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

Status
Not open for further replies.
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 think we have to trust Ukraine and her allies reasoning on this even if we aren't privy to it all. They are the ones fighting this war, not anyone in this forum.
 
esmozz said:
I don't think anybody really knows to any degree of certainy how close we are to all out war - even at the highest echelons of power. That's whats worrying and it would be foolish to dismiss the possibilty.
Click to expand...

No, we don't. But making your plans on the assumption that the worst case is correct is just as bad for decision making as assuming the best. The best we can do is base our planning on a best assessment of the probabilities, and adjust as new information comes to the fore.

But consider this - Putins thugs used arguably the most lethal nerve agent on the planet to kill somebody he did'nt like in Saiisbury. Who then disposed of enough of that subtance to kill millions, in a waste bin on the street. It was only by a remarkable degree of luck that carelessly throwing that stuff in the bin did'nt result in the deaths of thousands or tens of thousands of people and rendering Salisbury uninhabitable. All to kill one man.
Click to expand...

Not millions, thousands. And even that was very much a theoretical potential not a real practical threat. But either way, yes, it was a gross breech and yet the response to it was weak. There were few sanctions and no real change in the status quo reaction to Russia. What message did that give Putin? It told him that he could carry out chemical weapon attacks in an important European Nuclear power with impunity. Each time we failed to react to Putin's escalating atrocities we laid the ground for the next. Stand down in the face of this invasion of Ukraine or, worse, in the face of the use of nuclear weapons in the conflict, and we send that same message even louder. And this is dangerous, because just like each time before the next time will be worse, and that raises the stakes. Ukraine is one thing, what happens if Russia attacks somewhere in the EU or NATO? Or a non-NATO but closely aligned or economically important country? The risks of escalation to global nuclear is higher the more Russia has escalated to begin with.
 
Orangeade said:
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...
Click to expand...

Sorry what rights did I give up that I don't have now?

Actually don't answer that, this isn't the thread and I've no patience for this nonsense.
 
jpaul said:
Some of the online video comments suggest explosion started beneath bridge with some water movement prior to deck level flash ...
https://youtu.be/S-juPsPG6FE?t=30 a boat ?
I didn't get the operators in the cctv office , even if they were replaying the cctv, they were not using some Russian expletives.
Click to expand...
It is all very curious - 2 different areas of collapse on the road; a very firey explosion, more like a fuel/air explosion than a high explosive and then the fuel train burning in sympophy.
 
Last edited:
cheesyboy said:
It's a civilian bridge, which is a strategic target. It's not a military target
Click to expand...

A response that rather misses the point.

But, in any case, the bridge is part of the infrastructure of Russia's illegal invasion and occupation of Crimea. That alone would be enough to make it a legitimate military target, but in this case it has been being used to bring military supplies into the conflict and that makes it a legitimate military target on infrastructure grounds as well.

cheesyboy said:
That's a pretty broad definition. Would the M5 be a military target too, since I regularly see the army use it?
Click to expand...

The concept of legitimate military target is defined in the Geneva convention. You seem unfamiliar with the meaning of the term so I suggest you read up.
 
Last edited:
nsmalley said:
More likely, how did they ID the guy so quickly when all they have is exploded and burned tiny fragments.
Click to expand...
What makes everyone think the driver knew he was hauling a bomb in his truck? If he did, why would he drive on the outer lane of the bridge when the inner one would offer a better chance of taking out both sides of the road bridge? If it were a bomb on a boat there would have been more debris thrown upwards, there was nothing on the road after the explosion. Maybe those who set the explosion off remotely (watching through a telephoto lens perhaps so it aligned with the train?) didn't really expect the bridge to collapse - that was a bonus - it was actually a statement to Russia that their bridge was not safe from attack.
 
nsmalley said:
More likely, how did they ID the guy so quickly when all they have is exploded and burned tiny fragments.
Click to expand...

Do they have security checks on entry to the bridge? If they were IDing people on entry to the bridge, it'd be easy enough to match CCTV of the truck to the driver.
 
esmozz said:
It stops in Ukraine - because anything else is unthinkable.

That is the argument and the point. Look - if we were having this conversation post 2014 and prior to the invasion in Feburary my take on the whole thing would be completely different. But we stood by and did nothing for years, just as we did nothing about Salisbury or the various other excesses of the Russia state. We could have acted but we (collectively) choose not to.

The time to defend the whole territorial integrity of Ukraine has past. My guess (and I have no particular expertise here) is that Crimea is the trigger point for a much wider conflict. I would have supported arming Ukraine to enable them to repel the recent invasion wholeheartedly has we decided to do so back then. And I suspect had we done so we wouldnt be in the situation we are now. But we did'nt, we in the west have been far too slow.

There is no point drawing a line in the sand if your opponent has already crossed that line. We have to manage the situation as it exists now. And that involves being realistic. And for the record, I believe that line should stop where it has always been - at the borders of NATO members.

As for people who've died in previous wars - I rather suspect they would rather not have died at all, but we'll never be able to ask them. We could ask their families though....
Click to expand...

You could and it's probable Germany would have
won and we would all be speaking German and 2nd class citizens as not from the motherland.

So after a period of talking and understanding it has come to a point to put your **** on the block for all you have stood for in the your talks. So that is the point and the argument deal with it how you will.


Russia no doubt will want to talk again and we should but on our terms not theirs. They have have multiple chances and talks and done what they want. Screw em.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom