Blowing the Kerch Causeway?

[Aida1]

Peter,

Thanks for taking the time to post up some links. I was inspired enough to do a bit of googling and found this article which was interesting and balanced - jeez, it’s complicated!

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/16/wor ... e-war.html

Clearly I think it is important for Ukraine to protect its minorities, just like I think that is important in any country. I also think that national sovereignty is important especially in light of current events. I’m just not sure that hysterical language like “atrocities” or “cultural annihilation” are particularly useful in this context especially when it is clear that Russian forces are carrying out atrocities and attempting cultural annihilation in Ukraine more broadly.

Hopefully there will be brighter times ahead for all concerned and more coffee served by pleasant waitresses or waiters.

Regards

Tom

Hello Tom,

I did not intent to be hysterical in any sense. If a multiethnic state pushes through legislations that aim a unicultural population, we can call it whatever we want, it is what it is: an oppressive state that wants to annihilate its minority cultures. You saw the burnt building, the public hate speeches and such; we can call it whatever we want, but it is what it is: atrocious attacks on minorities.

I am not saying or implying that Ukrainian misdeeds mitigate or justify what Russia is doing in Ukraine. What I point out is that Ukraine is not complying with EU standards and that EU supplies a country that is oppressive and ruled by organized crime.

You make no sense as you would have the whole of Ukraine under the oppressive boot of Putin. You give no valid reason for not protecting the Ukrainian population against Putin. The Ukraine does not yet have to comply with any EU standard and merits support against an unprovoked agression including many warcrimes.

[mezsat2]

Lets get this thread back on track to the title. How about we move other RU/UKR war discussions back to the "kissinger" thread ?

Crimean Bridge:
Its debatable if the UKR want to target this bridge. While a valid military target, its destruction might move Putin towards general mobilization. However the mere threat has forced the RU to move multiple defenses to the bridge area in response.

The bridge itself is of relatively recent construction and probably difficult to seriously damage.

Missiles: At this time, I know of no public information that indicates that UKR has any missiles that could reach the bridge. If the UKR receive Tomahawks that could change. Even then, it would have to get past the defenses.

Planes: given the air defenses, I doubt any UKR plane could make it to the bridge alive

SOF: good luck carrying enough explosives to damage the bridge, unless you happen to have a suicide bomber driving a semi truck full of explosives over the bridge.

So, as far as I can tell, the Crimean bridge is in no immediate threat for now.

Mad Dog

I've seen a number of commentators explain why it would be disadvantageous for the Ukrainian army to blow the bridge- such as the fact that Russian forces would have no way to withdraw and tracking the movement of military gear in and out of Crimea would be more difficult.

I know this is probably a hopeless daydream, but I think a good solution for Crimea is that it would be a "free state" where both Russians and Ukrainians can come and go as they please. This gives both nations good access to the Black Sea, and it's also a good vacation spot for the citizens
of both countries. It could even be a way for the two countries to gradually reduce their hostility to each other with some intermingling.

This might be an unsavory prospect for Ukraine right now, but there are a large number of actual Russians (and many other nationalities) in Crimea. Ukraine understandably has a great deal of hatred for Russia at the moment, but the youth of both countries could eventually work through that over time. Then, they won't have to worry as much about constant wars. It can happen. Who would have ever thought the US would be able to get along with Japan and Germany?

This Kerch bridge would allow a free flow of traffic for Russians to pass into Crimea without entering Ukraine.

Crimea could be governed by a joint commission of 6 Russians, 6 Ukrainians, and 1 representing all the other nationalities (so there are never any tied votes- no vetoes or "abstentions" allowed).

[Tom Peters]

I've seen a number of commentators explain why it would be disadvantageous for the Ukrainian army to blow the bridge- such as the fact that Russian forces would have no way to withdraw and tracking the movement of military gear in and out of Crimea would be more difficult.

I know this is probably a hopeless daydream, but I think a good solution for Crimea is that it would be a "free state" where both Russians and Ukrainians can come and go as they please. This gives both nations good access to the Black Sea, and it's also a good vacation spot for the citizens
of both countries. It could even be a way for the two countries to gradually reduce their hostility to each other with some intermingling.

This might be an unsavory prospect for Ukraine right now, but there are a large number of actual Russians (and many other nationalities) in Crimea. Ukraine understandably has a great deal of hatred for Russia at the moment, but the youth of both countries could eventually work through that over time. Then, they won't have to worry as much about constant wars. It can happen. Who would have ever thought the US would be able to get along with Japan and Germany?

This Kerch bridge would allow a free flow of traffic for Russians to pass into Crimea without entering Ukraine.

Crimea could be governed by a joint commission of 6 Russians, 6 Ukrainians, and 1 representing all the other nationalities (so there are never any tied votes- no vetoes or "abstentions" allowed).

I would guess that the UKR claims of "Crimea or bust" are just tough talk used as a potential bargaining chip. The UKR are far from Crimea, and Crimea is easily defended from the north. Ru stole Crimea from UKR 8 years ago so I would imagine the demographics are in favor of RU now.

Mad Dog

[Hikari]

man this is too easy
you guys see fireworks yet?

[Hikari]

guys wake up a little
really fancy firework show on kerch!
better than July the 4th or Chinese new year

[Aida1]

Great news.
https://edition.cnn.com/2022/10/08/euro ... index.html

[mezsat2]

LOL. So much for my efforts at diplomacy .

It's just unfortunate to see the scale of destruction going on because somebody, somewhere, is
eventually going to have to clean up and repair all this mess.

I can say without a doubt that the United States is not economically capable of a Marshall Plan 2.0.
Certainly, the US will provide seized oligarch funds, but beyond that, it's going to be tough sledding.

Ukrainians will never starve given they live on the most fertile soil in the world, but everything
else is going to be quite primitive for some time.

[Hikari]

It is questionable how important that bridge is, besides, there is practically zero chance for a NATO attack into Russian territory. A commando attack is also questionable because the bridge now lies deep in Russian territory and the area is full of soldiers and police forces. Not to mention that permanent damage to a bridge can only be achieved by blowing up the pillars, which require a lot of explosives and / or drilling, neither of which is likely to succeed.

If Ukraine obtained rockets like that, I also believe they'd use them against actual troop concentrations or objects with operational importance, and not against a target that might (!) hinder Russian logistics (in an area which is not even contested).

ain't that complex

[Tom Peters]

Holy %(#&#()$ ! THe Kerch bridge is damaged, possibly unusable. Multiple pictures and videos show this, but the extent of damage is unclear. Im trying to get through all the info on OSINT channels. What could of caused this ? Officially, UKR dont have weapons that could of done this.

Mad Dog

[Peter89]

It is questionable how important that bridge is, besides, there is practically zero chance for a NATO attack into Russian territory. A commando attack is also questionable because the bridge now lies deep in Russian territory and the area is full of soldiers and police forces. Not to mention that permanent damage to a bridge can only be achieved by blowing up the pillars, which require a lot of explosives and / or drilling, neither of which is likely to succeed.

If Ukraine obtained rockets like that, I also believe they'd use them against actual troop concentrations or objects with operational importance, and not against a target that might (!) hinder Russian logistics (in an area which is not even contested).

ain't that complex

What do you mean?

[Peter89]

In my opinion, this is a counterreaction to the Nord Stream sabotage, just like the strike at drone attack on Shaykovka is an indication that the Ukrainians can and will target Russian heavy bombers deep in Russian territory, if they choose to mass-deploy them. This is clearly an escalation of the conflict, and I wonder how long will it take until the Russians begin to attack European civilian infrastructure?

[Aida1]

In my opinion, this is a counterreaction to the Nord Stream sabotage, just like the strike at drone attack on Shaykovka is an indication that the Ukrainians can and will target Russian heavy bombers deep in Russian territory, if they choose to mass-deploy them. This is clearly an escalation of the conflict, and I wonder how long will it take until the Russians begin to attack European civilian infrastructure?

Would be suicide as NATO is able to cause much more damage to Russia.

[Peter89]

In my opinion, this is a counterreaction to the Nord Stream sabotage, just like the strike at drone attack on Shaykovka is an indication that the Ukrainians can and will target Russian heavy bombers deep in Russian territory, if they choose to mass-deploy them. This is clearly an escalation of the conflict, and I wonder how long will it take until the Russians begin to attack European civilian infrastructure?

Would be suicide as NATO is able to cause much more damage to Russia.

Well it is possible that the USA damaged the Nord Stream, but it is also possible that the Russians did it. This is just cutting an artery yet, but how can you be so sure that Russia is not inclined to blow up some bridges or cause some problems at airports, undermining the sense of security that allows the civilian airports to operate?

Also, NATO is a diverse entity: what is good for the USA and Turkey, is not necessarily good for Europe.

[Aida1]

In my opinion, this is a counterreaction to the Nord Stream sabotage, just like the strike at drone attack on Shaykovka is an indication that the Ukrainians can and will target Russian heavy bombers deep in Russian territory, if they choose to mass-deploy them. This is clearly an escalation of the conflict, and I wonder how long will it take until the Russians begin to attack European civilian infrastructure?

Would be suicide as NATO is able to cause much more damage to Russia.

Well it is possible that the USA damaged the Nord Stream, but it is also possible that the Russians did it. This is just cutting an artery yet, but how can you be so sure that Russia is not inclined to blow up some bridges or cause some problems at airports, undermining the sense of security that allows the civilian airports to operate?

Also, NATO is a diverse entity: what is good for the USA and Turkey, is not necessarily good for Europe.

Russia cannot afford a conflict with NATO. It would lose badly.

[Hikari]

It is questionable how important that bridge is, besides, there is practically zero chance for a NATO attack into Russian territory. A commando attack is also questionable because the bridge now lies deep in Russian territory and the area is full of soldiers and police forces. Not to mention that permanent damage to a bridge can only be achieved by blowing up the pillars, which require a lot of explosives and / or drilling, neither of which is likely to succeed.

If Ukraine obtained rockets like that, I also believe they'd use them against actual troop concentrations or objects with operational importance, and not against a target that might (!) hinder Russian logistics (in an area which is not even contested).

ain't that complex

What do you mean?

blow it up wasn't that hard.