Now that almost a day has passed and the event has settled in, we can draw some conclusions or at least ask some informed questions about the whos and whys, the cui bonos, writes an author of ‘Simplicius76” war strategies, geopolitical analysis blog.

The biggest question on everyone’s mind is who was responsible for the Kakhovka dam, and as a corollary, who does it benefit more?

So, to get that out of the way, allow me to list the best points of evidence for each side’s potential involvement, and what they stand to gain.

Ukraine: Firstly, we must mention the preponderance of evidence showing that Ukrainian officials have previously bragged about hitting the Kakhovka dam as well as their plans in destroying it.

Many are sharing this WashPost article, for instance, where Ukraine’s major general Andrey Kovalchuk admitted to striking the dam with HIMARs to test their ability to hit it so they can have that in their pocket as a potential plan to cut off Russian forces.

Titled “Inside the Ukrainian counteroffensive that shocked Putin and reshaped the war”, its journalists quoted former commander of November’s Kherson Counteroffensive Major General Andrey Kovalchuk who shockingly admitted to planning this war crime.

And this article has the videos showing the damage of the Nova Kakhovka dam bridge after Ukrainian HIMARs strikes.

Now, Ukrainian officials and top Telegram channels have been caught deleting their previous posts from last year where they gloated and bragged about having hit the dam repeatedly.

Here they even bragged about penetrating the ‘lock’ of the dam, which I take to mean the actual damming mechanism itself rather than the roadway/bridge adjacent to the dam.

Furthermore, let’s hold to account the Western and Ukrainian ‘experts’ who also were caught previously admitting that Russia would be ‘shooting itself in the foot’ by destroying the dam, and had nothing to gain by it. Here is the infamously offbase Michael Kofman’s take in a Moscow Times interview from November last year.

How can this destruction favor Ukraine? The most obvious is it washes away a lot of Russian positions in the Kherson region, particularly given that the flooding affects the left (east) bank more than the right. The most important point on this is that Russia had mined the entire region there to prevent the expected huge Ukrainian landing force attempt. This flooding is now expected to potentially wash away all of Russia’s mines which would give Ukraine a clear path once the water settles down.

It allows Ukraine, with the help of global media, to get another major psychological victory in the form of international pressure against Russia at the key moment of the kick off of their offensive. They can attempt to use this international pressure against Russia as a compounding force with other upcoming falseflags and psyops which will reach a critical peak as they accelerate into the hot portion of their offensive activities.

If this ends up truly affecting the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant (ZNPP) nuclear plant (though for now the concensus appears to be that ZNPP is all right), then it will allow them to string it into a larger falseflag later on, depending what type of damage ZNPP could potentially take.

Likewise, if it ends up being detrimental to the Crimean canal, once more imperiling the Crimean water supply, this could add an additional pressure on the Russian government.

There are some theories that eventually, after the water levels out, it could benefit Ukraine in allowing them to cross the Dnieper with the planned amphibious assaults, as Russia would no longer have a tump card of unleashing the dam (whether by opening sluice gates or blowing it) to wash away their landing forces.

Russia: Firstly, the question of what evidence might there be that Russia was behind the destruction of the dam?

Recall, that Russia was said to have controlled the dam. On one hand this gives them an easier ability to ‘destroy it’ in the cleanest way possible if they should want to do so.

BUT: The biggest evidence against this is the fact that Russia, having controlled the dam, could simply have lifted the floodgates at any point, if they wanted to effect a huge flood down stream and release of the reservoir. This is the same famous argument used in the Nordstream case. If Russia wanted to turn off the Nordstream to Europe why would they destroy it if they can simply turn it off at their end?

The Ukrainian claim/position is that Russia destroyed the dam in order to flood the river and stop a potential Ukrainian river crossing. So why would Russia need to destroy it, as per the above, if they can flood the river all the same just by opening the dam’s floodgates? It makes no logical sense.

Also, Tass article which quotes Shoigu in his accusations of Kyiv for the attack, uses the word “undermining” of the dam. Some are taking this to mean literally that Russia’s position is Ukraine “mined” the dam, as in naval divers planting explosives.

However, other officials on Russia’s side released statements claiming that a Ukrainian Alder-M MLRS, adapted from Russian BM-30 Smerch, was used to destroy the dam. Either way, surely the dam had surveillance cameras just like last time, no? So, if that’s the case, why hasn’t Russia released footage of what would be obvious MLRS strikes? This appears to be a point that goes against the Russian side.

Now, how might the dam destruction benefit Russia?

Shoigu in his report stated the following, confirming that Ukraine was raising water levels from the Dnipropetrovsk hydro-electric plant upstream: According to the available information, the amount of water discharged from the Dnipropetrovsk HPP has been noticeably increased, which leads to additional flooding of the territories. This fact indicates that the Kyiv regime planned a large-scale sabotage in advance…

Undermining the structures was part of Kyiv’s plan to transfer units and equipment from the Kherson direction to the area of offensive operations – the enemy is preparing to go on the defensive on the right bank of the Dnieper.

And the reason I called this the ‘natural but unnatural’ method was because this would mean the dam collapsed on its own rather than direct fire or explosives sabotage, but it was still pushed into collapsing by direct action from the Kyiv regime.

Did the AF Ukraine know that the dam was in bad shape and could collapse with more water pressure and so began to build this pressure up in order to collapse it just in time to coincide with their spring/summer campaign?

To be honest, given the evidence above, it does seem to me the much more likely culprit was this ‘semi-natural’ method, but the blame would still fall on Ukraine for having facilitated it by pumping up the Kakhovka reservoir from upstream. So, if you asked me to name my most likely culprit from the three choices above, I’d likely go with this one.

But Russia appears to be doubling down on their accusations of Ukraine, as not only did Shoigu release the statement accusing Ukraine of being responsible but Russia’s ambassador to the UN, Vasily Nebenzya even pressed the UN to condemn Ukraine for the ‘terror action’: Kiev regime openly flaunts terrorist tactics and is responsible for explosion on Crimean Bridge, murders of Daria Dugina, Vladlen Tatarsky, not a WORD of condemnation from West has been heard – Top Russian diplomat at UN Nebenzya.

Other analysts like Colonel McGregor said he suspects the British SAS to have been involved, which many agreed with simply owing to the fact that it’s much more difficult and sophisticated of an operation to blow a dam than is commonly thought.

And this concerning forecast:

The destruction of the Kakhovka hydroelectric power plant will lead to the fact that the fields in southern Ukraine could turn into deserts next year. The Ministry of Agricultural Policy of Ukraine reports this on its website.

According to them, the Kakhovskaya HPP disaster effectively left 94% of the irrigation systems in Kherson, 74% in Zaporozhye, and 30% in the Dnepropetrovsk regions without a water source.

The destruction of the Kakhovskaya HPP will also have negative consequences for the fishing industry: fish deaths have already been recorded.

They themselves create a catastrophe and resolve the consequences. Everything according to script…

The Ukrainian people that in the coming years there will be a hybrid famine in the country. Remember later how Zelensky massively exported grain from Ukraine.

The case with the Kakhovskaya hydroelectric power station will lead to the fact that the fields in the south of Ukraine may turn into deserts next year.

Irrigation systems in the Kherson region by almost 90%, 74% – in Zaporozhye and 30% – in the Dnipropetrovsk region will not function.

The destruction of the Kakhovskaya HPP will also have negative consequences for the fish industry: the death of fish is already being recorded.

This will affect the entire country. The war will lead to the fact that Ukraine completely turns into a “grey zone”. Remember the recent shortage of onions. Although once Ukraine was the “breadbasket of Europe.”

The partners assigned Ukraine the role of a “kamikaze” country, concludes ‘Simplicius76’ blog.