The Crimean Bridge Is on Fire

Also, while some people on the bridges almost certainly died in the explosions, there's no actual gore (or any visible people at all, really) in the videos.

Honestly somewhat surprised there isn't a Russian information blackout on this since it seems to me like a major logistic setback.

https://twitter.com/JimmySecUK/status/1578639387843526656

https://twitter.com/DefenceU/status/1561775821257379840

Eh, no, unfortunately not. Moving small numbers of small things is still easy. The big impact that this attack had is that moving lots and lots of very heavy things suddenly gets a lot harder.

That was the official version of the Ukrainian side.

> A.) breaking it would make the land bridge they are fighting the Russians for much more valuable, therefore the Russians would invest more resources to doing so,

But it would make those Russians fighting there a nightmare to supply (and as we've seen, Russia logistics suck even without obstacles such as a big bodies of water), which will weaken their resistance.

> B.) Breaking it might cut off the escape route for Crimean civilians and therefore turn them against the Ukrainians.

Many already run away when Ukraine started hitting targets in Crimea, so it's safe to assume the rest don't want to evacuate.

> C.) The bridge was expensive and in some far future they would probably like to make use of it themselves.

Ukraine won't have a need for a Crimea - Russia land bridge in the foreseeable future, considering how long it will take for relations to be fully repaired.

https://twitter.com/TrentTelenko/status/1578501990513975296

My immediate impression of the aftermath was that the collapse of the road deck looked very much like the failure of the San Francisco Bay Bridge following the 1989 earthquake, which was fixed in a month (which seems like lightning speed by today's standards).

https://dot.ca.gov/programs/public-affairs/mile-marker/winte...

TL;DR: They tried, but they have more targets than ammunition, so failed.

If you wanna use rockets effectively you need damn good intelligence (potential targets) and the ability to hit them (accuracy). And there is evidence the Russians are lacking both to a certain degree.

When you imagine two rocket systems that are pointed at each other there are multiple factors deciding which side wins. Accuracy and range being two of them.

The western HIMARS rocket system used by the Ukrainians is far more accurate than everything Russia has (in sufficient numbers) and the range is (afaik) better than the artillery range of the russian side. Which means the Ukraine can hit them, before they can hit the highly mobile HIMARS (which might already be at a different place once they fired their payload).

That being said one of the major factors in this war has always been that one side is defending. That means Ukrainians have better morale and better intelligence, because the people living in these regions might still supply them with information about Russian troups.

https://www.thedefensepost.com/2022/09/01/russia-missiles-ru...

What I wonder though is why Russia doesn't use satellites combined with (dumb) rockets against moving troops, even if it is not very efficient. Does that mean they don't have much of a stockpile left?

Maybe that has something to do with it.

https://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/2022/october/less... https://www.iiss.org/blogs/military-balance/2022/07/russias-...

tl;dr:

- Low accuracy

- Poor performance (duds/failures)

- Limited inventory

For example, Russian has been making extensive usage of s-300 surface to air missiles in ground to ground mode.

While this capability was considered during design, it's an act of desperation. SAM's are mostly propellent with a small warhead. (The point is to catch up quickly with a delicate fast moving object and frag it to shreds).

The s-300 is pretty inaccurate in this role and is mostly useful as a terror weapon. (They are fast and hard to counter).

Additional, they have been repurposing air to ship missiles (kh-22's), which are notoriously inaccurate. The high causality shopping mall incident in late June was a kh-22 likely attempting to hit a nearby factory.

All said, there is no evidence that Russia has any surplus of tactical weapons. Estimates that up to 70% of dedicated LACM weapons have been expended already.

Alternatively perhaps you mean tube artillery and unguided MLRS systems like the Grads?

That is precisely how they battle. Artillery grinds down everything into rubble and infantry moves forward a few kilometers - rinse and repeat.

Ukraine has blunted this tactic by pressuring artillery supply with HIMARS, partisans and drone delivered munitions.

Now the big question is if Russia will use a tactical nuke as an area denial weapon. Russian troops have limited capacity to operate in a radiological environment, and NATO repercussions would be monumental.

Personally I believe a tactical nuke would bring us to the edge of a thermonuclear war.

Here's how I see it playing out;

Russia drops a small dial-a-yield outside Kherson to deter Ukrainian advance.

NATO attacks the Black Sea fleet and starts to provide air cover over Western Ukraine. Poland moves "peace keeping" troops along the Russian/Ukraine border.

Rus/NATO incidents start to occur, triggering an escalatory spiral.

Once you've used a tactical nuke once, it's easier the second and third and fourth time.

NATO article 5 is invoked after food supplies are poisoned from fallout.

Russia's conventional forces are totally depleted, leaving only the strategic air force and nuclear triad left as a response to NATO.

Putin deep inside his nuclear bunker, isolated from outside contact, makes a decision.

...

Warfare has three main objects:

(a) To conquer and destroy the armed power of the enemy;

(b) To take possession of his material and other sources of strength, and

(c) To gain public opinion.

Notice that none of that says "gain and hold terrority". Think about that and compare it to what you're hearing. I'm simplifying, but you are now more informed than most people.

Russia has already used much of their cruise missile stockpiles, or at least the amounts they're willing to use while still reserving some in case of an invasion of Russia by some other state. Further, they're likely limited in how many they can produce because many of them used western components. While they certainly stockpiled some components, how many they have stockpiled is an open question.

> How can the Ukraine hold on to any territory in this situation?

Cruise missiles don't help you hold on to territory. They are used for strategic targets.

> Can't Russia just level any area held by Ukrainian forces with rockets?

If you're referring to unguided rockets, i.e. so-called rocket artillery, those have relatively poor accuracy and don't get you much better than regular artillery barrages. They've also used many of those earlier in the war and Ukraine has captured some as well.

Putin prefers to think more situationally and kind of saves up his logic for the moment that arrives, previous statements notwithstanding. So any prior statements about Crimea were just as likely due to the burden of needing to reassure specific Russians living there at the time, and there's really no specific red line, even though one might be figured out looking back on all this someday...

Not likely since the mobilization system is saturated and not coping well with the current volume. In fact, the schedule regular mobilization has been delayed for thi reason.

"red line"

Many red lines have been declared and ignored.

And as for straight out war...the war went hot in Feb. Russia has been holding nothing back in its (so far futile) efforts to defeat Ukraine on the battlefield.

And Crimea has been attacked many times already, it's clearly not a red line, nor has Putin expressed any clear "red lines". (Many red lines have been hinted it, many have been blown through without a response.)

A war you say? What would you call what was going on until now then?

The thing that is unacceptable is the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Nothing about Ukraine trying to push the invaders out of it's own country in any means they can is unacceptable. The memes and jokes in media are trying to turn something extremely grim into something a little more lighthearted to release stress. Otherwise people would lose their minds amidst all the tortures, mass murders of civilians and other activities being performed upon Ukrainian civilians by the Russian invaders.

And yes, social media being heavily involved would be something unimaginable 10 years ago, because the proliferation of cell phones has now reached much of the world, giving us direct access to the horrors of war.

And no, the worst war propaganda comes from Russia where they literally advocate for the elimination of Ukrainian civilians among other atrocities.