The bridge is a very large fixed construction. Why would the Ukrainians need coordinates? One sympathetic person on a ship sailing through the strait any time during or after building could have provided exact coordinates. Or a sympathetic person driving over the bridge after completion. Or they could just look at Google Earth.
Basically, because it is not that simple? One example from the NYT article posted a coupe of pages ago:
Ukrainian intelligence had detected a makeshift Russian barracks at a school in occupied Makiivka. “Trust us on this,” General Zabrodskyi told General Aguto. The American did, and the Ukrainian recalled, “We did the full targeting process absolutely independently.” Wiesbaden’s role would be limited to providing coordinates.
Why would they need the coordinates if they (reportedly) can do everything else themselves? They could have simply used Google Earth to get the coordinates of a building that has been there for decades, most likely.
One would think that in order to bring a bridge like that down, it would have to be a cumulative attack, striking in certain rather precise places, in certain sequence, etc. Another option, of course, would be to send a truck loaded with explosives and by some random, extremely unlikely chance, have it explode exactly when passing several tank cars filled with 100,000-150,000 litres of flammable material each. In that scenario, a section of a bridge may actually be displaced, as we had actually witnessed, leaving the bridge intact and operating otherwise, for the most part.
It was rather the inability of the Moskva to protect itself that surprised everyone. In fact it was a combined attack with drones and anti-ship missiles.
All analysis that I read indicates that they didn't even have their defences operating at the time of strike.
The attack was always reported as two Neptune missiles. Never otherwise. Not sure where you get the combined attack from. The fact that that happened in April-May (?) of 2022 doesn’t help your argument since there were no “combined missile and drone attacks” back then.
The equipment is delivered to be used to counter the Russian invasion. Not to stay in the rear to be preserved at any cost.
This is my last comment on the subject because it is getting silly. If virtually everywhere else your returns on the use of the same equipment provide 2.7 or whatever it is (on average) destroyed Russian pieces of armour for each one of yours, you better use that equipment there (ie, anywhere else). Especially because there you would be defending your territory that you will likely never see back otherwise; that would be instead of losing likely up to 1.5 of your scarce armour for every one of the Russian units, while trying to hold territory where the writing was on the wall from the very beginning. That was predicted here at that time, if you go back and read through the posts.
The key point is: though President Vladimir V. Putin quickly embraced it.
It still breached the barrier of the unthinkable.
What was the unthinkable?
"Primarily used by civilians": No such a thing in time of war. Every road or bridge are supposed to be used by the military, especially this one. Civilians can still use them at their own risk.
I would argue that striking a busy bridge that is primarily used by civilians with ATACMS M39 Block I would be the main crime. Those aren’t even anti-armour munitions. You should find and watch the videos where these things fall on a paved roadway and observe the damage.
I didn't say the Americans let the Ukrainians fail to prove the point. I said that the American also believed that it will be successful, IMO.
I didn’t say you said. The article clearly says that the strike was allowed to prove the point:
The Ukrainians proposed attacking with ATACMS alone. Generals Cavoli and Aguto pushed back: ATACMS alone wouldn’t do the job; the Ukrainians should wait until the drones were ready or call off the strike.
In the end, the Americans stood down, and in mid-August, with Wiesbaden’s reluctant help, the Ukrainians fired a volley of ATACMS at the bridge. It did not come tumbling down; the strike left some “potholes,” which the Russians repaired, one American official grumbled, adding, “Sometimes they need to try and fail to see that we are right.”
That is not how things work in the real world - that is, you do not let Ukrainians use n number of missiles just to prove that the said missiles are ineffective for their purpose. I would think that this is crystal clear to everyone and why I said that this is another strange point of the article.
No: Newsweek quoted TASS Agency, whereas Kiyev Post quoted Ukrinform.
This is the original article that the Newsweek article quoted (RIA Novosti, not TASS, as clearly indicated in the article):
Система ПВО в ночь на 16 августа отразили удар ВСУ 12 тактическими ракетами ATACMS по Крымскому мосту, все ракеты уничтожены. Об этом сообщили в МО РФ. РИА Новости Крым, 16.08.2024
crimea.ria.ru
They call it “Crimean bridge” and “bridge over the Kerch Strait”. I have never seen it called otherwise in the Russian media space (and I never even read RIA or the like - gives you headache).
PS The other article was from Kiev Independent, not Kiev Post.
The reason for dismissing other generals is not that they disagree with the Commander in Chief. But because they failed in their mission or because someone else is better for the job. The rest is speculation.
They literally disagreed and said that Kursk invasion was a dumb idea that would result in great losses. They were replaced with others who didn’t say that. By the way, not all of them were generals.
There is enough political opposition against Zelensky to rise the question of his legitimqcy if he would jeopardize the defence of Ukraine.
Not true. Aside from Zaluzhny, there is no real opposition that has any significant weight within the Ukrainian society.
And the order will not be fully obeyed.
Which is why Ukrainian troops often withdraw from their position way before any order is given to do so (which often enough never comes at all).
It depends on what Putin does. If Putin doesn't order a ceasefire, Trump will arm Ukraine to the teeth because he doesn't like to be contradicted.
Trump alone cannot arm Ukraine. He can leave it with no arms, but he cannot provide any on a whim. That’s not how things work. Not sure what is so confusing about it.
Also, you talk like “he will do this and that” as if you have sources inside the administration or Trump’s head. Everything points to the fact that he wouldn’t do any of the things you
think he would, even if he could.
This is confirmed by every single intervew of Ukrainian or foreign soldiers fighting in Ukraine.
This is not true because I personally previously posted evidence suggesting the exact opposite.
West + Ukraine - USA is still several time Russia in militaro-imdustrial potential.
It's just that the European potential is not used.
That’s right, over three years later the potential is not used. Half (and currently irreplaceable) the support was lost in days, really. There is no real indication that “the potential” is ever going to be used either. And so on. But one can keep betting on it, of course.
A couple of things on the subject:
I didn’t make the post I said I would. Maybe tomorrow.
Edit: also on the subject:
The April 11 meeting will mark the first time the coalition will gather without America’s secretary of defense participating.
www.defensenews.com
united24media.com
