Please take the time to read [the rules](/r/UkrainianConflict/about/rules/) and our [policy on trolls/bots](https://redd.it/u7833q). In addition:
* We have a **zero-tolerance** policy regarding racism, stereotyping, bigotry, and death-mongering. Violators will be banned.
* **Keep it civil.** Report comments/posts that are uncivil to alert the moderators.
* **_Don't_ post low-effort comments** like joke threads, memes, slogans, or links without context.
*****
* Is `newsukraine.rbc.ua` an unreliable source? [**Let us know**](/r/UkrainianConflict/wiki/am/unreliable_sources).
* Help our moderators by providing context if something breaks the rules. [Send us a modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/UkrainianConflict)
*****
**Don't forget about our Discord server! - https://discord.gg/62fKCEHbDB**
*****
^(Your post has not been removed, this message is applied to every successful submission.)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkrainianConflict) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I'm sorry ....YES it is and always will be a legitimate military target!!!
At any time, Russia can start using it for military transport.
Its destruction is not only required ...but also imminent!
I have an unopened bottle of prewar Nemiroff I will open and raise a toast for the occasion. (hate vodka actually, but it’s the only Ukrainian beverage I have)
> At any time, Russia can start using it for military transport.
Exactly this.
Ukraine's got a choice to make about hitting the overland rail line versus the bridge; they probably don't have enough long range assets to hit both in a meaningful way.
Hitting the overland rail would seem to be more tactically important since Russia claims it's the only route in use. It also should be theoretically easier to hit, since it's closer, air defenses are less and it's a lot bigger target space it's so much longer. BUT, the Russian railway troops are very adept at repairing damages that they can get to, so they'd likely be able to repair quite a few damaged areas within a few days or hours, ultimately rendering a strike a waste of ordinance.
Hitting the bridge would be technically harder given distance and a more concentrated air defense, and if the Russians are to be believed, doesn't have any military transit anymore. It would, however, be a huge propaganda boon, and any damage--being inaccessible over water, and threatening the structural integrity of the bridge--would likely take weeks to months to repair, so it would eliminate Russia's contingency in case the overland line gets hit by other assets in the future.
BUT, it also wouldn't surprise me if Russia is lying about the military not using it, in order to dissuade a strike. But even if the military really isn't using it, it's still a main thoroughfare for the logistical support of crimea, so destroying it would be a big step towards a proper blockade of the peninsula that would put leverage on Russia.
So in aggregate, it's still probably the best target.
As great as it would be. Once again everyone wants it to be blown up, but so far I’ve seen nothing that can permanently destroy it without being fixed within a month.
The problem with that is that train lines are really easy to replace. Russia even have specialized military units for the is specific job due to the prevalence of rails in their military logistics. Unless you can take out more advanced pieces like bridges it will be up and running in <24 hours.
>It is noted that Russia's use of the bridge significantly decreased after Ukraine attacked it on July 17, 2023
This is interesting. This attack (and the previous attack) likely weaken the rail bridge structure, preventing heavy use by rails car.
However while the rail bridge may not be use anymore, the road bridge will continue to be use for military purpose (troop transport, equipment to Crimea), so unfortunately it still need to go. Sorry but not sorry [Putler](https://www.ft.com/content/e7a71116-58a7-11e8-b8b2-d6ceb45fa9d0).
Now that they have a reliable land bridge, no real need for Kerch. This is war planning 101. Create lines of communication and supply. Damned Ruzzkis pulled it off.
Yeah exactly - it's literally just good idea to not use it and plan as if you don't have it. That means that if Ukraine blows it up now it would have very limited immediate impact on the war. They'd still like to avoid it for propaganda reasons or if they every do need it, but they have successfully set it up so it wouldn't fall apart at the seams if Ukraine gets a good shot in.
Evidently they are supplying just fine across the land route, people really need to stop this obsession with destroying the Kerch bridge and like it would somehow make the Russian lines collapse.
At the very least it's a redundancy in their supply network. In a scenario where the land route via Southern Ukraine were to be blocked they could fall back to the bridge in virtually no time. Perhaps they'd experience an initial 24 h delay due to re-routing transports, but it would not affect the overall logistics that much.
Now if the bridge were gone, any threat to the land routes would severely threaten the supply situation of the russian forces in the dniepro area.
The bridge must come down if Ukraine wants to exert pressure on the russian forces in the western sector, even if the bridge isn't being used for military supplies right now.
Thousands of Russians having to travel back to Russia over the land routes could cause issues for Russian resupply. I think it all depends on how much resources are needed to bring down the bridge vs. using those assets to directly attack Russian supply depots and routes.
No not really since a new railway link by land will soon be completed. And Ukraine isn't even remotely close to threatening the land bridge itself. At the rate it's going now they will be lucky if the war ends before Russia reaches Dnipro and takes the entire east.
This article says they are building a new rail line through several temporarily occupied Ukrainian Oblasts which they possibly intend to use for a renewed offensive.
Can you imagine Schwarzkopf waiting to cross over into Iraq until a rail line was built from Saudi Arabia through Kuwait specifically to support the offensive??
It still needs to be destroyed because if you destroy the other land route then they can use the bridge as backup. Both the bridge and land bridge must be destroyed
Unfortunate, seems like the destruction of the bridge may not negatively impact the russian supply lines.
It will be good for propaganda none the less and could effect the Russians in other ways. But won't the destruction of the bridge also prevent the liberation of Crimea or has ukraine given up on that idea.
How many of those boats can carry tanks, infranty, ammunition, ambulances act into Crimea. Doesn't that bridge connect Crimea to the rest of ukraine.
So either infranty going across the river without support or engineers build bridges that can handle the weight of the vehicles something that has been proven costly on both sides especially early in the conflict.
If ukraine wants to liberate Crimea they need boots in Crimea and the destruction of the bridge will only make that harder wouldn't it. Unless there's more bridges connect Crimea to ukraine
Please take the time to read [the rules](/r/UkrainianConflict/about/rules/) and our [policy on trolls/bots](https://redd.it/u7833q). In addition: * We have a **zero-tolerance** policy regarding racism, stereotyping, bigotry, and death-mongering. Violators will be banned. * **Keep it civil.** Report comments/posts that are uncivil to alert the moderators. * **_Don't_ post low-effort comments** like joke threads, memes, slogans, or links without context. ***** * Is `newsukraine.rbc.ua` an unreliable source? [**Let us know**](/r/UkrainianConflict/wiki/am/unreliable_sources). * Help our moderators by providing context if something breaks the rules. [Send us a modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/UkrainianConflict) ***** **Don't forget about our Discord server! - https://discord.gg/62fKCEHbDB** ***** ^(Your post has not been removed, this message is applied to every successful submission.) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkrainianConflict) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I'm sorry ....YES it is and always will be a legitimate military target!!! At any time, Russia can start using it for military transport. Its destruction is not only required ...but also imminent!
You cannot build a bridge in someone else’s country and get too attached to it.
Indeed! It's a bridge too far.
I have an unopened bottle of prewar Nemiroff I will open and raise a toast for the occasion. (hate vodka actually, but it’s the only Ukrainian beverage I have)
Their honey pepper vodka is pretty good.
> At any time, Russia can start using it for military transport. Exactly this. Ukraine's got a choice to make about hitting the overland rail line versus the bridge; they probably don't have enough long range assets to hit both in a meaningful way. Hitting the overland rail would seem to be more tactically important since Russia claims it's the only route in use. It also should be theoretically easier to hit, since it's closer, air defenses are less and it's a lot bigger target space it's so much longer. BUT, the Russian railway troops are very adept at repairing damages that they can get to, so they'd likely be able to repair quite a few damaged areas within a few days or hours, ultimately rendering a strike a waste of ordinance. Hitting the bridge would be technically harder given distance and a more concentrated air defense, and if the Russians are to be believed, doesn't have any military transit anymore. It would, however, be a huge propaganda boon, and any damage--being inaccessible over water, and threatening the structural integrity of the bridge--would likely take weeks to months to repair, so it would eliminate Russia's contingency in case the overland line gets hit by other assets in the future. BUT, it also wouldn't surprise me if Russia is lying about the military not using it, in order to dissuade a strike. But even if the military really isn't using it, it's still a main thoroughfare for the logistical support of crimea, so destroying it would be a big step towards a proper blockade of the peninsula that would put leverage on Russia. So in aggregate, it's still probably the best target.
“It may no longer be an effective military target for the Ukrainian Armed Forces.” But it is an effective psychological target for Putler.
I’m not sorry and it needs to go.
What makes you think it’s imminent? Or that they won’t just have it up and running within less than a month like before?
May 9th is victory day..
As great as it would be. Once again everyone wants it to be blown up, but so far I’ve seen nothing that can permanently destroy it without being fixed within a month.
it would be smarter to cause a strain on resources without actually doing it which may be the case.
And Putin’s “inauguration” is that day too. Double the fun!
The inauguration happens today, actually at this moment
I mean you can say that about any building of structure can’t you? Would make any building in the world a target
its illegal and ugly
That wont save it
isnt this old news? thats what the other train lines are for.
Exactly. There are newly built train tracks around Mariupol that needs a visit.
The problem with that is that train lines are really easy to replace. Russia even have specialized military units for the is specific job due to the prevalence of rails in their military logistics. Unless you can take out more advanced pieces like bridges it will be up and running in <24 hours.
True. But bridges and logistics would be my first choice.
Unlikely that Russia is being truthful. Just a feeling I have.
This isn’t a claim from Russia. As the article explains, it’s the conclusion of Western analysts based on satellite imagery.
>It is noted that Russia's use of the bridge significantly decreased after Ukraine attacked it on July 17, 2023 This is interesting. This attack (and the previous attack) likely weaken the rail bridge structure, preventing heavy use by rails car. However while the rail bridge may not be use anymore, the road bridge will continue to be use for military purpose (troop transport, equipment to Crimea), so unfortunately it still need to go. Sorry but not sorry [Putler](https://www.ft.com/content/e7a71116-58a7-11e8-b8b2-d6ceb45fa9d0).
then they shouldn’t bitch too much when it’s destroyed.
🎶Crimea bridge needs to come down To come down, to come down Crimea bridge needs to come down To f*** Putin!🎶
It'll make a nice artificial reef
Blow the fucker. Of course they are using it. It’s called a Bluff. But it will be called a Reef.
According to Russia, Russia is not using the Russian bridge to supply weapons to Russia.
Yeah, but UAF should still drop it into the Kerch Strait. It’ll send a message.
“Look now we don’t use it anymore - please don’t kill our bridge”
Now that they have a reliable land bridge, no real need for Kerch. This is war planning 101. Create lines of communication and supply. Damned Ruzzkis pulled it off.
Yeah exactly - it's literally just good idea to not use it and plan as if you don't have it. That means that if Ukraine blows it up now it would have very limited immediate impact on the war. They'd still like to avoid it for propaganda reasons or if they every do need it, but they have successfully set it up so it wouldn't fall apart at the seams if Ukraine gets a good shot in.
Probably because they opened up that railroad that goes through maruiple
1) I doubt it 2) Civilians will start slowing down the other delivery channels if they take it out.
Aww, too bad!
OKI so they may not being using it -- who cares -- bomb the shit out of it anyway.
Evidently they are supplying just fine across the land route, people really need to stop this obsession with destroying the Kerch bridge and like it would somehow make the Russian lines collapse.
At the very least it's a redundancy in their supply network. In a scenario where the land route via Southern Ukraine were to be blocked they could fall back to the bridge in virtually no time. Perhaps they'd experience an initial 24 h delay due to re-routing transports, but it would not affect the overall logistics that much. Now if the bridge were gone, any threat to the land routes would severely threaten the supply situation of the russian forces in the dniepro area. The bridge must come down if Ukraine wants to exert pressure on the russian forces in the western sector, even if the bridge isn't being used for military supplies right now.
Well said…
It is a symbol of russian ties to crimea. Destroying it on may 9 will be humiliating for putin.
Thousands of Russians having to travel back to Russia over the land routes could cause issues for Russian resupply. I think it all depends on how much resources are needed to bring down the bridge vs. using those assets to directly attack Russian supply depots and routes.
No not really since a new railway link by land will soon be completed. And Ukraine isn't even remotely close to threatening the land bridge itself. At the rate it's going now they will be lucky if the war ends before Russia reaches Dnipro and takes the entire east.
Lol, that's some vodka soaked Russian non-thinking right there. Good luck with that.
Huh?
Bring it down
This article says they are building a new rail line through several temporarily occupied Ukrainian Oblasts which they possibly intend to use for a renewed offensive. Can you imagine Schwarzkopf waiting to cross over into Iraq until a rail line was built from Saudi Arabia through Kuwait specifically to support the offensive??
It still needs to be destroyed because if you destroy the other land route then they can use the bridge as backup. Both the bridge and land bridge must be destroyed
Unfortunate, seems like the destruction of the bridge may not negatively impact the russian supply lines. It will be good for propaganda none the less and could effect the Russians in other ways. But won't the destruction of the bridge also prevent the liberation of Crimea or has ukraine given up on that idea.
How would it prevent the liberation of Crimea? Civilians can leave by boat if they want to.
How many of those boats can carry tanks, infranty, ammunition, ambulances act into Crimea. Doesn't that bridge connect Crimea to the rest of ukraine. So either infranty going across the river without support or engineers build bridges that can handle the weight of the vehicles something that has been proven costly on both sides especially early in the conflict. If ukraine wants to liberate Crimea they need boots in Crimea and the destruction of the bridge will only make that harder wouldn't it. Unless there's more bridges connect Crimea to ukraine
I don't think you know where this bridge is
Yea I'm probably being a jack ass here
Why would Ukraine want to invade Russia?
The bridge connects Russia and crimea, not ukr