NEVER TAKE A GUN TO AN ENTRENCHING TOOL FIGHT!!!!!!!!!!Must be the best in the world, they are trained to throw entrenching tools![]()
Cheers S
NEVER TAKE A GUN TO AN ENTRENCHING TOOL FIGHT!!!!!!!!!!Must be the best in the world, they are trained to throw entrenching tools![]()
Does anyone know how the Russian Elite Special Forces performed in this war? Are they on the battlefield? How did they do? I remember videos back in the day claiming that they had the best special forces in the world.
@Feanor
Video of the damage:There are reports of damage to the Kerch bridge ,I am not sure of the impact on logistics at this stage when they refer to spans coming down
Blasts reported on bridge between Russia and Crimea, authorities say two dead, child injured - ABC News
Crimea Bridge Explosion Photos and Videos Reveal Devastating Impact (newsweek.com)
Two dead after explosions reportedly hit Crimea’s Kerch Bridge | Ukraine | The Guardian
The damage is quite small and specific, with one of the concrete arm supports removed (about 10 second left in the movie). How UKR managed to get something into place to do that is beyond me.
What I am trying to understand about the bridge attack is why the road bridge was struck rather than the rail bridge. The rail bridge would have had a much bigger impact on logistics. I can only speculate that either, the rail bridge was thought to be harder to damage, or the intent was to attack Putin's credibility which has already sustained damage recently.
What I am trying to understand about the bridge attack is why the road bridge was struck rather than the rail bridge. The rail bridge would have had a much bigger impact on logistics. I can only speculate that either, the rail bridge was thought to be harder to damage, or the intent was to attack Putin's credibility which has already sustained damage recently.
Anders Puck Nielsen provides a good explanation of how difficult it is going to be for Putin to negotiate a peace deal with Ukraine. He's backed himself into a corner that's going to be a roadblock toward ending this war. You can see how given such an analysis just how important it may actually be to help publicly shake Putin's credibility within his domestic audience. Keeping in mind the recent Wagner mutiny and I can actually see why the road bridge may have been a preference.
Putin is a serial treaty-breaker. He can't be trusted to keep any promise. Russia was formally committed to not only recognising the pre-2014 borders of Ukraine, but protecting them. Putin broke that agreement, because he could. Any treaty which rewards Putin for invading Ukraine merely stores up trouble for the future.I cannot provide a link because I don't know if they were facts or an interpretation, but I read that during the Ankara negotiations Russia was willing to give back the land corridor for a Crimea/Donbas/no-NATO peace agreement; Boris told Zelensky no.
Russia should be interested in peace, Ukraine should be interested in peace. I wonder if someone is telling Zelensky that he can get "victory" instead, I also wonder what that "victory" will look like and at what price.
Putin is a serial treaty-breaker. He can't be trusted to keep any promise. Russia was formally committed to not only recognising the pre-2014 borders of Ukraine, but protecting them. Putin broke that agreement, because he could. Any treaty which rewards Putin for invading Ukraine merely stores up trouble for the future.
"Russia should be interested in peace" - I think you've forgotten who invaded who. Putin doesn't want peace: he wants victory, or at least something he can present as victory, so he can keep power, & prepare for next time. He's proved that by his behaviour. If he wanted peace he wouldn't have started the war.
When did "The west" commit to NATO non-expansion? The claim is that there was an oral promise, but that's not supported by any government statement, or any written agreement, or written promise. Hans-Dietrich Genscher said the west should make such a commitment: he didn't say it had. He didn't have the authority to commit even Germany to it, & his boss didn't agree. James Baker agreed with Genscher, but again, his head of government didn't commit to it.This goes both ways. The west committed to NATO non-expansion. We now know that was a lie. Minsk Accords 1 and 2 were lies. The grain deal that Russia just ended was also a lie. The real issue is that the gap in the positions of the sides is such that no real negotiations are possible.
When did "The west" commit to NATO non-expansion? The claim is that there was an oral promise, but that's not supported by any government statement, or any written agreement, or written promise. Hans-Dietrich Genscher said the west should make such a commitment: he didn't say it had. He didn't have the authority to commit even Germany to it, & his boss didn't agree. James Baker agreed with Genscher, but again, his head of government didn't commit to it.
What we're talking about is the foreign ministers of two NATO countries saying things in speeches during but outside the process of discussions on the unification of Germany, while the USSR was still in existence. No formal commitment by heads of government, or by any other countries, or by NATO . . . .
Personally, I think the Minsk agreements are meaningless. They happened because Russia had broken its written promises.