By Aleksey Kopytko
One of the tactics the Russians use is to rationalize their crimes, which calls for counterpoints.
Let’s look at water as an example.
-
The Russians invaded Donbas, destroyed public utilities, ruined the mine drainage system, destroyed equipment, pipes, and the Donets-Donbas canal channel, and drained all reserve tanks (reservoirs).
As a direct result, the water situation sharply deteriorated in the occupied part of Donetsk region, particularly in Donetsk itself, which is turning into a cesspool.
Despite industrial decline and population flight, the water shortage is growing. Moscow attempted to partially address this problem by building the Don-Donbas water pipeline. But something went wrong. One of the two pipeline branches was simply stolen.
Currently, bottled water is being sold en masse in Donetsk, produced by some random factories. In general, in a city that not long ago hosted Euro and Champions League matches and top-level concerts, the reality now resembles the plot of the film Mad Max.
Naturally, Russian propaganda blames Ukraine for what happened. After all, it’s not Putin, right? They advance the argument: to restore the water supply system in Donetsk region, one must capture Sloviansk and the headwaters of the Donets-Donbas canal near Raihorodok. Then everything will be quickly restored, and life will improve!
In realpolitik talks with foreign partners, Russians likely use the water argument and the “humanitarian crisis” narrative. The claim is that they only need a little more territory, and then dialogue becomes possible.
First, nothing will improve. Reviving the canal and pumping stations would require enormous investments in public utilities, securing destroyed mines, and more — which will definitely not happen.
Second, the canal in question does not function on its own. To maintain water levels in the Siverskyi Donets to meet Donbas needs, the Dnipro-Siverskyi Donets canal was built, which includes two large reservoirs in Kharkiv region — Krasnopavlivske and Orel. Part of the watercourse runs almost along the border of Dnipropetrovsk and Poltava regions.
That is, to guarantee water supply, one must control the entire route. Which leads to the inevitable question:
If you look through the prism of “water logic,” what motivation does the Kremlin have to stop and not try to capture the southern third of Kharkiv region and the entire left bank of Dnipropetrovsk?
None. Capturing Sloviansk alone would technically not be enough.
Thus, the Kremlin’s “water logic” perception is direct incitement to continue the war and territorial grabs.
If partners do not want the war to drag on for years, no “for water” arguments should even be entertained.
-
At the same time, there is a water problem in Crimea and in the occupied part of Kherson region (to a slightly lesser extent in Zaporizhzhia).
The Russians blew up the dam. The canals were destroyed. Theoretically, supplying water from the Dnipro to Crimea without a dam, using pumping stations to move it onward to the peninsula, and then pumps/pipes again — is extremely costly and difficult due to insufficient water volume in the Dnipro. A dam would take years to rebuild.
Population growth in Crimea and predatory use of groundwater have created a cascade of problems that cannot be solved merely with money and technology — it will take a very long time. Scientists predict several dry years, which will further aggravate the situation.
In summary: there are no magical solutions to water problems. The blame lies entirely with the Russians. Even in the best-case scenario, it will take years and huge amounts of money.
A necessary condition for theoretically starting to address these problems is a stable peace and Ukraine’s full involvement — which will not exist even theoretically without reliable mechanisms to prevent aggression, i.e., weapons and military alliances.
Those who do not immediately dismiss Russia’s “water” claims are, de facto, advocating handing control of half of left-bank Ukraine to Moscow. After that, other claims will inevitably follow. And again, war.
Therefore, any rationalization of aggression is fundamentally unacceptable.
