TL;DR: What you are trying to do is salvaging a content that the community has already voted out.
Letting you doing so would not only violate the SE rules and practices,
but also sets a precedent that will trigger a race of politically committed agents reposting each other (not completely, only 2/3rd) and the community struggling to clear the same content over and over.
Please do not involve us into that race.
Sockpuppetry: I believe that community voting, like delete- and down-votes that your post has reaped a rich harvest of, exists for a purpose. Posting a duplicate for a single purpose of evading the community vote, as one of the forms of sockpuppetry, should be considered a severe violation of the very founding principles of Stack Exchange.
Your content was delete-voted: We do not know how many delete-votes have been casted on the post after your edits, but at least the final one must be on the post that contained all your contributions. It simply cannot be otherwise.
Tried already: The OP has already attempted to salvage their heavily-downvoted post by deleting it and re-posting it again. It was subsequently deleted by the diamond Mod with the following comment:
Hi convert, please don't delete your original answer just to repost an answer which is substantially the same. Instead, please edit your old answer. I'm going to delete this version, but please feel free to undelete your other answer if you wish. – CDJB ♦
So your question reduces to what is to be considered "substantially the same".
I think Mods would review such cases individually.
Speaking for myself, I will flag such attempts at once.
in other words, I won't be completely copying and pasting from the deleted answer but 2/3rd of it would still be the same
Slippery slope: If the community allows you that, what would prevent another propagandist from attempting to salvage another 1/3 of the content on the same premise?
Below seems to be a separate problem, but let me address it as well.
(none of whom have shared any explanation in the comments on why it needs be deleted).
I'm not a delete-voter, but here's one easy-to-find reason.
Selective quoting: Your edit included a quote. You put an ellipsis ("...") after the words "enough to stymie Russian crossings but not flood nearby villages."
Here's what you have conveniently concealed under the ellipsis in the original article:
The test was a success, Kovalchuk said, but the step remained a last resort. He held off.
This selective quoting is very typical for propaganda, hence the down- and delete-votes.