you dont cite your 82% but the Oblast is the keystone for a landbridge to Crimea
I dont know if they get it, and if they do, then I dont know what happens if there is a settlement or not
You are jumping the shark
Russia to annex Kherson Oblast
- Thread starter dukkha
- Start date
I dont know if they get it, and if they do, then I dont know what happens if there is a settlement or not
You are jumping the shark
I haven't heard of people dying from thirst in Crimea.
Post you proof from a credible source that a human catastrophe was occurring in Crimea because people didn't have water to drink.
As for irrigation supply, Ukraine is not obligated to supply water to irrigate olive crops on occupied territory.
moon
Satire for Sanity
Jesus, it's almost worth a total Russian victory to shut you up.
So no proof from any reputable source of a human catastrophe in Crimea because they didn't have water to drink.
It is not a river, it is a canal. Crimea was not invaded? Really?
still working on my coffee. tedious posts like thi are a waste of time..
Obviously i meant canal
obviously it was damed
obviously Russians blew up the dam
obviously it was annexed - not invaded - no shots fired
The Kerch Strait bridge is amazing - most said it couldn't be done because of heavy bottom silting
but it can handle road and rail transit
Still being able to roll thru from Russia proper to Crimea is a big deal
Russia can try to hold it,or perhaps negotiate it - since it does have the man made bridge, but first it has to
be taken
What next, will Poland be a land bridge to Kaliningrad? Remember that there is already a normal bridge to Crimea, and a lot of ferries, while there is no way to have a normal bridge to Kaliningrad. Canada would definitely be a land bridge to Alaska. There are hundreds of invasions that could happen to provide "land bridges".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kherson_Oblast#Demographics
How a Ukrainian dam played a key role in tensions with Russia
by Sharon Udasin - 03/12/22 6:07 AM ET
https://thehill.com/policy/equilibr...inian-dam-played-a-key-role-in-tensions-with/
Shortly after Russia’s annexation of Crimea in 2014, Ukraine built a concrete dam cutting off 85 percent of the peninsula’s water supply. So one of Moscow’s first strategic moves after invading the country was to blow it up.
Ukraine had constructed the dam on the North Crimean Canal, a Soviet-era conduit that conveyed water from the Dnieper River to both Crimea and the Kherson region of Ukraine.
Russia has been diverting other water sources to the region since 2017, but those efforts could not compensate for the loss of canal flow, and the peninsula’s agriculture sector had essentially run dry.
“Environmental conflicts are interwoven with these kinds of complex histories,” said Saleem Ali, an environmental conflicts expert and chair of the Department of Geography and Spatial Sciences at the University of Delaware.
The North Crimean Canal’s existence is linked to the past of Crimea itself — a swath of arid land along the coast of the Black Sea whose population today is about 67 percent Russian, 15 percent Ukrainian and 12 percent Crimean Tartar.
In 1954, Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev transferred Crimea from the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic to the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic. Soon after, preparations began to build the canal, which was completed in 1975.
“When the Soviet Union was there, there was no future-casting that the Soviet Union would cease to exist,” Ali told The Hill.
What was once a largely infertile peninsula soon blossomed into a hub of irrigated agriculture.
“Crimea is surrounded by water but lacks water resources,” wrote Oleksii Plotnikov, an international law expert in Ukraine with the Association of Reintegration of Crimea, in an August article for the European Journal of International Law.
After the canal was built, most of the water was shuttled to Crimea, while some of it went to the Kherson region of Ukraine.
About 80 percent of the water flowing to Crimea was used for agriculture — and 60 percent of that allocation went toward water-intensive rice growth, according to Helena Vladich, an ecological economist at the University of Vermont.
“It was absolutely not ecological,” Vladich told The Hill.
Following the annexation of Crimea in 2014, Russia took over canal operations, which had been previously been run by the State Water Resources Agency of Ukraine, the independent English newspaper The Moscow Times reported. Ukrainian officials said that they decided to dam the canal only after Russian authorities failed to pay for water delivery, according to the Times.
The Russian takeover of Crimea, Ali surmised, may have prompted Ukrainians to use “water as basically a weapon,” leading to a retaliatory sentiment: “You’ve taken over our territory, we’re going to dam the river. And we’re not going to let this water flow to Crimea.”
But Plotnikov, the Ukrainian attorney, described a situation of Russian aggression and refusal, in which facilities “were seized by the new de facto authorities” who drove away Ukrainian workers. When these “authorities refused to pay for water delivery,” the debt that accumulated prompted the blockage, Plotnikov wrote.
Regardless of which side bore more blame in the cessation of flow, the sudden loss meant that agriculture no longer remained possible in Crimea.
“It was even difficult to get enough water for people who live there,” Vladich said.
While the shutdown destroyed rice plantations on the peninsula, drinking water was not affected, Plotnikov wrote, citing a 2017 report from the U.N. Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR). However, failed attempts by Russia to find alternative resources led to water rationing during a 2020 drought, Plotnikov reported.
One way Russia began conveying some water to Crimea was by trucking it on a $3.7 billion bridge across the Kerch Strait, according to The Financial Times.
“It was costing Russia a lot of money to keep Crimea afloat,” Ali said. “And a lot of it has to do with the fact that there was no self-reliance — otherwise, it was a productive part of Ukraine.”
by Sharon Udasin - 03/12/22 6:07 AM ET
https://thehill.com/policy/equilibr...inian-dam-played-a-key-role-in-tensions-with/
Shortly after Russia’s annexation of Crimea in 2014, Ukraine built a concrete dam cutting off 85 percent of the peninsula’s water supply. So one of Moscow’s first strategic moves after invading the country was to blow it up.
Ukraine had constructed the dam on the North Crimean Canal, a Soviet-era conduit that conveyed water from the Dnieper River to both Crimea and the Kherson region of Ukraine.
Russia has been diverting other water sources to the region since 2017, but those efforts could not compensate for the loss of canal flow, and the peninsula’s agriculture sector had essentially run dry.
“Environmental conflicts are interwoven with these kinds of complex histories,” said Saleem Ali, an environmental conflicts expert and chair of the Department of Geography and Spatial Sciences at the University of Delaware.
The North Crimean Canal’s existence is linked to the past of Crimea itself — a swath of arid land along the coast of the Black Sea whose population today is about 67 percent Russian, 15 percent Ukrainian and 12 percent Crimean Tartar.
In 1954, Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev transferred Crimea from the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic to the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic. Soon after, preparations began to build the canal, which was completed in 1975.
“When the Soviet Union was there, there was no future-casting that the Soviet Union would cease to exist,” Ali told The Hill.
What was once a largely infertile peninsula soon blossomed into a hub of irrigated agriculture.
“Crimea is surrounded by water but lacks water resources,” wrote Oleksii Plotnikov, an international law expert in Ukraine with the Association of Reintegration of Crimea, in an August article for the European Journal of International Law.
After the canal was built, most of the water was shuttled to Crimea, while some of it went to the Kherson region of Ukraine.
About 80 percent of the water flowing to Crimea was used for agriculture — and 60 percent of that allocation went toward water-intensive rice growth, according to Helena Vladich, an ecological economist at the University of Vermont.
“It was absolutely not ecological,” Vladich told The Hill.
Following the annexation of Crimea in 2014, Russia took over canal operations, which had been previously been run by the State Water Resources Agency of Ukraine, the independent English newspaper The Moscow Times reported. Ukrainian officials said that they decided to dam the canal only after Russian authorities failed to pay for water delivery, according to the Times.
The Russian takeover of Crimea, Ali surmised, may have prompted Ukrainians to use “water as basically a weapon,” leading to a retaliatory sentiment: “You’ve taken over our territory, we’re going to dam the river. And we’re not going to let this water flow to Crimea.”
But Plotnikov, the Ukrainian attorney, described a situation of Russian aggression and refusal, in which facilities “were seized by the new de facto authorities” who drove away Ukrainian workers. When these “authorities refused to pay for water delivery,” the debt that accumulated prompted the blockage, Plotnikov wrote.
Regardless of which side bore more blame in the cessation of flow, the sudden loss meant that agriculture no longer remained possible in Crimea.
“It was even difficult to get enough water for people who live there,” Vladich said.
While the shutdown destroyed rice plantations on the peninsula, drinking water was not affected, Plotnikov wrote, citing a 2017 report from the U.N. Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR). However, failed attempts by Russia to find alternative resources led to water rationing during a 2020 drought, Plotnikov reported.
One way Russia began conveying some water to Crimea was by trucking it on a $3.7 billion bridge across the Kerch Strait, according to The Financial Times.
“It was costing Russia a lot of money to keep Crimea afloat,” Ali said. “And a lot of it has to do with the fact that there was no self-reliance — otherwise, it was a productive part of Ukraine.”
Luxembourg and Denmark were invaded by Nazi Germany with barely a shot being fired.
When foreign Military forces cross into your sovereign territory and occupy it, it constitutes an invasion.
no now you are entering fantasy land of Russia attacking a NATO state
look at the article regarding the water
Crimea had a referendum as well. Get out of here with that Hitler stuff
Remember why this all happened. Crimea is absolutely essential to Russia and NATO expansion as well as
the Maidan revolution -fomented by the USA- was the predicate
Lots of countries have political conflicts over water, including the United States and Mexico.
But nobody except you and Putin point to it as an excuse to engage in unprovoked war and crimes against humanity.
You say that Russia has the right to invade anywhere that can provide them a "land bridge" to one of their claimed territories... Well the obvious "land bridge" to Kaliningrad is Poland.
A referendum implemented by an occupying military force and conducted under the barrels of their guns is not legitimate.
moon
Satire for Sanity
Yes, really. Crimea rejoined Russia by way of overwhelming referendum.
no. I'm not claiming any Russian right to Kherson Oblast. your mind is leading you to where it wants to go
Crimea is Russian in population, orientation, and strategic importance
Kherson at this point is a spoil or war if it's annexed
For nearly 75 years, the United States and Mexico have transferred giant quantities of water to each other each year as part of a system set up to ensure the equitable sharing of water sheds that straddle their border. The terms and obligations are clearly laid out in a treaty the two sides signed in 1944:
https://www.worldpoliticsreview.com...the-u-s-is-a-symptom-of-its-governance-crisis
Exactly, we addressed political conflicts over water by painstaking negotiations that took a considerable amount of time.
We didn't resort to war, and crimes against humanity to resolve our differences over water.
So you confess that Putin has an imperialistic agenda, only 24 hours after you complained that I wrote Putin has an imperialist agenda.
After an invasion and threats... The overwhelming results on the referendum makes me question the honesty of the election.