Demolition Of Nova Kakhovka Dam Shows Peace Is The Only Solution

Nobody Is "Winning" In Ukraine. Why Keep Fighting?

In the wee hours of Tuesday, June 6, the Nova Kakhovka Dam in Ukraine was blown up—either by shelling or an act of sabotage (the reporting thus far does not say with certainty which).

A strategically important dam in Russian-occupied southern Ukraine was blown up on Tuesday, raising fears about safety, water supply and Europe’s largest nuclear power plant, which receives cooling water from the reservoir upstream.

Ukraine accused Russian forces of blowing up the dam in the Russian-controlled town of Nova Kakhovka. Moscow denies the attack and says Kyiv intentionally sabotaged the dam to distract attention from its counteroffensive, according to Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov, in Google-translated comments reported by Russian state news agency Tass.

To call the demolition of the dam an “escalation” is to be a master of understatement.

To focus on which side was responsible—with Russia and Ukraine engaging in an orgy of finger-pointing—is to be a master of misunderstanding.

When one considers the immediate and largely unavoidable consequences of the dam’s destruction, one thing becomes clear: There is no “victory” to be had in Ukraine, not for either side. The only path for either Russia or Ukraine to avoid disastrous defeat is a path of peace. The shooting, the shelling, the sabotage must cease now, or there will be little left for either side to enjoy once the war finally does end.

In assessing the damage done to Ukraine’s Kherson Oblast, one must begin with that most basic of understandings: Nova Kakhovka was a dam—it held back the waters of the Dnipro, and the destruction of the dam released those waters. Video footage of the destroyed dam shows what that looks like.

The uncontrolled torrent of water produced severe flooding down stream, primarily on the right/eastern/southern bank of the river.

Drone footage courtesy of the UK media outlet The Guardian shows what some of that flooding looks like in the city of Nova Kakhovka.

That the city of Nova Kakhovka was flooded has been confirmed by Russian media.

Novaya Kakhovka in the Kherson region was flooded after a rise in the water level due to destruction at the Kakhovka hydroelectric power station, said the head of the city administration Vladimir Leontiev.

"The city is flooded," he said on the air of the Rossiya-1 TV channel .

According to Andrey Alekseenko of the pro-Russian government within Kherson Oblast, at least 22,000 people are being displaced by the flooding.

Andrey Alekseenko, chairman of the government of the Kherson region, said in turn that  14 settlements, where 22,000 people live, fall into the flood zone. He added that the level of water rise below the hydroelectric power station is from 2 to 4 m, which does not threaten large settlements downstream.

Russia media also estimates some 40 towns and villages, amounting to over 16,000 people under Ukrainian control, are being flooded as well.

A flood map shows the portions of Kherson Oblast most effected by the flooding caused by the destruction of the damn.

Kherson City and most of the left/north/west bank of the Dnipro is sufficiently elevated to protect it from the worst of the flooding of the lower Dnipro as a result of the flash flooding.

However, flooding along the lower reaches of the Dnipro is not the only consequence to consider. The Nova Kakhovka Dam also facilitated the flow of water from the Dnipro to the Crimean Peninsula via the North Crimean Canal.

The canal provided 85% of Crimea’s water supply from the time of its completion in 1971 until Russia’s forcible annexation of the territory in 2014. So significant is the canal to Crimea’s water situation that one of the first actions Russia took after occupying Kherson was to reopen the canal.

The Crimean authorities on Thursday reported the appearance of water near Armyansk in the channel of the North Crimean Canal. They explained that the water came to Crimea by gravity after a dam built in Ukraine was blown up.

The impact of Ukraine’s blocking the canal after Russia’s annexation of Crimea was such that Russia just prior to its invasion of Ukraine estimated the total losses to Russia as a result of the blockage to be in excess of 150 billion rubles.

The losses from the water blockade on the part of Ukraine have already exceeded 150 billion rubles, Sergey Trofimov, head of the committee on legislation of the Crimean parliament, deputy head of the working group on assessing the consequences of the blockade, told RIA Novosti.

Russian authorities in Crimea acknowledge the destruction of the dam likely means the water level in the canal will drop, and water flow might even cease altogether.

The head of the Crimea Sergey Aksyonov wrote about this in the Telegram channel .

"Regarding the situation associated with the explosion of the Kakhovskaya hydroelectric power station. There is no threat of flooding in Crimea. But there is a risk that the North Crimean Canal will become shallow. Now the water reserves in the canal are about 40 million cubic meters. Reservoirs, even those that were previously filled by 15-20%, now they have a filling of about 80%. There is more than enough drinking water. Work is underway to minimize water losses in the canal," he wrote.

The Russians are perhaps predictably putting on the brave face, asserting that Crimea has prepared other water resources and is not dependent upon the canal.

Damage to the Kakhovskaya HPP will not affect the water supply of Sevastopol, since the city uses its own reservoir, the water reserves of which are at their maximum.

This was announced in the Telegram channel by the governor of the region Mikhail Razvozhaev.

"The damage to the Kakhovskaya HPP will not affect the city's water supply. The city uses its own reservoir, water reserves are at their maximum, and there are also backup sources of water supply," he wrote.

Even Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov assured the media that Crimea did not need the canal’s water supply.

"You know that vigorous steps were taken in the water supply of Crimea even before the [North Crimean] Canal was brought back to life. Therefore, there are certain developments," the Kremlin spokesman said.

Still, disruption of water flow through the canal, even just a drop in water level, could have significant impacts on agriculture not just in Crimea but in Kherson Oblast as well.

Ukraine has historically been a major world supplier of both wheat and corn, with Kherson Oblast providing some 6% of Ukraine’s total wheat harvest in recent years.

Kherson accounted for 1% of the country’s corn harvest.

Somewhat predictably, the potential for the dam’s destruction to impact Ukraine’s wheat crop—and, by extension, global wheat supply—resulted in wheat trading up later in the day on Tuesday.

Corn spot prices also traded up on the day.

It is too soon to tell how much impact this will have on global food prices and global food price inflation, but it seems almost certain that there will be an impact, and it will not be a good one. Food prices are still elevated after last year’s runaway inflation; the destruction of the Nova Kakhovka Dam is likely to ensure they remain elevated at least throughout 2023.

Finally, we should not overlook the important of the dam and its reservoir in providing valuable cooling water to the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant. According to the International Atomic Energy Agency, the destruction of the Nova Kakhovka Dam does over time jeopardize the operation of the plant.

"Lack of water for cooling <...> for a long time can lead to <...> failure of emergency diesel generators <...>. However, our current assessment is that there is no immediate threat to the safety of the power plant" , Grossi said in a statement.

If the water level in the reservoir used to cool the Zaporizhzhya nuclear power plant falls below 12.7 meters, it will not be able to continue pumping, Grossi said. "The water level in the reservoir at 08:00 [Moscow time] was 16.4m. If it falls below 12.7m, it can no longer be pumped," he said.

According to Dmitry Vorona, Senator for the Zaporizhzhia region, loss of cooling water from the reservoir will have only minimal consequences for the power plant.

The consequences will be minimal for the Zaporizhzhya NPP due to the destruction at the Kakhovskaya hydroelectric power station, the possibility of such an emergency was taken into account when designing the nuclear power plant, Senator from the Zaporozhye region Dmitry Vorona told TASS on Tuesday.

“According to our forecasts, the consequences for the plant will be minimal. Such disasters were predicted during design and construction and were taken into account as a man-made factor,” Vorona said, answering a question about the possible consequences of the destruction at the Kakhovskaya hydroelectric power station for the Zaporozhye nuclear power plant.

Still, international concern for safety at the nuclear plant remains, and is not assuaged by these assurances.

France is concerned about the possible consequences of the partial destruction of the dam of the Kakhovskaya HPP for the safety of the Zaporizhzhya Nuclear Power Plant (ZNPP) and supports the efforts of the IAEA to preserve the station. This is stated in a statement issued by the French Foreign Ministry on Tuesday.

"The partial destruction of the dam in Kakhovka last night is an extremely serious act," the text states. station and expresses its full support for the efforts of the Director General of the IAEA to preserve its integrity."

This much is certain: cooling water for the nuclear power plant comes from the Dnipro River and nowhere else. If the Kakhovka Reservoir’s water level falls too low and cooling for the plant cannot be sustained, the potential for a significant radiological incident at the power plant cannot be presumed to be small.

Regardless of whom is actually responsible for the destruction of the Nova Kakhovka Dam, there can be little doubt that the consequences of the dam’s destruction will be borne chiefly by civilians and non-combatants. Those consequences are already being felt by the civilians and non-combatants immediately downstream from the dam, as the rising waters of an unrestrained Dnipro take over their homes and towns.

Moreover, in spite of the optimistic words used by Russian authorities regarding the importance of the dam for Crimea’s water supply, the history of the North Crimean Canal’s importance as a water source for Crimea almost certainly means that the loss of that canal puts a particular burden on the civilians and non-combatants living in there.

No matter which side is responsible, the destruction of the dam shows that neither side can plausibly be said to be “winning”.

Neither Ukraine nor Russia is achieving military superiority on the battlefield, with both sides being mired in a months-long stalemate along the entirety of the front line between the two forces.

Neither Ukraine nor Russia, even if that stalemate should eventually be broken, can achieve sufficient military victories to stop future military offensives by the other.

Even if Ukraine pushes Russian forces back to the border with Russia, nothing would prevent a second invasion once Russia had a chance to re-arm and refit its army. Even if Russia should conquer the whole of the country, its forces would then have to deal with ongoing asymmetric warfare on the part of the Ukrainian people—it would be a generation at least before Russia could succeed in “pacifying” Ukraine.

Neither outcome can plausibly be said to be “victory”. Neither outcome leads to anything but more war, more conflict, more destruction.

Yet there is an alternative: Peace. Both sides could end the struggle today simply by agreeing to stop shooting at each other. Both sides could stop the violence today by agreeing to negotiate and resolve their legitimate issues and concerns through diplomacy rather than through a contest of arms.

Will either Russia or Ukraine seriously entertain a diplomatic means to resolve this war? Probably not. Both sides will likely instead use this latest assault on civilians and non-combatants to justify their continued violence on civilians and non-combatants.

Both sides will press for more war. Both sides will achieve only more death and more destruction by so doing. Neither side will achieve victory.