in the midst of the shit flinging going down.
Holy shit reading this post made me turn gay.
>and I hope there can be an at least unofficial ceasefire
Ziggers already shelled Kherson to frick with evacuation.
It's deliberate, the widepread destruction is deliberate, the risk of nuclear contamination from ZNPP is deliberate, and your fake "just chill" posting is deliberate. I hope you die from acute radiation sickness.
>My theory is that the lowering of the water levels was done to facilitate the placement of demolition charges to ensure complete destruction of the dam
Why wouldn't placing charges inside the dam work better (the outer geometry of the dam built to resist pressure outward)
My thinking was that lowering the water would allow them to drill into the dam and place charges or something. Just a guess though, we don't even know for sure that there were explosives involved or not.
even if it was dried up even if you drilled every cm of it and placed anfo even if you loaded up the entire gravity part of it
it would still not do jack shit to it if it was made properly
the problem tho is that the dam is actually and probably fine because they built the gates ON TOP of the dam
>the problem tho is that the dam is actually and probably fine
Right, looks fine to me.
It's like some Zigger telling me the Kerch bridge was okay because the other lane was being used for traffic.
>restricted to light loads
>railway portion too damaged to run any heavy cargo as well
>"it's fine bro, trust me"
the DAM was below the waterline anon the gates were built on top of it
well yeah
>then closed the gates and let it refill to unprecedented levels
the spillway of the dam was at 22 meters anon
those 17 meters were well withint its tolerance anyways
>the DAM was below the waterline anon the gates were built on top of it
Well then I guess we'll know the state of it once the reservoir drains.
>those 17 meters were well withint its tolerance
Doesn't change the fact that the evidence points to Russia deliberately creating the conditions for catastrophic flooding.
omg that makes sense
You are probably looking for this link:
http://publication.pravo.gov.ru/document/0001202305310067
Yeah, I just posted the web archive version because I was having some issues with the page loading. This way it'll still be visible even if the original page gets taken down for some reason.
all the info you might need is in this pic.
> muh himars strike
good, now we know that a zigger shill is writing for wapo
if ukraninans did it, no
if russians did it, yes
There is no such thing as a warcrime
>Bongs destroy Mohne dam
>Morse code the word Black person back to HQ
Never fails to make me kek
A more gentle and noble age. We shall not see their like again.
Sleep well, Black person.
this dude and HP Lovecraft would have made fast friends
Given that Ukraine did it last year no, evidently not.
If it’s a war crime then all it Israel’s actions in Gaza are a war crime hence it’s not a war crime
Yes, and Ukraine will pay for their crimes! I'm joking but they obviously did it. morons saying otherwise are the same alphabet Black folk who said that Russia destroyed their own pipeline. https://web.archive.org/web/20221229064018/https:/www.washingtonpost.com/world/2022/12/29/ukraine-offensive-kharkiv-kherson-donetsk/
Russia had control of the dam and the Hydroelectric power plant. They recently jacked up the water levels to record, unsafe heights. Picrel is that a week ago, they didn't want their own people making any safety inspections for some reason. All culpability points to Russians planning something in advance, not any sort of accident or AFU activity
And - no joke - if you believe that Russia wouldn't have destroyed their own pipeline, why would you believe Ukraine would destroy their own dam and cause devastation downstream to their own citizens?
>picrel is a week ago
>dam is busted
barry stop timetravelling
>picrel is a week ago
Bullshit it is. Are you illiterate? The date in the headline is 6 June 2023 10:30.
That anon probably meant that the order disallowing investigations and nullifying safety procedures was about a week ago.
>And - no joke - if you believe that Russia wouldn't have destroyed their own pipeline,
That pipeline gave Russia power and influence over Germany. False flags for the sake of propaganda purposes only work when civilians are killed, like Israel doing 9/11.
>why would you believe Ukraine would destroy their own dam and cause devastation downstream to their own citizens?
Here's a fun opinion, the dam was damaged during the offensive months ago and it finally buckled during peak water season. Both side are full of shit and lie non stop in this war.
Any questions?
> like Israel doing 9/11
Meds, schizo.
>Here's a fun opinion, the dam was damaged during the offensive months ago and it finally buckled during peak water season
So the Russians, being in control of the dam and knowing it was damaged:
>closed off the sluice gates
>allowed the water level to spike to unprecedented levels
>did nothing even when the dam showed signs of giving way a few days ago
In addition to this the bit that collapsed was the turbine hall itself, so the operators of the dam knew full well it was not holding.
This, i was in charge of maintenance at that dam, im currently posting from my starlink phone floating atop a fart stained sofa pillow and can see snake island in the distance.
i can think 2 things
if it was ukraine it gives them a very good short term delay to gather more forces till its dried up(ASSUMING THE RUSSIANS ARE IDIOTS)
if it was russia assuming that they have few brain cells working they probably know that the next dam is 50 higher in elevation so if they manage to keep the gates close they can keep a huge area flooded indefinitely forcing the ukrainians to attack from the kherson area only or risk going through the npp
So was what the British did to the Germans a war crime or not?
The Germans bombed many cities to ash in a just as destructive manner, if not more so, to Dresden.
It doesn't matter though. There's no doubt that the victors were safe from such persecution. But it's still one-sided to say on side did "worse" to the other.
I don’t get what you mean, so because the Germans were bombing everyone else we were allowed to bomb them?
Dam busting aside, is firing artillery into the evacuation zone you created by busting a dam a war crime?
Tfw they dropped Kharkovka Dam and the codeword:
Black person Black person Black person!!!
Russia just deflowered Ukraine's hymen.
Summer Counter Offensive status?
Two more weeks. Date decided to have been decided. The probes have probed, the weaknesses weakened, the belgorod belly-ached.
>Ziggers commit yet another undeniable war crime for no reason but to murder civilians (absolutely gimping themselves in the process)
>WHATABOUTWHATABOUTWHATABOUTWHATABOUTWHATABOUTWHATABOUTWHATABOUTWHATABOUT
Every. Time.
It's a special military operaiton
>Ukraine wants to cross the Dnieper
>but doesn't want to do it directly across from Kherson because it's been fortified and has multiple regiments in position
>destroying the dam lowers the water level upstream, making it easier to cross, while also drowning Russian troops caught in the flood
name one flaw
Drowning thousands of your own people?
Yes the river is now much wider making any crossing attempt more difficult. And Russia can now redeploy troops to other areas of the front to shore up their lines now that both sides have said the Ukrainian offensive has started.
Smart move by the Russians to stop the Ukie advance.
>War crime = smart move
Not even surprised that they're justifying this
Driving across silty river bottoms isn't made much easier by lowering the water level. It's still saturated with water for weeks until it dries.
>name one flaw
>russia attacks a dam upstream
>gains control
>open the gates
>re floods the area while keeping the downstream dams closed
>???
>name one flaw
Okay: offering arguments for "Cui bono?" may help identify potential suspects, but do nothing to establish actual proof of guilt.
Russians have had control of the dam and the HPP for about a year or more now. There is literally zero concrete evidence of Ukraine launching some dambuster or other offensive capable of causing this destruction last night. If the AFU had, theoretically, launched such an attack, how did no eyewitnesses or surveillance cameras capture the smoking gun?
>There is literally zero concrete evidence of Ukraine launching some dambuster or other offensive capable of causing this destruction last night.
there is, they've fired HIMARs at the floodgates before.
https://nitter.net/mtracey/status/1666021219596902400#m
>there is, they've fired HIMARs at the floodgates before.
But HIMARS would do frick all to the structural integrity of the dam. Barnes Wallis didn't spend months developing the bouncing bomb just for you morons to think you can destroy a dam with a fricking fragmentation rocket.
Your own link points against your theory. Try again. Also, still need an explanation for the lack of video evidence.
>no security cameras or other footage of any Ukrainian assault last night
>last night
>"they've fired HIMARs at the floodgates before."
>linked excerpt from Washington Post article mentions test firing in December
>test was successful: floodgates perforated, dam was still intact
>link shows that a HIMARS strike would not in fact have caused this sort of collapse
>link shows zero evidence of any Ukrainian sabotage last night when the dam burst
I'm really not certain where you're going with this.
>@mtracey
Tracey and copelord are both peak twitter entertainment
Freshly exposed land around the reservoir is going to stay saturated and impassible for weeks at least.
>Russia has been warning the UN that the Ukraine has been trying to blow the dam for a year now
>Dam is blown up and floods the Russian side, and dooming Crimea's water supply
Gee, it must be the Russians sabotaging themselves again just like with Nordstream
>Russia has stated repeatedly that their troops are merely on annual military exercises and they have no intention of invading Ukraine
>Russia has been warning that the U.S. allegations of an imminent invasion are NATO propaganda against the peaceful and trustworthy Russian Federation, which has absolutely no intention of violating Ukrainian state sovereignty
>Russia has been warning of secret biolabs that the United States has constructed on the territory of non-NATO-member Ukraine
>Russia has reported that the Moskva returned to port under its own power
>Russia reports record turnout in a totally fair and unbiased referendum in territories where their control is less than 100%
>Russia has publicly proclaimed that Kherson is Russia Forever!
>Russia has announced the destruction of 56 of the 20 HIMARS sent to the AFU
>Russia has announced destruction of a Bradley AFV before any were delivered to Ukraine
>Russia has captured their first Leo 2 in April, but somehow drove this unique trophy vehicle into a nearby lake and all photo and video evidence are currently in the custody of Russia's totally hot girlfriend in Canada who definitely really exists.
>Russia has been warning the UN that Ukraine has been trying to blow the Kakhova dam for a year now
>Pyccкий мaльчик кpичит "Boлк! Boлк!"
Russia, whose occupation has had control of the dam and the city of Nova Kakhova for a year now, has presented not one shred of actual evidence from their own security cameras that could definitively link the dam collapse to Ukrainian action. Not one. But we should trust Russia's unfounded accusations because of their well-established reputation for probity and veracity.
Do people actually think it’s a war crime to blow up a dam to slow troop movements? Not a zigger and completely pro Ukrainian. Outside of this being an action in an illegal war how can you say it was wrong to do this(war crime wise)
Article 56 of the 1977 Additional Protocol I
Blowing the dam probably will not stop whatever Ukraine is planning, it places at risk a fairly nearby nuclear power plant which used that water as a coolant.
Atop this, they've displaced thousands of civilians, and vatBlack folk living in Crimea are about to have a rough time.
All in all, it is Russian stupidity on display.
>All in all, it is Russian stupidity on display.
They burnt Moscow when Napoleon's troops approached
Nuclear powers do not get charged with warcrines, so it's irrelevant.
Napalm sticks to kids.
Always has been, but you might just win to evade the responsibility
Question for Knowers. Can a nuclear reactor be safely "shut down" to avoid a runaway reaction / meltdown? Can it be started back up without major work going into it first?
yes and it was already shut down months ago. takes a while to start it up again though.
The reactor is already shut down and drawing from its own cooling ponds independent of the river
warcrimes are only a thing if you lose the war
The saddest thing about this incident is that Ukraine didn't blow it themselves back when there were 50 thousand ziggers entrenched in the flood plain.
warcrimes don't matter if you win
Correction: Warcrimes don't matter if you're white.
>warcrimes don't matter if you win and are impervious to sanctions
ftfy
Russians blowing up a bunch more smaller reservoirs in the occupied area apparently. What are they trying to do with this, just make a buffer?
Making the trip to Crimea for Ukraine as hard as possible.
Trying to start mud season early in the south, make as much land impassable as possible, force the Ukrainians to attack along specific paths or in a different region altogether.
Coming to a Ukraine near you soon.
If Russia moves the troops that were in that area so they can reposition them on the other frontlines, and if Ukraine accounted for this and launch a coordinated assault on the thus free-from-Russians areas past the flood, with things such as these
and aerial transports, I'll laugh to no end. Though I'm not sure they have enough equipment to pull off something like that, but hey, they're full of surprises. I wouldn't be surprised if they accounted for the Russians to do such a thing, looks like they they did considering what they said months ago already.
I don't know how they'd even get something like those hovercraft to the area, it's not like they fit on a truck, and I think the Russians would notice an amphibious assault ship entering the Black Sea. They're limited to small river boats, old Soviet landing craft, and a handful of assorted bridging methods, pontooning included.
Golly, it's almost as if we're seeing a pattern of behavior from the Russian occupation or something. Filling a reservoir to max and then intentionally demolishing it to flood the area just prior to an expected AFU advance. I wonder what it could all mean?
If you lose the war
war is the crime
>Getting your kicks from the suffering of huge amounts of animals
Literal psychopath behavior.
Pigs can swim, they'll be fine.
It's only a war crime when non-anglos do it
Not when you drown your own side, then it's just idiocy
The laws of armed conflict are really more like the guidelines of armed conflict
War crimes are and have always been fake. They're a pretext for the winners to hang the losers.
I am now sad that there's no way for me to kill both Putin and Zelensky right now. These antisemetic slimes have lived too long.
Will the flooding reach the exclusion zone?
Thankfully not, the flooding will even out before then. If it did, though, it would probably end up creating the biggest ecological disaster since the BP oil spill
I'm a mouth breathing twat so i had to actually look up a map to see where the dam is and where chernobyl is located.
Thank frick they are so separated, this could have been one gigantic fricking issue.
Like, Chernobyl? No, probably not.
Some other anon said that this was the worst ecological diaster since chernobyl (also caused by the mongol horde)
Why are they like this? Can they literally not help themselves?
>the worst ecological diaster since chernobyl
Specifically in Europe, I have no doubts that there have been others in different parts of the world.
The longer this war carries on the more I realize how dead on picrel was. There's just a massive cultural refusal for anyone to even consider taking into account the possibility of failure, because doing so will never benefit the individual in any way. The person who admits there may have been a mistake is the one who takes the fall, every time, without fail.
That series is fricking amazing in how it managed to capture the vatnik/apparatchik mentality.
I'd say the Aral sea was much worse, but yes, they can't help themselves.
It might be in the top 10 but it has nothing on:
>several radiological disasters
>aral sea
>the anthrax wastes
>shit river
>Omsk
>Omsk
What made Omsk an ecological disaster?
>fukushima
if building the dam in the first place was also a warcrime then NO
I'm starting to think the real winner in this war is Russia, no not because of the vatnik screeching or because of there so called great army, dear god its so pathetic but because of how it showed nato to be a big nothing burger.
If the nuclear plant goes into full meltdown i am starting to believe that nato would just write a strongly worded letter to the fricking United Nations. if blowing up a fricking dam and so far, what has been the response, nothing other then a very strong muh Russia bad.
So yeah NATO weak, Russia strong is what im starting to think since NATO can be taken hostage by fricking Hungry.
Why would NATO do anything now? Nobody in NATO countries got hurt because of this. If some nuclear shenanigans start, USA already promised to wipe out the russian fleet in response.
thats kind of a weak response just to wipe out the black sea fleet tbh.
they wipe out the black sea fleet, Russia can rebuild it in a decade or so and Ukraine would be in ruins still if a meltdown does happen.
Russia isn't rebuilding shit with its economy. Their navy is a joke, just like always.
>I'm starting to think the real winner in this war is Russia, no not because of the vatnik screeching [...] but because of how it showed nato to be a big nothing burger.
So because of vatnik screeching?
it didnt show it really we knew that nato is just a propaganda tool since if nato gets involved on a third country it cant invoke article 5 because of article 6...
Why would warcrimes in a non-NATO country prompt a NATO response? They aren't the UN, they feel no need to directly intervene in conflicts that don't involve their members. They're already responding to Russia by emptying their warehouses for Ukraine, if anything this will just cause them to send even more aid.
The nuclear plant has likely been in shutdown for months and has its own reservoir for cooling, it should be fine. If it's not, THEN you can start getting your panties in a twist about NATO doing nothing. But until we know more whinging about NATO not immediately responding to muh nuclear meltdown is moronic.
Ya dumb
This is Juan Mandingo from the Paris oblast and I have to say you're right, in fact this is so demoralizing I'm writing my Duma member right now to bring our country out of the useless HATO, no more spending of our taxes on foreign regimes!
Considering the amount of debris that will end up in the Black Sea, if they derivate enough, Ukraine really should snip up a bunch of those sea drones and send them blowing up ships in Sevastopol, debris might frick up radar signatures a bit.
If being charged had any actual teeth it would matter. If you look at the ICC in detail you will quickly realize they are just some dudes.
A war crime idk. It's kind of a dick move, though.
no
German media reports that Ukraine most likely to be behind NS2 sabotage. CIA knew about detailed plans and had warned Germany.
>https://www.n-tv.de/politik/CIA-soll-von-angeblichem-Nord-Stream-Plan-Kiews-gewusst-haben-article24173474.html
>german speaking shills in full damage control mode in comment sections
> russia blew up their own dam
But why blow it up? Why not just open it to the max and let Ukraine flood?
> russia blew up their own pipeline
But why blow it up? Why not just close it on the Russian end, and the oil stops flowing to Germany
>He thinks NS2 pumps oil
Ngmi
>Why not just open it to the max and let Ukraine flood?
That's what the available evidence indicates they were trying to do when they weaponized the dam, yes. The Russians spent months filling the reservoir to dangerous heights, then decided they'd need more outflow than the gates could provide.
The RuAF had control of the dam and the HPP, so setting demolition charges was easy for them.
They took out what they thought was a small chunk, enough to flood the downstream area a meter or two and mess up AFU positions on small islands downstream. Then erosion took things out of control.
https://twitter.com/i/status/1666383007773540352
Of course, closing the gates and flooding the north sure sounds like a good idea
One that would benefit the russians, in fact, as it would also prevent rrossings in the north as well
Totally in Ukrainian interests to close the gates
dumbfrick
That's the normal outflow of the river, and in cubic meters per second it's a rounding error compared to what the Russians did when they blew the Kakhova HPP.
Pro-Russian accounts are grasping at absolutely anything to try and deflect blame for their frickup.
In the last 24 hours has Nato promised more weapons to Ukraine?
I am starting to think if this goes unanswered more countries are going to start doing this shit and then get away with it.
Bare a few statements here and there, countries and NATO have been awfully silent over the situation. You just know they're brewing a weapons package delivery that will make everything that has been done so far look like a joke.
If the vatniks did it, yes. Since it was piglets...no.