What Is the Kakhovka Dam in Ukraine - and What Happened?

This screen grab from a video posted on Ukraine's President Volodymyr Zelenskiy’s Twitter account on June 6, 2023 shows an aerial view of the dam of the Kakhovka Hydroelectric Power Station after it was partially destroyed.(AFP Photo /Twitter / Account of Ukraine's President Volodymyr Zelenskiy @ZelneskyyUa)

12:22-6 June 2023 AD ـ 18 Thul-Qi’dah 1444 AH

A huge Soviet-era dam on the Dnipro River that separates Russian and Ukrainian forces in southern Ukraine was breached on Tuesday, unleashing floodwaters across the war zone.

Ukraine said Russia had destroyed it, while Russia said Ukraine sabotaged it to cut off water supplies to Crimea and distract attention from a "faltering" counter-offensive.

What is the dam, what happened - and what do we not know?

The Kakhovka dam

The dam, part of the Kakhovka hydroelectric power plant, is 30 meters (98 feet) tall and 3.2 km (2 miles) long. Construction was started under Soviet leader Josef Stalin and finished under Nikita Khrushchev.

The dam bridged the Dnipro river, which forms the front line between Russian and Ukrainian forces in the south of Ukraine.

Creation of the 2,155 sq km (832 sq mile) Kakhovka reservoir in Soviet times forced around 37,000 people to be moved from their homes.

The reservoir holds 18 cubic kilometers (4.3 cubic miles) of water - a volume roughly equal to the Great Salt Lake in the US state of Utah.

The reservoir also supplies water to the Crimean peninsula, which Russia annexed in 2014, and to the Zaporizhzhia nuclear plant, which is also under Russian control.

What happened?

Ukraine, which commented first, said Russia was responsible.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy accused Russian forces of blowing up the Kakhovka Hydroelectric Power Station from inside the facility, and said Russia must be held to account for a "terrorist attack".

"At 02:50, Russian terrorists carried out an internal detonation of the structures of the Kakhovskaya HPP. About 80 settlements are in the zone of flooding," Zelenskiy said after an emergency meeting of senior officials.

A Ukrainian military spokesperson said Russia's aim was to prevent Ukrainian troops crossing the Dnipro River to attack Russian occupying forces.

Russia said Ukraine sabotaged the dam to cut off water supplies to Crimea and to distract attention from its faltering counteroffensive.

"We can state unequivocally that we are talking about deliberate sabotage by the Ukrainian side," Kremlin Spokesman Peskov told reporters.

Earlier some Russian-installed officials said no attack had taken place. Vladimir Rogov, a Russian installed official in Zaporizhzhia, said the dam collapsed due to earlier damage and the pressure of the water. Russia's state news agency TASS carried a report to the same effect.

What is the human impact?

With water levels surging higher, many thousands of people are likely to be affected. Evacuations of civilians began on both sides of the front line.

Some 22,000 people living across 14 settlements in Ukraine's southern Kherson region are at risk of flooding, Russian installed officials said. They told people to be ready to evacuate.

Ukrainian Prime Minister Denys Shmyhal said that up to 80 settlements were at risk of flooding.

Crimea

The destruction of the dam risks lowering the water level of the Soviet-era North Crimean Canal, which has traditionally supplied Crimea with 85% of its water needs.

Most of that water is used for agriculture, some for the Black Sea peninsula's industries, and around one fifth for drinking water and other public needs.

Nuclear plant

The Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant, Europe's largest, gets its cooling water from the reservoir. It is located on the southern side, now under Russian control.

"Our current assessment is that there is no immediate risk to the safety of the plant," International Atomic Energy Agency chief Rafael Grossi said.

He said it was essential that a cooling pond be left intact as it supplied enough water for the cooling of the shut-down reactors.

"Nothing must be done to potentially undermine its integrity," Grossi said.

Doomsday Tech: Could AI Really Kill Us All?

A banner shows message reading "AI" during the London Tech Week at Olympia, in London, Britain, June 8, 2026. (Reuters)

10:45-11 September 2026 AD ـ 29 Rabi’ Al-Awwal 1448 AH

Doomsday Tech: Could AI Really Kill Us All?

A banner shows message reading "AI" during the London Tech Week at Olympia, in London, Britain, June 8, 2026. (Reuters)

Stark warnings from artificial intelligence researchers that advanced forms of the technology could wipe out humanity have raised questions over whether governments are moving fast enough to regulate it.

What are the potential dangers of "superintelligent" computer systems, and should we be worried?

- What's the worst-case scenario? -

AI experts have long described the threat as critical.

In 2023, hundreds of AI scientists and industry figures, including the heads of top US labs, signed a "statement on AI extinction risk" calling for the issue to be treated as seriously as pandemics or nuclear war.

If an out-of-control future AI deems that humans are obstructing its goals, it could use robots to "synthesize and spread novel pathogens", said Stuart Russell, computer science professor at the University of California, Berkeley.

Or it could "convince people to initiate nuclear war, including by hacking into early warning systems", Russell, a prominent voice on AI safety, told AFP.

Such existential fears do not concern current AI systems, he stressed. But as the technology improves it could take lethal action beyond our understanding, such as by removing oxygen from the atmosphere.

"We are less intelligent than superintelligent AI. If you ask chimpanzees how humans could wipe them out, they probably wouldn't be able to give you all the right answers."

In the meantime, "in the next year or two I think the risk is higher from human misuse," Russell added -- such as an AI-enabled terror attack.

- Why don't AI labs stop? -

"The stakes are well-understood," Jacob Coxon, a 27-year-old researcher, wrote on X this week, announcing his resignation from US AI startup Anthropic.

"But they are locked in a race to get there first," he added, saying that Anthropic "believe no one else will act responsibly, so they must do it themselves".

Anthropic this year removed a pledge from its safety charter to halt development of its models if it failed to control their risks.

It argued that if it unilaterally paused its work, its less cautious rivals would dominate the industry, making it less safe overall.

"The people building AI earnestly believe that it could kill us all by the end of the decade," said Coxon, who previously worked at ChatGPT maker OpenAI.

He accused both companies of "gambling with our lives" as they strive to develop AI models capable of self-improvement.

Fears are heightened over rogue AI after OpenAI technology operating outside human supervision hacked into Hugging Face, a repository of AI models.

"We really do earnestly believe AI could kill all humans!" Anthropic safety executive Evan Hubinger chimed in on X, estimating the risk at more than 10 percent over the next decade.

- What's the hype factor? -

It's important to remember that doom-laden percentage predictions are "absolutely unscientific", said Hussein Abbass, a computing professor at UNSW Canberra.

"The situation is still controllable, and it can be managed," Abbass told AFP.

But governments should not sit on their hands when it comes to regulating AI, he added, urging an "agile" approach as AI development accelerates.

Both Anthropic and OpenAI are expected to go public soon, and some skeptics say scary warnings make AI appear powerful and worthy of large investments.

Others argue that focusing on the risk of extinction distracts from more pressing problems caused by AI, from job losses to machines discriminating against minorities.

In July, more than 1,000 tech employees, including Anthropic's CEO, called on Washington to support a coordinated slowdown in the development of the most advanced AI systems.

OpenAI halted training of its latest models for two weeks in August before resuming it under tighter controls.

- What will it take to regulate? -

So far, the United States has been firmly against global regulation of the sector that could stifle innovation.

But the unprecedented hacking capabilities of the most cutting-edge models have given Washington pause, with recent Anthropic and OpenAI releases delayed over national security concerns.

Even then, "we don't want to restrict them where all of a sudden we come in second to China", President Donald Trump has said.

"Maybe it will take a massive, Chernobyl-scale disaster to get governments to act," Russell said, urging them to establish a licensing regime for AI, as exists with aviation, medicine or water supply.

"Perhaps at some point governments will remember that their voters prefer not to be dead," he added.

Features

Why Do ‘Temporary’ Weapons Depots Keep Exploding in Northwestern Syria?

Syrian White Helmets rescuers inspect the site of an explosion at a temporary depot for weapons and explosive remnants of war in Sarmada, Idlib province (AFP)

Idlib: Mansour Hussein

20:59-10 September 2026 AD ـ 28 Rabi’ Al-Awwal 1448 AH

Idlib: Mansour Hussein

20:59-10 September 2026 AD ـ 28 Rabi’ Al-Awwal 1448 AH

Why Do ‘Temporary’ Weapons Depots Keep Exploding in Northwestern Syria?

Syrian White Helmets rescuers inspect the site of an explosion at a temporary depot for weapons and explosive remnants of war in Sarmada, Idlib province (AFP)

The latest explosion in the city of Sarmada in northern Idlib province has renewed attention on the threat posed by weapons depots and explosive remnants of war across northwestern Syria.

Such explosions have increasingly endangered civilians and undermined stability, prompting growing calls from residents and local groups to dismantle the depots that have long caused anxiety and move them away from populated areas.

Fourteen people were killed and 11 others wounded in Wednesday’s explosion in Sarmada, near the Syrian-Turkish border north of Idlib, according to the Idlib Media Directorate.

The toll remained preliminary as civil defense teams continued searching the site and dealing with the aftermath of the blast, the directorate said.

Civil defense teams from the Emergency and Disaster Management Directorate headed to the site after the explosion, which preliminary information suggested was linked to munitions stored in the Burj al-Nimra area near Sarmada.

The teams began assessing and securing the site, searching for casualties and taking measures to address any potential repercussions, the civil defense said.

Syria’s Defense Ministry said the incident was caused by an explosion at a temporary depot used to collect weapons and explosive remnants of war before their removal.

“The explosion injured a number of ministry personnel, and our units are working in coordination with the relevant authorities to secure the site,” the ministry said.

Investigation and penalties

Sources at the Defense Ministry said the facility was a temporary depot used to collect unexploded ordnance, mines and other remnants of war recovered from areas of northern Idlib province before they were transferred to designated sites for detonation or disposal.

The ministry launched an investigation immediately to rule out external involvement or the presence of anyone implicated in the incident, the sources said.

Legal action against those responsible for the storage site, including possible disciplinary measures and penalties, would be determined by the investigation’s findings, they added.

The ministry sources nevertheless said the blast was most likely caused by a mine or munition stored inside the depot, particularly as some of the remnants had lain undisturbed for years.

The ministry’s explanations and subsequent measures do not absolve it of responsibility or criticism, military experts contacted by Asharq Al-Awsat said. They cited inadequate safety and storage standards, delays in relocating the stockpiles and a failure to move weapons and ammunition depots away from civilian areas.

Idlib province in northwestern Syria has become a frequent site of explosions involving weapons depots and the transportation of munitions.

Earlier in September, five people were killed when a vehicle loaded with ammunition exploded in the center of the city of Binnish.

That incident was preceded by an explosion at a depot containing rockets and ammunition north of the town of Kafr Takharim in rural Idlib. Five people were killed and several civilians wounded in the blast, which was also linked to work being carried out by a crew near the site.

A series of similar incidents was recorded last year. The most notable occurred near the western entrance to Idlib city on Aug. 14, 2025, when an arms depot exploded, triggering successive blasts involving rocket and shell remnants. Four people were killed and several civilians were wounded, according to the civil defense.

Other explosions in the town of Maarat Misrin killed 11 civilians and wounded dozens, as well as causing extensive property damage. The town of al-Foua also witnessed a series of blasts that deepened civilians’ fears over the continued presence of depots established near residential areas during the war against the government of Bashar al-Assad.

Military expert Diaa Qaddour attributed the recurring explosions to the large quantities of weapons, ammunition and explosive remnants left scattered across the country after 14 years of war and the fall of Assad’s government in late 2024.

Some came from depots belonging to the former government, while others were left by former armed factions and foreign groups or seized as spoils of war, he said.

Qaddour said the Syrian government and the Defense Ministry had sought to address the issue and secure the weapons, but the process remained slow and complex because of the vast size of the stockpiles, the need for a comprehensive survey and the presence of temporary storage sites near residential areas.

He attributed delays in removing the stockpiles from civilian areas to a shortage of specialized personnel and equipment.

“The lack of adequate safety measures plays a major role in the recurrence of these explosions,” Qaddour said.

Weapons and ammunition were often stored in unsecured facilities or near populated areas without sufficient protection from heat or ignition sources, he said. Other contributing factors included inadequate equipment, the handling of munitions by unqualified personnel and high summer temperatures.

Qaddour also pointed to locally manufactured weapons and munitions that were not designed for long-term storage and could not withstand changing conditions, transportation or poor storage.

“They are less stable, their quality varies, and heat and humidity accelerate their deterioration, making them increasingly prone to problems over time,” he said.

Possible Israeli role

Brigadier General Imad Shehoud, a military expert, did not rule out possible Israeli involvement in the latest explosion in Sarmada, despite the lack of evidence and the absence of any Israeli claim of responsibility.

“Although there is no evidence, the possibility remains that an Israeli aircraft squadron entered Syrian airspace in stealth mode and carried out the operation,” Shehoud said.

“The Israeli government has not issued any statement so far, but the reported presence of Israeli aircraft over southern Syria means the possibility cannot be excluded.”

Shehoud said the explosion coincided with an “intelligence report” indicating extensive reconnaissance activity by Israel’s 122nd Squadron, involving Nachshon Shavit, Nachshon Oron and Gulfstream G550 aircraft over Syrian and Lebanese territory in the hours before the blast.

Features

Sept. 11’s Legacy Endures a Quarter-Century Later

A Palestinian man holds up a poster of ousted Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein (L) and wanted al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden during a demonstration by some 1,000 people in the West Bank town of Hebron 10 April 2004, in support of the Iraqi resistance against the US-led coalition. (AFP via Getty Images)

Riyadh: Ghassan Charbel

17:05-9 September 2026 AD ـ 27 Rabi’ Al-Awwal 1448 AH

Riyadh: Ghassan Charbel

17:05-9 September 2026 AD ـ 27 Rabi’ Al-Awwal 1448 AH

Sept. 11’s Legacy Endures a Quarter-Century Later

Rarely does a day deserve to be called “the day that shook the world.” September 11, 2001, claimed that distinction the moment it happened. At first, many could scarcely believe what they were seeing on their screens. The sight of civilian aircraft exploding into symbols of American power and success in New York and Washington was shocking and deadly. A quarter-century later, there is no denying the mark that day left on the US, the Middle East and the world.

The day set in motion by al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden brought down two governments: the Taliban in Afghanistan and Saddam Hussein’s government in Iraq. Afghanistan may have returned to life under a diluted form of Taliban rule, but the Middle East is still paying the price for the regional imbalances created when the US military uprooted Iraq’s Baathist government.

The fall of both governments was an enormous, unintended gift to Iran, now engaged in a military conflict with the United States.

The world was not accustomed to seeing the US attacked at home. On December 7, 1941, Japan attacked the US base at Pearl Harbor in Hawaii. Washington declared war on Japan the next day, and the rest is history.

On September 11, bin Laden brought the war onto American soil itself, prompting George W. Bush to launch a war against what he regarded as strongholds of terrorism.

It was no surprise that a wounded America, led by Bush, decided to topple the government of Mullah Mohammed Omar, who insisted on sheltering bin Laden and ignored calls to distance himself from the al-Qaeda leader or hand him over.

But the greater response came in the Middle East. In 2003, the region watched a US armored vehicle pull Saddam Hussein’s statue from its pedestal in Baghdad’s Firdos Square. It would later watch the hangman’s noose tighten around Saddam’s neck, alarming two men: Libya’s Moammar al-Gaddafi and Yemen’s Ali Abdullah Saleh.

Bin Laden deliberately chose mostly Saudis for the team that attacked New York and Washington, hoping to provoke a crisis and rupture relations between Washington and Riyadh. He did not get what he wanted, but the attacks posed a test across the Muslim world.

Many voices in the US called for terrorism to be uprooted at its source. The attacks unsettled the US and the West’s relations with many countries. They also strained relations between Western governments and Arab and Muslim communities, particularly as waves of migration increased. Today, the far-right is on the rise in several parts of Europe.

Yasser Arafat was living in Gaza that day. He was troubled by the attention focused on a few Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza who handed out sweets to celebrate the attacks and express their anger at American bias toward Israel.

Despite his advanced age, Arafat insisted on donating blood for those wounded in New York and Washington and went to a Gaza hospital. Some say that, in the first hours, he feared Palestinians might have been involved in carrying out the attacks.

Al-Gaddafi was also alarmed, although both he and Saddam initially imagined that the attacks would weaken the US. Al-Gaddafi asked Foreign Minister Abdulrahman Shalgham to arrange for Algerian President Abdelaziz Bouteflika to tell Bush that Libya was ready to normalize relations and open a new chapter with the US.

Bouteflika conveyed the Libyan position, but the US president told his visitor: “Tell al-Gaddafi that he must immediately surrender his nuclear program’s arsenal, or we will go and destroy it ourselves.”

Shalgham, having gauged the tense mood in America, told a meeting in Tripoli that the United States would occupy Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya. The Libyan leader did not hesitate to bow to Bush’s demands.

The US used Iraq’s alleged possession of weapons of mass destruction as a pretext for attacking the country. It also claimed that the Iraqi government had ties to al-Qaeda. Many did not believe the claim, particularly given the stark differences between Saddam and bin Laden and the vastly different ideologies that guided them.

The prevailing impression was that the allegation had been fabricated. In fact, no relationship existed. But Saddam made a serious error in the 1990s, while bin Laden was in Sudan, when he sent a member of Syria’s Muslim Brotherhood to meet him there. The al-Qaeda leader showed no interest in cooperating with what he called the “infidel Baathist regime.”

The Iraqi government tried again, sending an intelligence official named Farouk Hijazi. A meeting with bin Laden was arranged through Sudanese Islamist leader Hassan al-Turabi. After the meeting, which lasted more than three hours, Hijazi returned to Iraq and advised Saddam to abandon the idea of working with bin Laden, who reportedly demanded permission to establish independent camps on Iraqi soil.

The Iraqi government dropped the idea of cooperating with bin Laden. But US intelligence agencies exploited murky threads of contact between the two sides and used them to justify the invasion of Iraq.

The US toppled the Taliban and Saddam’s government and launched a prolonged hunt for al-Qaeda leaders.

On May 2, 2011, bin Laden, hiding in Abbottabad, Pakistan, was taken by surprise when US troops stormed his compound. America exacted revenge on the architect of the attacks on New York and Washington and disposed of his body at sea.

Osama bin Laden was gone, but al-Qaeda’s imprint exacted an enormous price from the countries of the Middle East.

What Is the Kakhovka Dam in Ukraine - and What Happened?

Most Viewed

Doomsday Tech: Could AI Really Kill Us All?

Why Do ‘Temporary’ Weapons Depots Keep Exploding in Northwestern Syria?

Sept. 11’s Legacy Endures a Quarter-Century Later

لم تشترك بعد