Ukraine cries. Everyone is lying. UN expresses 'deep concerns'

[Dr Sardonicus]

Originally Posted by ldesnogu

Didn't FoR claim they reopened the other railway for traveler trains (not for military trains)?

This October 9 Al-Jazeera story says

Russian Deputy Prime Minister Marat Khusnullin told reporters that "traffic has been fully restored" on the bridge's railway, according to state news agency Ria Novosti, without specifying when operations resumed.

Khusnullin had confirmed that the resumption is for "both freight and passenger traffic" in an earlier post on Telegram, and said one of the destroyed lanes would be restored "in the near future".

Yeah, I'll bet. I don't think they're stupid enough actually to run freight trains over the damaged rail spans. If they are, and a train derails as a result, they'll probably just claim Ukraine attacked the bridge again.

This indeed looks very stupid and typical of the Russian ubermensch way. As we say in French, "même pas mal".

This is in line with the following bit of downplaying which is being quoted all over the Internet:

"Now they have something to be proud of: over 23 years of their management, they didn't manage to build anything worthy of attention in Crimea, but they've managed to damage the surface of the Russian bridge," Vladimir Konstantinov, chairman of the State Council of the Republic, wrote on Telegram.

[kriesel]

Originally Posted by xilman

Largely untrue.

+1. That seems to be a recurring problem.
As for the bridge, it seems to me it needs another dose of what it got recently, reapplied as needed to completely close it for the duration. (Ukraine sure could use now, one or more of those nukes they surrendered long ago.) Promote some bridge spans from all lanes to fish habitat, similar to how the Moskva was promoted to stationary submarine. Then let the invaders run out of supplies in a few weeks, and surrender meekly.
When this is eventually over, the Russians ought owe and pay Ukraine the entire cost of restoring Ukrainian infrastructure including destroyed civilian housing, plus punitive damages in the trillions for loss of civilian life, and a buffer zone created from former Russian territory of at least 100 miles depth. Belarus ought also experience consequences. Putin and whatshisname get free one way trips to the Hague for trial, if their countrymen let them live.

The longer term damage to Russia will be considerable. The EU is quitting Russian energy as fast as practical. US citizens are looking for any possible way to avoid supporting Russia's economy in any way.

[xilman]

Originally Posted by kriesel

When this is eventually over, the Russians ought owe and pay Ukraine the entire cost of restoring Ukrainian infrastructure including destroyed civilian housing, plus punitive damages in the trillions for loss of civilian life, and a buffer zone created from former Russian territory of at least 100 miles depth.

Careful.

That approach was tried just a century ago. It now seems to have been sub-optimal.

[kriesel]

Originally Posted by xilman

Careful.

That approach was tried just a century ago. It now seems to have been sub-optimal.

Appeasement didn't work so well in the rematch either. At least Putin is really seriously underperforming his role model / scarecrow. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Areas_annexed_by_Germany, vs. Crimea and a few other still-contested areas after ~8 years. The immediate outcome was ruin, occupation, and division of Germany, death for the leader and his mistress, and war crimes trials for his immediate subordinates. Unlike Germany, Russia has huge energy resources by which to pay for their crimes.

[Dr Sardonicus]

Originally Posted by xilman

Careful.

That approach was tried just a century ago. It now seems to have been sub-optimal.

I had been pondering the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk, which I mentioned in an earlier post to this thread. It was one of the early diplomatic achievements of the Bolshevik government. The terms of the treaty were onerous for Russia, to say the least. Among the territorial cessions, Russia was obliged to grant independence to Ukraine.

The Bolshevik regime considered it imperative to get Russia out of the war with the Central Powers, because the war had been militarily disastrous for Russia, to the point of causing major social unrest. The Kerensky government's continued pursuit of the war may have been a factor in its downfall.

The Allied Powers may have used the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk as a model for the Treaty of Versailles, which seems to have taught Germany something other than the lesson it was intended to teach.

What some Russists have in mind for Ukraine, I posted here earlier in this thread.

WRT being overly punitive, I have heard news reports to the effect that Ukrainian civilians had previously been mostly deeply sorrowful in reacting to Russia's attacks on civilian areas. But their reaction to Russia's attacks in revenge for the attack on the Kerch bridge is much more one of anger at Russia. Bombing the civilian populace into submission seems to be working about as well in Ukraine as it did in WWII.

Russia's new commander in Ukraine, General Sergei Surovikin, used massive firepower to help crush Syria's rebellion. Among other things, he practically razed the city of Aleppo to the ground. Of course, he was able to use aircraft to deliver ordnance. And Syrian rebels lacked a capable military with precision weapons and capable air defenses. Attacking the civilian populace is not going to help Russia's hapless military on the battlefield. And Russia's supply of long-range missiles is not unlimited.

According to this Al-Jazeera story, Ukrainian guerilla fighting is also increasing in scope and effectivness:

In the attack's wake, Russia beefed up security on the bridge, handing responsibility over to the FSB, Russia's domestic security service. Security was also tightened at other critical infrastructure, such as fuel storage depots and marshalling yards.

Intense security checks on the truck driver's background and route he travelled before crossing the bridge have yielded little information so far that has been made public. Despite these efforts, partisan activity in Russian-held territory continues to grow.

Since the start of the invasion, Ukrainians fighting Russian forces in occupied land have been responsible for assassinating local leaders considered to be collaborating with Moscow.

Isolated attacks have become increasingly effective as these groups have started to coordinate with Ukraine's military command. Sporadic attacks are now becoming more focused and deliberate as part of an overall strategy.

Ukrainian special operations forces are training, advising and arming guerrilla groups, instructing them in the art of sabotage, hit-and-run tactics, covert communications and the ability to stay hidden within a population while wreaking havoc on the enemy.

This training has now started to pay off. Partisan attacks have picked up since what Russia called its annexation in September of four Ukrainian territories. Inside Kherson, partisan activity has also taken on a surveillance role with spotters monitoring movements of Russian military and security personnel, the information then being handed over to the Ukrainian military.

[Dr Sardonicus]

A country breakdown of the UN General Assembly vote rejecting Russia's annexations in Ukraine.

There were 143 "Yes" votes.

Member states that voted against the resolution
B: Belarus
D: Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (North Korea)
N: Nicaragua
R: Russia
S: Syria

Member states that abstained
A: Algeria, Armenia
B: Bolivia, Burundi
C: Central African Republic, China, Republic of the Congo, Cuba,
E: Eritrea, Eswatini, Ethiopia
G: Guinea
H: Honduras
I: India
K: Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan
L: Laos, Lesotho
M: Mali, Mongolia, Mozambique,
N: Namibia
P: Pakistan
S: South Africa, South Sudan, Sri Lanka, Sudan
T: Tajikistan, Tanzania, Thailand, Togo
U: Uganda, Uzbekistan
V: Vietnam
Z: Zimbabwe

The article also shows votes against and abstentions on March 2 for the resolution demanding that Russia end its war of aggression.

[ldesnogu]

It might be interesting to also list the votes for in response to the Russian annexation of Crimea back in 2014.
100 approve
11 against
58 abstain
24 absent

Member states that voted against the resolution
Armenia
Belarus, Bolivia
Cuba
Nicaragua, North Korea
Russia
Sudan, Syria
Venezuela
Zimbabwe

Member states that abstained
Afghanistan, Algeria, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina,
Bangladesh, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei, Burkina Faso, Burundi,
Cambodia, China, Comoros,
Djibouti, Dominica,
Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Eritrea, Ethiopia,
Fiji,
Gabon, Gambia, Guyana,
India, Iraq,
Jamaica,
Kazakhstan, Kenya,
Lesotho,
Mali, Mauritania, Mongolia, Mozambique, Myanmar,
Namibia, Nepal, Nauru,
Pakistan, Paraguay,
Rwanda,
Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, São Tomé and Príncipe, Senegal, South Africa, South Sudan, Sri Lanka, Suriname, Swaziland,
Tanzania,
Uganda, Uruguay, Uzbekistan,
Vietnam,
Zambia

I never realized back then in 2014 that so many countries abstain. FoR is more isolated than ever.

[ldesnogu]

An interesting read on the impact of Kerch bridge damages on logistics:
https://twitter.com/wartranslated/st...23172346118144

Threadreaderapp

[a1call]

Can only see 10 Absents here:

https://twitter.com/UN_News_Centre/s...341185/photo/1
Missing 14 from the count.

[LaurV]

Originally Posted by LaurV

Look to the damage: there is none. The bridge is still functional.

Originally Posted by xilman

Largely untrue.

Originally Posted by kriesel

+1. That seems to be a recurring problem.

Behind of the official propaganda, many videos posted by random travelers show both the auto and train traffic going well, in both directions. I still maintain my opinion that the "bruising" of the bridge is due to Ruzzians, that it was well controlled, and that Ukrainians destroying the bridge would be a huge mistake.

Originally Posted by kriesel

As for the bridge, it seems to me it needs another dose of what it got recently, reapplied as needed to completely close it for the duration. (Ukraine sure could use now, one or more of those nukes they surrendered long ago.) Promote some bridge spans from all lanes to fish habitat, similar to how the Moskva was promoted to stationary submarine. Then let the invaders run out of supplies in a few weeks, and surrender meekly.
When this is eventually over, the Russians ought owe and pay Ukraine the entire cost of restoring Ukrainian infrastructure including destroyed civilian housing, plus punitive damages in the trillions for loss of civilian life, and a buffer zone created from former Russian territory of at least 100 miles depth. Belarus ought also experience consequences. Putin and whatshisname get free one way trips to the Hague for trial, if their countrymen let them live.
The longer term damage to Russia will be considerable. The EU is quitting Russian energy as fast as practical. US citizens are looking for any possible way to avoid supporting Russia's economy in any way.

I don't disagree with the scenario, I even like it quite a lot , but at this time is mostly an uneducated wishful thinking (especially about the nuke part, but as Ukrainians have no nukes anymore - and even if they would, they can not use them because the launching codes are know only to Kremlin - one part of the reason they really gave them back - I take that as a sarcastic way of you to say that you agree with me, and Russians bruised their own bridge, and they should finish the job by nuking it with a nuke they took from Ukraine).

Related to the last paragraph, don't bet against Russia yet. Russia is a big sleeping Colossus which right now is starting to wake up. Well, it may take 20 or 30 years, but they will... They have enough food, land, and energy to be totally independent of the rest of the world for a while, and boil in their own juice. Global "warning" is favouring them too - think Siberia, millions of hectares of cultivable soil, actually frozen. You don't buy their fuel? You don't let them sell their grains? No problem, a clever ruler will give cheap fuel and cheap bread to internal market, and they will love and worship him, and make him untouchable. Look to other shitty countries like for example North Korea - an idiotic ruler, a small country, insulated, no resources, bad land, yet horny. In the future, the "salvation" for Russia will not come from "sanctions" - they don't give a shit about sanctions, and all the fuss The Mighty West did hurts Europe and the rest of the world more than it hurts Russia - or from any outside source, but from inside. Hopefully they still have a lot of smart people and a lot of courageous people there (not necessarily the same), to know how to choose their path for the future. The progress kicks you in the butt till it makes you step forward, even if you want or not. People get very easy accustomed with the comfort, and it is difficult to go back to old ways. People who traveled outside, who have relatives outside, children studying outside, people who have access to internet, to news, to knowledge, etc., are not so easy to fool like 100 (or 50, or even 20) years ago.

On the other hand, what is 30 years? It was like yesterday, in '89, when we were on the streets in Bucharest...

[kriesel]

Originally Posted by LaurV

(especially about the nuke part, but as Ukrainians have no nukes anymore - and even if they would, they can not use them because the launching codes are know only to Kremlin - one part of the reason they really gave them back

Do you seriously expect us to believe that your Ukrainian counterparts could not reverse engineer the relevant hardware enough to replace the triggers with ones of their own design / control in 3 decades?! Ukraine has 80% more people than North Korea, and they wouldn't need to do nearly as much work as North Korea did in its program. Had Ukraine retained the nukes, I think even Putin would not have been foolish enough to invade. Ukraine's error in relying on promises from Russia and the US has gotten a lot of Ukraine and Ukrainians destroyed.

I take that as a sarcastic way of you to say that you agree with me

only in your own mind.

Related to the last paragraph, don't bet against Russia yet. Russia is a big sleeping Colossus which right now is starting to wake up.

Russia is the largest nation by land area, and its 142M population is dwindling, density 8.4/sq km, 2.1T$ GDP. How long do you think they will be able to hold it, before China (1.41 billion pop, 145./sq km, 20T$ GDP, very large appetite for natural resources, large and growing military) takes what it wants?

The current fracas in Ukraine probably serves China best. As would keeping it going in an indecisive drawn out way, even to act surreptitiously to provoke escalations between the warring parties, such as to stealthily attack a Russian bridge or border town or base occasionally, to dissipate the resources of potential targets and economic competitors alike, with not a shot fired at a Chinese military member.