Thread by @Mylovanov

Tucker Carlson yesterday made incorrect and false claims about the situation with Kakhovka dam explosion.

The list of claims and refutations.

1. The Dam was effectively Russian. It was built by the Russian government, and it is in Russian-controlled territory.

1/

The only part that is true here is that the dam is Russian occupied. And that’s exactly why they are the ones who destroyed it. But more about this later.

It is false that the dam was built by the government of Russia. At the time of the dam construction, Russia did not exist.2

Russia was just one republic in the Soviet Union and not the one that built the dam. The dam was built by the government and the people of the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic. Those were Ukrainians. Engineers, construction workers, companies supplying materials were 🇺🇦 3/

I am not sure what it means to say “the dam was effectively Russian”. If you mean, physical control acquired by force - yes. If you mean legally, as recognized by the international law or by local laws of the country - then no. 4/

Tucker then says that 2. The dam's reservoir supplies water to Crimea, which has been for the last 240 years home of the Russian Black Sea Fleet. 5/

The first part is correct. But Tucker omits that the reservoir supplies water also to Kherson, Zaporizhzhya, Dnipro regions, cities, industry, and farming relies on this water. 6/

Tucker then throws in the argument about Crimea being the home for the black fleet for a long time. Yes, but on contracting terms. As a foreign naval base. After the independence in 1991, Ukraine and Russia signed multiple treaties about the status of the Black Sea Fleet. 7/

Russia violated them. In 2014, Russia illegally annexed Crimea. So, I guess, in his world view, Crimea is “effectively” Russian. But so was Kherson, Kyiv, and Kharkiv region. Now they are “effectively” and legally Ukrainian. So an irrelevant point, really! 8/

3. Blowing up the dam may be bad for Ukraine, but it hurts Russia more.

That’s just speculation. But even if that were true, it means nothing. Shooting down MH17 was bad for Ukraine (it shot down commercial airspace above Donbas), but it hurts Russia more (if it did it). 9/

And indeed, Russia did it. This was proven in courts despite Russian denials and distractions.

4. And for precisely that reason, the Ukrainian government has considered destroying it. 10/

Tucker argues that Ukraine is going to risk tens of thousands of lives, destroy its regional economy and environment for decades to hurt Crimea or Russian-occupied part of Kherson.

This is silly because to hurt Crimea Ukraine could have blown up the Crimean canal elsewhere. 11/

It is also absurd and cruel because it is Russia that killed ethnic Russian it vows to protect in Mariupol in tens of thousands, it is Russia that deported ethnic Russians or mobilized them and send them to die in Bakhmut and elsewhere. 12/

5. Tucker than brings up that “the Washington Post quoted a Ukrainian general saying his men had fired American-made rockets at the dam's floodgate as a test strike”. This, he implies it must have been Ukraine 13/

I couldn’t locate the quote or the facts that Ukraine has fired on the dam to “test” the dam structural resistance.

In fact, Russians have fired over the winter on and around dams trying to destroying energy infrastructure. I have witnessed results of some of these strikes. 14/

The dams are built with extreme excessive robustness and safety measures. Engineers say that a dam like that cannot be taken out by missiles. Indeed, recall how many strikes off Antoniva bridge it took to make it difficult to travel - dozens. 15/

And this is not a bridge, but a much stronger structure.

Tucker then brings up the recent report in WP about Ukrainian plans for Nord Stream sabotage. That article is damaging but it doesn’t provide evidence that Ukrainians did anything of the sort. 16/

Then he goes after Zelensky, accuses him of being anti Christian (not true), referred to a recent erring between Lindsey Graham and Zelensky (they are killing Russians!), and implied that Putin has no interest in doin nasty things in Ukraine. 17/

These are manipulative rhetorical devices that polarize and mobilize the audience by bringing in politics and negative emotions.

There is one thing I want to mention though - it Russians who are killing both Ukrainians and Russians. They can stop it any time by withdrawing. 18/

Regardless of what Tucker believes about Ukrainians and Zelensky in particular, there is a clear big picture - Russia invaded and killed tens of thousands. Russia wants to rule by force, not rules or diplomacy. It is important not to lose the sight of the villain here - Russia. X