This handout satellite image courtesy of Maxar Technologies shows the Nova Kakhovka dam and hydroelectric plant before the destruction on June 5, 2023. Photo: AFP

In the fog of war, it can be almost impossible to determine the truth of an event, especially when both sides have something to gain by blaming the other for a catastrophe. In the aftermath of the collapse of the Kakhovka dam, both Russia and Ukraine are blaming each other for a deliberate act of destruction. 

I have no idea who or what destroyed the dam. There has been speculation that explosions within the dam itself wrecked it, bringing about such devastating consequences. The clear implication of that, in the West, is that Russia has sabotaged its own dam. But Ukraine, which has clear line of sight of the Kakhovka, has presented no visual evidence of a Russian attack. Meanwhile, Russia also has no visual evidence of a Ukrainian one. Why would Kiev endanger tens of thousands of its people in the right bank of the river with such a reckless act? And why would Moscow blow up a dam if it had thousands of troops dug in along secure defensive positions awaiting a much-heralded Ukrainian Spring counterattack on the left bank, which is lower and more vulnerable to the effects of flooding? 

Some experts are now proposing a theory that the continual exposure to artillery shelling from both sides have cumulatively so weakened the 67-year-old construction, that it has sustained damage over so long a period of shelling, that, structurally, it was fatally weakened to the point at which it simply collapsed. There is satellite imagery to support this theory, showing the collapse occurred over a period of days. One expert, Mark Mulligan, professor of physical geography at University College London, told Britain's BBC: "Structural failure resulting from the impact of earlier damage associated with the war remains a possibility."

If this was indeed an unintended consequence of the rolling conflict, perhaps serves as a tragic metaphor for endless war, endless fighting, and a refusal to even consider pausing the aggression to give the opportunity of peace even the smallest of chances to grow. If, as China and others have suggested, it is time to cease the conflict to allow for at least the possibility of peace talks, is it not worthy of consideration? 

There is precedent of a kind - though not at the level of warring states - for laying down one's arms and coming together to talk. It has happened in the past that bitterness, loss and pain have been acknowledged - but without the need to seek revenge for perceived wrongs. It could be a kind of restorative justice, in which wrongs and suffering are acknowledged and the need to move forward is embraced.

Unfortunately, attempt to seek a peaceful solution in the Russia-Ukraine conflict has been criticized. China has been criticized by the West for failing to join its deafening condemnation of Russia. But while China uses its position of even-handedness and balance to speak with both sides and call for an end to the fighting, the West is fanning the flames of conflict with an endless supply of increasingly sophisticated and capable weapons to Ukraine. This does nothing to end the war. On the contrary, it prolongs it.

If as much effort was put into finding a peaceful solution to the fighting as has gone into mission creep and cranking up the potential for wider conflict, the fighting might have stopped by now. Are we to have another pointless war like Afghanistan, which held the West in its deadly grip for two decades? Or a Vietnam, which lasted equally as long because of America's dogmatic refusal to consider peace until enough people had been killed? In the case of Russia-Ukraine war, it must be recognized that the flood waters of war will continue to overwhelm the region until the foundations are laid for a wall which will to dam the tide. Karkhovka is just one example of how, despite politicians' convictions to the contrary, that once a war is started, those fighting it have no control how it ends - until the fighting stops.

The author is a freelance researcher, analyst and writer on international affairs with a particular interest in China. opinion@globaltimes.com.cn