Why are NATO intelligence assets and heavy weapons in South Ukraine Nuclear Power Plant?
By Drago Bosnic | June 26, 2023
Amid numerous disturbing reports about possible false flag operations involving nuclear devices and weapons, the Kiev regime seems to be escalating its actions in this regard. According to various local sources, the South Ukraine Nuclear Power Plant (NPP), located in the city of Yuzhnoukrainsk in the Nikolayev region (oblast), has been effectively taken over by the Neo-Nazi junta forces. Although troops have been stationed in and around the NPP since the start of the special military operation (SMO), in recent weeks this has escalated. Apparently, mysterious “guards” have appeared at the NPP and have even restricted access to the reactor facilities, including to the staff responsible for the critically important maintenance of the reactor and the NPP’s key systems and subsystems.
Worse yet, the “guards” are offering no explanation for their behavior, nor does anyone else, be it the military or civilian authorities. In essence, nobody really knows for sure, but many people are skeptical (to say the least). The “guards” have even placed what can only be described as ammunition crates inside the NPP. And it doesn’t seem to be small arms ammunition, but something much bigger, such as shells or even rockets, all of which have foreign markings. For over a year, there have been numerous reports about the Kiev regime hiding NATO-sourced weapons there, obviously in an attempt to prevent their destruction. Needless to say, having any sort of weapons at a nuclear facility of any kind is suicidal in and of itself, but having shells and rockets stored there is simply criminal.
This is particularly dangerous as the political West and the Neo-Nazi junta have been insisting that Russia is supposedly planning to use a tactical nuclear weapon in Ukraine, supposedly due to mythical “battlefield losses”. On the other hand, Moscow has repeatedly issued warnings about the Kiev regime’s plans to build a so-called “dirty bomb”, for which it has more than enough enriched uranium stored in several Soviet-era NPPs across Ukraine. The previous scenario is extremely unlikely, as it’s not in Russia’s interest to use nuclear weapons. However, Moscow’s “dirty bomb” warnings are certainly not to be dismissed, as the Neo-Nazi junta has been threatening to acquire nuclear weapons for years. This includes threats by the Kiev regime frontman Volodymyr Zelensky himself.
Latest intelligence data suggests that the South Ukraine NPP is also being used as an ISR (intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance) command and control center for most NATO forces covertly stationed in Ukraine. This is hardly unexpected and is in line with the previous message Russia sent to the belligerent alliance after it hit an underground bunker where hundreds of NATO officers were deployed to command and coordinate their favorite puppet regime’s troops. According to varying estimates, up to 400 officers and other staff were neutralized in a hypersonic missile strike (presumably involving a single 9-A-7660 “Kinzhal”). Obviously, in order to ensure such high casualties among high-value assets are avoided, NATO most likely decided to deploy its higher-ranking personnel in NPPs, knowing that Russia will not target those.
This could also explain why the United States and NATO are suddenly parroting about invoking Article 5 in case of a supposed Russian use of tactical nuclear weapons or if an attack on an NPP causes radiation spikes. Both scenarios clearly imply that a false flag is in the works, as this is precisely how the political West operates during its countless aggressions against the world. The belligerent power pole first threatens to attack in case the side they are targeting does something, and then, all of a sudden, the targeted country supposedly does “exactly that”, even though it’s clearly not in its interest. Obviously, such a scenario is virtually impossible to implement against a country like Russia without leading to a world-ending thermonuclear confrontation.
It has now become clear that the political West is aware of just how much of a failure the Neo-Nazi junta’s much-touted counteroffensive has been, leading to attempts to thwart any possible Russian counterattack that might have devastating consequences for the Kiev regime. This might be attempted through direct intervention by NATO, as the political West probably believes that such escalation could be controlled. And a possible false flag operation simulating a Russian attack on the South Ukraine NPP (or even the Zaporozhye NPP) might be used as an excuse for that. Still, considering how risky such a scenario is, the belligerent power pole might even contemplate the delivery of nuclear weapons to the Neo-Nazi junta in an attempt to cause a localized nuclear confrontation with Russia.
Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov has already hinted at this possibility, warning that the delivery of nuclear-capable F-16 fighter jets might be the way for the political West to achieve such a scenario. However, for its part, Moscow has warned that this would certainly not be a localized confrontation, as the Kiev regime’s puppet masters would also suffer the consequences of their rabidly Russophobic actions in Ukraine. The already thin line between global peace and thermonuclear annihilation is getting thinner by the day due to the US-led belligerent power pole’s unrelenting aggression against Russia. The political West has a clear choice of considering an off-ramp solution that might avert a catastrophe of global proportions. Still, it’s pushing for further escalation.
Drago Bosnic is an independent geopolitical and military analyst.
Poland denies US media claims about Nord Stream
RT | June 22, 2023
A Wall Street Journal (WSJ) report on Poland’s alleged role in the Nord Stream gas pipelines blasts last September is “completely untrue,” the Polish National Prosecutor’s Office said in a statement to the country’s daily Rzeczpospolita on Thursday.
Citing German investigators, the US media outlet claimed in early June that the EU nation supposedly served as an operational base for the suspects that might be behind the Russian natural gas pipeline sabotage. A Polish source familiar with the investigation told the paper that Berlin allegedly knew very little about some of the suspects and might be following the wrong track entirely.
Warsaw has launched its own probe into last September’s incident, alongside Germany, Denmark, and Sweden, the prosecutor’s office told the Polish outlet. The data gathered by Polish officials contradicts the claims made by the WSJ, it added.
“The statement that ‘Poland was a logistics hub for the operation of blowing up Nord Stream’ is completely untrue and is not supported by the evidence of the investigation,” the prosecutor’s office said.
The WSJ reported that a yacht called the ‘Andromeda’ – which was chartered by a Ukrainian-owned, Warsaw-based travel agency and moored at a Polish port – had been sailing around each of the locations where the explosions later occurred.
The Polish prosecutor’s office said there was “no direct evidence” of the yacht’s or its crew’s involvement in the blasts. ‘Andromeda’ arrived in Poland from a small German port called Wiek with six people on board. It moored in one of the Polish ports for 12 hours before leaving the nation’s territorial waters, according to the prosecutors.
“The findings of the investigation show that, during the stay of the yacht in a Polish port, no items were loaded onboard, and the crew of the yacht was inspected by the Polish Border Guard,” the prosecutor’s office said. The vessel’s crew had Bulgarian passports, which appeared authentic, according to the officials. None of the crew members were banned from entering the Schengen area either, they added.
“There is no evidence that would indicate the participation of Polish citizens in blowing up the Nord Stream pipeline,” the prosecutor’s office concluded.
A source familiar with the Polish probe also told Rzeczpospolita that German investigators had contacted Polish officials in mid-May and requested information under the European Investigation Order. The Germans asked many questions about ‘Andromeda’ and its crew, including “many trivial facts,” the source said, adding that they apparently had no knowledge of them. Berlin was also not willing to share its own findings on the issue, the source added.
Rzeczpospolita’s source also questioned the yacht’s role in the sabotage operation by claiming that it could not be used to transport enough explosives to relevant locations and deliver them to the undersea pipelines. No equipment that could facilitate that was found onboard, they added.
Rzeczpospolita also reported that Polish officials had not ruled out the possibility that the yacht might have been used as a distraction from the very onset and its purpose was to put the entire investigation on the wrong track.
Beijing responds to new hacking allegations
RT | June 17, 2023
China has dismissed a report from a US cybersecurity firm, which accused Beijing of carrying out a major hack targeting hundreds of people and organizations around the world, calling the charges “far-fetched and unprofessional.”
Foreign Ministry spokesman Wang Wenbin responded to the allegations on Friday, telling reporters that the agency behind them, Mandiant, has a track record of false reporting about China.
“The cybersecurity firm that you mentioned has repeatedly sold disinformation on so-called Chinese hacking attacks. The stories are far-fetched and unprofessional,” Wang said at a daily press briefing.
Mandiant released a lengthy report on Thursday describing an attack by an “aggressive and skilled actor” with “suspected links to China,” claiming the hackers engaged in “espionage activity” starting last October. The attackers allegedly used a vulnerability in the Barracuda Networks email system to target diplomatic officials and government agencies across East and Southeast Asia, including in Hong Kong and Taiwan.
Founded in 2004, the firm has frequently cast blame on China for various hacks over the years, and rose to prominence in 2012 after another high-profile hacking allegation pinned on Beijing. The company was later purchased by Google for $1.2 billion and remains a subsidiary of the tech giant.
The Foreign Ministry spokesman went on to state that “by making up reports about so-called foreign cyberattacks,” some American companies have “become accomplices in the US government’s smearing campaigns against other countries,” going on to accuse Washington of its own hacking operations.
In April, the Chinese government published a review of alleged US government cyber attacks, claiming that American intelligence agencies have “been intruding on, dividing and suppressing foreign cybersecurity vendors” for years. The report outlined several major hacking incidents, including a 2010 attack on Iranian nuclear facilities using the US and Israeli-developed Stuxnet virus, and also pointed to Washington’s mass-collection surveillance program under the National Security Agency.
Russia Taking Note of New Leaks Regarding Nord Stream Sabotage – Kremlin
Sputnik – 14.06.2023
MOSCOW – Moscow is taking note of new leaks related to the Nord Stream sabotage, considering them to potentially be deliberate attempts to divert attention from those really involved in the attack, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said on Wednesday.
“Of course, we thoroughly record different leaks and paid publications seen here and there in the media around the terrorist attack and sabotage of the Nord Stream. Each theory deserves attention… We cannot rule out that the information is being deliberately disseminated so as to divert attention from the real organizers of this terrorist attack against critical international infrastructure,” Peskov said.
Meanwhile, Russia is still not allowed to participate in the investigation into the blasts, the spokesman noted, adding that Moscow will continue to insist on a transparent and inclusive probe.
On Tuesday, a US media reported, citing officials familiar with the matter, that before the bombings, Dutch military intelligence officials had notified the CIA that a Ukrainian sabotage team was seeking a yacht on the Baltic coastline to be used by divers to plant explosives along the Nord Stream pipelines. The CIA, in turn, warned Ukraine against the sabotage, it added.
The Nord Stream pipelines, built to deliver gas under the Baltic Sea from Russia to Germany, were hit by explosions in September 2022. The pipeline’s operator, Nord Stream AG, said that the damage was unprecedented and it was impossible to estimate the time repairs might take.
Denmark, Germany and Norway have left Russia out of their investigations into the attack, prompting Moscow to launch its own investigation over the charge of international terrorism.
No official results of the investigations have yet been announced, but Pulitzer Prize-winning US investigative journalist Seymour Hersh published a report in February 2023, alleging that the explosions had been organized by the United States with the support of Norway. Washington has denied any involvement in the incident.
The Latest Twist In Germany’s Nord Stream II Investigation Puts More Pressure On Poland
BY ANDREW KORYBKO | JUNE 11, 2023
The Wall Street Journal (WSJ) reported that Germany is now investigating whether Poland played a role in last September’s terrorist attack against the Nord Stream II pipeline. This latest twist builds upon the narrative that was introduced a few months back alleging that ‘rogue Ukrainian saboteurs’ were responsible, which came after Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Seymour Hersh published a detailed report in February citing unnamed US sources who accused Biden of personally planning a very different American-led operation than the one that Germany is looking into.
President Putin publicly endorsed his interpretation of events, which could explain why the alternative one exculpating the US and blaming a ‘rogue’ Ukrainian faction was introduced shortly thereafter. It was analyzed at the time that this new narrative might be a back-up plan consisting of false “evidence” that was planted in advance in order to be “discovered” if America was ever implicated in this attack. As surreal as it sounds, this partially anti-Ukrainian spin might thus be a pro-US disinformation campaign.
Whatever the truth might be, the importance of the latest development is that it puts more pressure on Poland at the worst time possible for its ruling “Law & Justice” (PiS) party. A few days prior to the WSJ’s report, the European Commission announced that it’s suing Poland over its newly formed “Russian influence commission” that both the EU and the US earlier criticized. That country’s top two partners expressed deep concern that it might be exploited to persecute the opposition ahead of fall’s elections.
President Duda then introduced an amendment removing the possibility of barring alleged “Russian influence” agents from holding office in an attempt to assuage their concerns, suggesting that PiS will settle for branding those found guilty of this with a scarlet letter instead. The German-led EU wasn’t satisfied and subsequently sued Poland, which prompted Mainstream Media (MSM) outlets to unleash a torrent of criticism against that country.
As a case in point, CNN headlined a piece over the weekend declaring that “Poland is a key Western ally. But its government keeps testing the limits of democracy”, which is meant to precondition the public into suspecting that PiS’ potential victory in the upcoming elections might be partially due to fraud. When combined with the European Commission’s latest lawsuit and the WSJ’s most recent report, the perception that’s being shaped by powerful forces is that Poland is a so-called “rogue state”.
The West’s ruling liberal–globalist elite despises PiS for its stance towards abortion, immigration, and LGBT, which is why they’d prefer to have it replaced by the “Civic Platform” (PO) opposition that shares their position towards these issues. Germany has more of a stake in this than anyone else since it fiercely opposes PiS’ ideologically driven plans to restore Poland’s long-lost “sphere of influence” over Central & Eastern Europe (CEE) throughout the course of the NATO-Russian proxy war in Ukraine.
This geopolitical plot poses the greatest challenge yet to Germany’s continental hegemony, but it could be stopped if PiS is replaced by PO, which is regarded as being pro-German. Poland could then be resubordinated into Germany’s “sphere of influence”, thus putting an end to any chances of breaking Berlin’s grip over the EU. The East-West divide that PiS sought to exacerbate between conservative-nationalists and liberal-globalists would be bridged upon Poland’s return to Germany’s camp via PO.
Even if PiS remains in power, the three latest developments – the European Commission suing Poland over its newly formed commission, the MSM then warning about Poland’s ‘illiberalism’, and the WSJ’s latest Nord Stream II report – set the basis for isolating and possibly sanctioning that party. The West would go along with this for ideological reasons related to its ruling elites’ interests in fearmongering about conservative-nationalists despite PiS being partial sellouts to that cause as explained here.
If Germany’s investigation continues suggesting that Poland was complicit in the Nord Stream terrorist attack even if no evidence is ever found or manufactured in support of this theory, then public opinion across Europe could decisively shift against that country. Should this happen before fall’s elections, then it could influence third-party and undecided Polish voters to cast their ballot for PO in order to depose PiS, while coming after PiS’ potential victory could set the basis for possibly sanctioning its officials.
In either scenario, the primary one of which can’t be taken for granted since there’s no guarantee that Germany’s investigation will retain its newfound focus on Poland, the European public could be made to believe that PiS played a role for ideological reasons. It could be implied that its conservative-nationalist views inspired the party to collude with ‘rogue Ukrainian saboteurs’ out of equal hatred for Russia and Germany, thus exculpating Kiev and Washington while pinning the blame on PiS.
This narrative would also serve to redirect populist anger across Europe over the soaring cost of living towards that party and away from the US, which is responsible for provoking this proxy war in the first place and then pressuring the EU to impose the sanctions that spiked prices across the board. Furthermore, the conservative faction among these same populists would also have their cause discredited by partial ideological association with PiS, thus dividing the EU’s growing peace movement.
Germany’s disproportionately influential Greens also stand to benefit from this too since they can then claim that any remotely right-wing political force is a threat to the environment if PiS is implicated in the Nord Stream terrorist attack that damaged the Baltic Sea’s ecology. The narrative predictions from the preceding three paragraphs show how advantageous it would be for the West’s liberal-globalist elite and Germany’s geopolitical interests in CEE if the latter’s investigation stayed focused on Poland.
Even if it doesn’t for whatever reason, which would be cogently accounted for in a follow-up analysis in the event that attention shifts in another direction, the latest lead still puts pressure on Poland at the worst possible time for its ruling party. The fast-moving sequence of events over the past few days shows that powerful forces are shaping the perception that this country is a “rogue state”, which could set the basis for isolating and possibly sanctioning PiS if it ekes out a victory in the upcoming elections.
Russo-Ukrainian War: Dam!
A different kind of leak

BIG SERGE THOUGHT | JUNE 7, 2023
It is probably safe to say that the current week (June 5-11, 2023) is shaping up to be one of the most significant of the entire Russo-Ukrainian War. On Monday, all eyes were on the Ukrainian Armed Forces and their much anticipated summer counteroffensive, which began with a series of battallion level attacks across the breadth of the theater. After these initial assaults in the Ugledar, Bakhmut, and Soledar sectors began to collapse with heavy losses, it looked like the topic of discussion for the forseeable future would be Ukraine’s prospects for breaching strongly held Russian defenses.
Instead, the entire Ukrainian offensive was overshadowed by the sudden and entirely unexpected failure of the dam at Nova Kakhovka on the lower Dneiper.
Let’s be clear about one thing: the destruction of this dam marks a qualitative change in the course of the war; a dam represents an entirely different tier of target. There is a broad sense that dams are not legitimate military targets, as they fall in the category of “objects containing dangerous forces”, along with things like sea walls, dykes, and nuclear power plants. However, attacks on dams are not without precedent, and the legality of such attacks is a complicated and thorny topic – it is not so simple as to say “attacking dams is a war crime” in all circumstances.
In any case, the legalities are not the main point here. The destruction of dams has the potential to impact civilians on a scale which is an order of magnitude higher than anything which has yet occured. The reality of the war in Ukraine is that, due to the fact that most of the fighting is occuring in depopulated areas (along with Russia’s use of precision standoff weapons) civilian casualties have been mercifully low. Through May of this year, there were fewer than 9,000 recorded civilian deaths in Ukraine (including both Ukrainian and Russian controlled territories). This is a thankfully low number, compared (for example) to the war in Syria, where over 30,000 civilians are killed annually, or Iraq, where nearly 18,000 civilians died per year in the years following the American invasion in 2003.
A breaking dam, however, massively escalates the threat to civilians. Tens of thousands of civilians are in the flood path and have to be evacuated – but perhaps even more significantly, the destruction of the dam creates a major threat to agriculture. There are also rising escalation risks, and the last thing anybody wants is for dams to become a permanent menu item.
In this article, I want to conduct a preliminary assessment of the destruction of the dam, its consequences, and its potential causes. In particular, I want to sort through the evidence and get a sense of whether Ukraine or Russia is a more likely culprit. As it currently stands, the situation is in flux and it is not as if we will find either Zelensky’s or Putin’s fingerprints on the detonator, but we can at least put some puzzle pieces roughly into position and get a sense of what the picture looks like.
One thing that I want to mention, first off, is that we do not need to assume that the dam was intentionally destroyed. For example, in a now infamous Washington Post article, we learn that Ukraine experimented with hitting the dam with GMLRS rockets in an attempt to blow a hole and create a controlled flood. The sense that one gets here is that Ukraine did not necessarily intend to destroy the dam altogether, but rather that they wanted to create a limited breach and by extension a limited flood.
We will keep such possibilities in mind and consider them to be a distinction without difference. It’s entirely possible that one party or the other attempted to create a limited breach and accidentally brought about a much larger dam failure, but from our perspective this isn’t particularly different from intentionally bringing the whole thing down.
With this little distinction in mind, let’s begin to sort through what we know about this whole dam thing.
Water World
What on earth is (or was) the Kakhovka dam and what was its relation to the larger geography of the surrounding steppe?
To begin with, let’s make a brief note about the Dnieper. In its natural state, the Dnieper is a deeply difficult and turbulent river, characterized by a series of essentially unnavigable rapids. In fact, the Dnieper’s fiesty nature is precisely why the city of Kiev is where it is. 1200 years ago, when enterprising traders came rowing down the Dnieper (trying to get to the Black Sea, and thence to Constantinople), they found that certain portions of the river were impassable, and it was necessary to “portage” their boats – which means dragging them out of the river and overland to get past the rapids.
Portaging a boat on the middle Dnieper in 800 AD was dangerous. While disembarked and laboriously dragging the boat downstream, a trading party would be highly vulnerable to attack by the various warlike tribes which inhabited the region at the time. So it became necessary to build some sort of outpost stronghold which could serve as a waypoint to make passage down the river at least acceptably safe. Hence, Kiev – buit originally as a timber fortified trading post to ease passage along the middle Dnieper.
This is perhaps interesting, but as an aside it illustrates the basic point that for most of human history the Dnieper was not a friendly or easily navigable river akin to the Mississippi or the Rhine, and in the Soviet era a major effort was undertaken at last to tame it, in the form of a series of hydroelectric dams. These dams stiffled the rapids, generated electricity, smoothed the river’s course, and created enormous resevoirs, of which the Kakhovka resevoir is the largest by volume.

The Resevoirs and Dams of the Dneiper
The creation of the Kakhovka resevoir was also vitally linked to a series of canals which are fed from the resevoir. The most important of these is the Crimean canal, which carries Dnieper water to Crimea, but there are also a series of irrigation works which are vital to agricutlure in Kherson and Zaporizhia oblasts.


Canals fed by the Kakhovka Resevoir System
So that is the basic structure of the region’s hydrology. We can therefore enumerate both upstream and downstream effects from the dam’s breaching. Upstream effects relate to the draining of the Kakhovka resevoir, which will in time lead to insufficient flow through the canals, depriving both Crimea and regional farmland of water. Downstream effects are those of the enormous flooding which is currently taking place.
A threat to the Kakhovka dam first entered the discourse last autumn, when General Surovikin made the stunning decision to withdraw Russian forces from west bank Kherson – a decision which he said was prompted by the fear that Ukraine might destroy the dam and create a flood which would trap Russian troops on the far shore. That decision certainly looks prescient now, but thanks to this earlier discussion there was already a bevy of analysis conducted predicting what the flood path might look like.


Before and After
As per the latest information as of this writing, the river has not yet crested and water levels continue to rise, but this has already turned into a vast and extremely disruptive flood. This is a severe humanitarian and ecological disaster with implications for the military situation in Ukraine. The question is – who did it?
Incriminating Evidence
Let’s start by looking at the most direct evidence potentially implicating Russia or Ukraine. I’d like to start by looking at an allegedly damning (haha) video which has been circulating rapidly, which purports to confirm that Russia blew the dam.
The video in question allegedly shows a Russian soldier giving an interview in December in which he boasts that the Russin army mined the Kakhovka dam and plan to destroy it to create a cascading flood and wash away the Ukrainian troops downstream.
Not to be blunt, but this is an egregiously bad bit of trickery and it’s difficult to believe that people are falling for it. To begin with, this is an interview with a Ukrainian blogger and youtuber who goes by the screen name “Edgar Myrotvorets” – interestingly naming himself after the infamous Ukrainian kill list. The “Russian soldier” who he is interviewing is allegedly a gentleman named Yegor Guzenko. Yegor seems to be an interesting fellow – he pops up on social media periodically largely to confess to stereotyped Russian war crimes, like kidnapping civilians and executing Ukrainian prisoners, and of course blowing up dams.
Essentially, we are being asked to believe that there is a Russian soldier out there who is giving interviews to Ukrainian media in which he confesses to all of Russia’s nefarious activities, and then goes about his duties without being stopped or punished. It should be pretty obvious that Yegor is actually Yehor, and is not a Russian soldier at all but a Ukrainian impersonator – funnily enough, Yegor also has a beard even though the Russian MOD has been cracking down on facial hair.
In any case, Yegor’s explosive interview is the main piece of direct evidence which is being used to prove that Russia blew up the dam.
In contrast, the evidence implicating Ukraine is pretty straightforward: they openly talked about experimenting with ways to breach the dam, and have actively shot rockets and artillery shells at it in the past. We refer back to the infamous WaPo article, and in particular the key passage:
Kovalchuk [commander of Ukrainian Operative Commandment South] considered flooding the river. The Ukrainians, he said, even conducted a test strike with a HIMARS launcher on one of the floodgates at the Nova Kakhovka dam, making three holes in the metal to see if the Dnieper’s water could be raised enough to stymie Russian crossings but not flood nearby villages.
The test was a success, Kovalchuk said, but the step remained a last resort. He held off.
We even have footage of Ukraine striking the dam (particularly the roadway on top of it) from last year – footage which was incorrectly shared this week as being video of the strike that destroyed the dam on monday.
There is also a variety of circumstantial evidence worth sorting through.
A popular point being raised by the Ukrainian infosphere is the fact that the Kakhovka dam was under Russian control – therefore, they argue that only Russia could therefore have planted explosives to createa breach (at this point, we do not know the technical method used to create the breach).
I rather think that Russia’s control of the dam makes it much less likely that they are responsible, for the following basic reason. First, having control over the dam’s gates means that Russia had the power to manipulate water levels downstream at will. If they wanted to create flooding, they could have simply opened all the gates. With the dam now breached, they have lost this control.
The situation is very much akin to the destruction of the Nordstream pipeline (which now seems to be being blamed on Ukraine, rather predictibly). Both Nordstream and the Kakhovka dam were tools that Russia had the power to swing in one direction or the other. These were levers that Russia could move from on to off and back again. The destruction of these tools actually robs Russia of control, and in both cases we are asked to believe that Russia intentionally disabled its own levers.
Cui Bono?
Ultimately, any analysis would be incomplete without asking a very basic question: who benefits from the destruction of the dam? This is where it gets a bit complicated, largely because there are so many concerns at cross-currents to each other. Let’s enumerate a few.
First, the flooding disproportionately affects the Russian side of the river. This has been pretty thoroughly established. The eastern bank of the river is lower and thus more affected by flooding. We knew this in the academic sense, and now satellite imagery confirms that it is indeed the east bank that has suffered most of the flooding.

This has had the effect of washing out prepared Russian defenses, including minefields, and forcing withdrawls out of the flood zone, with plenty of imagery coming in of Russian soldiers standing in water up to their waists.
Secondly, the Upstream effects disroportionately affect Russia as well. Remember, the implications of the dam breach are not just downstream flooding, but also the draining of the resevoir, and this is particularly bad for Russia. First, in the long run this endangers the water flow through the Crimean Canal, which undermines a key Russian war aim. One of Russia’s primary motivations for launching this war in the first place was precisely to secure the Crimean Canal, which Ukraine had dammed up in order to choke off the peninsula’s water supply. Any analysis of the issue needs to aknowledge that, if you believe Russia blew the dam, you are essentially saying that they voluntarily trashed one of their primary war aims.
But it’s not just the Crimean Canal – there are also the variety of irrigation canal networks which sustain agriculture in east-bank Kherson and Zaporizhia oblasts – oblasts which Russia has annexed and which are firmly under Russian control.
The only way to spin all this (and there are some people, like Peter Zeihan, trying to spin it this way) as being in Russian interests is to argue that Russia expects to lose control of all this territory (including Crimea) and is going scorched earth in anticipation of defeat. But to believe this, you need to believe that Russia is badly losing the war and is on the verge of total defeat, and if you believe this I have nothing to say to you except to direct you to this link.
Third, we need to note the effects that this will have on a potential amphibious operation. In the short term, this obviously turns the lower Dneiper into a dangerous morass, and as the water subsides it will leave plenty of mess and mud which will make a river crossing very difficult for several weeks. In the long run, however, crossing the river may actually be easier – and here is where I want to make what I think is a critical point.
As long as Russia had control of the Kakhovka dam, they had the power to create flooding downstream at will. The optimal time to do this would be while Ukraine was attempting an amphibious assault out of Kherson. If you created flooding during such an assault, you would be complicating the crossing and washing out Ukraine’s beachheads. Obviously, Russia has now lost the ability to do this.
We already know that Russia understands how and why to manipulate the water levels to its advantage. Earlier this year, they were actually keeping the Kakhovka resevoir levels extremely low, most likely to minimize the threat of Ukraine breaching the dam (as Surovikin was apparently quite worried about). However, in recent weeks they closed up the gates and filled the resevoir up to the top.

Kakhova Resevoir Levels
Why would they do this? It seems likely that Russia would want to retain water so that they could create a surge (not by destroying the dam, but by opening the gates up) to disrupt any Ukrainian attempt to cross the river. Again, the appeal of the dam for Russia is that it is a lever which can be throttled up and down as the situation calls for it. The breach of the dam, however, robs them of this tool.
This brings us to the corollary point, which is that the breach has two major benefits for Ukraine. Not only is it washing out Russian defenses and disproportionately disrupting the Russian side of the river, but Russia has now lost the ability to create a flood at the opportune moment later on.
If I had to make my guess about what happened to the dam, it would be as follows:
I believe Russia was retaining water to maintain the power to create flooding in the event of a Ukrainian amphibious assault across the lower Dnieper. Ukraine attempted to nullify this tool with a limited breach of the dam (of the sort which they rehearsed last December) but the dam failure cascaded beyond what they intended due to A) the resevoir being at extremely high levels, putting excessive stress on the strucure, and B) previous damage to the structure from prior Ukrainian shelling and rocketry attacks. Indeed, images of the dam seem to suggest that it failed in stages, with a single span leaking before the collapse metastasized.

I find the idea that Russia destroyed the dam to be very difficult to believe, for the following reasons (in recap):
- Flooding disproportionately affected the Russian side of the river and destroyed Russian positions.
- The loss of the dam does severe damage to core Russian interests, including Crimean water access and agriculture on the steppe.
- The dam, while intact, was a tool which Russia was using to manipulate the water level freely.
- Of the two beligerent parties, only Ukraine has openly shot at the dam and talked about breaching it.
We may learn, of course, that there was some accidental failure of some kind, potentially due to the water tug of war being waged between Russia and Ukraine as they try to balance the flow of the river. But in a wartime situation, when a major infrastructure object is destroyed, it is most rational to assume intentional destruction, and in this situation the costs to critical Russian infrastructure and the loss of a valuable tool for controlling the river make it extremely difficult to believe that Russia would blow up its own dam.
Ultimately, perhaps your judgement on the matter simply reflects your larger belief about who is winning the war. Breaching a dam is, after all, rather a desperation move – so maybe the question to ask is: who do you think is more desperate? Whose back is against the wall here – Russia, or Ukraine?
GOP Lawmakers Demand FBI Briefing on Jan. 6 Pipe Bomb Investigation Following Whistleblower Disclosures
By Debra Heine | American Greatness | May 25, 2023
Republicans on the House Judiciary Committee are demanding an FBI briefing on the status of their January 6 Pipe Bomb Investigation following disclosures that the feds have enough information to identify a suspect.
In a letter to FBI Director Christopher Wray, Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan, Rep. Andy Biggs (R-Ariz.) and Rep. Bill Posey (R-Fla.) said the slow progression of the Bureau’s investigation into the pipe bombs “raises significant concerns about the FBI’s prioritization of that case in relation to other January 6 investigations.”
Former FBI agent Kyle Seraphin, a whistleblower who worked on the pipe bomb investigation, told the Washington Times that after planting the bombs, the suspect used a MetroRail SmarTrip card to travel through the Washington metro system to a stop in northern Virginia.
“The FBI used security footage in the Northern Virginia to identify the license plate of the car that the individual entered,” the congressmen wrote. “Still, the FBI has not identified the subject.”
The suspect was caught on surveillance video. He wore a sweatshirt with the hood pulled up, a pair of Air Max Speed Turf shoes with a yellow Nike logo, a backpack and gloves. He was recorded walking through Capitol Hill neighborhoods carrying what federal investigators said were two live pipe bombs.
However, Mr. Seraphin said technicians determined the pipe bombs were inoperable.
His story runs counter to the FBI’s official version that the devices could have detonated at any time. The bureau repeated that story in January while offering a $500,000 reward for information leading to the suspect’s arrest.
Seraphin also told Times reporter Kerry Picket that a separate individual bought the Metrorail SmarTrip card one year before the pipe bomber suspect used it on Jan. 5, 2021.
“The card had never been used before. It was bought a year prior by a retired chief master sergeant in the Air Force, and he was a security contractor. So he held a security clearance,” Seraphin said.
Mr. Seraphin and his team surveilled the retired airman, who lived in a Northern Virginia townhouse, for a couple of days and learned about his background.
Although Mr. Seraphin, who also served in the Air Force, wanted to approach the Air Force veteran and talk to him, his bureau superiors forbade him to do so before his team was removed from the case.
“I don’t know what they [eventually] did on that case, but I know that it was BS and the bombs were BS, and it seems like they had a good lead, and they could have run it down. But as far as I know, they never did,” he told the Times. “He may still be occasionally surveilled. That’s how dumb it gets.”
The congressmen cited former FBI assistant director Christopher Swecker, who told Picket, “[i]t just doesn’t add up . . . [t]here’s just too much to work with to not know who this guy is.”
The committee requested an update on the case in a briefing no later that June 7, 2023.







