I don't think he meant it's the beginning of what they intend to do to the bridge. I mean the rail connection looks like it could be salvaged so they might take another crack at it, but it's more likely that he meant it's the beginning of the next phase (the end?).
Why would they want to do anything else to the bridge, apart from destroying it a bit more completely? The goal of this action is to hinder Russian military supplies to Crimea. Obviously they are going to attack other Russian military targets.
Continue to liberate territories from an occupying force, including Crimea?
It looks like you think this is just a provocation, when it's not - Crimea was one of the gateways for supplies to support the invasion.
But I see what you're saying, you just need to flip it: what else can Russia do (after the invasion, indiscriminate destruction, mobilization, destruction of civilian infrastructures).
So this does what? Cut off all those people from food/water/medicine? Sure you can move that stuff from the other side but how will it ever get there?
I am amazed at this one sided all or nothing attitude. We keep going like this the war will last 20 years. What is the end result planed here? Putin can go on for as long as he wants and same goes for his replacement. This is like trying to get the US to leave Iraq, just without the democratic pressure from inside. The US left Iraq when they wanted and definitely not if they were loosing like when the horrible insurgency occurred that killed thousands.
If you don't agree please state your case so I can understand your perspective other than just down voting.
I'm not sure that this is true. We're already seeing some visible protests and some pretty high profile dissenting voices, both nearly unthinkable before the war. I don't think we can speak with any certainty as to what can or cannot definitely happen.
And this bridge has only been open for about four years, if you're wondering about how the people there will get food and medicine the answer should be: the same way they did before the bridge was erected. If they're not able to do so due to the fact that Russia started a war, you can't really place the blame on the Ukrainian side.
That's what people have thought. A small yield (.5-1kT) to destroy a Ukrainian army base would not warrant a full-scale nuclear response, but would show the world they are willing to cross that line in the sand. Are the US/EU ready for that?
This is, of course, silly trolling. If international law were a tool of US hegemony, then the US would not have been afraid to sign onto the ICC.
The reality is that both America and Russia have willingly violated international law in the past, and accountability—not to mention fairness for smaller independent countries like Ukraine—is hard to come by.
From the perspective of any independent nation in Europe, it’s clear the world is more dangerous than was hoped thanks to Russia’s aggression. You are obviously an American, but not everything is about your country.
I don't think you have any idea what international law is.
It's nothing like "law" within a nation. It's a super minimal set of basic principles that all or most countries agree upon. There isn't really a great enforcement mechanism (though symbolic rulings can be obtained in some forums such as the ICJ in the Hague), it's just built on top of good will and consensus. The only power the US has in international law is the power of suggestion.
> The Western press totally ignored the treatment of Russian speaking Ukrainians in the Donbass region
We hear this a lot, but I've read lots and lots of articles about occupied Donetsk in western media since 2014. Reporters on the ground interviewing people on both sides of things. What has been ignored? A substantial proportion of the population of that area fled into other parts of Ukraine in 2014, why are they ignored? They were forced from their home by the actions of Russia and their agitators - and they don't want to be part of Russia. And all the old folk had to cross back into Ukraine proper to collect their pensions.
Also a lot of people in Ukraine speak Russian, including the president so this whole "Russian speaking Ukrainians" is stupid. What Ukraine did was to try and contain a military operation being run in one of their regions by a neighbouring country.
The Crimea will get food and medicines sent by ferries. It won't be as effective and some shortages could be expected but it will not be the end of the world.
Russia has lost as many or more people in 6 months as the US did during it's entirety in Vietnam. This is absolutely not sustainable and come winter it will be a suffocating collapse of the Russian army. Putin can't go on as long as he wants.
ehmmm... From the recent Bloomberg article I read the Russia claims ~6K dead and some unspecified western experts estimate it rather ~15K. Now USA lost ~60K in Vietnam. Sorry, that is not "as many or more". Nowhere near.
15k KIA mean 45k casualties. Now, this might be a bit too low: 7k funeral reported on Russian social networks when most of the armed forces aren't from areas with cheap internet access.
They are mobilising to increase presence and unit rotation along the frontline, without having to decrease their presence along their borders with other countries.
> Cut off all those people from food/water/medicine?
If that is what it takes to force the invaders off their land.
> What is the end result planed here?
Ukraine winning. Will there be a lot of death and suffering to get there? Yes but in the end a country that big can't really be conquered if the people there do not want to be.
Ukraine winning means what exactly? Russia leaving a pile of rubble and thousands dead? 20 years or rebuilding, a generation lost to war for what? Before the war there was a possibility for leaving Crimea annexed and keeping Ukraine neutral (Turkey almost had it when the US and UK spoiled it). Sure Putin would have continued to try to use his influence to push for more Russia friendly governments and try to influence elections but so would the west. Not letting Ukraine join NATO would have been worth all the dead we have now. Also there was no reason that Crimea would not become part of Ukraine again at a later time when tensions and leading ship change.
Marshal plan helped to rebuild Europe after the WWII while the Soviet Union was left behind.
The same could be expected of Ukraine and Russia after this war.
The war has nothing to do with Ukraine joining NATO. It was a lame excuse by Putin. And Ukraine is not responsible for all the dead Russians in this war. It is on Putin 100%.
Your other comment says you take insult to being called a Russia apologist. What is it you're doing here if not that?
Remember: Russia could just leave. They're invaders in a foreign country fighting for its homeland. Do you think Ukraine is happy about blowing up what would be incredibly useful peace-time infrastructure?
I have very close relatives in both Ukraine and Russia. I don't want to see Russia burn, but this is a fire of their own doing.
You don't want to be called a Russia apologist, stop repeating Russian propaganda and excuses.
So my point of view is now Russian propaganda? I am not excusing what Russia is doing yet you and others keep saying I do.
Yes, Russia could just leave, why aren't we trying to convince them of that other than supporting Ukraine with weapons? Where is the dialog? To make it clear, by dialog I do not mean conseeding any territory or giving into Putin.
You may not be attempting to spread Russian propaganda, but your point of view is one of Russia's many propagandist talking points. Do not be surprised at the negative reaction.
I just responded to your question about "why no dialog" elsewhere in the thread.
As far as I understand it, Putin’s actions are motivated by the belief that in order to continue to exist meaningfully as an imperial superpower Russia must have a sphere of influence whereby it dominates politically and economically those countries on its western borders.
I’m not sure there’s any possible dialog that will change his mind, particularly now he’s staked the country’s military reputation on being able to defeat Ukraine - he’s “all in”, afiacs - hence the (previously unthinkable) nuclear sabre rattling.
This is war and ground lines of communication are a legitimate and important target. And the Crimea bridge is on the top of the list for the following reason:
Russian military logistics is heavily dependent on railways, they were short on trucks even before the war. See, for example, this interesting article from War on the Rocks. [0]
By losing the railway connection, Russian soldiers in Crimea and Kherson Oblast can no longer be reliably supplied with anything. Tanks, fuel, you name it. Provisionally, ferries can be used instead, but the ferry capacity is a fraction of what a double-tracked electrified railway can carry, plus the previously existing ferries between Russia and Crimea were discontinued and sold after the bridge was put in operation.
The autumn and winter military operations have just grown a lot more problematic for the Russians. The only possible backup, a railway running to Donbas through southern Ukraine, is too close to the frontlines and likely to be cut by an Ukrainian offensive soon.
what makes you think that Russia has infinite resources? Reading reports from various parties, it seems obvious that Russia is already suffering considerable difficulties in supplying their troops.
As to the goals, whilst I am not a politician it seems likely that Europe and the US view this as necessary in order to stop Russia from continuing to aggressively expand their borders, as this is not the first country they've done this to (e.g. Georgia).
Therefore As long as the Ukranian people want to continue to fight, it would seem to make sense for the western powers to support them in doing so.
Also, I don't think you're comparing like with like. In Iraq, the US was essentially an occupying force, where there were considerable factions of the population who did not want them there.
In Ukraine, Russia is the occupying force and there are obviously a large number of people in Ukraine who do not want them there.
As to what this particular attack does, there are a couple of obvious consequences.
1) Propaganda victory, it shows a previously assumed safe target is not safe, increasing pressure inside russia from citizens who do not want to be targets
2) Logistics. This further disrupts the flow of munitions and supplies to russian forces in Crimea and Kherson region. Ukraine has spent a lot of effort on targeting supply lines as a means to weaken russian defences and lessen the effect of their attacks.
"what makes you think that Russia has infinite resources?"
They don't but they have the ability to level the entire country to a rubble. How can you be sure that this approach is not going to push them into a corner where they will level Ukraine?
I don't think they have sufficient conventional munitions to do that (as they already have dropped fire rate due to shortages), obviously they have nuclear weapons, however there would appear to be significant geo-political risks to using them.
I'm not a politician so I'm not sure that they won't do it, I doubt even the politicians are sure. However the alternative would appear to be for neighbouring countries to just keep giving russia whatever it wants, and I can understand why those countries are not happy to do that.
It seems like crocodile tears to express such concern about the civilians in Crimea only in response to a successful counterattack by the defending party in an unprovoked, illegal war.
The culpability for the many civilian deaths in this war, of course, lies with the aggressor. Short of concluding that morality compels us all to simply capitulate to any illegal aggression--a patently absurd argument--it seems we have to be willing to accept the consequences of resistance, right?
I guess you missed the "cut off military supplies"[0][1] on that short list. This was a fast track to supply and support the invasion.
I don't agree with you because I don't see how you can justify the other side of an invasion and constant annexation attempts of territory.
The ridiculous thing is that all of this can stop if Russia simply packs up and leaves Ukraine - no one will follow them into Russia. No one cares for that.
Of course it's not that simple because there will be consequences, internal and external, for decades probably.
But there should be consequences when you invade other countries.
Edit: let's not forget that Russia considered as legitimate military targets over the past couple of months: damns, power stations, hospitals, and other civilian infrastructures.
So, in your point of view what is the west doing that's worth questioning? From the top of my head:
- Supplying Ukraine with humanitarian and military aid?
- Sanctioning Russia?
- Trying to mediate peace talks since before the war begun, and extensively after it started? Trying to enforce international law?
- Upholding agreements of the Budapest Memorandum, where US, UK and Russia (lol) gave security guarantees to Ukraine after the denuclearization?
I don't see what is so nefarious on the west actions.
Of course the Russia narrative: "if you keep supplying arms you're just prolonging the war" -> because they want to take over the country, and stomp Ukraine.
Edit: Now maybe what's questionable is the rhetoric - "Russia can't/won't/must/etc...", maybe it's "diplomatically condescending" and could be disrespectful, but in the light of Russia's' actions, it's more than suitable.
We are not even talking to Russia. What happened to trying to talk them out of it? The only thing I see is that we are trying to remove Russia by force (maybe the correct solution but we should try all avenues even if they don't lead anywhere). Where is the pressure from India and China? Why aren't we heavily working for example with India to provide more pressure?
I don't know much, if anything about geopolitics or diplomacy (to the point of finding some stuff absurd)... but after this period of escalations, especially the ones from Russia, with the whole sham referendums and annexations, I think the global positions are set.
Neither India or China care enough to do anything about it. They had plenty of opportunities over this period of time - and I must assume there were talks from the west in this matter.
So looks like we're heading to a split world.
Regarding talking Russia out, officially there were plenty of attempts, which ended up with Russia escalations at the end of them all.
You need to remember that part of this game now is about the survival of Putin... and I see no way how he can save face - even with the help from the west. He put himself, and Russia, into a position where there's no way out unless it's defeat and humiliation. The only way I see is to prolong this for decades until he dies of old age, and that's that.
There's two ways to read this question. It could be a legitimate question, as in "We used to try to talk them out of it and it seems like we aren't doing it anymore - what happened?"; or it could be that you're advocating for someone (who?) to talk to Russia.
I'll answer both. We did try to talk to Russia at the beginning of the war. My own president, Emmanuel Macron, was asked by Zelenskyy himself to talk directly to Putin. Which he did, extensively, to the point people were criticizing him for doing it too much.
We stopped, because Putin is simply no longer rational. It is not possible to negotiate with him. Zelenskyy even publicly said just a few days ago that he is willing to negotiate with Russia, "just not with Putin". Source: https://www.pravda.com.ua/eng/news/2022/09/30/7369844/
I am going to assume you mean well, as the guidelines recommend we all do. To that end, I would ask you not to play armchair war general and "just ask questions!", as if "hey have we tried asking Russia to stop" never occured to anybody.
Ukraine does not want this war, any more than someone with cancer wants chemotherapy. They're fighting for their life. And more than their life, they're fighting for you and me. I see you're in Switzerland - Hi from Brussels! - Ukraine's fight is ours.
Ukraine is Europe. We're under attack. This war is ours as well, and yet, Ukrainians are the ones giving their lives for us. Don't start thinking Russia will stop there; calling for nuclear annihilation of europe is a prime TV talking point over there (One of many many examples, via The Telegraph: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r4eJvwtQJu4)
As an aside no matter what your intent or is, the "just asking questions!" angle is now a pretty huge red flag for many people as it's a well-known tactic to slowly introduce extreme beliefs into the mainstream. I know the HN guidelines say "Assume good faith", but by now you cannot be surprised if people react strongly when you do this.
What about all of that? Those are internal affairs of Ukraine, which they were addressing internally through democracy.
If there were factions in Ukraine who wanted war with Russia... where were they? When did they invade russia? Also... why the hell does a "faction" want go war against Russia?
Makes no sense.
There were no provocations. The only provocation was the will of the Ukrainian people.
As long as either side thinks they can still gain a military advantage, they will do so before starting negotiations. Putin doesn't seem to be open to negotiations with reasonable conditions anyway. The bridge is also a major military supply line and therefore a legitimate target; it is a sad truth of any war that civilians will also suffer.
I am a bit surprised that they do it now, though; I would have expected it a bit later, at a moment that Ukraine would be strong enough to reconquer Crimea.
Ship ferries are still a thing and already announced. It'll slow things down for sure though.
They're fighting a war. Cutting off supply lines is how wars are fought and won. Russia has done the same or worse to Ukrainians during this stupid fucking war (see the thousands of civilians cut off from supplies and starved to death in the siege of Mariupol).
You said it yourself, Russia could choose to leave at any time, and they're choosing to continue (and escalate) the war. Ukrainians have a right to defend themselves and weaken their invaders however much they can.
The ferry system was heavily reduced after the bridge was put into operation. It can be revived, but not overnight. Ships, including ferries, are a valuable asset; if they don't make money on a route A <--> B anymore, you will sell them to work elsewhere, possibly thousands of kilometres away. Getting them back in case of need is not easy.
Civilian ferries are no match for military logistics anyway. Transporting some people, food and cars via a standard ferry is fine, even though you can expect bottlenecks and long waiting lines. Transporting 500 tanks is a whole different thing altogether.
Yeah I wasn't expecting tanks to be ferried much if at all, more the food/medicine/water the parent poster mentioned specifically.
The article I read only mentioned that there would be ferries as a result of the attack, didn't go into the history of them or anything. I'll take your word on it not being that easy to revive.
I'm almost certain that most people are not truly aware of the big tail risk which is nuclear war otherwise the would find a solution quickly. I do not understand why European countries are not distancing themselves form the US and UK who have no interest in a solution.
With this endless escalation they are playing with mankind's future.
Most Eastern European countries (most especially the Baltic states, Poland, and Moldova) are vehemently opposed to appeasement politics because they know that, if they let Putin have Ukraine, their own countries will be next on Russia's shopping list.
The only distance between the Eastern European countries and the US is that the former want a stronger response, while the US is still leaving "escalatory" options on the table (ATACMS, Bradley based IFVs, Western Tanks, etc).
The former Warsaw block countries know intimately how Russia treats its "buffer areas".
All Russia has to do is GO HOME. They are the invaders and the aggressors.
And what solution would you suggest here? I'd like to hear it. Preferably one that does not setup Russia for another invasion in a couple of years, like you know, when they took Crimea.
It's an obvious and clearly legitimate military target for the liberation of Crimea. Russians living in Crimea have had 8 years to move away from there.
The bridge is used to supply war materiel for Putin's war of aggression against Ukraine, but also to move goods looted from Ukraine back to Russia.
The bridge was built without Ukrainian consent between Russia and land conquered by Russia since 2014. Its primary purpose is to solidify control over this conquered area.
83 comments
[ 1.1 ms ] story [ 141 ms ] threadIt looks like you think this is just a provocation, when it's not - Crimea was one of the gateways for supplies to support the invasion.
But I see what you're saying, you just need to flip it: what else can Russia do (after the invasion, indiscriminate destruction, mobilization, destruction of civilian infrastructures).
Big up to the SOC and IC assets involved. This bridge-too-far story will get its own movie someday, methinks.
https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/explosion-rocks-russia...
I am amazed at this one sided all or nothing attitude. We keep going like this the war will last 20 years. What is the end result planed here? Putin can go on for as long as he wants and same goes for his replacement. This is like trying to get the US to leave Iraq, just without the democratic pressure from inside. The US left Iraq when they wanted and definitely not if they were loosing like when the horrible insurgency occurred that killed thousands.
If you don't agree please state your case so I can understand your perspective other than just down voting.
I'm not sure that this is true. We're already seeing some visible protests and some pretty high profile dissenting voices, both nearly unthinkable before the war. I don't think we can speak with any certainty as to what can or cannot definitely happen.
And this bridge has only been open for about four years, if you're wondering about how the people there will get food and medicine the answer should be: the same way they did before the bridge was erected. If they're not able to do so due to the fact that Russia started a war, you can't really place the blame on the Ukrainian side.
The bridge is not civilian collateral damage, it’s a military target as it serves as a major military supply line.
Nukes are bad, nobody wants to use them.
Things are going to get "interesting".
International Law is USA hegemony.
The reality is that both America and Russia have willingly violated international law in the past, and accountability—not to mention fairness for smaller independent countries like Ukraine—is hard to come by.
From the perspective of any independent nation in Europe, it’s clear the world is more dangerous than was hoped thanks to Russia’s aggression. You are obviously an American, but not everything is about your country.
It's nothing like "law" within a nation. It's a super minimal set of basic principles that all or most countries agree upon. There isn't really a great enforcement mechanism (though symbolic rulings can be obtained in some forums such as the ICJ in the Hague), it's just built on top of good will and consensus. The only power the US has in international law is the power of suggestion.
We hear this a lot, but I've read lots and lots of articles about occupied Donetsk in western media since 2014. Reporters on the ground interviewing people on both sides of things. What has been ignored? A substantial proportion of the population of that area fled into other parts of Ukraine in 2014, why are they ignored? They were forced from their home by the actions of Russia and their agitators - and they don't want to be part of Russia. And all the old folk had to cross back into Ukraine proper to collect their pensions.
Also a lot of people in Ukraine speak Russian, including the president so this whole "Russian speaking Ukrainians" is stupid. What Ukraine did was to try and contain a military operation being run in one of their regions by a neighbouring country.
If your supply line is targeted and you can’t transport troops, vehicles, food, ammo and fuel, you can’t fight effectively.
The US lost less than 1000 soldiers per year in Iraq.
Russia lost something like 20,000 soldiers in the first 6 months in Ukraine.
As far as I know, no US soldiers fled the USA during the Iraq war.
Over 100,000 Russian soldiers already fled Russia.
30,000 American draft dodgers went to Canada during the Vietnam War, but 30,000 Canadians joined the US military to fight in the Vietnam War. <https://www.reddit.com/r/todayilearned/comments/6o1b3f/til_t...>
If that is what it takes to force the invaders off their land.
> What is the end result planed here?
Ukraine winning. Will there be a lot of death and suffering to get there? Yes but in the end a country that big can't really be conquered if the people there do not want to be.
The same could be expected of Ukraine and Russia after this war.
The war has nothing to do with Ukraine joining NATO. It was a lame excuse by Putin. And Ukraine is not responsible for all the dead Russians in this war. It is on Putin 100%.
Remember: Russia could just leave. They're invaders in a foreign country fighting for its homeland. Do you think Ukraine is happy about blowing up what would be incredibly useful peace-time infrastructure?
I have very close relatives in both Ukraine and Russia. I don't want to see Russia burn, but this is a fire of their own doing.
You don't want to be called a Russia apologist, stop repeating Russian propaganda and excuses.
Yes, Russia could just leave, why aren't we trying to convince them of that other than supporting Ukraine with weapons? Where is the dialog? To make it clear, by dialog I do not mean conseeding any territory or giving into Putin.
I just responded to your question about "why no dialog" elsewhere in the thread.
I’m not sure there’s any possible dialog that will change his mind, particularly now he’s staked the country’s military reputation on being able to defeat Ukraine - he’s “all in”, afiacs - hence the (previously unthinkable) nuclear sabre rattling.
Russian military logistics is heavily dependent on railways, they were short on trucks even before the war. See, for example, this interesting article from War on the Rocks. [0]
By losing the railway connection, Russian soldiers in Crimea and Kherson Oblast can no longer be reliably supplied with anything. Tanks, fuel, you name it. Provisionally, ferries can be used instead, but the ferry capacity is a fraction of what a double-tracked electrified railway can carry, plus the previously existing ferries between Russia and Crimea were discontinued and sold after the bridge was put in operation.
The autumn and winter military operations have just grown a lot more problematic for the Russians. The only possible backup, a railway running to Donbas through southern Ukraine, is too close to the frontlines and likely to be cut by an Ukrainian offensive soon.
[0] https://warontherocks.com/2021/11/feeding-the-bear-a-closer-...
As to the goals, whilst I am not a politician it seems likely that Europe and the US view this as necessary in order to stop Russia from continuing to aggressively expand their borders, as this is not the first country they've done this to (e.g. Georgia).
Therefore As long as the Ukranian people want to continue to fight, it would seem to make sense for the western powers to support them in doing so.
Also, I don't think you're comparing like with like. In Iraq, the US was essentially an occupying force, where there were considerable factions of the population who did not want them there.
In Ukraine, Russia is the occupying force and there are obviously a large number of people in Ukraine who do not want them there.
As to what this particular attack does, there are a couple of obvious consequences.
1) Propaganda victory, it shows a previously assumed safe target is not safe, increasing pressure inside russia from citizens who do not want to be targets
2) Logistics. This further disrupts the flow of munitions and supplies to russian forces in Crimea and Kherson region. Ukraine has spent a lot of effort on targeting supply lines as a means to weaken russian defences and lessen the effect of their attacks.
They don't but they have the ability to level the entire country to a rubble. How can you be sure that this approach is not going to push them into a corner where they will level Ukraine?
I'm not a politician so I'm not sure that they won't do it, I doubt even the politicians are sure. However the alternative would appear to be for neighbouring countries to just keep giving russia whatever it wants, and I can understand why those countries are not happy to do that.
The culpability for the many civilian deaths in this war, of course, lies with the aggressor. Short of concluding that morality compels us all to simply capitulate to any illegal aggression--a patently absurd argument--it seems we have to be willing to accept the consequences of resistance, right?
I don't agree with you because I don't see how you can justify the other side of an invasion and constant annexation attempts of territory.
The ridiculous thing is that all of this can stop if Russia simply packs up and leaves Ukraine - no one will follow them into Russia. No one cares for that.
Of course it's not that simple because there will be consequences, internal and external, for decades probably.
But there should be consequences when you invade other countries.
[0]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ilXX-u5eZoQ
[1]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9GQCT8UKIlw
Edit: let's not forget that Russia considered as legitimate military targets over the past couple of months: damns, power stations, hospitals, and other civilian infrastructures.
So we can't ask questions and criticize what the west is doing?
How is my statement in anyway justifying the other side? This is an illegal war and I never would in any way try to justify what Russia is doing.
Claming I am apologetic for what Russia is doing in anyway is a personal insult.
- Supplying Ukraine with humanitarian and military aid?
- Sanctioning Russia?
- Trying to mediate peace talks since before the war begun, and extensively after it started? Trying to enforce international law?
- Upholding agreements of the Budapest Memorandum, where US, UK and Russia (lol) gave security guarantees to Ukraine after the denuclearization?
I don't see what is so nefarious on the west actions.
Of course the Russia narrative: "if you keep supplying arms you're just prolonging the war" -> because they want to take over the country, and stomp Ukraine.
Edit: Now maybe what's questionable is the rhetoric - "Russia can't/won't/must/etc...", maybe it's "diplomatically condescending" and could be disrespectful, but in the light of Russia's' actions, it's more than suitable.
Neither India or China care enough to do anything about it. They had plenty of opportunities over this period of time - and I must assume there were talks from the west in this matter.
So looks like we're heading to a split world.
Regarding talking Russia out, officially there were plenty of attempts, which ended up with Russia escalations at the end of them all.
You need to remember that part of this game now is about the survival of Putin... and I see no way how he can save face - even with the help from the west. He put himself, and Russia, into a position where there's no way out unless it's defeat and humiliation. The only way I see is to prolong this for decades until he dies of old age, and that's that.
There's two ways to read this question. It could be a legitimate question, as in "We used to try to talk them out of it and it seems like we aren't doing it anymore - what happened?"; or it could be that you're advocating for someone (who?) to talk to Russia.
I'll answer both. We did try to talk to Russia at the beginning of the war. My own president, Emmanuel Macron, was asked by Zelenskyy himself to talk directly to Putin. Which he did, extensively, to the point people were criticizing him for doing it too much.
We stopped, because Putin is simply no longer rational. It is not possible to negotiate with him. Zelenskyy even publicly said just a few days ago that he is willing to negotiate with Russia, "just not with Putin". Source: https://www.pravda.com.ua/eng/news/2022/09/30/7369844/
I am going to assume you mean well, as the guidelines recommend we all do. To that end, I would ask you not to play armchair war general and "just ask questions!", as if "hey have we tried asking Russia to stop" never occured to anybody.
Ukraine does not want this war, any more than someone with cancer wants chemotherapy. They're fighting for their life. And more than their life, they're fighting for you and me. I see you're in Switzerland - Hi from Brussels! - Ukraine's fight is ours.
Ukraine is Europe. We're under attack. This war is ours as well, and yet, Ukrainians are the ones giving their lives for us. Don't start thinking Russia will stop there; calling for nuclear annihilation of europe is a prime TV talking point over there (One of many many examples, via The Telegraph: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r4eJvwtQJu4)
"What about Iraq war? What about NATO expansions?..." as a means to justify the invasion.
What about the Minsk accords that Zelenksy was elected to implement but didn't? That was the wish of the Ukrainian people.
There are factions in Ukraine who wanted war with Russia.
It's not about justifying the Russian invasion or defending it. Its about if you provoke a war you'll get a war.
If there were factions in Ukraine who wanted war with Russia... where were they? When did they invade russia? Also... why the hell does a "faction" want go war against Russia?
Makes no sense.
There were no provocations. The only provocation was the will of the Ukrainian people.
I am a bit surprised that they do it now, though; I would have expected it a bit later, at a moment that Ukraine would be strong enough to reconquer Crimea.
They're fighting a war. Cutting off supply lines is how wars are fought and won. Russia has done the same or worse to Ukrainians during this stupid fucking war (see the thousands of civilians cut off from supplies and starved to death in the siege of Mariupol).
You said it yourself, Russia could choose to leave at any time, and they're choosing to continue (and escalate) the war. Ukrainians have a right to defend themselves and weaken their invaders however much they can.
Civilian ferries are no match for military logistics anyway. Transporting some people, food and cars via a standard ferry is fine, even though you can expect bottlenecks and long waiting lines. Transporting 500 tanks is a whole different thing altogether.
The article I read only mentioned that there would be ferries as a result of the attack, didn't go into the history of them or anything. I'll take your word on it not being that easy to revive.
With this endless escalation they are playing with mankind's future.
The former Warsaw block countries know intimately how Russia treats its "buffer areas".
All Russia has to do is GO HOME. They are the invaders and the aggressors.
The bridge was built without Ukrainian consent between Russia and land conquered by Russia since 2014. Its primary purpose is to solidify control over this conquered area.
It is a legit military target for sure.
Ukraine built a dam to cut off water flowing to Crimea, so it wouldn't be the first time.
That being said, it is war and both sides are doing shady shit even if we only hear half the stories.
I'm not exactly sure how to elaborate on what I'm about to say, but this is an absolutely dumbfounding thing to say about a country being invaded.
This is a military target as it’s used by heavy military vehicles. Medicine is lightweight and can use the old ways of arriving.