Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
This is a very interesting video from a Russian vlogger. If you don't want to watch the entire walk around of Saint Petersburg, you can jump to 49:57 when he finally sits down and gets to the point. If you don't want to do that I will summarize his points.
1. This was a very serious attack. It, as he described it "crossed the red line" and was a direct attack on Russia, which will require a very "dramatic" response from Russia. He doesn't know what that response will be, but hinted that it could mean the transition from a special military operation to an all out war.
2. It was a very serious blow for the Russian military and knocked out their main supply line to the Ukraine. But it won't have much effect long term, since the bridge can be repaired in a few weeks to a month.
3. More important it was a symbolic attack on the reunification of Russia and Crimea. More to the point it was a direct symbolic attack on Putin himself and his 2014 military victory over Crimea. Which he can't imagine it not generating a very major response from Putin and Russia.
Again that was my take on the video, not my personal beliefs. But I don't necessarily disagree with anything he said. I think it's an interesting Russian perspective on the attack.
Thanks for posting, and for the summary. My memory may be playing tricks on me, but didn't Ukraine attack the bridge once, months ago? I remember there were reports about the bridge in the first 2-3 months of the war. Otherwise, I would say, "well, what took them so long?"
A "dramatic" response? Which he seems to define, not as the worst imaginable , but as a "transition from a special military operation to an all out war"? What everyone's been enduring for the last 8 months isn't all-out war?
See, there's that recurring theme again; the belief that the Kremlin has been holding back all this time, restraining itself, and not pulling out all stops. Is it an accurate belief? Is this belief a result of a poor showing on the part of the army, so some analysts can only explain it by positing deliberate restraint?
..............
1. This was a very serious attack. It, as he described it "crossed the red line" and was a direct attack on Russia, which will require a very "dramatic" response from Russia. He doesn't know what that response will be, but hinted that it could mean the transition from a special military operation to an all out war......
That was one of the reasons given for why Ukraine would NOT strike the bridge. It was conjecture at the time and it appears to be wrong since the bridge was hit on Putin's birthday.
The theory was, Ukraine would not attack the bridge out of a justifiable fear of what Russia might do to retaliate.
Reports of a easy repair remind me of early reports that the Moskva was on its way back to port to be repaired.
The population of Crimea is around 2.4 million - or at least it was. I would expect some people would have left, but I would also expect many soldiers to be sent in.
If I lived in Crimea I would be feeling very vulnerable, especially if Russian was my family's language.
The San Francisco-Oakland bridge collapsed only the upper deck. It fell onto the lower deck, killing one person. Photos of the Kerch Bridge show a section of two actually in the water which is a different problem.
It will be a while before the bridge is repaired and suitable for military traffic.
That was not a war zone with enemy combatants or local partisans attacking construction engineers attempting to repair battle damage
Yeah, that is not going to be a problem, unless we start giving the Ukrainians longe range weapons. They already have people on the bridge working on it.
1) I'm not saying it is a good thing, but it isn't the massive deal people like to pretend it is. I wish something similar would happen in the United States because 99% of the people leaving would be leftists.
2) More Russians have fled from Ukraine into Russia than Russians have fled from Russia to Europe.
3) It's funny because for years everyone in America and Europe said that refugees aren't responsible for what their governments are doing, and that it is racist and evil to punish people collectively for what their race/religion/nation is doing. But if it is Russians then it is fine.
4) Russia has been losing working age men for quite some time. Its fertility rate is far below replacement. If I recall, they are beginning to do what Europe has been doing as a result of its low fertility rate, bring in immigrants. Last year Russia had net positive immigration of about 430,000 people.
You do realize, right, that Russians have been fleeing in all directions; the influx into Kazakhstan has been massive. They're even flooding into Mongolia (though some of those are probably kindred Mongols). Those are pretty desperate choices. And massive immigration into areas where people are not favorably disposed toward Russians (Georgia, Central Asia, Mongolia, Estonia, to name a few) underscores the desperation.
Here are some figures:
Quote:
There is no concrete data on the number of Russians who have left the country since the start of the war. However, one Russian economist put the total at 200,000 as of mid-March.
The independent Novaya Gazeta Europe reported on Sept. 26 that 261,000 men had left since the mobilisation was declared, citing a Kremlin source. The report could be independently verified.
[...]
On Oct. 4, Forbes Russia reported that the number of people who have left the country since Putin ordered the draft could be as high as 700,000, citing a Kremlin source.
Here's the reason why the current drain on the young male population is important, and can't be dismissed as a small percent of the total population:
Quote:
From the 1990s to 2001, Russia's death rate had exceeded its birth rate, which has been called a demographic crisis by analysts. Subsequently, the nation has an ageing population, with the median age of the country being 40.3 years. [...]
... since 2020, due to excess deaths from the COVID-19 pandemic, Russia's population has undergone its largest peacetime decline in recorded history. In 2020, the total fertility rate across Russia was estimated to be 1.5 children born per woman, which is below the replacement rate of 2.1 and about equal to the European average.
A loss of hundreds of thousands of young males who haven't yet started families will seriously hinder Russia's potential to recover and grow its population, if they don't eventually return.
Last edited by Ruth4Truth; 10-08-2022 at 10:15 AM..
Thanks for posting, and for the summary. My memory may be playing tricks on me, but didn't Ukraine attack the bridge once, months ago? I remember there were reports about the bridge in the first 2-3 months of the war. Otherwise, I would say, "well, what took them so long?"
A "dramatic" response? Which he seems to define, not as the worst imaginable , but as a "transition from a special military operation to an all out war"? What everyone's been enduring for the last 8 months isn't all-out war?
See, there's that recurring theme again; the belief that the Kremlin has been holding back all this time, restraining itself, and not pulling out all stops. Is it an accurate belief? Is this belief a result of a poor showing on the part of the army, so some analysts can only explain it by positing deliberate restraint?
I still have no idea what to make of it.
I don't believe there has been any prior attack on the bridge. The Ukrainians don't have any weapons capable of reaching the bridge. They expressed their interest in knocking out the bridge many months ago. But this was apparently their first and best opportunity to do it.
With all due respect the Russians are absolutely holding back. Ultimately Putin could use nukes. Which means that he is holding back on using nukes. He is now sending 300,000 more troops. That is 300,000 troops he was holding back but is now sending. There is no doubt that Russia is holding back.
That was one of the reasons given for why Ukraine would NOT strike the bridge. It was conjecture at the time and it appears to be wrong since the bridge was hit on Putin's birthday.
The theory was, Ukraine would not attack the bridge out of a justifiable fear of what Russia might do to retaliate.
Reports of a easy repair remind me of early reports that the Moskva was on its way back to port to be repaired.
The population of Crimea is around 2.4 million - or at least it was. I would expect some people would have left, but I would also expect many soldiers to be sent in.
If I lived in Crimea I would be feeling very vulnerable, especially if Russian was my family's language.
The San Francisco-Oakland bridge collapsed only the upper deck. It fell onto the lower deck, killing one person. Photos of the Kerch Bridge show a section of two actually in the water which is a different problem.
It will be a while before the bridge is repaired and suitable for military traffic.
In the water I believe it will make it easier to replace, not harder. In SF they had to demolition the collapsed slab before they could replace it. In this case I believe they can just drop what is left into the water and start replacing it.
In Florida the Sanibel Causeway was just severely damaged by Hurricane Ian, and they hope to have it repaired in one month. One month has been proven to be enough time to make major bridge repairs.
I don't believe there has been any prior attack on the bridge. The Ukrainians don't have any weapons capable of reaching the bridge. They expressed their interest in knocking out the bridge many months ago. But this was apparently their first and best opportunity to do it.
With all due respect the Russians are absolutely holding back. Ultimately Putin could use nukes. Which means that he is holding back on using nukes. He is now sending 300,000 more troops. That is 300,000 troops he was holding back but is now sending. There is no doubt that Russia is holding back.
Well, my question all along as has been: Is using nukes all he's holding back on, or are there other weapons and strategies he's been holding in reserve? Or is the use of nukes the thing everyone on the Russian side has been referring to, when they've said (since early on in the war), that he's holding back?
I'd taken it to mean, that he wasn't using all the non-nuke weapons and personnel at his disposal. For example, he stopped using missiles long ago, which had been very effective. I anticipated some kind of blitz, but it hasn't happened. And now people in his inner circle are conflicted about what to do next. Some are saying the whole thing has turned out to be a terrible mistake, due to an overly-optimistic assessment from the Defense Ministry of the army's combat-readiness. Some of the critics don't want nukes to be used.
From the reporting I am seeing this was a detonation not a truck bomb. How much money does Russia spend on that bridge's security??
It was a truck bomb. Obviously there was a lapse in security. You can bet that when the bridge reopened security will be beefed up.
Quote:
Truck bomb hits bridge to Crimea, hurts Russian supply lines
KYIV, Ukraine — An explosion Saturday caused the partial collapse of a bridge linking the Crimean Peninsula with Russia, damaging a key supply artery for the Kremlin’s faltering war effort in southern Ukraine. Russian authorities said a truck bomb caused the blast and that three people were killed.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
, but as a "transition from a special military operation to an all out war"? What everyone's been enduring for the last 8 months isn't all-out war?
