Ukraine Invasion - Please do not post videos showing attacks/similar
- Thread starter areksnumbr1sxylady
- Start date
- Status
I wonder if there going to run out of gas/fuel now as am guessing that bridge was also used for supplying the fuel/gas into Crimea
Last edited:
Associate
- Joined
- 10 Sep 2008
- Posts
- 1,646
They shouldn't worry - There's a train on the bridge thats full of fuel.
It is running a little late though.
Last edited:
What makes you think they could have destroyed it at any time? I think they took the first chance they had. As for a bargaining chip, a chip for what? Ukraine's victory lies in defeating Putin's forces on ground, sea, and air. Knocking out a major supply route to an army already struggling with logistics is an excellent step forward in doing that.
Soldato
- Joined
- 2 Apr 2009
- Posts
- 5,772
- Location
- Location, Location!
Putin apologist.
Ukraine has shown the ability to hit in to Crimea for months, hitting Sevastopol for example.
William Spaniel did a great video on why
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aE5afkEqG08
Soldato
- Joined
- 23 Dec 2009
- Posts
- 3,280
- Location
- Earth
A bargaining chip to get back their own land annexed by force by a dictator? This is a consequence of this war started and invoked by Russia, they started this and they can end this by leaving all occupied Ukrainian land.
The Ukrainian army clearly know what they are doing and we can only speculate (at the moment) their reason for doing this now.
Last edited:
Did it? In WW2 Japan had been fighting a losing war for years, it's economy was being crushed by sanctions, and something like half a million civilians killed by US bombers before the nukes were dropped. Ukraine's situation is very different to that.
Soldato
- Joined
- 14 Oct 2007
- Posts
- 9,367
- Location
- newcastle
It was a great idea you loon, take your tongue from between putins butt cheeks
It looks like now they're in an advance position to where they were it restricts another supply route. Doing it at any other time may have been a show but strategically been very naive.
A bit like that post tbh.
Soldato
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 9,339
Wow. All that fuel burning at extreme heat is going to cause massive structural damage that'll take months to repair.
If UA start to open a third front down south between Melitipol and Mariupol then the Russians are in big trouble. The Russian army in numerous regions will basically be cut off from resupply.
If UA start to open a third front down south between Melitipol and Mariupol then the Russians are in big trouble. The Russian army in numerous regions will basically be cut off from resupply.
Fair point.
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)
Once Putin goes nuclear and I believe he will, you can't defeat a nuclear armed nation - thats the whole point of the MAD doctrine we lived under for decades.
The world has shifted massively as a result of this invasion and non nuclear armed nations are going the seek to arm themselves now - we're going to have to deal with that as and when it happens.
I agree that the precedent set is bad but there are no good ways out of this now. The line in the sand should be where is always has been - at the borders of NATO member states. We can and should supply weapons to Ukraine but only to the degree that stops this tipping into total war.
We can't defeat Putin but we can manage him and Russia. He's 70 - he's not going to be around forever, or even long according to some reports. We need to play a long game here. And yes, that means Ukraine losing its pre 2014 territory, so be it. We've accepted that for the past 9 years.
I'd say we bear some responsibilty here by laundering 100's of billions, if not trillions through the City of London. Either way - Putin is selling this to his people as an ideological war and thats what matters, they're the ones who will fight it or get rid of him. And an awful lot of them support him. And yu right in your post as if its the Russian people who have a choice in thsi - they don't. It's a small cabal of extremist lunatics.
As another poster allued to - ask the Japanese. Also, Putins survival is intrinsic to this war - he loses, he dies (not a bad thing) but he may well be quite happy to see the destruction every major westen city before he goes - don't under estimate how much he hates the west. And don't rely on saner minds in the command chain to stop him either. Either way - Ukraine loses. Once we get to that point, Ukraine is lost. So lets try to find a way to avoid going there in the first place - even if its unpalatable.
No I was more interested in getting home for the clangers or Grange hill.
Same when I was serving in Germany in the late 80s and early 90s not once was I worried or concerned. It is utterly unequivocally out of your control. Unless of course your the chief of staff, the PM or the grunt in charge of loading the weapon which I very much doubt.
Plenty more things can kill you
Fair enough - I was also up for some Grange Hill and the Clangers. I also watched 'Where the wind blows' by Raymond Briggs - probably not age appropriate at the time but I digress.
But if you think there was'nt a level of anxiety in society in general about nuclear war then I'm afraid you're wrong. I think people back then had more of an idea of what it would actually mean. I don't see much evidence of that in this thread.
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........
Sevastopol is a lot closer to Ukrainian-controlled territory than this bridge. Ukraine has hit within Crimea, but not often. I don't think there's any basis to conclude that this is down to Ukraine choosing not to, rather than being limited in their capability to do so.
Hmm, well his opening point seems correct and is the same as mine - a lack of capability. As for the rest, using it in negotiation only makes sense if Ukraine plans to concede - I think they believe they can take back all of their land rather than needing to negotiate. Even if they do negotiate, a stronger military position on the ground is likely to be more valuable than any negotiating value of the bridge. I also don't agree that giving an escape route has much value. The Russian troops are likely to surrender or rout rather than stand. As we've seen elsewhere these are poorly equipped and poorly trained troops with bad morale. Being cut-off is more likely to make them fold than fight like cornered rats. The final points about civilians and the bridge probably have some merit but hitting the bridge doesn't mean it can't be repaired, there are other means of travelling to Russia, and the state of relations between Ukraine and Russia is going to mean that any travel or trade is severely limited for years, maybe decades, to come.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 11 Mar 2005
- Posts
- 32,224
- Location
- Leafy Cheshire
Putin only understand strength. As has been proven time and time again Russia point blank lie therefore it is impossible to come up with a working diplomatic solution.
And no, they should not be allowed to keep Crimea.
Last edited:
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.
- Status