Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

relayerbob

(6,508 posts)
52. Well, it certainly would cross that line, since NATO would actually have to man the missiles
Sat Mar 26, 2022, 05:02 PM
Mar 2022

But, no, those two statements are not even close to the same.

Putin has been trying to goad is into striking since day 1, with the expectation that he can then use that as propaganda to support his war. You have his reasoning completely backward. Their military theory is "escalate to de-escalate", in other words, keep ratcheting things up until we attack, then use nukes to terrify and split NATO on how to respond. He isn't worried about our counter-strikes, and isn't using the threats to intimidate us, but instead to goad us into pre-emptive action. Putin absolutely would use tactical nukes, it's not an idle threat, they've been practicing it for years, and believe a limited nuclear war is winnable and won't escalate to all-out planetary destruction. He is trying to do to us what Osama Bin Laden did on 9/11, goad us into attacking, and using that as a rallying point for his side. In the end, as I said elsewhere, the very first place he would use WMD is in Ukraine, to "demonstrate" the futility of our intervention. Orders of magnitude more Ukrainian civilians dead than under the current structure. This is terrible to watch, but nothing in comparison to what it could be.

Instead, we are calibrating our responses carefully, to cause Russia maximum pain, while minimizing the risks to Ukraine and the rest of the world. This has helped to throw their war-planning into chaos. They've already admitted they didn't think the West could unite to create such harsh sanctions, nor did they expect to see NATO close ranks. They also didn't expect us to delivery so much into Ukraine to fight his worthless army. Bear in mind, also, we had nowhere near the men and materials in Eastern Europe to have us fight a war in February. This has all bought us time to get a LOT of forces in place that were not there before.

This article sums it all up very well ... from 2015, but all the principles are exactly the same.

https://www.vox.com/2015/6/29/8845913/russia-war

Because the Russians consider it Russian Territory Abnredleg Mar 2022 #1
Why hasn't Ukraine destroyed it? bluewater Mar 2022 #4
This message was self-deleted by its author Chin music Mar 2022 #10
We're not talking about NATO destroying but Ukrainians who are already firing into Russia uponit7771 Mar 2022 #12
It has been surprising that more bridges have not been blown and roads cratered dutch777 Mar 2022 #2
Far from Ukrainian forces relayerbob Mar 2022 #3
"Ukraine has no missiles capable of reaching it" Are we afraid of giving Ukraine missiles that could bluewater Mar 2022 #5
This message was self-deleted by its author Chin music Mar 2022 #14
Okay, that's enough. Iggo Mar 2022 #65
Ukraine hit Rostov with a ballistic missile in the early hours of this war. Swede Mar 2022 #9
This message was self-deleted by its author Chin music Mar 2022 #16
"Plus there are water pipelines on that bridge that feed russian troops in Crimea." bluewater Mar 2022 #22
This message was self-deleted by its author Chin music Mar 2022 #25
OH! I misread what you wrote. Sorry! bluewater Mar 2022 #28
This message was self-deleted by its author Chin music Mar 2022 #29
Would it also cut off the water supply to the civilian population? nt. Mariana Mar 2022 #66
Also when this happened it was pointed out that Rostov has a nuclear reactor. Swede Mar 2022 #23
This message was self-deleted by its author Chin music Mar 2022 #26
Honestly, I can't see any reason not to cut this vital supply link. bluewater Mar 2022 #19
I'm sure that has never crossed anyone else's mind. relayerbob Mar 2022 #39
So attacking the Crimean Bridge would be considered an escalation by Russia? bluewater Mar 2022 #50
See my other response to you, in another sub-thread relayerbob Mar 2022 #53
Your insistence that NATO can't train Ukrainians sufficiently is noted. bluewater Mar 2022 #55
It takes several months, assuming we had a suitable weapon system relayerbob Mar 2022 #57
Millerevo, not Rostov relayerbob Mar 2022 #40
Give the Ukrainians a couple of short-range missiles dalton99a Mar 2022 #6
Ukrainians are not fighting outside of Ukraine. Sneederbunk Mar 2022 #7
CRIMEA is an integral part of Ukraine. bluewater Mar 2022 #13
Not since 2014. Sneederbunk Mar 2022 #17
This message was self-deleted by its author Chin music Mar 2022 #21
Exactly. bluewater Mar 2022 #24
Ukraine doesn't recognize that. NutmegYankee Mar 2022 #27
The OP is talking about logistics. The bridge should be blown to prevent Russia Quixote1818 Mar 2022 #31
If that is the case, Ukraine should be fighting in Crimea too. Sneederbunk Mar 2022 #32
Indeed. I think Ukraine plans to, actually. bluewater Mar 2022 #34
This message was self-deleted by its author Chin music Mar 2022 #35
They have to get there first relayerbob Mar 2022 #41
Crimea is Ukrainian terroritory not Russian uponit7771 Mar 2022 #15
This message was self-deleted by its author Chin music Mar 2022 #20
This message was self-deleted by its author Chin music Mar 2022 #18
Yes, it could be destroyed at any time. MineralMan Mar 2022 #8
"That it has not is part of strategic planning" oh, please, that's sophistry. bluewater Mar 2022 #11
And yet the bridge still stands. MineralMan Mar 2022 #30
Inexplicably so. bluewater Mar 2022 #33
No. Not inexplicable. MineralMan Mar 2022 #36
My snarky reply reconsidered and removed. bluewater Mar 2022 #37
No, it can't be "destroyed at any time" relayerbob Mar 2022 #43
Excellent points. bluewater Mar 2022 #44
That bridge has always been beyond the range of the missile mentioned above muriel_volestrangler Mar 2022 #38
Why hasn't Ukraine been supplied with a missile that could reach the bridge? bluewater Mar 2022 #42
Well, for starters, they wouldn't even know how to use it. relayerbob Mar 2022 #45
So, you agree the US and NATO feel Russia would view it as crossing a red-line bluewater Mar 2022 #48
Well, it certainly would cross that line, since NATO would actually have to man the missiles relayerbob Mar 2022 #52
"while minimizing the risks to Ukraine" as Ukrainian cities are reduced to rubble bluewater Mar 2022 #54
Also, Crimea is controlled entirely by Russia. relayerbob Mar 2022 #46
Yes, Crimea is totally occupied by Russia. bluewater Mar 2022 #47
You're the thread starter with the questions about hitting the bridge muriel_volestrangler Mar 2022 #49
So, basically, yes, the US and NATO are afraid it would be viewed as an escalation? OK bluewater Mar 2022 #51
A very graceful end to dumbcat Mar 2022 #56
Thanks. It's a complicated issue that deserves civil discourse. bluewater Mar 2022 #58
Likely because no one but you has decided iemanja Mar 2022 #59
No, I assumed that Ukraine would want to sever a major Russian supply link bluewater Mar 2022 #60
How is it iemanja Mar 2022 #61
How are things going? bluewater Mar 2022 #62
Is there some reason you can't answer a question? iemanja Mar 2022 #63
Because Ukraine does not need the rallying cry of its destruction in Russia. roamer65 Mar 2022 #64
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Why has the Crimean Bridg...»Reply #52