This was going to be an effort comment. Lets make it an effort post instead. Furthermore, our esteemed host, Mr Badger informs me that Monday - 17 July - was the first anniversary of TCT. Happy Birthday to us all!
Anyway, where was I?
Looks like the Kerch Bridge has been attacked again:
My armchair warrior take - it's another Spectacular™.
Like many others carried out by Ukraine. A showy but ultimately empty gesture geared toward (((MSM))) dissemination and hysteria. Magnified via (((YT))) and the other platforms, allowing the bloodthisty midwits and hasbara gatekeepers to get themselves worked up into a lather. Ukraine is winning! Russia is losing! Just like every other day of the war so far. But more so.
The bridge is said to be vital for Russian logistics. I take this to mean it's a make or break factor in Russian operations in Ukraine and Crimea. Without it, their position in the peninsular and mainland would be untenable. I assume this to mean two slightly different things - maintaining the population of Crimea and supporting the Russian military operation in Eastern Ukraine.
But, as I've droned on about before, the Russians maintained Crimea's population and the Sevastopol naval base from 2014 to 2018 without any bridge - because there was no bridge until 2018. So that was achieved purely by ship plus a rounding error of airlift as well. Then it was only in partial operation from October 2022 until earlier in 2023. I would think Russia can support the Crimean population and some military presence without the bridge. Also we have no idea to what degree the Russians have been stockpiling supplies on the peninsular
That leaves supporting the operation in Ukraine itself and that is less clear. But Russia controls the land bridge - the territory north of Crimea and the roads and at least one railway line running west from Russia. Plus they now control all of the Azov coastline, meaning they can now use any of the Ukrainian Azov ports to supply the military in Ukraine. That doesn't sound too precarious. Currently there doesn't seem to be much sign of the Ukrainian breakthrough to cut off Crimea, which means that the Russians are not actually dependent on the bridge at the moment.
I think the vital nature of the bridge has been talked up to make attacks on it seem more momentous than they are. Clearly it's of a symbolic value for the Russians and it's obviously very useful and cost effective but I suspect, short term, they can cope without it. It's loss is not going to topple Putin or cause a withdrawal from Ukraine and even less so from Crimea.
The above video and others like it have much of the usual copium and pointless snark from the midwits. Standard commentary - the death and destruction is depicted as hilarious and delivered in the familiar style. The Russian Stone Age pygmies predictably overawed by the Ukrainian military supermen yet again. But there doesn't seem to be much to base this on. The first attack took seven months to launch - from invasion to explosion. Yet this bridge is supposed to be vital to Russian operations. And it failed to sever the bridge. The second attack took even longer, a further ten months after the first. On this, admittedly very limited, set of two data points we can see that the tempo of devastating attacks is slowing down. If it really is strategically and logistically vital, a game changer, then shouldn't we really see the number and scale of attacks increasing to the point where it is destroyed?
The DT says:
The Kerch Bridge strike shows there is no safety for Russians in Ukraine
The bridge would be the only way back to the Motherland for many if the Ukrainians break through
As the Spartans might say: "If".
This is all a silly misdirection by the DT. Severing it to damage Russian logistics makes perfect sense. But focusing on what the Russians might or might not do in the event of a, currently mythical, Ukrainian breakthrough is getting waay off the point. The purpose being to conjure up images of Russian retreat and failure. Again, it's all about the optics, the propaganda
With the counteroffensive in its sixth week, still moving slowly and at considerable cost but without any significant territorial gains so far
The first sentence is a damning admission.
Ukraine was in need of a tangible success. That was delivered in last night’s dramatic attack against the Kerch Bridge, the longest in Europe and a major symbol of Putin’s power.
See, we're in symbolic, dramatic territory. In other words a Spectacular™. The attack is meant to distract from the offensive and let's make it about Putin as well.
The crossing is one of the most heavily guarded objects under Russian control anywhere, beefed up after it was damaged last year, apparently by a vehicle bomb. Hitting a bridge protected by land, sea and air is a notoriously difficult military feat, even in the era of precision strike. Yet Ukrainian forces have demonstrated they have that capability, reportedly attacking this time with naval drones. The strike makes it clear that there is no safe place for important Russian targets in occupied Ukraine, even far from the front lines.
It took seven months to launch a truck bomb attack and ten more months to launch a boat drone attack. The second implies the first type of attack wouldn't succeed again and it's likely the boat drone attack won't work again. These are probably one-off operations that don't really say anything about underlying Ukrainian capabilities despite the media implications otherwise.
As some will have noticed, I've been slightly misleading here because although the bridge has been attacked, it hasn't been destroyed. Similar to the first attack; the road link has been damaged. Thus it's likely that while traffic may be restricted for a while, the supposed catastrophic blow to Russian logistics hasn't even happened. In fact it's all still in the realm of the what if.
Comments
Post a Comment