A new step forward in the war? Russia and Ukraine accuse each other of blowing up the Kakhovka dam on Tuesday, June 6. This hydroelectric dam is located in the Ukrainian region of Kherson, an area in the south of the country occupied by the Russians. Built on the Dnipro River, it was taken at the start of the Russian offensive and remains crucial for supplying water to the annexed Crimean peninsula.
>> War in Ukraine: what we know about the destruction of a dam near Kherson and its consequences
“Another war crime committed by Russian terrorists”, denounced the head of the Ukrainian presidential administration. For its part, the Kremlin ensures that it is an act of “deliberate sabotage” from Kyiv. How could this book have exploded? How can this event change the course of the war? Franceinfo interviewed Stéphane Audrand, international risk consultant and military specialist.
Franceinfo: What were the functions of the Kakhovka dam?
Stephane Audrand: The Nova Kakhovka dam is located quite low on the course of the Dnipro, the great river that crosses Ukraine and cuts the country in two. It produces electricity for the region. He was equipped with a crossing bridge, which the Russians blew up, but there remained infrastructures which made it possible to rebuild fairly quickly. The dam also had a water reservoir that kept the Dnipro at a fairly high level. This was of interest for agriculture, the water supply of the region and the cooling of the Zaporizhia nuclear power plant (located 150 km upstream from the dam).
>> War in Ukraine: “no risk at all” for the Zaporijjia nuclear power plant after the destruction of a dam, assures an expert
How could the Kakhovka dam explode?
For now, the reasons are confused, but there are hypotheses. This dam had already been attacked and sabotaged by the Russians. The structure and the surrounding area had also been the target of fire.
“A dam is a big civil engineering work. It’s not a small shell that can blow it up.”
Stéphane Audrand, independent consultantat BlazeTrends
Due to the pushing water and repeated attacks, the dam could have cracked and eventually failed. But if that had been the case, the Russians would have been only too happy to trumpet that their attacks had resulted in this destruction. The dam could have been blown up, and in that case it is still easier for the party that controls the dam – Russia – to do so. If it is accidental and it is a “surprise”, the different parties will have to change their strategy.
What might Russia’s interests be in this explosion?
In the short term, there are advantages for the Russians. As a reminder, the dam creates an area where, upstream, there is a lot of water, and downstream, less water. In view of a Ukrainian counter-offensive, the area downstream, between Nova Kakhovka and the mouth of the Dnipro, was less difficult for the Ukrainians to cross. There, by flooding this area, there will be no possible crossing for the whole season. The Russians can consider themselves at ease in this sector and they will be able to deploy their military means elsewhere.
On the other hand, in the medium term, the situation is more complicated for the Russians. The river will resume its course, the reservoirs upstream will be emptied. The banks will be waterlogged and will form marshy areas which, in the long term, will dry out. This may form more favorable areas for the Ukrainian crossing in the next dry season.
Can Ukraine benefit from this situation?
The only “interest” for Kiev would be the cut off of the water supply to Crimea, a subject of confrontations since the Russians annexed the peninsula in 2014. At that time, the Ukrainians cut off the water supply to the region via the Nova Kakhovka dam (by closing the gates of the canal linking the Dnipro to the Crimea, in 2019). But in early 2022, during their invasion, the Russians took the dam and redistributed water to Crimea. With the destruction of the dam, the course of the river drops sharply and this will certainly reduce the flow of water to the peninsula during the summer.
What are the military consequences for both sides?
There are hardly any civilians left in Kherson, everyone has been evacuated. The military means mobilized for the populations should therefore not be substantial. On the other hand, the fact of having a very large flooded zone, for the hot season, poses sanitary problems. Fresh waters will be polluted. There may be more civilians evacuated because of health problems than because of the floods themselves. It can also disrupt the planning of the Ukrainian counter-offensive because it is unforeseen for the army.
The Zaporijjia power plant is located 150 km from the dam. Is there a nuclear risk?
From what we know, there is no nuclear activity to produce electricity in the plant. However, the infrastructure is kept in working order. In this context, some fuels still need to be cooled, there may be radioactive releases limited to the site. But we are not at risk of a major accident like in Chernobyl. Rather on the risks of pollution on the site and in the surroundings.
What does international law say about roadblocks in conflicts?
Overall, the 1949 Geneva Convention prohibits targeting dams, dykes, nuclear power plants, if it can cause severe casualties in the civilian population. Unless these infrastructures are used significantly in military operations and the strike is the only way to stop these operations. In this specific case, that was not the case. The road bridge at the Nova Kakhovka dam had blown up, so there was no room for a military operation around the dam. If it is a voluntary act, it is therefore a breach of international law.