Who would have what motives? Both warring sides blame each other: Kakhovka dam collapse benefits Russian rather than Ukrainian army

class=”sc-29f61514-0 jbwksb”>

Mutual pointing of the finger without clear evidence: the truth is again the first casualty of war. Kiev and Moscow blame each other for the destruction of the Kakhovka dam on Tuesday night. At the same time, Russia has one less problem – and Ukraine has a few more problems.

Kiev and Moscow also blame each other at an emergency meeting of the UN Security Council. Ukrainian UN ambassador Serhiy Kislizia (53) spoke on Tuesday at an emergency meeting in New York of an “act of ecological and technological terrorism”. The blast was “another example of Russia’s genocide against the Ukrainians”.

Russia’s UN Ambassador Wassili Nebensya, 61, countered that the incident was due to “intentional sabotage by Kiev” and classified as a war crime. The dam was used for an “unimaginable crime”.

Nord Stream parallels

The parallels with Nord Stream are striking. The question of who is responsible for the explosion of the pipeline under the Baltic Sea at the end of September 2022 also remains confused. Who was responsible? Traces lead to Ukraine, according to a new Washington Post investigative report. The CIA learned of a Ukrainian plan for such an attack in June 2022, three months before the alleged vandalism.

Kachowka Dam sabotaged: who had what motives? Who would benefit more from the flooding of large areas at war? Ukraine controls the western bank of the Dnieper, Russia controls the eastern bank, which in many places is slightly lower than the western bank and is therefore likely to experience even greater flooding.

But the Russian soldiers, commanders and war bloggers are already overly nervous about the imminent major offensive. A large-scale act of sabotage, not sparing the civilian population, could be a sign of desperation: stop Ukraine’s counter-offensive at all costs. A weighting of all factors suggests that the Russians could use the dam as a weapon.

Changed geography

The biggest beneficiaries of the disaster are clearly the Russian invasion forces. For Ukraine, the destroyed dam significantly complicates the planned counter-offensive, for two main reasons: the road that led over the dam was the only intact bridge over the Dnieper between Zaporizhia and the sea with neighboring Crimea, and Ukraine has great hopes of recapture.

If the dam had fallen intact into Ukrainian hands, it could have been used as a bridgehead for an eastward advance, albeit at great risk. This is no longer possible.

The second and much more serious setback for Kiev: the floods that will inundate large areas will drastically change the geography of the lower Dnieper. Above the dam, the river was miles wide in places. Downstream it narrowed to only a few hundred meters. A possible amphibious assault would have been most feasible in these areas.

Buffer zone and game for time

Now the Dnieper acts as a powerful natural barrier between Ukraine and Russian invaders. Corresponding Ukrainian attack plans become all the more difficult, if not useless. Crossing the Dnieper has always been extremely risky. Now it seems unlikely. Breaching the dam deprives the Ukrainians of important options and creates a buffer zone for the Russian forces, which also saves time.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky (45) accused the Russians of planning such a sabotage action as early as October. Although Kiev has prepared contingency plans, the destruction of the dam and the floods are not good news for Ukraine. The floods secure the Russian-held eastern bank and allow the invaders to focus on the defense of Zaporizhia, the Donbass and along the northern border.

The flooding is also likely to cause massive damage to the left eastern bank of the Dnieper, which is controlled by the Russians. Friendly positions along the front line are likely to be flooded and Russian forces will be forced to retreat.

Source: Blick