Source official account: Yan Tajun
The Kakhovka Dam was blown up and the flood spread. In such a situation, both Russia and Ukraine claimed that the other side was the murderer. So who was the murderer?
If clear evidence cannot be found, then analyze it from the perspective of “whoever gains the most, is suspected the most”.
Let’s start with Ukraine. Before the dam was bombed, though the river was wide, it was not enough to stop the Ukrainian army from crossing the river on a small scale. Although small-scale river crossing did not play a big role, it still made Russia uneasy. It was uncertain which day the Ukrainian army would really cross the river on a large scale, and they did not dare to take it lightly. They stationed considerable troops in Kherson.
After the dam was bombed, it was difficult to cross the river on a small scale. The river became a defense line, and the Russian army was able to concentrate on dealing with Zaporizhzhia.
At the same time, the river also flooded the right bank of Kherson, which made it even worse for Ukraine, which was already short of food. However, it was also wrong to say that there was no benefit at all. Without the Kakhovka Dam, the water supply of North Crimean Canal would become a problem, which could still cause more or less chaos to Russia.
But overall, the benefits are not significant, and the losses suffered by the Ukrainian army are not small. From the perspective of interests, the power of the Ukrainian army to actively destroy the dam is insufficient.
It’s not the Ukrainian army, is that the Russian army?
If the Russian army did this, the biggest advantage is that it has completely made the lower reaches of Dnieper River a natural defense line, and no longer need to worry about the Ukrainian army crossing the river to attack. It can release a large number of defenders originally on the left bank of Kherson to other fronts. In terms of quantity, this is a good thing for the Russian army with insufficient troops.
In terms of quality, most of Kherson’s Russian troops are airborne troops and troops from the 58 Army group. Their combat effectiveness is reliable, at least more reliable than the Western Military District.
But Russia’s gains are limited to this, and there will be no more, but rather heavy losses.
First of all, the Kakhovka Reservoir is the entrance to the North Crimean Canal. This canal is the water source of Crimea. The dam was blown up and the water flowed away, which means that the water supply in Crimea will be in trouble.
Secondly, the Kakhovka Reservoir is very important to the Zaboro hot nuclear power plant. Without cooling water, the nuclear power plant cannot operate and will be forced to shut down. Once the nuclear power plant goes wrong, the scope of the impact is unimaginable.
Furthermore, the floods not only submerged the right bank controlled by Ukraine, but also the left bank controlled by Russia, and even more areas were submerged due to the relatively low terrain of the left bank.
Overall, although Russia has some gains, the losses are still too large. If it is Russia who did it, it was not a cut in the arm, but a shot in the thigh.
Since neither Russia nor Ukraine has sufficient motivation to do this, who did it?
Is there a possibility that other countries can indirectly benefit from it without being negatively affected, that is, simply gain without loss.
Obviously, this is possible.
Before the dam was bombed, both Russia and Ukraine showed signs of being unable to fight. Ukrainian officials were even willing to discuss China’s peace plan. Coincidentally, a few days later, the dam was bombed and Kherson was flooded. The Ukrainian people were indignant.
Who dares to negotiate at such a time? You must fight it hard.
Who is most advantageous for Russia and Ukraine to continue fighting?
According to the principle of “whoever benefits the most, whoever suspects the most”, it is the mastermind behind the scenes