No, the failure to take out that bridge is due to military reasons, namely formidable Russian air and sea defenses (the latter against maritime drones).
What friend are you asking for? Have them directly jump in, the comments are open for everyone. Or are you being sarcastic? If so, why toxify the convo?
No, the failure to take out that bridge is due to military reasons, namely formidable Russian air and sea defenses (the latter against maritime drones).
What friend are you asking for? Have them directly jump in, the comments are open for everyone. Or are you being sarcastic? If so, why toxify the convo?
As for RSA, again, that's not comparable to this conflict. They're two very different ones waged in totally different times.
On Tusk, it was always Sikorski who flirted with intervention, not him. I also don't rule out that scenario either but am not confident it'll happen.
Another point that you're dishonestly ignoring or forgot to consider due to getting carried away is that Russia hasn't even tried to destroy these bridges.
Ukraine has openly tried to destroy the Crimean Bridge and openly declares that this is one of its top goals, yet Russia never tried to destroy Dnieper bridges or declared that it's one of its goals.
Even after the SMO's initial push stalled around 1-2 months into the conflict, nothing was done to hit those bridges. Why? You imply that it's because pontoons are preferred to bridges and rail? Get real!
So if Russia won't even touch Ukrainian bridges with conventional arms, why would they suddenly escalate all the way to dropping nukes or whatever else?
Putin is hyper-rational, almost too rational in my view since he keeps getting "led by the nose" by the West, so it's hard to imagine him agreeing to jump up the escalation ladder instead of climb it.
Anyhow, can you please explain why you think keeping those bridges intact is better for Russia and worse for Ukraine than even just damaging them?
You're a special operations veteran, maybe (and I say this without sarcasm) you have some secret insight into this that you'd feel comfortable sharing?
Why do retreating forces sometimes blow up bridges if pontoons are preferable to them like you implied? Why not just keep them intact them? None of this makes sense.
Please provide the Political Reasoning and Kabuki Theatre that is supposedly behind Russia not attacking the bridges over the Dnieper, because you evidently don't understand the attrition of Ukrainian troops concept.
If you couldn't figure out my tone of sarcasm, then I really can't help you, and your desperate attempt to place the South African situation in a different silo to that of the EU/NATO or Ukraine in continuing a fight against Russia, is ridiculous to say the least, when "Apartheid" in name had nothing to do with it, but public resistance did, the very same public resistance growing in stature in the Ukraine and NATO countries.
A fact you should have been able to analyse if you had the skill.
I bet you're one of those fools who believes that it was black. revolutionary movements such as the ANC which toppled the white South African government, when in fact the resistance orchestrated and fueled by US clandestine regime change efforts, no different from those used in the Ukraine, attempted in Russia, Georgia and Belarus.
Yes, while we were assisting the West, by fighting the so called Communist Onslaught of the former Soviet Union, East Germany and Cuba, we were being used by the US as a proxy against them, only to be stabbed in the back by the US, and them working behind the scenes to topple the unpliable white government and replace it with a pliable black revolutionary government whom they believed they could control, an exercise that backfired spectacularly, and again to the disadvantage of all South Africans, and now they're at it again, funding a predominantly white political party in the form of the DA, for a wash, rinse, repeat exercise.
Another question that I need answered for a friend, how is it that the Ukies couldn't hit the Kersch Bridge, yet they took out several Russian Naval ships in harbours with missiles in Crimea and hit and sank or severely damaged several Russian warships of the Black Sea fleet using sea drones???
Weren't Black Sea Fleet ships in harbours protected by very good air defences???
No, the failure to take out that bridge is due to military reasons, namely formidable Russian air and sea defenses (the latter against maritime drones).
What friend are you asking for? Have them directly jump in, the comments are open for everyone. Or are you being sarcastic? If so, why toxify the convo?
As for RSA, again, that's not comparable to this conflict. They're two very different ones waged in totally different times.
On Tusk, it was always Sikorski who flirted with intervention, not him. I also don't rule out that scenario either but am not confident it'll happen.
Will you at least please elaborate on what you so confidently implied about pontoons being preferable to bridges and rail for crossing rivers?
Of all the things you wrote, that's the most ridiculous by far. It's difficult to imagine that you were serious but you don't seem to be trolling.
If pontoons are preferable, then why do we even have bridges and rail? Why not move everything by pontoons from here on out?
Is there some global conspiracy against pontoons? lol For real, what were you thinking by implying that's the reason why Russia hasn't bombed them!?
Another point that you're dishonestly ignoring or forgot to consider due to getting carried away is that Russia hasn't even tried to destroy these bridges.
Ukraine has openly tried to destroy the Crimean Bridge and openly declares that this is one of its top goals, yet Russia never tried to destroy Dnieper bridges or declared that it's one of its goals.
Even after the SMO's initial push stalled around 1-2 months into the conflict, nothing was done to hit those bridges. Why? You imply that it's because pontoons are preferred to bridges and rail? Get real!
So if Russia won't even touch Ukrainian bridges with conventional arms, why would they suddenly escalate all the way to dropping nukes or whatever else?
Putin is hyper-rational, almost too rational in my view since he keeps getting "led by the nose" by the West, so it's hard to imagine him agreeing to jump up the escalation ladder instead of climb it.
Anyhow, can you please explain why you think keeping those bridges intact is better for Russia and worse for Ukraine than even just damaging them?
You're a special operations veteran, maybe (and I say this without sarcasm) you have some secret insight into this that you'd feel comfortable sharing?
Why do retreating forces sometimes blow up bridges if pontoons are preferable to them like you implied? Why not just keep them intact them? None of this makes sense.
Please provide the Political Reasoning and Kabuki Theatre that is supposedly behind Russia not attacking the bridges over the Dnieper, because you evidently don't understand the attrition of Ukrainian troops concept.
Epic exchange.
If you couldn't figure out my tone of sarcasm, then I really can't help you, and your desperate attempt to place the South African situation in a different silo to that of the EU/NATO or Ukraine in continuing a fight against Russia, is ridiculous to say the least, when "Apartheid" in name had nothing to do with it, but public resistance did, the very same public resistance growing in stature in the Ukraine and NATO countries.
A fact you should have been able to analyse if you had the skill.
I bet you're one of those fools who believes that it was black. revolutionary movements such as the ANC which toppled the white South African government, when in fact the resistance orchestrated and fueled by US clandestine regime change efforts, no different from those used in the Ukraine, attempted in Russia, Georgia and Belarus.
Yes, while we were assisting the West, by fighting the so called Communist Onslaught of the former Soviet Union, East Germany and Cuba, we were being used by the US as a proxy against them, only to be stabbed in the back by the US, and them working behind the scenes to topple the unpliable white government and replace it with a pliable black revolutionary government whom they believed they could control, an exercise that backfired spectacularly, and again to the disadvantage of all South Africans, and now they're at it again, funding a predominantly white political party in the form of the DA, for a wash, rinse, repeat exercise.
Another question that I need answered for a friend, how is it that the Ukies couldn't hit the Kersch Bridge, yet they took out several Russian Naval ships in harbours with missiles in Crimea and hit and sank or severely damaged several Russian warships of the Black Sea fleet using sea drones???
Weren't Black Sea Fleet ships in harbours protected by very good air defences???