News
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.
Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.
7. No duplicate posts.
If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.
All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
view the rest of the comments
Given the recent announcements that countries like Germany have given Ukraine the ok to use their long range weapons against targets inside Russia I think it’s just a matter of time before we see this happen.
Frankly I was wondering why the bridge wasn’t attacked very quickly after that announcement was made. But with this report of the underwater sabotage I think it now makes sense. This underwater explosion likely took a long time to plan and carry out, and Ukraine probably wanted to see the results of it before launching any long range strikes on the bridge.
If there are other underwater explosives that have already been planted then I’d expect to see them detonated as well. After that then Ukraine might very well launch long range missiles to target the section(s) of the bridge that have now been weakened.
Maybe get them to show their hand with regards to the repair resources/ facilities.
possibly an attrition tactic? If they completely destroy the bridge, then Russia might just abandon it and transport stuff there via plane/boat instead. Damaging it just enough that it's cheaper to fix than to set up a new supply chain, over and over, could be more costly in the long run, and regularly divert construction resources. Not to mention the impact that constantly disabling the bridge could have on Russian civilians in the area - i.e. "how is Ukraine always damaging this bridge?"
Could also be psychological - having the bridge there and hitting it over and over and over sends a pretty clear message.
I think its largely psychological/ strategic.
Show you can strike the bridge, you show the enemy they can be struck, they need to dedicate more resources to defending it.
Also, actively destroying the bridge would be a huge knock to Putin's ability to maintain appearances.
Finally, actually disrupting the bridge would be good tactically. But thats proving harder to do. This is the third attempt?
Honestly I was surprised it wasn't pre-wired with explosives or some way to ensure rapid disassembly in case of invasion.
Seems like a no-brainer, but I'm sure that would be prohibitively expensive due to shelf life and stability of explosives, and maintainence for any mechanically coupled systems.
Hindsight is usually 20/20
Because the bridge was built by Russia after its annexation of Crimea in 2014.
Russia built the bridge after it invaded Crimea in 2014 by the way
Switzerland used to have all their bridges wired to blow. They should probably get back on that :/