Russian invasion of Ukraine

[JASR]

So they don't quite have the capability or capacity then.

If Ukraine is ever successful with a ‘push to the sea’ anywhere near/far around Mariupol, cutting off Crimea other than the Kerch bridge, then I’d say even then they’d leave it standing.
How many troops does Russia have in Crimea, with Kerch down, they are trapped - which might sound good, but it might go a few ways:
1. They become determined and take it out on the remaining Ukrainian Crimeans.
2. They surrender en masse causing a large logistical headache for a stretched, albeit victorious, ukrainian army

Leaving the bridge there, means the Russians can ‘escape’ but in complete disarray, abandoning their heavy equipment, artillery etc, just fleeing with what they need to survive, intermingled with a Russian civilian population also fleeing.

I don’t believe Ukraine doesn’t now have the capability to knock it out for a longterm period or destroy it, they are just choosing not too for whatever reason which is outside any of us’s knowledge.

 

[mosssideblue]

Maybe keeping the bridge standing helps Ukraine monitor the supply of weapons and where they are going...and then hit them.
Or maybe.....if the Russians have no way to retreat and are cornered in Crimea,it may force the Russians into a desperate act?

Slava Ukraini.

Your second paragraph hits the nail on the head for me

 

[mosssideblue]

Maybe keeping the bridge standing helps Ukraine monitor the supply of weapons and where they are going...and then hit them.
Or maybe.....if the Russians have no way to retreat and are cornered in Crimea,it may force the Russians into a desperate act?

Slava Ukraini.

I suspect Ukraine want as many civilians out of Crimea as possible before hitting the Russian military population there hard. After that, I can see the bridge disappearing for good

 

[roubaixtuesday]

It seems pretty unlikely to me that Ukraine has the capability to take out the bridge.

Why target it with Naval drones and truck bombs if you don't want to take it out?

I'd speculate that a missile attack would only temporarily disable it at best, and there's a high risk with such a well defended target of the missiles being shot down and wasted.

Pure speculation on my part.

The latest attacks on civilian cities confirm that Russia is run by a brutal fascist regime and needs to be defeated.

 

[mosssideblue]

It seems pretty unlikely to me that Ukraine has the capability to take out the bridge.

Why target it with Naval drones and truck bombs if you don't want to take it out?

I'd speculate that a missile attack would only temporarily disable it at best, and there's a high risk with such a well defended target of the missiles being shot down and wasted.

Pure speculation on my part.

The latest attacks on civilian cities confirm that Russia is run by a brutal fascist regime and needs to be defeated.

To expose its vulnerability by using primitive weapons

 

[Churchlawtonblue]

What’s your reasoning for them not blowing it even though they can?

I don't think they can. I think they have decided its too heavily defended to try and possibly waste precious cruise missiles. They have already tried to destroy it at least twice have they not?

 

[Churchlawtonblue]

It seems pretty unlikely to me that Ukraine has the capability to take out the bridge.

Why target it with Naval drones and truck bombs if you don't want to take it out?

I'd speculate that a missile attack would only temporarily disable it at best, and there's a high risk with such a well defended target of the missiles being shot down and wasted.

Pure speculation on my part.

The latest attacks on civilian cities confirm that Russia is run by a brutal fascist regime and needs to be defeated.

I agree.

 

[Churchlawtonblue]

The Russians will repair the bridge or use alternative methods and resupply Crimea.

If you take out the bridge you need to take Crimea soon afterwards. They don't have the capability to do that.

You could use that argument for all supply routes. It doesn't make sense to me.

 

[mosssideblue]

I don't think they can. I think they have decided its too heavily defended to try and possibly waste precious cruise missiles. They have already tried to destroy it at least twice have they not?

We will simply have to agree to disagree. Have they tried to destroy or, let putin know they can with the more advanced weapons Ukraine has at its disposal ?

 

[Churchlawtonblue]

If Ukraine is ever successful with a ‘push to the sea’ anywhere near/far around Mariupol, cutting off Crimea other than the Kerch bridge, then I’d say even then they’d leave it standing.
How many troops does Russia have in Crimea, with Kerch down, they are trapped - which might sound good, but it might go a few ways:
1. They become determined and take it out on the remaining Ukrainian Crimeans.
2. They surrender en masse causing a large logistical headache for a stretched, albeit victorious, ukrainian army

Leaving the bridge there, means the Russians can ‘escape’ but in complete disarray, abandoning their heavy equipment, artillery etc, just fleeing with what they need to survive, intermingled with a Russian civilian population also fleeing.

I don’t believe Ukraine doesn’t now have the capability to knock it out for a longterm period or destroy it, they are just choosing not too for whatever reason which is outside any of us’s knowledge.

But that argument surely falls down when you factor in that they have already tried to destroy it at least twice. I'm no military expert, but I've read enough books to understand that if you cut an Armies supply routes and starve it of ammunition, food and supplies it becomes ineffective. Its happened dozens of times in numerous conflicts throughout the world.