Newsweek: Is Putin giving up Crimea?

Newsweek has published an opinion piece arguing that those believing Russia’s destruction of the Nova Kakhovka dam speculate that it shows President Putin may be willing to sacrifice Crimea. Caliber.Az reprints the article.

Following the destruction of the Nova Kakhovka dam in southern Ukraine on Tuesday, observers have questioned why Russia—if, as many suspect, it was responsible for the dam's demise—would commit an act that could have such a devastating impact on Crimea.

Has Russian President Vladimir Putin, in essence, given up on the peninsula, previously seen as a cornerstone of his imperial ambitions? Some, including Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, have said this may be the case. Others disagree.

Anders Åslund, an economist and adjunct professor at Georgetown University, drew a comparison between the dam's destruction and how Iraqi President Saddam Hussein set oil wells on fire in 1991 when he was forced out of Kuwait.

"When you have lost territory, then you destroy it," Åslund, who has served as an economic adviser to the governments of Russia and Ukraine, told Newsweek. "I think that this is something that you do when you give up. It's not an offensive action but sour grapes. [Russia is saying], 'We have lost the apple; we are destroying as much as possible.'"

The dam plays an important role in sustaining Crimea because its reservoir feeds a key canal, he said.

"The North Crimean Canal, which delivers 85 per cent of the water to Crimea, takes water from Nova Kakhovka. Without that, Crimea is not sustainable in the long run," Åslund said.

He added that the dam's demolition could "destroy Crimea's agriculture." Most of the water from the North Crimean Canal is used for farming or industry, but about a fifth is used for drinking water, traditionally meeting most of the peninsula's needs.

Putin invaded and annexed the Crimean Peninsula from Ukraine in 2014. After Zelensky began gaining momentum against Russian forces in the war that Putin started in February 2022, he began saying that Crimea should be recognized as Ukrainian territory as one of his conditions for a ceasefire.

Putin and Kremlin officials, meanwhile, have said that not only would Crimea remain part of Russia in any potential peace deal but that four Ukrainian territories that Putin annexed illegitimately in September 2022 would do so as well.

Who Is Behind the Dam's Destruction?

Ukraine said that Russia was behind the explosions that damaged the Kakhovka hydroelectric power plant and destroyed the dam, while Moscow blamed Kyiv.

In a statement posted online, Zelensky said: "The fact that Russia deliberately destroyed the Kakhovka reservoir, which is critically important, in particular, for providing water to Crimea, indicates that the Russian occupiers have already realized that they will have to flee Crimea as well."

As he accused Ukraine of what he characterized as an act of sabotage, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov admitted that the dam's destruction could affect Crimea's water supplies. He said that Ukraine's aim was to deprive Crimea of water and that the North Crimean Canal was already receiving dramatically less water.

"Crimea may be left without water—some Ukrainian authorities say—for years," Elina Beketova, an in-residence fellow with the Democracy Fellowship program at the Center for European Policy Analysis, told Newsweek.

"Russian-appointed governor of Crimea Sergey Aksyonov already confirmed that there is a risk that the North Crimean Canal will get more shallow," Beketova said. "Even though there are water reserves, we might see that Crimea will face problems with drinking water."

What Could Have Motivated a Dam Attack?

Most analysts suspect the explosions were motivated by straightforward military logic.

Offering an explanation for why Russia might have damaged the plant and dam, Beketova said: "I think this attack could signal that Russia tries to stop Ukraine's liberation of territories temporarily occupied by Russia in such a way that Ukrainian soldiers couldn't go on the left [eastern] bank of the Dnieper River."

Retired Army Lieutenant General Stephen Twitty told Newsweek that Putin may have ordered the attack to slow down Zelensky's forces.

"I've seen this happen before in wars. What's really going on with the flooding of the dam—the water flows out into farmland and hinterlands and makes the terrain muddy and prevents armoured vehicles from traversing through them when they get stuck in the mud," Twitty said.

Ukraine's military therefore "can't really use the ground and so it limits them to the roads," Twitty said. "If you flood the dam, then the Ukrainians cannot attack throughout the farmlands. It will limit them in the way that they come."

Guy McCardle, managing editor of Special Operations Forces Report (SOFREP), wouldn't say who he thought was responsible for the dam's destruction, but he pointed out that the incident "hurts both sides."

"It will likely cut off the flow of water to Crimea and other Russian-held areas in the south [of Ukraine]. The severe flooding will also likely damage Russian defensive locations and supply routes to Crimea," McCardle told Newsweek. "The dam was one of the last viable crossings of the Dnieper."

"Russia Will Hang On to It at All Costs"

Retired U.S. Marine Corps Colonel Mark Cancian is among those who don't think Russia has forsaken Crimea.

"There is no way that this signals Putin is giving up on Ukraine. Crimea was a huge prize, and Russia will hang on to it at all costs," Cancian told Newsweek.

"My assumption is that the Russians blew up the dam in order to expand the water barrier in the face of a possible Ukrainian attack across the Dnieper," said Cancian, who is a senior adviser for the Center for Strategic and International Studies. "This would be a classic defensive move that countries have frequently done in the past."

Analysts have previously told Newsweek that the loss of Crimea would strip away much of Putin's legitimacy in Russia and even leave him at risk of losing power.