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.
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.