Ten Reasons Why Ukraine Hasn't Destroyed the Crimean Bridge
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 3 июн 2024
- Check out my book "What Caused the Russia-Ukraine War": amzn.to/3HY5aqW. You can also read it for free by signing up for a Kindle Unlimited trial at amzn.to/3QMsBr8. (These are affiliate links, meaning I earn a commission when you make a transaction through them. This means that even if you read for free, you are still supporting the channel.)
The Crimean Bridge (also known as the Kerch Bridge) is a critical piece of infrastructure that connects Crimea to Russia. It connects civilians to the bigger country and allows Russia to transfer supplies and military equipment to the region. More than a half year into the war, Ukraine still has not targeted it. Why not? This video gives ten explanations, digging deeper into the underlying strategy of the conflict.
0:00 Why The Crimean Bridge Is Important
1:14 Military Difficulty
3:49 One-Time Cost
6:10 Tit-for-Tat Retaliation
7:29 Monitoring and Intelligence
8:31 Escape Route
9:33 Population Sorting
10:49 Civilian Casualties
11:12 Maintaining Moderates
13:29 Ukraine Wants the Bridge
14:43 Negotiated Settlement
16:59 Bonus Content
The appearance of U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) visual information does not imply or constitute DoD endorsement.
Images licensed under CC BY 4.0 (creativecommons.org/licenses/...
From President of Ukraine:
• Звернення Володимира З...
• Володимир Зеленський п...
• Звернення Президента В...
www.president.gov.ua/en/photos...
From Kremlin.ru:
kremlin.ru/news/20604
en.kremlin.ru/events/president...
en.kremlin.ru/events/president...
en.kremlin.ru/events/president...
en.kremlin.ru/events/president...
en.kremlin.ru/events/president...
en.kremlin.ru/events/president...
kremlin.ru/events/president/ne...
en.kremlin.ru/events/president...
en.kremlin.ru/events/president...
kremlin.ru/events/president/ne...
en.kremlin.ru/events/president...
kremlin.ru/events/president/ne...
en.kremlin.ru/events/president...
en.kremlin.ru/events/president...
From Rosavtodor.ru:
rosavtodor.ru/about/upravlenie...
rosavtodor.ru/about/upravleni...
rosavtodor.ru/about/upravlenie...
rosavtodor.ru/press-center/med...
From rk.gov.ru:
glava.rk.gov.ru/article/show/...
Images licensed under CC BY 2.0 (creativecommons.org/licenses/...
From Ministry of Defence of Ukraine:
www.flickr.com/photos/ministr...
www.flickr.com/photos/ministr...
www.flickr.com/photos/ministr...
www.flickr.com/photos/ministr...
Images licensed under CC BY-SA 4.0 (creativecommons.org/licenses/...
From Aleksander Kaasik:
commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fi...
Images licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0 (creativecommons.org/licenses/...
From IDF:
www.idf.il/%D7%9E%D7%90%D7%9E...
From Solundir:
commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fi...
number 11: diverted resources; Russia is now forced to keep a lot of high end weaponry around the bridge because of the risk of attack, if the bridge is gone a lot of that defense can go elsewhere.
That would explain why Ukraine has only fired pot shots at the bridge. It keeps the Russian troops occupied at defending the bridge.
#12: the bridge is an obstacle to moving Russian warships to and from the Sea of Azov.
@soskhan I think you're confusing the Kerch Strait, separating the Sea of Azov (which is a small sea) from the Black Sea with the Bosphorus Strait, which is one of two straits separating the Black Sea and the Mediterranean Sea.
@@PeterVonDanczk the sea of Azov is shallow and i think it couldn’t accommodate the Russian fleet.
@@PeterVonDanczk They could maybe destroy the top most roading of of the bridge; But the underwater and above water pillars and parts of the upper roading would still exist and prevent any passage of large ships. I don't see how they could destroy the entire bridge but parts of it for sure will prevent The passing of large navy ships for a very long time. More important enough destruction of the roading would slow the delivery of weapons.
A large section of the Kerch Bridge is now sitting in the black sea and completely collapsed from an explosion. It's about a 100 meter gap of just ocean now. Definitely seems like it was targeted at a time when there would be no civilians around, since it was on a weekend very early hours of the morning, a time where typically nobody is travelling (very convenient timing). And the explosion hit a train transporting fuel apparently that was on the upper tracks, and also set that on fire.
This video lasted three weeks. 🙂
this video got out of date quickly
@@marcelosousa.2022 all the reasoning stands, now one can ask what changed
Pewdiepie doesn’t like bridges
It seems that the attack was cordinated so that the road and rail bridge were both destroyed
QUESTION: Now that the bridge was hit, can you reassess the situation?
That reminds me how people were so sure how Titanic unsinkable back in early 1910s.
What y'all are missing: "Ten Reasons Why Ukraine Hasn't Destroyed the Crimean Bridge" The key here is HASN'T, not won't! They weighed it out, and didn't feel like before October 8th was the right time.
you mean re-bad assess the situation
@@Caderic In hindsight we are all geniuses.
@@cyberdaemon Your point?
Please make a sequel as the bridge has been blown up today. I am very interested to hear your analysis
😂🙌
we got em boys
His analysis was 100% incorrect and you want more?
@@bosshog8844 - to be fair the title reads '..Hasn't Destroyed..' which doesn't mean it 'won't happen' and it has but the bridge is not completely destroyed to a stage that it can no longer be used. At this stage, many regular, ordinary youtube viewers such as your truly has no clues of what has happened 😇. The question is who did it? I'd be interested to learn the theories behind it. Was it the Russian or the Ukraine who did it. Why and how? I believe there's a good military strategy was at play
@@lasol2474 ukrainian officials stated they coordinated the attack, but won‘t take the actual blame
I love the humor and determination of Ukrainians in these hard times. It's sad that they understand the the west might "lose interest". Dear Ukrainians, I have NO PROBLEM "suffering" high energy prices when the alternative is seeing Ukrainians suffer in blood. 100% support to Ukraine from Sweden 🕊️🇸🇪❤️🇺🇦
LMAO ok high energy prices are the start. Any good at growing food without fertilizer? I hope you don’t ever need a medical device made from titanium. That is before we get to neon gas. Oh the last reserve of it not under Russian control is sitting in Odessa. Which might be why Ukraine is having so much success in the north. Because Russia is getting ready to push to Odessa in the south.
Hi Fredrik. Since you come from Sweden I'll assume English is your second language. Your English is great. Just a small correction. Loose = not tight. Lose = not win.
Slava Ukraini from The UK
@@greyfox79007 Keep huffing the Kremlin issue copium buddy
From America, I'll second that for sure. I can absorb higher prices if it benefits the cause of Ukrainian freedom.
"I have NO PROBLEM "suffering" high energy prices when the alternative is seeing Ukrainians suffer in blood. "
As a Norwegian from Northern Norway that don't have to suffer, I have a big problem watching people suffer high energy cost under the supposed "war effect" and or covid, and then watch the same company give 1 billion NOK in dividend to the major shareholders (you know the same top 10 that holds 99.9% of voting rights)...Bul fucking shit.
It's infuriating reading articles like "Coal demands have increased so we decided to help with the energy crises in Europe due to the ongoing war in Ukrain and started mining coal again even though we planned to shut it down due to the climate issue..... because coal is now profitable!!! fuck the climate, the only green movement we care about is cash baby! and it's approved by the state :D"
I highly doubt they care about the Ukrainian people other then how much grain they can produce once Russia stops fucking with that, and they had decades to prepare to cut off Russian Oil... yet kept kicking the can down the road, the next option is buying Oil and Gas off the middle ease or the US....... or destroy the environment by installing wind and solar farms instead of investing in Nuclear plants that could supply 90% of the energy need with a couple plants per country, while only needing 10% nature destroying plants for very remote area.
The sad part is that if this keeps dragging on, people are really going to not give a fuck what happens down there, and politicians are going to have a free for all making back door deal that ends up hurting everybody in the long term (long term aka a generation or two.. if not ten).
With that pessimistic view out of the way, LONG LIVE UKRAINE, Fuck Putin and his retarded entourage.
Number 5 is text book Sun Tzu - Art of War:
“A surrounded army must be given a way out. The ancient rule of the charioteers says, “Surround them on three sides, leaving one side open, to show them a way to life. Show them a way to life so that they will not be in the mood to fight to the death, and then you can take advantage of this to strike them.”
Normally The art of War quotes can be cringe but in this case it is exactly correct
@@TheSimon253 It's only cringe because of cringy minds. No offense.
@@VelocityZap "cringy minds"?
way to life is surrendering .... its not that hard really. Ukraine already has alot of prisoner of war. So clearly its something they will accept. So with that in mind they shoudl most diffinently not give them a way out lol. then they can just fight you at another spot.
@@TheSimon253 My bad. It basically means, to behave or rather think in excessive "disgust/distasteful" thoughts over something.
to say the bridge has just been hit with... something. this video holds up rather well. it just goes to illustrate how much has changed in the last few week. the bridge hold a lot of symbolic value to Putler, he inaugurated it himself by driving a truck over it in 2018 (such a big strong man, driving a truck LOL) and i think this will really hit him hard, personally. safe to say, i couldnt be happier about this one. especially because not many people were killed and injured because it was middle of the night when it happened. im no fan of russia like most of us, but i take no comfort in people dying who are innocent no matter who they are. RIP to those that lost their life, not only here but in this senseless war in general. Слава Україні!
Strange…you say you don’t like war but you certainly seem to relish the lead up to one
“Putler” 🤣👏🏻👏🏻
It was a big 70th Birthday gift to Putin. He celebrated on Oct 7th, and Ukraine decided to make him wait for his gift.. Seems a common theme these days, other dignitaries tend to reciprocate and let Putin wait for them to appear.
@@hoodooguri Putler started the war by annexing areas of Ukraine and mobilizing troops into the country.
We can't just be like the Brits and French in WWII and allow a dictator to annex countries, they'll never stop taking land.
Also Ukraine wanting to join NATO would not be an issue for the "Supreme Tsar".
If Putler didn't start any conflicts, NATO would not intervene with military action.
Lmao Putler.
Look forward to you revisiting this after they have now hit the bridge
During WWII, British engineers would rush forward to create temporary bridges and retreat. The bridges were watched until German forces attempted to use them, at which point they would be attacked by aircraft. Bridges are a wonderful location to tempt your opponents.
"We defeated the wrong enemy"
-General Patton.
"You will own nothing and be happy"
-Klaus Schwab
@@edstar83 1. Schwab didn't say that, someone else did. 2. It was a comment about the rental economy (think driverless taxis, kindle etc) not a threat to expropriate the population. 3. You're a neo-fascist conspiraloon.
The Brittish were some legendary trolls back in those days. Sometimes it felt like even they didn't know what they were doing until they did it and they still somehow always had it planned regardless
B.
Never heard of this. What references do you have supporting this story?
Russian speaking Ukrainians does not equate to Russian supporting Ukrainians. Many Russian speakers in Ukraine have in many cases come out in support of Ukraine's right for self determination as opposed to becoming part of the Russian federation. This has been a large part of why the Russian invasion has failed. It was assumed by those in Moscow that these Russian speakers would welcome Russian troops as liberators, they didn't, they fought against it, even where they are now occupied.
i recall hearing phone calls very early on of russians phoning home and telling their wives how they were told ukrainians would welcome them with open arms and flowers as liberators and instead were welcomed with angry mobs throwing rocks and molotov cocktails.
And the first ones that must understand that are precisely the Russians, it seems to be a concept they are not capable of grasping...
Kharkiv is the dominate russian speaking area of Ukraine. And they are some of the fiercest fighters AGAINST russia!
Completely agree.
I’m from Poltava and don’t speak Ukrainian, only Russian, and by god do I hate russia
This aged amazingly, I love it.🇺🇦
What you are missing: "Ten Reasons Why Ukraine Hasn't Destroyed the Crimean Bridge" The key here is HASN'T, not won't!
"You can't destroy the bridge using HIMARS or Jet Fighter, it's too far behind enemies territory"
Truck Driver: Fine I'll do it myself
😂
As a Mission Crew Commander Air Battle Manager on AWACS and served 20 years in the USAF, you did a pretty good job but have a few mis-speaks. The Ukrainian aircraft doesn't have to fly over long distances of enemy territory if they fly from South over international Black Sea waters. And hitting the bridge and stopping supplies is way more important than individual combat pieces one by one on the front. The bridge is a force multiplier and makes all forces better, much like my own AWACS aircraft. Our fight aircraft all become better when I use my hundred of mile radar to help them. Same with the bridge. It also has to go even after the war to ensure there is not a physical tie to Russia anymore. Russians will not fight to the very last bullet and do not need an avenue of retreat. I have commanded a squadron in Okinawa and there are many battles/memorials there of fanatical fight to the last bullet stands there. But non professional and partially conscripted Russians are not fanatical and will give in without re-supply through the Kerch Bridge.
Your reasoning about not needing an avenue of retreat is convoluted. Right, the Russians will not fight to the very last bullet. That is why they need an avenue of retreat.
@@ronvavra He means surrender you dingus
@@ronvavra but if they are shown surrounding, the ukrainian military will transport them back to russia but also keep guns pointed in case they try to attack.
@@0fficialdregs Then you're asking for all out war with the west, remember NATO, Poland and Germany, Norway etc... plus the USA, England, Canada, Australia....and moon base six, we will release the criminally insane into your country, and most of them will eat you. The more refined you might find your corpse in a drying closet for that aged flavor or even pair you with fine old wine. Then we're left with some very messy clean up. No one want's that?? Be reasonable, don't be a Drag.
Except, there is a difference between morale in an invading and a defending army.
And whether we like it or not, most Russians and even a fairly large majority of Crimeans, consider Crimea to be part of Russia. I'm sure you can see that the odds of "fighting to the last bullet" are markedly higher in Crimea than in Kherson... for example.
I think a large point missed here is when we say destroy the bridge, we never mean nuke it into oblivion, but rather render it inoperable.
Effectively when traffic can no longer flow over it an Ukraine maintains the ability to hit it again if it gets repaired, even fairly minor damage will render the bridge useless only for as long as the war goes on. The cost of repairs will be way short of the cost of building it originally.
Truly destroying such a long bridge is certainly no easy feat and would serve no purpose.
Roadblocks probably would be the cheapest means. Stop the traffic flow over the bridge. Still Ukraine would need to be able to that close enough to the bridge unnoticed and with what can block it which is probably no easy. May need to stop tanks going over even. Now it'd have been easier if they could've before the event happened then after.
Once the Orcs are gone, the bridge is gone, unless you want to build border checkpoints on the Ukraine side.
1st things first tho, let them use it to vacate themselves and any equipment not "donated" to the Ukraine armed forces. Some Russian commanders are getting some pretty sweet deals.
Early bird gets the worm.
@@WinoaKaronhiatens Roadblocks wont work.
First of all it is almost impossible to get to the bridge
And last but not least placing a roadblock is like placing a destroyed car,it will work but wont be effective because they can just remove it
If it is useless for Russia, then Russian military can destroy the full bridge in a matter of minute.
worthless? is perfect for trade and much more. remember what a bridge can be used for for both sides.
Your videos are excellent! Thank you for the thorough, easily digestible and entertainingly presented research.
I think you may have accidentally hit on a reason they waited to hit the bridge until now; the ferries don't work in bad weather. We're on the verge of winter. Now, Russia doesn't have a bridge and its ferries will be largely non-operational for the winter months it will take to repair it, which increases the strategic damage this does.
Traffic on the road has already resumed and railway resumes traffic later tonight. Womp womp.
Now we can get a video of "10 reasons why Ukraine has destroyed the crimean bridge" lmao
@@Horst.Wessel
Yup.
What y'all are missing: "Ten Reasons Why Ukraine Hasn't Destroyed the Crimean Bridge" The key here is HASN'T, not won't!
i guess
from what I’ve heard, it wasn’t destroyed-destroyed, but was damaged
@@Horst.Wessel He said "yet" in the video and didn't rule out the possibility as to it won't be in the future
11th Reason: They were wanted a nice surprise for Putin on his birthday
One day too late. But yeah, massive punch.
11th reason. They waited for Putin's 70th birthday.
This aged well.
Thank you for this interesting analysis. Another minor reason: Russia has to put resources into defending the bridge while it remains in use. But like others commenting here I think Ukraine will disable the bridge - it can be repaired later - if/when it becomes a military priority. They have plenty of targets, a limited supply of long range weapons and they would need to spend many weapons to do sufficient damage.
Take the bridge out with Russian vehicles. Plenty of Ukrainian Russians to accomplish it.
This is exactly what I thought when he mentioned the "looking at you..." tweet.
Murdo,
I don't think they'll bomb it until most of the russians FLEE the area. That would get rid of the russian army and most of their sympathizers making it harder for them to regroup and turn back to reattack. For a twist on an old saw, closing the barn door after the enemy has left.
That's true..."limited supply...manpower..." needs to be preserved initially to get past Kherson, etc. This bridge is more of a MSM distortion (for headline purposes) and really doesn't come into play until much, much later. No need to waste precious resources until Ukraine has taken the Kherson region - both North and South of the River. That will be a long slog - if ever. Strategically at this point of the War it has little value until and if Ukraine decides to invade Crimea.
Zelenskyy just complained about Russia hitting the dam , but they they can blow up a bridge ?
Note that the bridge can be disabled without "destroying" it. Knocking down a section makes it not useable but relatively simple to repair once the war is over.
Agree, but the inherent flaw with limiting damage to the bridge is that Ruzzia would have it back in operation fairly quickly and a perceived loss of credibility for Ukraine military that it didn't destroy it. Imagine the Ruzzian propaganda machine on that.
The War will go on for years - There is no easy outcome - Ukraine does not have the resources to destroy the bridge or even get close. Russia can just sit there and squeeze
Exact
what make you think theyll wait untill the war is over to try to repair it? its extreamly essential to resupplying crimea and if any damage is done to it they will immediatly start repairs similar to the antonovsky bridge in kherson
@@leswatson You must be brother of Denys Davydov. He also calls Ruzzia.
Returning to this video after the bombing of the bridge, if this has indeed been a lone operator as claimed then it's an example of how events can take over from strategy, and that's the problem with war.. it's complex, unpredictable, and not always easy to breakdown to simple military strategy.
Well this video aged like a fine wine
Woke up this am with my wife saying the bridge had been attacked. “Oh no!” I thought remembering this video. However Moscow says it will be easily repaired and I remember reading in a backgammon strategy book that you “should do what your opponent would not want you to do”. This will be a thorn in the Russian side and they will no doubt divert extra resources there for protection. Win win.
Russia has special military bridge repair glue, don't worry
@@Tyiriel hope so. Best of both worlds that it can be fixed ( give them a retreat route) and vulnerable to attack
@noop9k no just brain cells
@@relaxhere97 As if they have a competent military 😆 Worthless technology too, tanks from the 60's lmao..
@@relaxhere97 Of course. However, nukes won't feed Russian soldiers, or deliver winter equipment.
Watching this just after the bridge getting closed off is crazy to see.
Who's here after the good news?
me.
Now make a video explaining why Ukraine did Destoy the Crimean Bridge
Ten Reasons Why Ukraine Has Destroyed the Crimean Bridge... coming soon!
Many of the problems discussed here could be avoided if Ukraine just destroys a single segment of the bridge. Both know that the bridge could be relatively cheaply restored compared to the overall cost. Restoration work it wouldn't take too long to do but it would remain unusable for months and Russia knows that if it tries to get it fully functional while the war is going the damage could be worse. When you have 19km bridge built from segments that are mostly under 100meter long, It probably would be really stupid trying to demolish it completely. But aiming somewhere away from the longest segment would make it repairable but unusable state.
...I like this guys videos, but it does seem to be a little pro Russian in tone in that it acts like Russia will "just be reasonable" at some point. We didn't win WW2 by being reasonable with Hitler. I personally think we (the US and allies) may hold back Ukraine from a clear "win" in some sense, just to have Russia do it all over again in a couple of years.
They could hit the rail lines on land without damaging the bridge itself. Personally, I wouldn 't hit the bridge unless Ukraine could successfully get as far as Melitopol, cut the land bridge, and bring all potential supply lines under fire. Some Russians might bolt for that bridge. Something like what happened recently in the Kharkiv counter offensive.
@@chrishooge3442 A special operation deep behind enemy lines to destroy the rail lines would be incredibly risky, and likely not worth the cost. Plus the Russian military has Railway Troops whose job it is to lay/repair rail lines. They'd have it up and running again within a few days.
I wonder how bad a catastrophic derailment, or 'accidental' cigarette setting off a munitions train, would be on the use of the bridge...and the bridge itself is just the spectacular bit.
A railway line is that, a line, you only have to take out a weak point which could be anywhere, and it's not usable until repaired.
@@hayleyxyz I'm thinking something like the Saki airfield strike. I agree Russia would fast track those repairs. But it would make a point as did the Saki strike: Nothing is Safe
Another thing maybe, keeping it a target could also occupy a lot of russian air defence, who have to constantly guard the bridge
That's a very good point. It's tying up men and machines. And ships because if Ukraine puts a HIMARS on a landing craft and manages to get it close enough...
@@edwardlees4585 Or in case Ukraine will retake Crimea, that the Russians have a way to just flee, not to escalate and cause a bloodbath like the Russians in Mariupol
@@marvimoto1251 Yes, that was one of the reasons highlited in the original video. Give the Russian occupiers a way out and then use the bridge if and when relations between the two countries are normalised.
Главы альянса Hells Angels и Bloods в данный момент планируют свою экспансию в Восточной Европе. Они хотят уничтожить союзников русской мафии, сосредоточенных в Европе, Северной и Южной Америке. Цель состоит не в том, чтобы стать главным союзником русской мафии, как им хочется верить, а в том, чтобы обогнать ее. По их планам, они будут поддержаны картелем Синалоа за часть полученной прибыли, и это будет сделано к 2025 году. Если все пойдет по плану, они хотят довести свою экспансию до самой России. Они сказали своим людям отдавать приоритет захвату, в основном для пыток и допросов перед убийством и для продажи, но убивать сразу, если они не могут захватить. Это то, о чем говорят члены, имеющие тесные связи с лидерами отделений Hell’s Angels. Некоторые члены Альянса Ангелов Ада и Крови, а также картеля Синалоа уже начали перемещаться на целевые континенты. Людям было приказано выполнить работу любыми средствами, даже массовыми убийствами, если это необходимо. Если вы принимаете непосредственное участие, сообщите своим товарищам о том, что происходит, пока не стало слишком поздно, чтобы предотвратить кровавую баню и ваше падение!
The Hells Angels and Bloods alliance heads are planning at the moment about their expansion in Eastern Europe. They want to eradicate the Russian Mafia's allies concentrated in Europe, North and South America. The goal is not to become the russian mafia's main ally as they want to be believed but to overtake it. According to their plans, they will be supported by the Sinaloa Cartel for a part of the gains obtained and it would be done by 2025. If everything works as planned they want to push their expansion as far as in Russia itself. They told their mens to prioritize the capture, mostly for torture and interrogation before killing and for selling but to kill right away if they can not capture. This is what members having close ties with Hells Angels chapter leaders are talking about. Some members of the Hells Angels and Bloods alliance and of the Sinaloa Cartel had already start moving to the targeted continents. The mens had been told to get the job done by any means, even by mass killing if needed. If you are directly involved tell your comrades about what is happening before it is too late to prevent the bloodbath and your fall!
I bet the Ukraine army saw this video and thought, in the most Barney Stinson way you can imagine, "I accept that challenge."
Indeed
Very thoughtful video. But adding my thoughts.
Ukraine should hit the damn bridge! #1 - it absolutely IS killing Ukraines - as it's a HUGE supply line. #2 It's not like Ukraine can collapse all 12 miles of the bridge into the ocean. They would just take out a section of it, that could easily be rebuilt post-war.
Exactly!
if Ukraine took back Crimea why would they even want to rebuild it?
Yeah just like the rest of the world we trade using ships . Who cares about a Ruzzian bridge. Get rid of putins pet .
@@judeseibel5909 because the_ own it?
@@judeseibel5909 perhaps not during wartime.. or not while Putin is in power.. once Putin is gone and if, only if, a more moderate government arises in Russia that can normalize relationships with Ukraine.. then perhaps the bridge could be fixed and reopened
Unconvinced by this:
1) Military difficulty - Ukraine does have options to hit the bridge. Many more if they can advance to the Zaporizhia coast. The bridge is a critical crossing for the Russia military, hitting it has more value than pretty much any target I can think of.
2) One time cost - Ukraine wants to destroy the bridge because of its value to Russia. In peace an intact bridge is not a Ukrainian bargaining chip.
3) Retaliation - Russia is already hitting civilian infrastructure, and throwing everything they can at Ukraine short of nukes and full mobilisation. A command and control attack would be an escalation. There are no targets of equal value for Russia.
4) Monitoring and intelligence - Yes that’s a benefit. But it’s more of a consolation prize for an intact bridge. Destroying the bridge creates more certainty, and holds more value.
5) Escape route - I’d only let them escape if Russia doesn’t have anywhere left to realistically redeploy those troops. Probably more valuable to trap them in Crimea, supply routes severed.
6) Population sorting - No sign that Ukraine (or any nation) would want to lose population. They’ve been asking Russia to repatriate Ukrainians who’ve already fled to Russia.
7) Civilian casualties - Ukraine have already given good warning for Crimean’s to evacuate. Not hitting the bridge probably prolongs the war, leads to more civilian deaths. Yes collateral damage is always a risk, but it’s unlikely to stop any military put in the same position as Ukraine regarding a critical bridge.
8) Maintaining moderates - I don’t seeing destroying the bridge being significant in that discussion. Exactly how Ukraine goes about retaking and holding the peninsular on the ground is the trick there.
9) Ukraine wants the bridge - The debatable value of the bridge to Ukraine in 2 years is nothing vs the value of it not being there today. ‘Destroying’ the bridge does not mean taking it down piece by piece, it means putting enough holes in it. All repairable in peace, assuming Ukraine would want the bridge at all.
10) Negotiated settlement - Ukraine wants the ‘land bridge’ back too, and potentially needs it before a strike on the Crimean bridge. They aren’t thinking about giving Russia one of the two. Again, putting holes in the bridge is not removing it permanently. Ferries and pontoon bridges are irrelevant in Crimea. It’s too far for a pontoon, and ferries are too slow/little/vulnerable.
Given the strategic potential of destroying the bridge for Ukraine, I see only two possible reasons why the bridge is still standing:
1) Ukraine might not yet in a position to hit it, or hit it reliably enough.
2) Assuming they have the potential to bring it down, Ukraine might want to wait for the most opportune time to do it. The most effective time would be after Ukraine has cut the ‘land bridge’. The Crimean bridge would then represent the sole remaining point of Russian supply or retreat for Kherson and Zaporizhia. What Russia does next will determine Ukraine’s choice.
Spaniel's analysis, at least the stuff on youtube, is generally unconvincing. It's just overly facile in attempting to derive a situational picture from misguided first principles. There's simply no good reason to hit the bridge right now. The eastern land border isn't secure and the RF black sea fleet can't be challenged in naval combat without drawing another nation's navy into the war. Crimea would quickly become a humanitarian disaster for little to no strategic gain, all well in advance of any realistic UA campaign to take the peninsula.
I guess that the second point is the most important: Ukraine is waiting for the right moment - to defend Crimea Russians need a lot of equipment and a lot of fuel (and other resources) - it might be worth to cut as many tanks/artillery from re-supplies as possible: but currently Crimea is not really directly threatened, so the time is not right. Not yet.
In the beginning of the war as the Russians pushed west I called exactly where they'd cross the Dnieper with my friends while we discussed the Russian advance and where their forces were being spotted. Anyone could see that southern push coming but Ukraine held off on destroying the Crimean bridge despite having naval forces and airstrike capabilities that could destroy it. Now the south is unified with the east so they wouldn't be encircled, but I can understand why they held off on the opportunity knowing they might not get it again. Destroying the bridge is a one-time deal that could be a far more devastating tactic later on should the Russians dedicate too much in the south which so far is their only semi-successful frontline where they've held both sides off the Dnieper. So often an invading force keeps spearheading a perceived soft underbelly and then SNAP. Like a bear trap the surprise encirclement is sprung on them. Cut off from the east, can't retreat back across the bridge, stuck on both sides of a major river with enemies all around you. A third of their forces just fish in a barrel.
@@michaelboultinghouse1478 There's a reason nobody just razes nations to the ground anymore. Why the hell would you? What benefit is there to razing Ukraine to the ground after invading? To save face from being total incompetent idiots? You'll trade it in for being a psychopathic society that just killed everyone and burned everything to the ground for no reason.
Nice piece of propaganda you got there mate. I would hardly call it analysis though. Spaniel's is what I would call analysis.
Looking forward to the update video.
Ukrainian commander watched this video and said :
Challenge Accepted.
A bit of history about Crimea missing there: the deportation by Stalin of Crimean Tatars, and their replacement with 'more loyal' Russians.
The Tatars were never allowed to come back, and the demographic imbalance has remained since.
Similar story in Donbass. So many died in the Holodomor, and then in WW2, to be replaced with Russians. Again the demographics have significantly changed over time.
Yes exactly.
I propose
A) deporting Russians from Donbas and replacing population with Ukrainians to counteract prior action
B) Restoring Tatars to Crimea after Ukraine retakes it. And again deporting Russians who had no right to that territory.
P.s. I also support restoring “Kaliningrad”= Königsberg to Germany, deporting the Russians who don’t belong there, and repopulating with the original Germans.
Stalin deported Greeks (1932 - 1952) and many more as well, and Putin probably did the same during the invasion.
Let's saunter over to Balaclava boys~ British cavalry 1854. Another bit of Crimean history. I did not know about the Tartars, thank you. Stalin was certainly a piece of work.
Where would the Tatars typically have gone? I only ask because many years ago I knew a Pole who's (long dead) father was said to be part Tatar and part Cossack. Is your story a likely reason for him to end up in Poland?
@@SalemikTUBE a couple millions in Turkey, and about 250,000 each in Crimea, Ukraine and Uzbekistan.
I think believing in a negotiated settlement seems like wishful thinking. I can't see Ukraine settling for anything other than their pre-2014 borders, and I don't think Putin would accept that. Until Putin drops dead or is killed, I think assuming a negotiated settlement just seems silly.
I would not call such thinking “wishful”. As matters currently stand, Ukraine will not negotiate unless they have lost all hope of restoring the pre-2014 borders. That equals wishing for a significant deterioration in Ukraine’s present strategic position.
@@anthonymorris2276 Similarly Russia will not negotiate any surrender of Donbas and Luhansk, much less Crimea (which isn't even on the table currently), as doing so will mean a full and utter defeat of Russia by Ukraine and humiliation for Russia not just internationally but also domestically....Russians are very much like the Americans, as in how much they are proud of their military...Russians even more so as they don't have an economy to brag about....Putin will rather nuke Ukraine than allow this to happen..
Russia has made a huge mistake. Another month KIA rises to 60K-70K. Considering the duplicity that Russia has displayed, Ukraine has no option but to completely rout Russia's army. Negotiations are meaningless to Russia.
At some point, be it in 2123 when russia has finally "won" or much more likely in a year or 2 when ukraine has kicked russia out of Crimea and the Donbas, a settlement has to take place. Otherwise it is literally endless skirmishes and missile strikes along the russian/ ukrainian border. Which still ends at some point when Russia cries uncle.
@@ameyas7726 If Putin falls, the humiliation aspect won't be an issue I'd assume?
This video aged very well
Great timing RUclips recommended me this video
My guess, as just a random civilian, is that Ukraine will wait to strike the bridge until it would cripple the Russian army the most. Maybe the land bridge has been severed but Russia still holds significant Ukrainian territory. Suddenly the supply lines to units in that territory have been severed and they'll quickly lose strength and their ability to fight.
And if Ukraine were to attempt to take out only one of the two bridges, my guess would be the rail bridge. It would force all supplies coming on the bridge to be brought with hundreds or thousands of trucks putting extra logistical strain on Russia while also allowing civilians to flee by car.
This is a fair bet as they are being heavily assisted by US intel and command/planning assets.
I don't think you hit one without damaging the other. I wouldn't want to be the commander that okayed equipment to travel across a damaged bridge only to have it collapse on them.
but dont tell this to the russians
It would have crippled russian army the most at 23rd of February. Then on 24th, 25th and so on... we literally have nothing with long enough range, firepower and precision to take it down. Flying over it is suicide as there are more defenses than in entire russia, putin will be ousted by russians if he stops genocide of Ukrainians in Crimea. It's their main goal, colonization, so even if moscow will be besieged, not a single SAM will be removed from Crimean bridge... in fact, they are stripping Anti-air defences from St. Petersburg already to reinforce Crimea. Russians are okay with losing their capital as long as they keep killing us on our soil. Such are russian people.
I 100% agree and i want to add a little onto that. Ideally, Ukraine will take ground south of the gap between the dnipro river and donetsk making supply from there more risky and then cut off kerch. If russia still has kherson at that point they won't much longer.
Thank you for this video. I've gotten into 2 heated internet arguments before why it's a bad idea to "just blow up the bridge to show them who's boss", and you've listed way more valid reasons than I could ever manage. And biggest validation is that Ukranians themselves haven't done it so far, and apart from some Twitter banter don't seem very likely to.
was 'cause it's an act of terrorism' ever mentioned in those arguments?
@@unemiryune9322
Where is an act terrorism here?
Destroying an illegal structure that was built on occupied territory?
You may need to check the definition of “terrorism” again
@@georgedanilov8898 Then there is the cost of repairing the bridge if ukraine wins. plus out of spite the russians might just blow it up. then there is also the option does ukraine need the bridge if they win. Also if the ukraines did blow up the bridge there are targets in ukraine that are silver bullet targets, so out of spite the russians might destroy.
with all plans one variable might change that will change the dynamic of this war.
@@georgedanilov8898 crimea was occupied by ucraine for 25 years. You little western propaganda boy
@@georgedanilov8898 pois mas o algoritmo do youtube pode estar programado para isso.
Wow, what an incredibly great video. I’ve often wondered about this question, and there was a ton of great perspective even while the narrator was still on #1
This aged well
who's here after the explosion on the bridge???
You have some good guesses, but it's just simply that they are not capable of doing so yet. As soon as they are able to disable it, they absolutely should, and will.
You seem to think that destroying it means complete destruction, that's almost impossible. It just needs to be damaged enough where heavy equipment of any kind is not able to pass a certain point. Repairs during peacetime is obvious, for ALL the bridges.
Why would they want to repair it? It would just be a route into Ukraine when Russia feels like having another go.
They could do it I think, but whether that is the best use of resources that already have enough to do, and in any case is it the best target right now? That is something else.
Not to contradict that, as it is a question of determination and resources vs defences, the Germans in WW2 also found to their cost, taking out bridges can be more difficult than it looks.
ruclips.net/video/dxMZyJz5Q6o/видео.html
@@floydnotpink During peace times it would be a method of trade and transport. According to what I could find, roughly 4 years ago, Russia was Ukraine's second biggest trade partner.(Turkey #1, Poland close #3) Not to mention that people would probably still like to use it to visit family or travel.
One other aspect is that it keeps Russians occupied. Russia has placed AA and other defenses all around the bridge. If the bridge is gone it also means those resources can be moved to active fronts.
This also means that the bridge should be attacked at the right time. Otherwise Russia will repair it. Maybe Ukraine is waiting for the right moment to disrupt the supply lines. For example when winter is about to set it.
Explosion on the bridge today.Very much appreciate a refill thank you
Hey I remembered this video when I got the news. Great content btw!
Some of these arguments are moot because there would be no need to "destroy" the bridge for tactical reasons. If the Ukrainians see the need to choke off Russian war supplies coming over the bridge, damaging the road- and railway with a bomb or two would halt traffic. Keeping it halted would be a matter of adding a bomb now and then as needed. The fundamental structure of the bridge need not suffer severe damage. When the war was over, the road surface/rail line damage could be repaired, and the bridge would quickly be back in full operation.
And how would you get the first bomb there and set, let alone multiple
Unbelievable!! They finally did it: ruclips.net/video/aFkOgAhOoiU/видео.html
@@Dean_AZN Dan L. will sneak in as a tourist and deposit it on the bridge approach.:)
Great info. This changes my perspective on military targets in general.
Who came back here today to see how this aged....
William, I am thoroughly impressed with your assessments of the Ukrainian/Russian war. Apparently you have a military background and your understanding is powerful. In you I have finally found a commentator who is even handed. I don't want cheer leaders for either side, but someone who gives the facts. Day in and day out here is where I will go to hear where things are going and what results make the most sense and logic. Thanks. Well done.
Mariupol is definitely an example of how an enemy with no way out can fight until the bitter end.
Suicidal Razzia in progress....🌎🤏🍄💥🕳️
Half the comments are saying "this didn't age well" and the other half are saying "this aged well"
Makes sense, half the [road] bridge was destroyed.
I literally saw this video yesterday and woke up to news about this bridge…
Time for an update video 😊
This is an eye-opening tutorial on how complicated the military decisions of war can get.
Guys, you Americans, why don't you go fight the Russians head-on instead of arming the Ukrainians and making them vulnerable to harsh revenge by Putin, leave us alone, if you are worried about the Ukrainians, go ahead and fight the weak and exhausted Russian army and don't give the job to the poor Ukrainians.
This is a classic example of 'i have no clue but here's my bs'.😂
really?
@@expectation0 Don't blame the U.S. Russia started this war WITH UKRAINE by invading Ukraine. This is the second time in the last 10 years that Russia invaded Ukraine.
@@factChecker01 you are good at crying on tv's channel
Deep and clear analysis. Thanks.
I just watched this video a few days ago and now the bridge has been blown up. I don’t even know what to say.
Never trust a politician, I would say.
As of 19 minutes ago, the bridge is now gone, one part is collapsed into the ocean, one part is intact, and the last part had a burning tanker-train on it.
Yeah we know.
Ocean ? ... look the map, Black Sea 😉
@@alexanderalexander9871 My mistake, but it's still in the water.
@That Flying Sauce It's fine; we know what you meant.
At least you didn't call it a lake.
I think the advantages of destroying the bridge as a supplyline are much bigger than the disadvantages.
you dont need to destroy the bridge just dsiabled it bridge can fixed up after the war
I agree. The question is when. Maximum effect would be when Ukraine breaks through to the Sea of Azov and cuts those supply lines
Drop a few sections of the rail bridge. Show you can, cut down on Russian resupply by rail (to include railhead for armored vehicles) but leave the vehicle bridge open to reduce civilian casualties and allow Russians to flee.
@@poling1990 easy to say difficult to make...russians can flee trough the continental way (direction Marioupol) , but they must not wait the last moment then Ukrain's army will cut this way fast after destruction from the bridges...
@@poling1990 Good idea. Most of their heavy military equipment is moved by rail. You can't "patch" it either. Even a small section will take a lot of time to repair. I wouldn't be surprised if independent partisans don't start destroying infrastructure even in russia. Plenty of Russians are unhappy of this war and it grows less popular every day.
The fact that this video came up in my suggested as this very bridge burns is *perfect*. RIP your notifications, OP.
What you have said makes sence . lets hope it comes that way. Bob
It’s so interesting seeing something that was a prequel to some that has actually happened in the now
Genuinely looking forward to the follow-up video.
It's my only source of information on situation of Russian-Ukrainian conflict. Love your short, objective analysis 👌
I would recommend perun to you, he is a great and objectiv analysist of the war and militaries in general
Task and Purpose's analyse is good if somewhat irregular.
Go watch the Duran. This is crap. I feel sad for you.
It just got blown up!
Destroyed, 23 days after this vid was published on October 8th, by a massive truck bomb.
You know, shipping and handling took time lol
andddd it's gone.
When you mention the higher density of Russian speakers in eastern Ukraine (from 15:23), I think it important to point out that not all of them are ethnic Russians. It's a bit like the Irish, who speak English following generations of foreign domination but who are most certainly not English. The Soviet Union was full of non-Russians who spoke Russian as a first language, as Russian was the lingua franca in the USSR. In Ukraine, a large number of Russian speakers are just such people. If you look at the census data from 2001, before the language issue became a bone of contention, the differences in the eastern oblasts between the number of respondents who said they speak Russian as a first language and the number of those who declared themselves to be ethnic Russians is vast. Some estimates put the number of non-Russians speaking Russian as a first language in UA at 50% of all Russian speakers there (the ~84% in the Donetsk and Lugansk oblasts who voted for Ukraine's independence in 1991 obviously also included a large number of ethnic Russians). If those figures are accurate, even roughly, the only oblast in Ukraine where ethnic Russians are a majority is Crimea.
Do you know how many people are Russians and how many people are Ukrainian declare as ethnic Russians?
Did you know how many votes get pro Russians party before revolutions in 2014? Did you know that East Ukrainian always been Russian. Also south, Crimea, Odessa region. Ukraine is a communist creation.
all 100% of Ukrainians are ethnic Russians (unlike the government of Ukraine today, which is ethnic Jews. They call themselves Ukrainians, while they are not Ukrainians, but it was from Jews that the dollar oligarchy in Ukran was created, which today manages Ukrians and obeys its masters from Washington and London. Find out the history of the origin of this concept of "Ukrainian", which has never been a national identity in the history of this land, before the creation of the communist USSR. Because the term Ukrainian translated into English means literally "bordermen". alas, a bordermen is not a nationality and bordermens (border guards) are not a people or an ethnic group, because every country in the world has its own border service. in the case of Ukraine, the world has faced a colossal propaganda lie that has been around for more than a century! This is a classic Roman lie, the purpose of which is to artificially create an enemy of Russia from a part of the Russian population who will fight against Russia. Because all Ukrainians are 100% Russian! Find out the national title that the Orthodox Church (at all times of history before the creation of the USSR) the Orthodox Church (also Catholic) at the coronation approved each new king - the lord of the land and people of modern Ukraine... starting from the Baptism of 988 and onward in all subsequent times (before the creation of the USSR), there has always been one title - the Grand Duke of Russian \ Tsar of All Russia (alas, the title King of Ukraine (literally King of the borderlands or King of the entire borderlands) not existed in history, never, because it's bullshit!
@@rodjarrow6575 To quote a not brilliant Star Wars movie "Incredible, every world you just said is wrong".
While what defines an ethnicity is a little arbitrary, it is accepted that *gasp!* Ukrainian is an ethnicity, just like the many ethnic groups in Siberia that were pushed there as Russia expanded through the centuries. The actually live in Russia, yet have their own ethnicities, cultures and even Languages.
The fact that you say "unlike the government of Ukraine today, which is ethnic Jews" is solid gold. While technically Zelensky himself is Jewish, he also isn't the entire government. I find this idea morbidly funny as Russians claim they are "de-nazi-fying" Ukraine.
Damn those Jewish nazis!
^
This is you
Finally, an explanation of the term border men, as apparently you cannot fathom the concept of a name either not being literal, or words having multiple definitions that may have changed over the years. The most literal definition of "border men" is... DRUMROLL, PLEASE!... men who live on the border. Shocking I know.
This is because, the region of Ukraine historically sits between the powerful eastern/balkan powers, and the powerful central European powers. Thus it is know as "the border region" so, the men from there are "men of the border" or... "BORDER MEN"
I know you are probably a troll but I thank you for the image of a NATO powered Supernazi state run by Jews that have brainwash millions of Russians into imagining the atrocities that have been committed against them by Russia (the holodormer comes to mind) all as some elaborate long con to destroy Russia instead of... you know... just giving the Polish a crate of vodka, a few tanks and saying that they are free to stop once they reach Moscow.
With comedy like that, no wonder Zelensky went into politics, the competition was just too much.
@@thomascorbett709 you are totally wrong.
Zionist Jews. You heard about that.
Rockefellers and other Khazarian Jews finance Hitler 😉
I don't know if you have a total media blackout so you can't find pictures of Nazis in Ukraine. they are part of the government, they are part of the army, they patrol the cities and arrest and kill anyone who speaks Russian or is for Russia. they do not hide Nazi symbols. they are buried with Nazi symbols. Zelensky won the elections because the Russians in Ukraine thought that it would change something. no he deceived people. the Russian language is prohibited by law. Zelensky did not know Ukrainian because where he was born only Russian is spoken. He has difficulty speaking Ukrainian because he does not know it well.
@@rodjarrow6575 👏👏👏
Only Zelenski is ethnic Khazar.
a Turkish tribe that took Judaism
Khazars rule the world
Even though the bridge eventually came down, I still really appreciate the information in this video.
I'm amazed the bridge is still standing based on the fact the Russians built it.
Where has it shown Russians are bad builders.
It is only in Crimea that bridges may vaporize in an instant
@Ryan J. Gilmer I always seek out that "made in Russia" label when I need something with a stamp of quality.
Hmmmm well this aged well
I’m reluctant to reduce how far the window goes up so I drop it down a bit when I get out. The window fits under the door seal. Then when I get back in, I can put the windows up tight to exclude wind noise. Maybe my door seals are old but I’m managing just fine!
Thanks a lot for this very detail, inclusive analysis.
That aged well...
I didn't think they were that smart over there. Joking! I love new insight.
Thank you. This was great.
Timing might be a reason. When did Ukraine destroy the bridges over the Dnipro? Personally I believe the threat of the Kherson counteroffensive was at least in part a ploy to immobilise a large part of the Russian army. A move against the Kerch bridge would be more devastating if it happened at the same time the landbridge was cut. It would also make the destruction proces a lot easier. Having both routes cut at the same time would be a massive shock to the Russian army operating in Southern Ukraine.
As for leaving the enemy a route to retreat, there are excellent arguments both ways. An army that has been forced to surrender can't be a threat elsewhere. But there are indeed obvious risks associated in doing so.
Another reason why they haven't tried to destroy the bridge yet is resources. The Kerch bridge looks very well built. Destroying it at the current range would expend extremely rare and costly resources. And success is far from guaranteed.
I was thinking something similar. If they work their way to crimea and the Russians commit a lot of forces into the peninsular for defense. Knocking the bridge out then would be quite devastating and neutralize even more units that Russia can use otherwise.
If an army is still supply rich it may make sense to give them an exit. An army which has been deprived of resources and is already suffering low morale and then has its escape routes cut is likely to surrender an masse. Ukraine holding over 100 thousand soldiers and having reclaimed Crimea is in a good position to demand withdrawal from Donetsk and Luhansk and dominate negotiations
I agree they should destroy the bridge after cutting off most of the landbridge. If Ukraine destroyed the bridge first, Russia would defend the landbridge as a greater priority.
I also think it's held back as a last demoralizing blow to russian troops once they have cut off Crimea from Ukraine proper. "Kessel"ing in them and taking their easy escape route is more likely to cause massive defections and capitulations than to make them all fight to the end like a Japanese Garrisson in the Pacific.
This, I think they want to close off land entrance to Crimea, cut it from other occupied land but still leave an escape route to russians so they can pretend they were never there
I enjoy the material and the way you present it. Nice work!
Very great analysis about the bridge.
Excellent Analysis!
Thank you for presenting a well reasoned perspective to the rest of the world who have been wondering why no action on the bridge. You have presented much for us non-military types to think about, thank you 👍
Until Ukraine is provided with ATACMS then the bridge is out of range for the necessary very high degree of accuracy that is needed by a HIMARS munition.
Might have to provide an update now though ........
Reason 11: They were waiting for Putlers birthday to send a gift.
There is no question at all that this bridge should be damaged and rendered unuseable by Russia. This war is going to drag on much longer than people think. The only question is does Ukraine have a weapon capable of dropping a segment of this bridge. Neptune anti-ship missiles have a blast force large enough for the job but flies at subsonic speeds. Russia will be ready for this. Also - the Neptune missiles will have to be fired in under 150 miles from the bridge which means Ukraine needs to reclaim Melitopol area if they were to fire it from land, or drop them from warplanes that would fly down to Turkey, cover Turkeys airspace, fly straight up over the Black Sea to fire on the bridge while likely eating Surface to Air and Air to Air as soon as they are within range. Theyd have to drop 8 Neptunes to hope 1 or 2 would make it to the bridge, and maybe lose a few warplanes. Oh and the small matter of a non Nato country requesting access to airspace from a Nato country that does not want to burn bridges "pun intended" with Russia. Both scenarios are difficult but not impossible. Oh and option number 3, The US provides something equally or more devastating with a longer range. Certainly nothing a HIMARS can fire off. Its gonna need to be a big boy.
Only have to damage the rail bridge section, keep hitting it once a week enough that repair crews can't keep up ,like they've done at Kherson ??
Russia hasn't been ready for much so far. I lack your confidence.
Does Ukraine even have any jets left? Anyway, Turkey won't be agreeing to that & the Russian's would spot anything flying over the Black Sea & take it out.
the only Ukrainian missiles who are strong enough to make massive damages on such bridge is the Hrim-2 system: it's a balistic missile with 500km range and a 500kg warhead, but it's unclear if this system is operational and upgraded with GPS.Neptune missiles cannot reach the bridge and they 150kg warhead isn't fitted to destroy concrete...
@@GusMac6129 yes how the hell is that even a question?
The heat generated from the blast makes the steel holding up the rail line very weak now. Either this was a carefully planned operation, or a host of random events all connecting to this bridge at once. Just my 2 cents.
Excellent points - would this video profit from an update?
That was very insightful. Thanks for the video!
Who else got the news about the bridge getting wrecked and came to this video? 😂
That either aged like milk or very fine wine
Welp, seems like someone in Eastern Europe saw this video and had some ideas.
Real food for thought. I've been an advocate of disabling the railway bridge, while leaving the roadway intact, because that's what's used for the transfer of military equipment. Talking about commercial trade makes me realize I've been suffering from a bit of tunnel vision. Oh, #5 should have been #7, as a nod to Sun Tzu.😄
I’ve noticed that, as well. Is “The Art of War” required reading in the Ukrainian military academy?
As long as the bridge exists it serves as a chokepoint. I was in Kuwait after Desert Storm and the Highway of Death was Real.
That would certainly slow down Russian logistics, though leaving the road intact would become an issue as the battle for Crimea progresses and Russian supply lines get shorter. Perhaps you could also get far enough into Crimea to get fire control over the highway.
@@chrishooge3442 the Highway of Death = WAR CRIME . United States Attorney General Ramsey Clark " these attacks violated the Third Geneva Convention, Common Article 3, which outlaws the killing of soldiers who "are out of combat." Clark included it in his 1991 report WAR CRIMES: A Report on United States War Crimes Against Iraq to the Commission of Inquiry for the International War Crimes Tribunal
@@chrishooge3442 journalist Seymour Hersh, citing American witnesses, alleged that a platoon of U.S. Bradley Fighting Vehicles from the 1st Brigade, 24th Infantry Division opened fire on a large group of more than 350 disarmed Iraqi soldiers who had surrendered at a makeshift military checkpoint after fleeing the devastation on Highway 8 on February 27, apparently hitting some or all of them
Wow, what a great explanation this video is! It really shows to me again how complex warfare is.
Wars are always about land and resources. What makes it complicated is the substituting excuse.
Aaaand... it's done! Thank you for the detailed video. With love, from Ukraine)
Great video again
This aged well...
Still worth watching this video for the consequences of the now defunct bridge.
It's back up and running. The terrorist state failed again.
I just watched this on Thursday. Wild.
Ten reasons why they didn’t destroy it yet. Saturday october 8“
Bridge was destroyed in part right now, the other half on fire 🔥
You made a pretty strong analysis on the matter. Straight to the point. Thank you!
lmao
I now know why the bridge remaining in tact is prudent. Good points, all ten.