The Russians miscalculated.
Will the blowing up of the dam at the Kakhovka hydroelectric power plant by the Russians prevent the Ukrainian offensive?
Oleksandr Kovalenko, a well-known Ukrainian military-political observer of the Information Resistance group, answered this and other questions for the website Charter97.org.
— Blasting the Kakhovka hydroelectric power plant can only be called a war crime and a terrorist act. According to the Geneva Convention, dams and similar structures are, shall we say, inviolable. Any actions against such facilities are classified as war crimes of an indiscriminate type and are comparable to the use of weapons of mass destruction.
This is a colossal war crime that has created a humanitarian and horrendous environmental crisis with lasting consequences.
— Why did the Russians go for it?
— I can only explain it by panic. The fact is that the Russian command is still at a loss in what direction, quantity, from where and with what resources the offensive of the Ukrainian Defense Forces will be carried out.
The other day in the Zaporizhzhia region, a series of quite such everyday events as reconnaissance in force began, but with the difference that if earlier it was carried out at separate locations, singly, then this time — simultaneously along several axes. Even Russian propaganda started fussing around, saying something like “here, it has begun” and, accordingly, it could have been a panic reaction to the fact that something had really begun.
If something starts in the Zaporizhzhia region, then in the view of the Russians, part of the plan is to force the Dnipro river. Therefore, they blew up the Kakhovka hydroelectric power plant so that forcing Dnipro in the near future was impossible. This is the first moment.
Second, the Russian command thought that the creation of such a crisis should force Ukraine to spend large resources on stabilizing it, resolving the situation, restoring processes, and so on. That is, the offensive will be delayed for some time due to the cost of resources.
The Russians think this way, taking into account their personal limited resources, while the humanitarian and military spheres follow two completely different positions in our country.
— Many experts note that the Russians were seriously mistaken and the Armed Forces of Ukraine were not going to force the Dnipro. And what do you think?
— No matter how many times I have been asked about our counter-offensive, I have always assigned a third-order role to the scenario with the forcing of the Dnipro river. This is a bad scenario.
A full-fledged land operation makes sense, and the forcing of the Dnipro river can already be an element that accompanies successful actions on land, when there is no particular threat to the force, since this is a large expenditure of forces and means that are not disposed of like that.
— What could be and should be the political consequences for Russia after this act?
— I would like to deal with the chairmanship and presence of Russia in the UN. Now it turns out that the country that actually uses weapons of mass destruction is on the UN Security Council. And it can veto. This is, shall we say, a paradox. Of course, this also changes some points regarding, for example, the use by Ukraine of certain weapons on the territory of the Russian Federation.
— Can Ukraine get new weapons as a result of such steps of the Russian Federation?
— Yes, definitely. This will further strengthen the determination of our partners to transfer to Ukraine the weapons that we have been waiting for a long time. The same ATACMS or Taurus missiles.