If Ukraine did this then Putin is a total pussy if he doesn’t order the green light on Zelly.  Hopefully Sean Penn will be with him.

It's happening!

Right, so Ukrainian war crimes are Russia's fault. Yup, not a cult!

50% of ARFCOM is officially retarded.

Ukraine’s Nova Kahkovka dam is such a critical piece of infrastructure for such a huge area that its destruction would be considered a weapon of mass destruction (because of the potentially catastrophic effects of the subsequent flooding) and an indiscriminate war crime https://t.co/wa2yTyoZ5n

— Caroline Orr Bueno, Ph.D (@RVAwonk) June 6, 2023

Can see where this is headed.

Yep.

What war?

There ain't no Geneva Convention on the Articles of Special Military Operations.

I do not want WW3.

The beginning of the canal that provides water to Crimea is right next to the dam on the upstream side. Without the dam the water level wont be high enough to flow into the canal. AFAIK the canal is the only source of fresh water for Crimea.

Doesn't make sense to me.  The timing anyway.

Well that should escalate things nicely.

They were talking about it back in 2022.


Russia 'plans false flag attack on hydroelectric dam to FLOOD Kherson' in latest attack on energy plants as Ukraine brings in four-hour blackouts to tackle electricity shortages

Link

That makes absolutely no sense what you just said, what cult?  and what war crimes? .. your slacking sketti, come on do better and what facts do you have to share for us that Ukraine blew this dam? ill wait

There was probably a bio lab there, likely Ran by Nazis. What does Tucker say?

Like when Ukraine fired off a Russian only anti ship missile into an apartment in dnipro killing 20 people?

Oh wait that was Russia.

Or bucha?

Mh17?








So it’s illegal to call it a war but war crimes rules apply?

Okay

Russians are pushing and quoting the Geneva Convention article 56 already.

Article 56 - Protection of works and installations containing dangerous forces

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.

2. The special protection against attack provided by paragraph 1 shall cease:

(a) for a dam or a dyke only if 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;

(b) for a nuclear electrical generating station only if it provides electric power in regular, significant and direct support of military operations and if such attack is the only feasible way to terminate such support;

(c) for other military objectives located at or in the vicinity of these works or installations only if they are used in regular, significant and direct support of military operations and if such attack is the only feasible way to terminate such support.

3. In all cases, the civilian population and individual civilians shall remain entitled to all the protection accorded them by international law, including the protection of the precautionary measures provided for in Article 57 . If the protection ceases and any of the works, installations or military objectives mentioned in paragraph 1 is attacked, all practical precautions

shall be taken to avoid the release of the dangerous forces.

4. It is prohibited to make any of the works, installations or military objectives mentioned in paragraph 1 the object of reprisals.

5. The Parties to the conflict shall endeavour to avoid locating any military objectives in the vicinity of the works or installations mentioned in paragraph 1. Nevertheless, installations erected for the sole purpose of defending the protected works or installations from attack are permissible and shall not themselves be made the object of attack, provided that they are not used in hostilities except for defensive actions necessary to respond to attacks against the protected works or installations and that their armament is limited to weapons capable only of repelling hostile action against the protected works or installations.

6. The High Contracting Parties and the Parties to the conflict are urged to conclude further agreements among themselves to provide additional protection for objects containing dangerous forces.

7. In order to facilitate the identification of the objects protected by this article, the Parties to the conflict may mark them with a special sign consisting of a group of three bright orange circles placed on the same axis, as specified in Article 16 of Annex I to this Protocol [Article 17 of Amended Annex]. The absence of such marking in no way relieves any Party to the conflict of its obligations under

this Article.

So if Ukrainian forces blew up the dam for military advantage it shouldn't be considered a war crime even though 10s of 1000s of people could be adversely affected?

I know wikipedia can't always be relied upon for so many things, but.......

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukrainians

You should probably raise your estimate by a bit...

who said Ukraine blew it up? or are you hypothetical speaking for your defense

and what cult are you talking about? we wouldnt even be talking about this dam if russia didnt invade.. so yes absolutely its russias fault

how about these actual war crimes Sketti??

It’s not a simple yes or no answer.  It would, in my humble non-JAG opinion, depend on the military interest in its destruction and the extent of the adverse effect.  The LOAC considers proportionality, not just negative impact alone.

Interesting. That said, trying to go for the canal during their offensive could take months, then wouldn't it take more months for them to start running out of water in Crimea? But denying them water through the canal because the reservoir turns into a river will start now, thus accelerating the timeline

I back the side defending its own homeland and people against an invader. The same invader that's been murdering and conquering people for a century.

Yeah their government isn't perfect but name one in this entire world that is.

I understand that you don't care I'm just saying plenty of people out there are justifying it and appear pro Russia because Ukraine's corrupt. Doesn't make any sense to me

"So if Ukrainian forces blew up the dam"

Would it be a war crime if Russia did it?

Can’t be a war crime, no war

I figured it was something like that. Interesting.

Ah yes, there it is, that cult like double standard. It's ok when our guy commits atrocities, he's the good guy!

Why would Russia blow it up? They’re winning, right?

A critical piece of infrastructure like this seems like the sort of thing that would be kept under surveillance by all sides.

At least the retardation has dropped to 28% . . .

Can't see any benefit to Ukraine to blow it up, but substantial benefit to Russia. Plus just on the grounds that it's a pretty evil thing to do, Russia did it.

This is Ukraine getting desperate for a break. “A weather prayer” as Patton would put it.

Yeah. So that's more proof Russia did it. They physically controlled the dam so they could mine it (as Ukraine says Russia did) and you wouldn't see that from a distance. Certainly you wouldn't see the guy pressing the button to detonate it.

Ukraine would have to use missiles to destroy it, and the whole world would have seen that - everyone with satellites over the area would have seen that. It would take some big warheads to take out the dam, it wouldn't be subtle

So unless satellite evidence of a missile strike comes from any of the half dozen countries that would have that capability - Russia did it

What fucking offensive are you talking about?

The one that literally hasn’t started yet?

the statement was about russias fault in it... not ukraines.. idk where your getting that at... anyways what cult sketti?

exactly, but of course we have our "usuall" suspects pushing russias narrative on here. one would have to be pretty low IQ to not see that.

Zelenskyy can finally wash all the Nato jizz off his body.

Attached File

Things go boom in war.

I don't get this....it's one thing to make a genuine mistake and shoot down a civilian airliner and kill all the civilians on board......it's another to pose in front of the wreckage, proudly.  God, I'm addicted to these threads and the news in general, but it's too often horrible for me, stuff like this just fills me with rage.

In a word, no. Smoking a dam takes a LOT of earth movement.

Now THAT could be done with the Brit cruise missiles.

Funny how the Ukrainians have arrested or fired more corrupt dept heads than the US

Maybe. It's likely got the best air defense Russia can deploy and cruise missiles can't easily hide over water

If I search your names will I find similar idiotic statements about last years counteroffensive?

Theres that malicious indifference.  

As my dear old sainted grandma used to say, "it ain't what you want that makes you fat, it's what you eat."