• lemme_at_it@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    I read a theory about why Ukraine has not completely destroyed the bridge to Crimea, even if they were able to, was to leave a way out & not fight the occupying troops into a corner, at which point their destructive unpredictability is worse than just letting them leave . This could be similar

    • severien@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      No, that doesn’t make a lot of sense. Russia has enough boats/ships to evacuate Crimea if they wanted. They used to supply the whole Crimea woth ships before the bridge was built.

      If Ukraine could, they would definitely destroy the bridge. But it’s just very difficult task.

      • athos77@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        You are assuming that the Russian government values the lives of their soldiers more than the strategic and economic benefit of holding Crimea. I think they’d rather hold Crimea at all costs.

        And if they have to lose their Crimean dream, I’m sure they’d rather it happen after a Stalingrad-esque situation, where literally everyone fights to the very, very, very last, instead of the ignominy of their troops retreating from those lovely warm water ports.

      • ChonkyOwlbear@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Putin would forbid any evacuation plans. A bridge allows scared soldiers a way to run away without permission from command.

      • lemme_at_it@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        It makes sense if you remember that Crimea has port infrastructure that Russia will absolutely destroy if they sense they’re cornered. They’ll leave nothing