Ukraine reacts to fears of Russian invasion as troops build up at the border

[bilateralrope]

I think there's only a very few good ways out of this. Russia loses the war is forced out and Putin either doesn't fall back on nukes or is replaced internally by someone who won't use nukes.

Most other options seem varying levels of bad:
*Russian wins militarily or by negotiated peace that gives them territory. - Precedent that invasions work, especially when backed by nukes (not the worst outcome but not good)
*Russia loses and uses nukes. Then war expands and escalates massively or the precedent is set that nukes can be used freely.

There must be more options I'm not seeing but it does seem pretty bleak at the moment.

War bogs down into an extended meatgrinder or a stalemate where both sides declare victory and spend a few decades staring at each other across a mine field occasionally lobbing a few shells at each other for appearance's sake?

Possible, but that seems unlikely with how quickly Russia is running out of supplies and trained combatants.

[EnterpriseSovereign]

Three killed after key bridge linking Russia to Crimea hit by explosion.

A key bridge linking mainland Russia to Crimea has been hit by an explosion causing a huge fire and leading to the partial collapse of the Kerch bridge.

Russian authorities said three people were killed in the blast.

Video footage shared on social media shows a fiercely burning fire engulfing the bridge and a section of the road bridge collapsed into the sea.

There are conflicting reports behind the source of the blast, with Russian officials claiming a truck bomb caused the fire and partial collapse of the bridge.

While Ukrainian officials will not say whether or not Ukrainian forces were behind the attack - which came a day after Russian President Vladimir Putin turned 70 - some celebrated the explosion. Officials have repeatedly threatened to strike the bridge.

The speaker of Crimea's Kremlin-backed regional parliament immediately accused Ukraine, though the Kremlin didn't apportion blame.

Putin was informed about the explosion and he ordered the creation of a government panel to deal with the emergency.

The explosion has dealt a humiliating blow to Putin, the bridge is an essential link to the Crimean Peninsula and is a key route to sustaining Russia's military operations in the south of Ukraine. If the bridge were made inoperable, it would make it significantly more challenging to ferry supplies to Crimea.

The crossing is a pair of road and rail bridges that Russia built after it seized and illegally annexed Crimea from Ukraine in violation of international law in 2014.

The12-mile bridge across the Kerch Strait linking the Black Sea and the Sea of Azov is the longest in Europe and cost the Kremlin $3.6 million.

[Broomstick]

Another smoking accident, of course. [/sarcasm]

[Broomstick]

There is also a wicked video of the bridge burning cut with Marilyn Monroe singing "Happy Birthday Mr. President" but I couldn't get it to work on this forum. Maybe someone else can get it to post.

[bilateralrope]

There is also a wicked video of the bridge burning cut with Marilyn Monroe singing "Happy Birthday Mr. President" but I couldn't get it to work on this forum. Maybe someone else can get it to post.

Do you have a link to an original source for it ?

The best I can find is various tweets with the video. I don't think we can embed tweets here.

[LadyTevar]

I posted this at the bottom of the last page, guess no one saw it.

NOTE the Russians claim they ID'd the bomber.

Well, well, well.. There's a Birthday Present for Putin.

CRIMEA BRIDGE EXPLOSION (live updates)

Just after 06:00 local time in Crimea, a large fire erupted on a road and rail bridge that links Russia to the Crimea peninsula

Russian state media says it was caused by a lorry explosion and led to oil tankers on the rail section catching fire, with the road then collapsing.

Three people dead, no other wounded reported. Lorry driver identified as living in Russian southern Krasnodar. A search of his house is underway.

Crimea was annexed in 2014 by Russia, which now uses the Kerch bridge to move military equipment into Ukraine.

An adviser to Ukraine's President Zelensky, Mykhailo Podolyak, called the damage a "beginning" - but did not directly claim Ukrainian responsibility.

[bilateralrope]

NOTE the Russians claim they ID'd the bomber.

I wonder if they are telling the truth.

[EnterpriseSovereign]

I posted this at the bottom of the last page, guess no one saw it.

NOTE the Russians claim they ID'd the bomber.

Well, well, well.. There's a Birthday Present for Putin.

CRIMEA BRIDGE EXPLOSION (live updates)

Just after 06:00 local time in Crimea, a large fire erupted on a road and rail bridge that links Russia to the Crimea peninsula

Russian state media says it was caused by a lorry explosion and led to oil tankers on the rail section catching fire, with the road then collapsing.

Three people dead, no other wounded reported. Lorry driver identified as living in Russian southern Krasnodar. A search of his house is underway.

Crimea was annexed in 2014 by Russia, which now uses the Kerch bridge to move military equipment into Ukraine.

An adviser to Ukraine's President Zelensky, Mykhailo Podolyak, called the damage a "beginning" - but did not directly claim Ukrainian responsibility.

Yeah, I only noticed after I made my post

Anything that makes Crimea harder for Russia to hold is a win for Ukraine

[LadyTevar]

NOTE the Russians claim they ID'd the bomber.

I wonder if they are telling the truth.

Well, there's a lot of possibilities.

They may have ID'd the lorry by it's license plate and tracked it back to the owner. If so, you get the following : 1. owner was driver and in on it. 2. owner sold truck, new owners didn't change plates. 3. stolen truck and/or plates.

If they ID'd a body as the truck owner, they can say they got him. There's still a question if the driver KNEW what he was carrying. It would not be the first time a SpecOp used clueless dupes to pull off attacks.

[Broomstick]

NOTE the Russians claim they ID'd the bomber.

I wonder if they are telling the truth.

More likely they're looking for a scapegoat to fit the official story. There is apparently some debate as to whether it was a truck bomb or some sort of boat or charges placed by divers or....

[Captain Seafort]

NOTE the Russians claim they ID'd the bomber.

I wonder if they are telling the truth.

Well, there's a lot of possibilities.

They may have ID'd the lorry by it's license plate and tracked it back to the owner. If so, you get the following : 1. owner was driver and in on it. 2. owner sold truck, new owners didn't change plates. 3. stolen truck and/or plates.

If they ID'd a body as the truck owner, they can say they got him. There's still a question if the driver KNEW what he was carrying. It would not be the first time a SpecOp used clueless dupes to pull off attacks.

You're assuming it was a truck bomb. I've seen theories from a missile, to explosive motorboats, to demo charges rigged under the bridge, to a truck bomb, with no absolute evidence in favour of any of them.

[LadyTevar]

I wonder if they are telling the truth.

Well, there's a lot of possibilities.

They may have ID'd the lorry by it's license plate and tracked it back to the owner. If so, you get the following : 1. owner was driver and in on it. 2. owner sold truck, new owners didn't change plates. 3. stolen truck and/or plates.

If they ID'd a body as the truck owner, they can say they got him. There's still a question if the driver KNEW what he was carrying. It would not be the first time a SpecOp used clueless dupes to pull off attacks.

You're assuming it was a truck bomb. I've seen theories from a missile, to explosive motorboats, to demo charges rigged under the bridge, to a truck bomb, with no absolute evidence in favour of any of them.

BBC News is sharing a video of the Explosion
You're right, it's hard to tell if it came from a truck or elsewhere.
Video

[GrosseAdmiralFox]

I agree nuclear armageddon is bad, but we have been through this, on a smaller but still very large scale before, and appeasement didn't work.

"Starting World War Two could lead to the deaths of 75 million people, so we have to give the Axis Manchuria Abyssinia Austria The Sudetenland Czechoslovakia Albania Danzig, it's not worth it!"

Once we we give into a tin-pot dictator one time, it never stops. He'll be threatening nuclear armageddon somewhere else next. If it's not "why die for Donbass", it"ll be "why die for Dushanbe" next, and "why die for Daejeon" after that .

Problem is that geopolitical calculus has irreversibly changed after the invention of the atomic bomb and after its 'oh, a new weapon, let's try it for everything!' phase.

Right now, the only way to fight Russia right now is literally diplomatic (sanctions, decoupling from the world currency markets, the like), indirect (training Ukrainians, arming Ukrainians, supplying Ukrainians, the like), and covert (intelligence operations mostly, maybe a few Black Ops here and there). If Russia declares war on NATO, it would be fair game as long as we don't enter Russian territory (since their nuclear policy is essentially 'send troops across the border, we'll start evaporating divisions,' and we all know where that would end up).

[EnterpriseSovereign]

I agree nuclear armageddon is bad, but we have been through this, on a smaller but still very large scale before, and appeasement didn't work.

"Starting World War Two could lead to the deaths of 75 million people, so we have to give the Axis Manchuria Abyssinia Austria The Sudetenland Czechoslovakia Albania Danzig, it's not worth it!"

Once we we give into a tin-pot dictator one time, it never stops. He'll be threatening nuclear armageddon somewhere else next. If it's not "why die for Donbass", it"ll be "why die for Dushanbe" next, and "why die for Daejeon" after that .

Problem is that geopolitical calculus has irreversibly changed after the invention of the atomic bomb and after its 'oh, a new weapon, let's try it for everything!' phase.

Right now, the only way to fight Russia right now is literally diplomatic (sanctions, decoupling from the world currency markets, the like), indirect (training Ukrainians, arming Ukrainians, supplying Ukrainians, the like), and covert (intelligence operations mostly, maybe a few Black Ops here and there). If Russia declares war on NATO, it would be fair game as long as we don't enter Russian territory (since their nuclear policy is essentially 'send troops across the border, we'll start evaporating divisions,' and we all know where that would end up).

If Russia was stupid enough to declare war on NATO, Russia ceases to exist because the USA would immediately go to DEFCON 1 (other countries doing their equivalent) and launch a massive nuclear strike, the only question is how massive such a first strike would be.

[GrosseAdmiralFox]

If Russia was stupid enough to declare war on NATO, Russia ceases to exist because the USA would immediately go to DEFCON 1 (other countries doing their equivalent) and launch a massive nuclear strike, the only question is how massive such a first strike would be.

Here's the thing, that is based on the idea that there are at least semi-rational players at play. The moment that a non-rational player is in play (which Putin and Russia is increasingly becoming, if not already), then that goes out the window, and you have to prepare for any scenario.

[Batman]

Putin would have to be stark raving mad to expect any other outcome than the utter anihilation of Russia once it goes nuclear. Even if the rest of the world does not come out so so well, Russia's a definite GONER. Putin doesn't seem to be THAT far gone so far.

[Broomstick]

The fear is that if Putin is in a position where he is dead regardless that he might want to take the rest of the world with him.

[Batman]

The question is is he still in a position to do it. The overall state the russian armed forces seem to be in, I wouldn't be surprised if somebody sold the rocket fuel (or even the warheads, though they'd be harder to unload) or the silo doors rusted shut.

[GrosseAdmiralFox]

The question is is he still in a position to do it. The overall state the russian armed forces seem to be in, I wouldn't be surprised if somebody sold the rocket fuel (or even the warheads, though they'd be harder to unload) or the silo doors rusted shut.

Eh, the thing is, no one in Russia is going to be the one known to be screwing Russia that royally or be the one known to cause a situation where the words 'loose nukes' are applicable. It is most likely that the Strategic Forces got most of their money and is likely mostly maintained. Not 100% effective, but effective enough that MAD still applies.

[Ralin]

(since their nuclear policy is essentially 'send troops across the border, we'll start evaporating divisions,' and we all know where that would end up).

You keep saying this. For the umpteenth time, care to provide proof? Because if you actually know the Russian government's policy on the subject I know some people who would be thrilled to see it.

[Zaune]

It does however seem like a safe assumption that if the Ukrainian army pursues the retreating Russian forces across their pre-2014 border and pushes on towards Moscow, which I don't consider particularly likely but is hardly outside the realms of possibility, Putin's regime is a lot more likely to resort to nuclear or chemical weapons than to seek terms.

[LadyTevar]

It does however seem like a safe assumption that if the Ukrainian army pursues the retreating Russian forces across their pre-2014 border and pushes on towards Moscow, which I don't consider particularly likely but is hardly outside the realms of possibility, Putin's regime is a lot more likely to resort to nuclear or chemical weapons than to seek terms.

While the Ukrainians are very likely to push as far as Crimea and take it back, I don't see them stepping into Russia itself.

[Zaune]

Me neither, but it's amazing what seems like a good idea at the time if you get cocky.

[bilateralrope]

If Ukraine shifts from defending themselves to going on the offense, I expect the support they are getting from the west to dry up pretty quickly.

[Ralin]

It does however seem like a safe assumption that if the Ukrainian army pursues the retreating Russian forces across their pre-2014 border and pushes on towards Moscow, which I don't consider particularly likely but is hardly outside the realms of possibility, Putin's regime is a lot more likely to resort to nuclear or chemical weapons than to seek terms.

Yeah, but he's also repeatedly stated that this is an ironclad policy of the Russian government and also that it applies to any NATO troops setting foot in Russia's Ukraine provinces. That's a lot more specific than the usual 'will probably use them in response to a successful invasion' that applies to most any country with a nuclear arsenal, and also a lot more specific than anything the Russian government has ever officially stated as far as I know.