Ukraine Invasion - Please do not post videos showing attacks/similar

Status
Not open for further replies.
esmozz said:
The level of this discussion seems to at the level of Putin is a bully and needs to be put in his place. That works in the playground - not so much in international politics. We simply have to be more realistic.

I'm going to throw this out there, knowing full well the response I'm going to get but here goes....

The way out of this is to allow Russia to retreat to the post 2014 borders and keep the regions he took then, creating a line similar to the DMZ in Korea. Is this a good thing? No. Is it morally correct? No. Is it the least worst solution? Yes I believe it is. (And I believe that is what is actually going to happen)
Click to expand...

This may have been easier to do before the invasion, one of the conditions of any treaty including the formal handover of illegally annexed Crimea.

Putin has gone on a mad rampage killing lots of people, blowing a lot of things up, there has to be some price to pay.

Assuming Putin will never agree to reparations whilst he remains in power, then even if your scenario came to pass (Russia keeps Crimea and abandons the rest of Ukraine) the sanctions on Russia won't get lifted. Long term is Crimea that important that they're willing to eat sanctions for years?

The cost of winning is high, as is the cost of losing, but I don't see a way for Putin to get a win here, and I don't think we should just offer him one. The best hope that remains is for Russia to internally overthrow him and put someone else in charge, who is willing to de-escalate the situation and work towards a sensible peace.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SPG
esmozz said:
What it all boils down to is this - Are you willing to sacrifice London to defend the principle of standing up to a bully.

Awaiting incoming........
Click to expand...

Really so only London is at risk.... So yes we stand up otherwise we would all be third class citizens to people in Moscow. Is that freedom as we know it now ? No so screw putin screw his little insular 1920`s mind set along with his people who have let this happen and stood with closed eyes when the good times roll.
 
terley said:
What is wrong with you people?
First i get called a Putin apologist now this.

Perhaps... there are reasons for keeping a bridge in-tact

One-Time Cost
Once it's gone, the leverage has gone, Ukraine can no longer say "leave the mainland, else we will destroy your precious bridge back to your Crimea"

Tit-for-Tat Retaliation
Restraint in warfare is commonplace, an attack on the bridge could easily cause a retaliation putting Kiyv back in the crosshairs as a strike target

Monitoring and Intelligence
The only convenient way for Russian forces to enter Ukraine is via the bridge, US satellites constantly monitor what's coming in and going out, forwarding it to the US military... Destroying the bridge would force a change in Russia's strategy making things far harder to track.

Escape Route
The other side needs a pathway to retreat, the opponent is liable to fight to the last bullet, Crimea is a natural peninsula, and the bridge gives them an easy out.

Population Sorting
Last time the Ukrainian's hit Crimean air bases the bridge set a record for its use, with Crimeans fleeing for safer grounds in Russia. It's helpful for long term control as it sorts between loyalists to Moscow (hardliners) and those who are loyal to Ukraine.

Civilian Casualties
This one speaks for itself

Ukraine Wants the Bridge
Destroying the bridge doesn't just damage Russia, it removes an enormously valuable piece of infrastructure from Ukraine, should it retake Crimea. Before Russia anexed Crimea Kyiev had agreed to work with Moscow on a bridge to span the straight, Ukraine wanted a more northern bridge... but now it has a bridge it didn't have to pay for.
In a world where Ukraine has retaken Crimea, Ukraine will directly benefit from the bridge in many many ways, the long-term loser would be Ukraine.

Negotiated Settlement
Let's say taking Crimea is unlikely, from Russia's perspective is to create a land-bridge running along the sea of azoths coast, as long as the bridge is standing, Russia is more pliable in potential negotiations over its current false borders inside Ukraine.
Click to expand...

Zzz putin apologist. Oh wait you have an opinion even slightly from the group think? You must therefore support Putin. Same slobbering idiots during covid happy to give up all rights because the TV told them so....

For me I'm just concerned that the Russian ******* is going to use it as an excuse to be....an even bigger *******, possibly a build up to full mobilisation...

Once that happens we are all in for a grinding war of attrition. This doesn't suit European development at all...
 
terley said:
What is wrong with you people?
First i get called a Putin apologist now this.

Perhaps... there are reasons for keeping a bridge in-tact

One-Time Cost
Once it's gone, the leverage has gone, Ukraine can no longer say "leave the mainland, else we will destroy your precious bridge back to your Crimea"

Tit-for-Tat Retaliation
Restraint in warfare is commonplace, an attack on the bridge could easily cause a retaliation putting Kiyv back in the crosshairs as a strike target

Monitoring and Intelligence
The only convenient way for Russian forces to enter Ukraine is via the bridge, US satellites constantly monitor what's coming in and going out, forwarding it to the US military... Destroying the bridge would force a change in Russia's strategy making things far harder to track.

Escape Route
The other side needs a pathway to retreat, the opponent is liable to fight to the last bullet, Crimea is a natural peninsula, and the bridge gives them an easy out.

Population Sorting
Last time the Ukrainian's hit Crimean air bases the bridge set a record for its use, with Crimeans fleeing for safer grounds in Russia. It's helpful for long term control as it sorts between loyalists to Moscow (hardliners) and those who are loyal to Ukraine.

Civilian Casualties
This one speaks for itself

Ukraine Wants the Bridge
Destroying the bridge doesn't just damage Russia, it removes an enormously valuable piece of infrastructure from Ukraine, should it retake Crimea. Before Russia anexed Crimea Kyiev had agreed to work with Moscow on a bridge to span the straight, Ukraine wanted a more northern bridge... but now it has a bridge it didn't have to pay for.
In a world where Ukraine has retaken Crimea, Ukraine will directly benefit from the bridge in many many ways, the long-term loser would be Ukraine.

Negotiated Settlement
Let's say taking Crimea is unlikely, from Russia's perspective is to create a land-bridge running along the sea of azoths coast, as long as the bridge is standing, Russia is more pliable in potential negotiations over its current false borders inside Ukraine.
Click to expand...

Some good points but you've only listed cons, no pros at all to the action? There are some pros as well main one that springs to mind is it's given Russia a huge logistical headache.

To be honest threatening to blow up the bridge would do zero to get Putin to leave Ukraine. I think even if Ukraine said "we're blowing up the bridge on X date at Y time" and had the means to do it, Russia wouldn't just be like "Oh okay then we're off goodbye".
 
terley said:
Man burning the bridge was not a good idea, it weakens the Ukrainian point of leverage.

Ukraine could've destroyed the bridge at any time, it was left up clearly for a reason, a bargaining chip.
Click to expand...

I'd say that as a bargaining chip, it served its purpose well.

"Oh you wanna invade us? Here, have this"
 
The problem this creates now is that Putin might feel it necessary to show strength and retaliate.

He will be p****d off as another key supply route completely is destroyed at a time when the AFU are pushing rapidly towards Kherson.
 
terley said:
What is wrong with you people?
First i get called a Putin apologist now this.

Perhaps... there are reasons for keeping a bridge in-tact

One-Time Cost
Once it's gone, the leverage has gone, Ukraine can no longer say "leave the mainland, else we will destroy your precious bridge back to your Crimea"

Tit-for-Tat Retaliation
Restraint in warfare is commonplace, an attack on the bridge could easily cause a retaliation putting Kiyv back in the crosshairs as a strike target

Monitoring and Intelligence
The only convenient way for Russian forces to enter Ukraine is via the bridge, US satellites constantly monitor what's coming in and going out, forwarding it to the US military... Destroying the bridge would force a change in Russia's strategy making things far harder to track.

Escape Route
The other side needs a pathway to retreat, the opponent is liable to fight to the last bullet, Crimea is a natural peninsula, and the bridge gives them an easy out.

Population Sorting
Last time the Ukrainian's hit Crimean air bases the bridge set a record for its use, with Crimeans fleeing for safer grounds in Russia. It's helpful for long term control as it sorts between loyalists to Moscow (hardliners) and those who are loyal to Ukraine.

Civilian Casualties
This one speaks for itself

Ukraine Wants the Bridge
Destroying the bridge doesn't just damage Russia, it removes an enormously valuable piece of infrastructure from Ukraine, should it retake Crimea. Before Russia anexed Crimea Kyiev had agreed to work with Moscow on a bridge to span the straight, Ukraine wanted a more northern bridge... but now it has a bridge it didn't have to pay for.
In a world where Ukraine has retaken Crimea, Ukraine will directly benefit from the bridge in many many ways, the long-term loser would be Ukraine.

Negotiated Settlement
Let's say taking Crimea is unlikely, from Russia's perspective is to create a land-bridge running along the sea of azoths coast, as long as the bridge is standing, Russia is more pliable in potential negotiations over its current false borders inside Ukraine.
Click to expand...

I can see your reasoning but it's misplaced. This is a war, not a negotiation.
 
SPG said:
Really so only London is at risk.... So yes we stand up otherwise we would all be third class citizens to people in Moscow. Is that freedom as we know it now ? No so screw putin screw his little insular 1920`s mind set along with his people who have let this happen and stood with closed eyes when the good times roll.
Click to expand...

Well done for missing the point again - you can replace London in my post with any or all major western cities.

Just let me see if I understand you correctly - you're willing to sacrifice London (Say 6 Millon dead - 10 MT device) for a principle? Do you live in London?
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: B&W
From the comments on those queues for fuel in Crimea, I will be interested to see if we get matching videos over the next few days of logjams of cars heading back into Russia via the land bridge route. From my quick look at the map, it seems like the safest way for them now is via Melitopol and Mariupol as its furthest away from the fighting.

I also wonder if this will accelerate anything in the battle for Kherson.
 
esmozz said:
Well done for missing the point again - you can replace London in my post with any or all major western cities.

Just me let me see if I understand you correctly - you're willing to sacrifice London (Say 6 Millon dead - 10 MT device) for a principle? Do you live in London?
Click to expand...

So we don't stand up to Putin, he starts to progress across Europe, how far should he be allowed to get before we say enough is enough, how many people die in the process before we draw the line?

If Putin targets London with nuclear weapons then Russia will become a wasteland.

In either of the above scenarios you have no winners, therefore we have to call him out.
 
Last edited:
esmozz said:
Well done for missing the point again - you can replace London in my post with any or all major western cities.

Just let me see if I understand you correctly - you're willing to sacrifice London (Say 6 Millon dead - 10 MT device) for a principle? Do you live in London?
Click to expand...

I see your little fanny wobble and strop lasted long then. Welcome back :D
 
So you wrongly assume if Ukraine take Crimea back... all the new influx of russians are going to slaughterd ? The leverage is still their but even more so as Russia now takes the people back peacefully or they say no we don't want them anymore and a whole heap of internal strife kicks off.
 
Firestar_3x said:
So we don't stand up to Putin, he starts to progress across Europe, how far should he be allowed to get before we say enough is enough, how many people die in the process before we draw the line?
Click to expand...
He won't get far before hitting a Nato country and triggering article 5
 
esmozz said:
What it all boils down to is this - Are you willing to sacrifice London to defend the principle of standing up to a bully.

Awaiting incoming........
Click to expand...
in a heartbeat, you keep running from a bully and he will never stop. What do we do if we give in now and then he comes back for the Baltic states in a few years time?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom