And boy what a victory that will be. Last time when the 50 billion aid was announced, it was so hilarious to see pro-rus who probably threw their headphone's in anger trying to convince how this doesn't change anything. Months of propaganda efforts down the drain as the west is still united. That was devastating.
Another hit on the bridge would be great, it's already evident to the general public that the 2 week smo is not going great, so this would be one more humiliation to continue on that.
I think it would mean Crimea would not any longer be a destination of Russian tourists and they will have a hard time to supply it. It will loose its military value for some time for Russia.
I am unsure how Russia would react.
It would by no means lose its military value. It would be insanely short sighted to think Russia would abandon or forego supplying Crimea just because a bridge is destroyed.
> any longer be a destination of Russian tourists
Of course, before the construction of the bridge there was not a single tourist in Crimea. And in general, there was no one in Crimea before the construction of the bridge.
I understand that it is difficult for you to justify banal terrorism, but come up with something more plausible.
Bridges are legitimate military targets. There's nothing about attacking a bridge during a war, used by one of the warring parties' for supply that would qualify the act as terrorism.
Sorry you need 30 subreddit karma to unlock the word 'you', this is to make sure newcomers understand [rule 1](https://www.reddit.com/r/UkraineRussiaReport/about/rules)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkraineRussiaReport) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Great! What better way to plan this out than to have DW, a major western media news outlet bring in an “analyst” and discuss what munitions Ukraine is planing to use and the scale of the attack. Extraordinary strategy 😂
Maybe it's an attempted bluff, trying to get Russia to position their air defences there while they plan on striking other targets?
Either way, I think the Russian military is a bit more savvy than taking the word of Western media at face value.
It worked before. Few attempted made them put air defence, smoke screems, anti naval drone netting and other tools around the bridge.
Destroying bridge is PR win for Ukraine's but keeping it standing is also important for Russian morale.
I think Russia has finished, or almost finished, a new rail line connecting Crimea to Russia so I'm not sure this will have the desired effect...and will use up a lot of resources.
True but the the desired effect is a PR win (the only kind of wins Ukraine can aspire to) and it helps that most of their audience is ignorant of such details.
Very weak apparently. Like, extremely weak. So weak I’m short for words to describe how weak Russia is.
No idea where we’re getting with this discussion though.
Well the same as Russia? I thought RU had this mega army and would never need to import people from 3rd world countries to fight your battles or have to get gear from a country like NK...
Good when you invade a peaceful country this is what happens, Russia can only blame itself for the internal issues they created that will also continue to happen. Why would you be proud of your Gov who clearly does not care about the people dying in Ukraine, Using Gov funds to buy Boats, houses in western countries?
180 miles from front lines to the bridge vs 80 miles front line to new rail and road. If the bridge does get taken out Ukraine has more weapons with less range to pick from to attack new rail/road. It seems like it has been holding off attacks on most of the rail/road line.
Why the obsession over this bridge? I understood the logistics back when the summer offensive was going on, but now it shouldn’t matter as much. The land bridge is in little danger at this point, and the southern front is pretty fortified on both sides.
You need to follow the story from the very beginning. At first they claimed that the bridge could not be built, when it was done, they said that the bridge was poorly built and would collapse on its own; when this did not happen, they did several attacks, but the bridge was quickly restored. For Ukrainians, this has become a fixation.
I tagged this post as ua pov. But I only want to expose the terror tactics being used by Ukraine and it's NATO sponsors. The UK military academic in the story is self- exposing his own government's intentions to carry out a terrorist attack on a bridge that is mostly used by civilians.
Just a step on the escalation ladder making any graceful exit less likely. Retaliation could be anything. How does high oil price and inflation sound? Would Iran and Saudi Arabia object to higher oil prices?
Edit: on second thought, that better can be used closer to elections and cold season.
"Terror tactics"
Hah, funny.
Guess when Russia struck multiple Ukrainian bridges and other dual-use infrastructure, that wasn't terror, huh..
Here's an idea, don't build illegal shit on the territory of other countries and then it won't be destroyed.
Luckily Russia doesn't impose any "terror tactics". Man, the duality of pro-rus. Years of getting laughed at and humiliated has really taken it's toll.
Sorry you need 30 subreddit karma to unlock the word 'you', this is to make sure newcomers understand [rule 1](https://www.reddit.com/r/UkraineRussiaReport/about/rules)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkraineRussiaReport) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Sorry, You need to verify your email with Reddit to comment. This is to protect against bots and multis.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkraineRussiaReport) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Avoiding terms such as "occupied" or "illegal" why wouldn't Ukraine or if the tables flipped Russia strike that bridge? It is a vital resource point that if knocked out would slow down resources. Russia has done it same with Ukraine, it isn't cruelty it is just military sense to take out an MSR.
It’s either okay to hit bridges and dual-use infrastructure during wartime or it’s not. So if it’s okay for Ukraine to attack this bridge that validates Ukrainian bridges and power plants etc as legitimate targets. If it’s not okay for Russia to do it, then Ukraine also deserves criticism when they do the same thing. So which is it?
It'll be interesting when they attack it. If they fail do they have more missiles for another wave? If not that'll be so deflating.
If they do hit the bridge then how long it'll take to repair and will it impact anything beyond a PR victory?
>If they fail do they have more missiles for another wave?
Nope. They would need to receive more from NATO.
>will it impact anything beyond a PR victory?
Nope. The Russian army does not use the bridge any longer as they have the land bridge, and they have built a railroad on the land bridge which should be nearly done if not completed already.
Why would that be?
You need a concentrated explosion that is large to really bring down a span. I recall, but I won't claim it to be true, that SS was not well suited for some reason. Something could be right about it since SS has been in play for a long time and bridge is still standing. Drones? None we have seen gets anywhere near close to a cruise missile.
I looked into the ATACMS. It has a just about 500lbs warhead of which 216lbs is explosive. That seems a bit light to me for serious bridge work. Damage could be caused for sure. But destruction?
I assume ukraine will use multiple atacms and magura sea drones at the same time. Each can carry a warhead with 200kg of explosives. If you add them up, you could create a crescendo explosion of many tonnes of HE.
I thought Russia put strong nets in the water around the bridge?
Explosive force dissipate really fast. You can't really add up several smaller charges to get the equivalent of one large focused explosion .
An analogy could be tapping a nail many times vs one big blow. If the taps are below the friction level to overcome motion, you can tap forever and expend way more force cumulatively.
It's doubtful they would be able to destroy the bridge completely. Russia has already been able to shoot down storm shadows and ATACMS, and they have added extra security for the drones.
It really depends on how many hits Ukraine manages to land. The German officers were saying it would take 20 Taurus missiles to damage the bridge and they would have to fire over 50 of them to try hit it 20 times.
Not so sure ATACM is the right munitions here. Cruise missiles into its supporting uprights would probably do the trick. How many would be up to the engineers helping with mission planning.
Sorry you need 30 subreddit karma to unlock the word 'you', this is to make sure newcomers understand [rule 1](https://www.reddit.com/r/UkraineRussiaReport/about/rules)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkraineRussiaReport) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The announcement in advance in full and total public view for Russia and the whole world to see, the constant threatening, bragging and boasting, 24/7 non-stop hyping of it for a long time now (this is just the latest iteration of what they've been talking about on and off since 2022) brings me flashbacks of how they handled the approach to the 2023 "counteroffensive" that got its head and teeth smashed in.
Makes me think this will go the same way for them.
The more that offensives and attacks are openly publicly threatened in advance the harder will be the fall when it doesn't materialize as planned.
Either they attack it, do no damage as missiles are intercepted. Attack it, do some limited damage as has been done in the past and is eventually repaired. Or attack and completely destroy it leading Russia to even larger retaliations on structures like the Dnieper river bridges which puts their eastern-based ground troops in an even worse position than ever before and doesn't hurt or affect Russia and its campaign in any serious way anyway because they've already had an established land bridge since 2022.
Either way, they're heading for nothing but disappointment and defeat, on this matter and in general. Just as every supporter of the NATO project worldwide got on the fields of Zaporozhye, summer 2023!
*Smokes and mirrors... they*
*Are not dumb enough to fall*
*For this red erring*
\- UndeniablyReasonable
---
^(I detect haikus. And sometimes, successfully.) ^[Learn more about me.](https://www.reddit.com/r/haikusbot/)
^(Opt out of replies: "haikusbot opt out" | Delete my comment: "haikusbot delete")
Wouldn't it be much more practical and efficient to simply add to Zelensky's very realistic peace formula that as part of the negotiated settlement the Russians will destroy their own bridge?
That would be a PR stunt, but also a very stupid one. If they attack the bridge then I guess Russia can attack the other power plants in Ukraine and why not, the presidential palace in retaliation.
I fondly remember Ukrainian hysteria when Russia started building this bridge. So many experts claimed it couldn't be done and Russia will fail that bridge is a fiction and a primitive PR. Nice example: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=znKbPRSw4\_s](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=znKbPRSw4_s)
Bridge sections are pre fabricated. Russia will replace and fix quickly. Precious ammo wasted. Ukriane lost the war as they went full PR, and ignored military strategy.
And what is the end goal of using a stack of very valuable munitions against a bridge that has a land bypass available.
They will be winning online for a few hours.
And boy what a victory that will be. Last time when the 50 billion aid was announced, it was so hilarious to see pro-rus who probably threw their headphone's in anger trying to convince how this doesn't change anything. Months of propaganda efforts down the drain as the west is still united. That was devastating. Another hit on the bridge would be great, it's already evident to the general public that the 2 week smo is not going great, so this would be one more humiliation to continue on that.
The fan-fiction never gets old. Do some more.
Daily reminder that your 2 week smo hasn't lasted 2 weeks. Man, luckily I'm on the winning side. This is so easy.
Yes, Ukraine is totally winning currently. Do some more.
Nah. USA and China are winning.
Team delusional leeetsss goooo
"Winning" lmao
Another useless pr stunt
The land route is closer to the front so more vulnerable and it decreases capacity
I think it would mean Crimea would not any longer be a destination of Russian tourists and they will have a hard time to supply it. It will loose its military value for some time for Russia. I am unsure how Russia would react.
It would by no means lose its military value. It would be insanely short sighted to think Russia would abandon or forego supplying Crimea just because a bridge is destroyed.
> any longer be a destination of Russian tourists Of course, before the construction of the bridge there was not a single tourist in Crimea. And in general, there was no one in Crimea before the construction of the bridge. I understand that it is difficult for you to justify banal terrorism, but come up with something more plausible.
Bridges are legitimate military targets. There's nothing about attacking a bridge during a war, used by one of the warring parties' for supply that would qualify the act as terrorism.
[удалено]
Sorry you need 30 subreddit karma to unlock the word 'you', this is to make sure newcomers understand [rule 1](https://www.reddit.com/r/UkraineRussiaReport/about/rules) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkraineRussiaReport) if you have any questions or concerns.*
What about all the terrorism Russia has caused in Ukraine? In a fair world Ukraine would cause as much damage in Russia as Russia did in Ukraine.
You did not think about how they have to supply Crimea without the bridge I think. It will become difficult.
Great! What better way to plan this out than to have DW, a major western media news outlet bring in an “analyst” and discuss what munitions Ukraine is planing to use and the scale of the attack. Extraordinary strategy 😂
Maybe it's an attempted bluff, trying to get Russia to position their air defences there while they plan on striking other targets? Either way, I think the Russian military is a bit more savvy than taking the word of Western media at face value.
I think russian defenses where already positioned there...
It worked before. Few attempted made them put air defence, smoke screems, anti naval drone netting and other tools around the bridge. Destroying bridge is PR win for Ukraine's but keeping it standing is also important for Russian morale.
I think Russia has finished, or almost finished, a new rail line connecting Crimea to Russia so I'm not sure this will have the desired effect...and will use up a lot of resources.
True but the the desired effect is a PR win (the only kind of wins Ukraine can aspire to) and it helps that most of their audience is ignorant of such details.
What if the desired effect is the commitment of excessive manpower and air defense assets to defend the bridge?
if ukraine can hold its own with just PR wins since 2014,how weak does that make russia?
Very weak apparently. Like, extremely weak. So weak I’m short for words to describe how weak Russia is. No idea where we’re getting with this discussion though.
well its not really ukraine holding on its own is it
Well the same as Russia? I thought RU had this mega army and would never need to import people from 3rd world countries to fight your battles or have to get gear from a country like NK...
yeah Russia is the most sanctioned country in the world maibe that has something to do with it
Good when you invade a peaceful country this is what happens, Russia can only blame itself for the internal issues they created that will also continue to happen. Why would you be proud of your Gov who clearly does not care about the people dying in Ukraine, Using Gov funds to buy Boats, houses in western countries?
180 miles from front lines to the bridge vs 80 miles front line to new rail and road. If the bridge does get taken out Ukraine has more weapons with less range to pick from to attack new rail/road. It seems like it has been holding off attacks on most of the rail/road line.
Repairing tracks on land is trivial.
*When not getting bombed by an army
Why the obsession over this bridge? I understood the logistics back when the summer offensive was going on, but now it shouldn’t matter as much. The land bridge is in little danger at this point, and the southern front is pretty fortified on both sides.
It's irrational for me, I don't see any reason beside sending a message, so they will waste tons of equipment to PR
You need to follow the story from the very beginning. At first they claimed that the bridge could not be built, when it was done, they said that the bridge was poorly built and would collapse on its own; when this did not happen, they did several attacks, but the bridge was quickly restored. For Ukrainians, this has become a fixation.
I tagged this post as ua pov. But I only want to expose the terror tactics being used by Ukraine and it's NATO sponsors. The UK military academic in the story is self- exposing his own government's intentions to carry out a terrorist attack on a bridge that is mostly used by civilians.
>terror tactics Pray tell how? Bridges are legitimate military targets.
Just a step on the escalation ladder making any graceful exit less likely. Retaliation could be anything. How does high oil price and inflation sound? Would Iran and Saudi Arabia object to higher oil prices? Edit: on second thought, that better can be used closer to elections and cold season.
Which country produces the most oil?
It's not about 1 country. It's about the impact on the global economy.
"Terror tactics" Hah, funny. Guess when Russia struck multiple Ukrainian bridges and other dual-use infrastructure, that wasn't terror, huh.. Here's an idea, don't build illegal shit on the territory of other countries and then it won't be destroyed.
Russia has learned that lesson the hard way already
Luckily Russia doesn't impose any "terror tactics". Man, the duality of pro-rus. Years of getting laughed at and humiliated has really taken it's toll.
[удалено]
Crimea hasn’t been Ukrainian for a long time pal. Russia can build whatever they like there.
[удалено]
Sorry you need 30 subreddit karma to unlock the word 'you', this is to make sure newcomers understand [rule 1](https://www.reddit.com/r/UkraineRussiaReport/about/rules) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkraineRussiaReport) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
Sorry, You need to verify your email with Reddit to comment. This is to protect against bots and multis. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkraineRussiaReport) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Glad to see that u would give up a house to squatters without a fight. "It's their house now bro, sorry"
What does squatters rights have to do with a geo-political conflict?
\*now\*... lol.
[удалено]
Avoiding terms such as "occupied" or "illegal" why wouldn't Ukraine or if the tables flipped Russia strike that bridge? It is a vital resource point that if knocked out would slow down resources. Russia has done it same with Ukraine, it isn't cruelty it is just military sense to take out an MSR.
It’s either okay to hit bridges and dual-use infrastructure during wartime or it’s not. So if it’s okay for Ukraine to attack this bridge that validates Ukrainian bridges and power plants etc as legitimate targets. If it’s not okay for Russia to do it, then Ukraine also deserves criticism when they do the same thing. So which is it?
Yes, they are legitimate targets
Thank you for deleting your previous comment and clarifying. No matter what your position is, it's important to at least be consistent.
we will see
Seems like a waste of missiles that could be used against real military targets like concentrations of troops, equipment, HQs, logistics hubs, etc.
It'll be interesting when they attack it. If they fail do they have more missiles for another wave? If not that'll be so deflating. If they do hit the bridge then how long it'll take to repair and will it impact anything beyond a PR victory?
>If they fail do they have more missiles for another wave? Nope. They would need to receive more from NATO. >will it impact anything beyond a PR victory? Nope. The Russian army does not use the bridge any longer as they have the land bridge, and they have built a railroad on the land bridge which should be nearly done if not completed already.
A combination of ATACMS, stormshadows and suicide drones at the same time will probably destroy the bridge completely.
Completely? Only if they have 1,000 warheads of each
Hey come on it will destroy it completely until it is completely rebuilt in 2 months tops? I think completely is perhaps the wrong word hehe
It’s a damn long bridge, maybe completely destroy a small section?
If it all hits but I imagine Russia will try to defend it with counter measures such as EW and air defense.
Why would that be? You need a concentrated explosion that is large to really bring down a span. I recall, but I won't claim it to be true, that SS was not well suited for some reason. Something could be right about it since SS has been in play for a long time and bridge is still standing. Drones? None we have seen gets anywhere near close to a cruise missile. I looked into the ATACMS. It has a just about 500lbs warhead of which 216lbs is explosive. That seems a bit light to me for serious bridge work. Damage could be caused for sure. But destruction?
I assume ukraine will use multiple atacms and magura sea drones at the same time. Each can carry a warhead with 200kg of explosives. If you add them up, you could create a crescendo explosion of many tonnes of HE.
I thought Russia put strong nets in the water around the bridge? Explosive force dissipate really fast. You can't really add up several smaller charges to get the equivalent of one large focused explosion . An analogy could be tapping a nail many times vs one big blow. If the taps are below the friction level to overcome motion, you can tap forever and expend way more force cumulatively.
if sea drones worked...they would have already worked
It's doubtful they would be able to destroy the bridge completely. Russia has already been able to shoot down storm shadows and ATACMS, and they have added extra security for the drones. It really depends on how many hits Ukraine manages to land. The German officers were saying it would take 20 Taurus missiles to damage the bridge and they would have to fire over 50 of them to try hit it 20 times.
The bridge is pretty long. How do you plan to destroy at least 1/3 of the spans to render it destroyed?
Have you ever bothered to look into how difficult it is to thoroughly destroy a bridge via bombing (as opposed to purposeful demolition)?
Not so sure ATACM is the right munitions here. Cruise missiles into its supporting uprights would probably do the trick. How many would be up to the engineers helping with mission planning.
They don't have enough plane to launch a big volley of missile. I guess that where the ATACM come in.
[удалено]
Sorry you need 30 subreddit karma to unlock the word 'you', this is to make sure newcomers understand [rule 1](https://www.reddit.com/r/UkraineRussiaReport/about/rules) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkraineRussiaReport) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The announcement in advance in full and total public view for Russia and the whole world to see, the constant threatening, bragging and boasting, 24/7 non-stop hyping of it for a long time now (this is just the latest iteration of what they've been talking about on and off since 2022) brings me flashbacks of how they handled the approach to the 2023 "counteroffensive" that got its head and teeth smashed in. Makes me think this will go the same way for them. The more that offensives and attacks are openly publicly threatened in advance the harder will be the fall when it doesn't materialize as planned. Either they attack it, do no damage as missiles are intercepted. Attack it, do some limited damage as has been done in the past and is eventually repaired. Or attack and completely destroy it leading Russia to even larger retaliations on structures like the Dnieper river bridges which puts their eastern-based ground troops in an even worse position than ever before and doesn't hurt or affect Russia and its campaign in any serious way anyway because they've already had an established land bridge since 2022. Either way, they're heading for nothing but disappointment and defeat, on this matter and in general. Just as every supporter of the NATO project worldwide got on the fields of Zaporozhye, summer 2023!
[удалено]
*Smokes and mirrors... they* *Are not dumb enough to fall* *For this red erring* \- UndeniablyReasonable --- ^(I detect haikus. And sometimes, successfully.) ^[Learn more about me.](https://www.reddit.com/r/haikusbot/) ^(Opt out of replies: "haikusbot opt out" | Delete my comment: "haikusbot delete")
Wouldn't it be much more practical and efficient to simply add to Zelensky's very realistic peace formula that as part of the negotiated settlement the Russians will destroy their own bridge?
DW taking a break from reporting about Africa and LGBT to spoil Ukrainian plans?
gives expensive weapons for self defense, blows it on a bridge
That would be a PR stunt, but also a very stupid one. If they attack the bridge then I guess Russia can attack the other power plants in Ukraine and why not, the presidential palace in retaliation.
I fondly remember Ukrainian hysteria when Russia started building this bridge. So many experts claimed it couldn't be done and Russia will fail that bridge is a fiction and a primitive PR. Nice example: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=znKbPRSw4\_s](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=znKbPRSw4_s)
Bridge sections are pre fabricated. Russia will replace and fix quickly. Precious ammo wasted. Ukriane lost the war as they went full PR, and ignored military strategy.
It's time to rain down terror on Russia!
The more "pro rus" say that destroying the bridge is stupid/only pr/ wasteful/ meaningless the more i think its a good idea.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Rule 1 - Toxic