Ukraine: separating facts and real trends from "fog of war"

The Kakhovka dam breach and the Nord Stream pipelines sabotage are classic "fog" producers

The famous phrase “fog of war” refers not only to confusions on the battlefield but also the competing news reports and propaganda claims that fly around.

People following the news need to take this into account. The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists recently provided an example of how responsible reporters and analysts approach such things, in this case with the recent destruction of the Kakhovka dam.

It was unclear on Tuesday [the day of the dam break] what or who caused the breach in the dam, which is under Russian control, although it was hard not to blame Russia given the timing of the attack, which happened one day after Ukraine reportedly launched its long-awaited spring counteroffensive. Both countries denied responsibility and have blamed each other throughout the day. Ukraine said Russia was responsible for the explosion of an engine room of the hydroelectric plant, in part to prevent Ukrainian troops from crossing the Dnipro River downstream, while Russia said Ukrainian forces conducted a sabotage attack. Russia’s defense minister Sergei Shoigu made the acrobatic suggestion that because Ukraine wanted to transfer some military units and equipment from Kherson to other parts of the front to help with its counteroffensive, making the river wider downstream would make it easier to defend Kherson with fewer forces.

A third scenario being advanced on Tuesday was that the dam might have suffered from a structural failure after the water level of the Kakhovka reservoir had reached a 30-year high, leading it to be at beyond-design storage capacity since May. No evidence of any of those scenarios had emerged on Tuesday night, although Ukraine’s intelligence directorate reportedly said it had collected evidence that the hydroelectric plant had been destroyed using explosives, and US intelligence was also “leaning towards” Russia’s responsibility. In October 2022, Ukraine and Russia traded accusations of preparing attacks against the dam, with Ukraine warning that Russia had mined the dam and Russia responding the following day with the opposite suggestion.¹ [my emphasis]

Those two paragraphs include a couple of basic practices needed in trying to understand such events when reported in the news: look at the known facts (the dam broke), look at what the the most likely causes might be (Russian sabotage, Ukrainian sabotage, a plain old accident), and look at the accusations being made by major players over the incident.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy is even blaming the International Red Cross a few days after the dam breaking for not doing enough to help people in danger from the flooding. “Each person that dies there is a verdict on the existing international architecture and international organisations that have forgotten how to save lives.”² There lots of metaphorical fog around that one, just in the first several days after it happened.

The sabotage of the Nord Stream pipelines in 2022 continues to provide more fog. The Americans pointed the finger at Russia³, and vice versa. A leak from the US side to Seymour Hersh fingered the US, providing a plausible-sounding account of how it was done. Then reporting from James Bamford and other leaks implicated Ukraine, which Ukraine denies, though it might be convenient for the US to make that claim to highlight Ukraine’s military capabilities. Now claims of Polish involvement are being reported, while a Polish official dismisses those as likely Russian propaganda.⁴

As Kelley Vlahos recently reminded us, “The lack of information, which has been a constant throughout this war, should temper the impulse to let emotional or political considerations lead us to conclusions.”⁵

Keeping focus

On the one hand, paying attention to the nuances is important. On the other hand, the major elements affecting the course and outcome of the Russia-Ukraine War don’t turn on knowing the exact answers as to which side blew the Kakhovka dam. The question of who blew the Nord Stream pipeline is beginning to sound a bit like a what happened-at-Dealy-Plaza kind of thing. We can only speculate on whether settling the question of The Real Culprit will itself have any significant geopolitical effect, since all players are probably already assuming that it was done with US approval.

But the effects of the Kakhovka dam incident are significant and concrete, regardless of who or what did the deal. As the Bulletin reports:

While the water was quickly rising to dangerous levels downstream, the water level in the upstream Kakhovka Reservoir was dropping, which could have severe nuclear safety implications for the nearby plant. …

Commenting on Twitter, Edwin Lyman, a nuclear safety expert at the Union of Concerned Scientists, described the situation at the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant as a “slow-motion disaster.” “The impact on the plant is something we are going to see unfold over time,” Lyman further explained to the Bulletin. “There is a grace period to address this problem, but it’s not infinite.” …

Although the plant has not been generating electricity for several months and therefore requires less cooling than if its reactors were operating, before the dam’s breach on Tuesday, one reactor was apparently still in “hot shutdown” to produce steam for onsite purposes. “That means keeping an elevated pressure and temperature, [which] raises some questions about the stability of that reactor if something else happens,” Lyman explained. “It’s not a normal mode of operating a nuclear reactor. And, because it’s not a normal mode, normal emergency procedures may not be available if something goes wrong.” [my emphasis]

The Zaporizhzhia situation is a major reminder we’ve gotten during this war that nuclear power plants are a significant risk factor in wars. (Although nuclear-industry lobbyists will certainly object to that conclusion.)

The International Atomic Energy Commission reported on June 9:

“Even if there is no short-term threat, the dam disaster is causing major new difficulties for the Zaporizhzhya Nuclear Power Plant at a time when the nuclear safety and security situation is already extremely fragile and potentially dangerous during the military conflict,”[IAEA] Director General [Rafael Mariano] Grossi said. “Increased military activities in the area are adding to our deep concerns about the safety and security of Europe’s largest nuclear power plant.”

Underlining such risks, the IAEA experts continue to hear military activity, including some explosions this morning.⁶

The flooding has also spread land mines far and wide, a danger to life and limb for both soldiers and civilians and a significant factor to postwar reconstruction. As NBC News reports:

Land mines displaced by flooding in the wake of the Kakhovka dam collapse this week could pose a deadly threat to thousands of people as they evacuate and a grave danger to civilians in southern Ukraine for decades to come.

Warnings from leading charities and both sides of the war come as fears also rise about the risks from waterborne diseases and hazardous chemicals that could poison not just floodwaters, but also the Black Sea, a crucial waterway.

Thousands of unexploded mines could have been washed away from previously marked out areas, helping to make Ukraine the worst conflict for unexploded ordnance since 1945, according to one leading mine-clearing charity. ⁷ [my emphasis]

This war is being fought primarily in Ukraine. And it’s doing enormous damage to the country and its people. And will continue to do so years into the future, even if the war ended tomorrow. Which it won’t.

1. Diaz-Maurin, François (2023): Ukrainian dam is destroyed; nuclear plant lives in a ‘grace period’. Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists 06/06/2023. <https://thebulletin.org/2023/06/ukrainian-dam-is-destroyed-nuclear-plant-lives-in-a-grace-period/#post-heading> (Accessed: 2023-10-06).

2. Wintour, Patrick (2023): Zelenskiy steps up criticism of International Red Cross over inaction at Kakhovka dam. The Guardian 06/09/2023. <https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/jun/09/zelenskiy-steps-up-criticism-of-international-red-cross-over-inaction-at-kharkhova-dam> (Accessed: 2023-10-06).

3. Josephs, Jonathan (2022): US suggests Russia could be behind Nord Stream gas leaks. BBC News 09/30/2022. <https://www.bbc.com/news/business-63084613> (Accessed: 2023-11-06).

4. Nord Stream sabotage probe turns to clues in Poland: Report. Aljazeera 06/12/2023. <https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/6/10/nord-stream-sabotage-probe-turns-to-clues-in-poland-report> (Accessed: 2023-10-06).

See also: Medien: „Nord Stream“-Sabotage mit Spur nach Polen. ORF.at 10.06.2023. <https://orf.at/stories/3319786/> (Accessed: 2023-10-06).

5. Vlahos, Kelley Beaucar (2023): Nord Stream revelations should chasten Ukraine dam ‘hot takes’. Responsible Statecraft 06/08/2023. <https://responsiblestatecraft.org/2023/06/08/nord-stream-revelations-should-chasten-ukraine-dam-hot-takes/> (Accessed: 2023-10-06).

6. Update 164 – IAEA Director General Statement on Situation in Ukraine. IAEA website 06/09/2023. <https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/pressreleases/update-164-iaea-director-general-statement-on-situation-in-ukraine> (Accessed: 2023-10-06).

7. Smith, Patrick (2023): Mines, disease and more: The dangers in Ukraine's floodwaters. NBC News 06/09/2023. <https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/mines-disease-threat-floods-ukraine-kakhovka-dam-collapse-rcna88300> (Accessed: 2023-10-06).