Russian invasion of Ukraine

[mosssideblue]

No, otherwise they would have used them. I think there is a possibility they could destroy it with cruise missiles but they don't have an unlimited supply of these missiles do they and I think they have decided there is so much air defence around that bridge that the chances are small that this would be successful so they are using them elsewhere.

Ukrine has the capability to take the bridge out (you accept that above), but because they haven't you have concluded they carn't.

Which is it?

 

[Churchlawtonblue]

Did Ukraine say when they wanted to destroy it?

Read the article I posted. Pretty definite I would say Mossi.

Ukrine has the capability to take the bridge out (you accept that above), but because they haven't you have concluded they carn't.

Which is it?

See below Mossi.

Gen. Hodges says Ukraine is capable of destroying Crimean Bridge

www.ukrainianworldcongress.org

I think we can safely say that this fella has more knowledge than me and probably/ possibly you?

He is saying they don't have enough missiles as yet!

If they do recieve enough powerful missiles they can destroy it.

 

[BlueAnorak]

Cutting off trade with China would literally bankrupt Western economies. It would destroy the stock market, wiping out pensions and countless other derivative financial instruments. So that ultimatum is a mental idea.

Expelling Russians living in other countries who likely don't support their regime any more than we do would mean at least some of them ending up in prison camps or worse.

You talk a lot of bollocks but bloody hell this post takes some beating.

The harsh reality is there isn't an answer to how to end this war easily, short of Putin pulling out / Russia getting rid of Putin themselves.

My personal hunch is that Trump will get in and the Americans will cut funding, forcing Ukraine to make concessions but I hope I am wrong.

It woukd also bankrupt China - a MAD scenario without nukes.

 

[BlueAnorak]

Ukrine has the capability to take the bridge out (you accept that above), but because they haven't you have concluded they carn't.

Which is it?

They can take it out - but won't until Russian logistics are strained to the ultimate degree AND Ukraine can take advantage of the enhanced logistics scarsity i.e. to tip them over the edge.

That point has not been reached.

 

[Churchlawtonblue]

They can take it out - but won't until Russian logistics are strained to the ultimate degree AND Ukraine can take advantage of the enhanced logistics scarsity i.e. to tip them over the edge.

That point has not been reached.

But General Hodges of the US Army thinks otherwise??

 

[mrcunny]

The only reason i think the bridge hasnt gone is that Russia is defending that bridge with all sorts of anti air and anti this and manpower. So let them think its a target and waste up valuable Russian assets for the time being..

 

[BlueAnorak]

But General Hodges of the US Army thinks otherwise??

I don't and nor do Ukraine - as they would have done it if that tipping point had been reached
If their are other reasons, we don't know what they are, and neither does retired U.S. General Hodges.

 

[JASR]

That's the wrong analogy.

They don't use nuclear missiles as they know the reaction of the wider world not just the west would be disastrous for Russia.

And yet you can’t think that the reaction of Ukraine destroying the bridge (at this point), would be a bad move for Ukraine, due to the reasons I’ve already outlined?!?

 

[roubaixtuesday]

They can take it out - but won't until Russian logistics are strained to the ultimate degree AND Ukraine can take advantage of the enhanced logistics scarsity i.e. to tip them over the edge.

That point has not been reached.

But surely, the sooner it's down the more impact it would have. I can't see how it would possibly help Ukraine for Russian logistics to be left unaffected for longer.

I would speculate that whilst missile attacks would damage the bridge, taking it out requires extremely accurate, placed and large charges to destroy such a heavy piece of civil engineering, hence the truck bomb and naval drone attack.

Missile attacks perhaps more likely to be intercepted and cause inconclusive/easily repaired damage, so a waste of scarce ordnance which can do a lot more damage when targeted eg to ships, as we've seen.

I'm not a military expert, but I've seen nothing which makes any sense for Ukraine to leave it in place if they can remove it. Especially that they've tried at least twice already.

 

[Churchlawtonblue]

I don't and nor do Ukraine - as they would have done it if that tipping point had been reached
If their are other reasons, we don't know what they are, and neither does retired U.S. General Hodges.

OK we shall have to agree to dissagree on this issue then. Let's wait and see what if anything happens in the future.

I suspect if and when they get the required munitions they will drop that bridge in an instant.