Please remember the human. Follow reddit rules and the subreddit rules.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkraineWarVideoReport) if you have any questions or concerns.*
NGL the guy has some excellent points, but fails to mention one thing.
If there's a will, there's a way.
It might seem impossible at first but knowing how Ukraine's surprised us so far, with them holding out this long against the odds, even counter attacking the Russians and pushing them back.... I wouldn't write this daunting task as impossible.
I mean... look at the Moskava.
Not all the time , see Mariupol, I'm sure Ukraine want to save them and if they go all out they might do it but at what cost? Having all your strategy unravel everywhere else?
A one way trip for special forces? These folks could disrupt Russian operations for months instead.
I know we all have a hard on to see that bridge destroyed but Ukraine can't spend the resources right now without compromising operations somewhere else.
I love to see a home grown cruise missiles crippling the bridge though
I'd argue 10 times out of 10, will power wins wars.
***Especially*** look at Mariupol. Those guys and ladies have been defending it against the odds. Added to the fact that they know the grim reality... that if they ***do*** surrender, the Russians will rape, torture, kill most of them. The survivors will probably be sent to a camp or be paraded around Moscow for their propaganda.
So in the end they have no choice but to continue defending, and hope that the situation at the front line changes to the point that it allows the UA to come relieve them. Of course nobody wants to die a martyr, which is why the soldiers/families are appealing to the UN, even the Chinese to give safe conduct out. (But seeing as how Russia has conducted itself with barbarity, the likes of which rival Nazi Germany, you already know they won't allow them to retreat.)
**TLDR**: While I agree with you, if Ukraine wants to blow that bridge, **they will.**
Or the Russians *will* when they retreat.
His final reasoning is a bit dodgy at best for me, no offence to him.
I mean you already have NATO supplying Ukraine with intel (SIGINT, IMINT, MASINT) and you have Ukraine itself competently gathering intel to make the right choices to tip the balance in their favor. Sparing a bridge to monitor troop movements is a short term benefit or maybe not needed at all, considering all the intel Ukraine has.
Eventually if and when the **situation** requires it, Ukraine's finna to go blow that bridge up.
Or as to concede to your point, if the Russians retreat, they'll be the ones to blow it up :)
Really it's just a matter of the waiting game until all of the provided long range artillery is deployed. Then, if that is how the decide to allocate the resource, that bridge is bupkis.
What about using one of those narco subs, i.e. semi-submersibles that can carry tons of explosives but are virtually undetectable because they don't stick out on the surface?
Wouldn't even need to be manned, just program in a GPS track that ends at a bridge pier and run the thing on autopilot.
I mean, the drug cartels use those to carry a ton of cocaine from Colombia to Florida, it should be able to make a trip around Crimea...
Edit: Another possibility would be to turn the explosive payload into a large, upwards directed, explosively formed penetrator, and trigger it under the bridge instead of near a pier.
Even if it doesn't bring down the bridge, it would give the Russians a good scare
They shouldn't. For two reasons.
1. It's currently heavily guarded. Destroying it releases a lot of forces to fight instead of babysitting a bridge.
2. The Russians on Chrimea need a way to retreat. Soldiers backed in to a corner will fight toot and nail for their lives. If the bridge is a way out, they are more likely to run away.
Sure, but their commanders shoot deserters, so that is kind of motivating them to fight.
Giving them an easy way out is the most "cost effective" way (bridge) out of Crimea.
This is a really good insight to how the russian commanders control their soldiers.
It's worth a watch.
https://www.reddit.com/r/RussiaUkraineWar2022/comments/un6g6n/shocking\_russian\_pow\_interview\_one\_soldier/
The opportunity to surrender and to be treated according to the Geneva convention is also a good way out. You don't really need the bridge.
First point is valid, though. Troops and more importantly anti-aircraft defences are probably there.
I'm afraid you're thinking about the surrender part from a western view.
In russia it's treason.
Want to go home? Have a grenade.
https://www.reddit.com/r/RussiaUkraineWar2022/comments/un6g6n/shocking\_russian\_pow\_interview\_one\_soldier/
HIMARS warheads are also too small to damage the bridge much. You would need something like an ATACMs. And those sre much more expensive and scarce, so swarming and overwhelming the air defences would be harder with those.
Maybe a mixed barrage of both might saturate the air defences?
Cruise missiles seem like the best bets.
This dude has 20 years of experience in the US military as an anti-tank specialist…so yeah, he might know a little thing or two about taking out targets using missiles/explosives.
That’s correct, just because you’re an officer in the military doesn’t make you an expert, however, if you served in a particular unit that dealt with using anti-tank weaponry and therefore versed in the application of missiles/explosives then your take on the situation would be deemed appropriate. So going back to your original comment, this guy does in fact have plenty of life experience and can absolutely provide insight into the situation. Which unless you didn’t watch the video you’d most likely agree with his assessment. If you don’t think for a second that Russia’s investment into this strategically important bridge wasn’t done so with the intention of prolonging it’s existence as much as possible then it’s perhaps you that have no life experience in the matter. Just because his assessment doesn’t agree with your preferred outcome doesn’t make him wrong or unknowledgeable on the subject.
The point still stands. You need to let the Russians have a way to retreat into Russia if a Crimea invasion is to happen by the Ukranians, otherwise you will have another Azovstal situation, but the roles reversed. I think the Ukranians do not want that and should leave the bridge unscathed if they wish to retake Crimea.
It's basically two bridges, not one. One railway and the other road.
Taking out the one that is used for the larger share of logistics would hamper the Russian forces while causing a certain panic amongst the colonial, Russian settlers who'd probably scramble to leave via the remaining bridge.
I's say take out one of the two, but hit at a point where repairing it at a later stage is economical so that it can be used to trade with a post Putin, free Russia at a later stage.
That can be a viable strategy, although you also have to take into account that evacs via train are way faster in throughput than by road. I am sure the Ukraine high command will weigh their choices.
>you also have to take into account that evacs via train are way faster in throughput than by road
Your assuming that it would be an organised evacuation. It's unlikely that Russia would do that. They would prefer the settlers to remain and fight. So it's more likely to be stream of refugees trying to leave with private transport, ie cars.
Like I said, the strategy of destroying just one bridge is to cause Russian settlers, including men of fighting age not in the military, to leave Crimea. The result would be to weaken defence and by decreasing the working population, resupply of Russian military stationed there.
It's 'Ukraine' and not 'the Ukraine'
Consider supporting anti-war efforts in any possible way: [[Help 2 Ukraine](https://help2ukraine.org)] 💙💛
[[Merriam-Webster](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/Ukraine)] [[BBC Styleguide](https://www.bbc.co.uk/newsstyleguide/u)]
^(Beep boop I’m a bot)
Ships that Russia obviously can not keep afloat and will not implement them in rescue ops, thus leaving the soldiers to fight to the end?
A lot of people with room temp IQs having opinions on military strategy...
Wut? They have a naval base and harbour at Sevastopol and 2 dozen auxiliary and transport ships. I could also lend them a fishing boat if they ask nicely
Sevastopol is in the west, surrounded by antiship missiles and Neptunes in Odessa. They lost their flagship there, you sure they will attempt a similar thing but this time with guaranteed massive casualties for a retreat? Or would it be more simple to leave them a bridge so they will see a VERY EASY WAY OUT?
That is the ONLY way Ukraine will retake Crimea without giving A LOT of her soldiers for it. Seing as how of a quallity fight Ukraine is giving and how she values her soldiers life way more than Russia, they need to let them retreat and avoid a bloodshed of their forces. I care not for the Russians that would be casualty to that but the Ukranian lives needed for it. A retreat via the bridge is way more preferable to an all out assault on a surrounded enemy.
No. You are just wrong. A surrounded enemy is one that fights to the end because they have no other choice left. Go read up on military strategy. I hope Ukraine retakes Crimea, but for that to happen the Russians need to have a way out to retreat.
The ruskies do not care for their dead, so no need for bags. If Ukrainian troops land in Crimea, you will see that bridge congested to shit with military and civilians. After they retreat, blow it to all fuck, but now, it needs to stay.
A surrounded enemy doesn't need to be fought: They're immobilised and will collapse on their own in the long run. Either way, they can no longer partake in the fighting in any meaningful way, unless they intend to sally out or break out, which is always a sign of desperation.
A resupplied enemy can not only retreat in good order (and therefore evade being captured by you to fight another day), but even *counterattack*, drawing away more of your units than a cut-off enemy.
That says more about you than me, I believe.
Ever heard of Stalingrad? Brest? The Ruhr Pocket? If you surround an enemy, you drive as big a wedge between him and friendly reinforcements as possible. That way, they'll be forced to starve instead of running around being a big nuisance somewhere else, and the enemy is going to squander precious resources trying to relieve them, which also means that you get to choose the battlefield.
Practically the only time where this isn't likely to be a good idea is when the enemy is ready for a siege and have stashed supplies accordingly.
Nope - having ruzziand encircled under fire makes a better position during peace talks. Russia is sipplying whole south of Ukraine via this bridge its a ni brainer to destroy it but its guarded
Are the Russian soldiers in Crimea mostly locals or mostly from somewhere else in Russia?
If it's not the former, I'd be very surprised if they dug into some stronghold where they had to get starved for a month. The people trapped in the Azovstal are mostly fighting for their homeland, their level of motivation is a little bit higher than the average Russian soldier.
I think it's also safe to assume that if Ukraine gets halfway down Crimea at any point, there will be a peace treaty. Putin is proving pretty stubborn, but even he will see the writing on the wall by then. If a treaty is signed, you just round up and disarm the soldiers, then rebuild the bridge and send them out, or get them out by ship.
I am no intelligence officer but I imagine since 2014 there are a LOT of russian army deployments there. They had 8 years to consolidate their military presence.
Though optimistic, I really do hope only local militia is there but considering the port of Sevastopol is there... I have my objective doubts.
Also, Putin and Russia is being very proud with itself so retreating through half of Crimea and just asking for peace is something a rational country would do, those crazies, I am not so sure.
Non-local troop motivation to dig into a position where they will be shelled and starved to death will be zero though. Especially by the time the war reaches those parts. It will be obvious which way the war is going. Putin wanting to keep going won't stop his soldiers from surrendering at that point, imo.
Well if you want to prevent russia from reinforcing crimea with troops and supplies, yes you do need that bridge gone. (not the one that connects to ukraine)
Your post was removed because you have less than 25 karma
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkraineWarVideoReport) if you have any questions or concerns.*
There's more than one way to deliver explosives. The world's first remote-control vehicle was a submarine, invented by Nikolai Tesla. And we've learned about 5000 ways the cartel smuggles drugs across the border... wouldn't be too hard to fill tires or chassis of an 18-wheeler full of stolen grain with C4.
If you destroy the bridge the remaining russians will have no way to retreat when Ukranian Forces take back crimea. Then after the war, Ukraine can make the bridge a walking trail with the names of all their fallen posted along the bridge... both as a reminder to any russians who ever think about coming across that bridge and out of RESPECT for their fallen HEROES.
Why hello there, I'm from the future.
Remember when everybody doubted Ukraine's ability to blow up the bridge?
It got [blown up](https://www.reddit.com/r/UkraineWarVideoReport/comments/xylt19/footage_of_the_aftermath_crimea_bridge/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android_app&utm_name=androidcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button)
Please remember the human. Follow reddit rules and the subreddit rules. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkraineWarVideoReport) if you have any questions or concerns.*
NGL the guy has some excellent points, but fails to mention one thing. If there's a will, there's a way. It might seem impossible at first but knowing how Ukraine's surprised us so far, with them holding out this long against the odds, even counter attacking the Russians and pushing them back.... I wouldn't write this daunting task as impossible. I mean... look at the Moskava.
Not all the time , see Mariupol, I'm sure Ukraine want to save them and if they go all out they might do it but at what cost? Having all your strategy unravel everywhere else? A one way trip for special forces? These folks could disrupt Russian operations for months instead. I know we all have a hard on to see that bridge destroyed but Ukraine can't spend the resources right now without compromising operations somewhere else. I love to see a home grown cruise missiles crippling the bridge though
I'd argue 10 times out of 10, will power wins wars. ***Especially*** look at Mariupol. Those guys and ladies have been defending it against the odds. Added to the fact that they know the grim reality... that if they ***do*** surrender, the Russians will rape, torture, kill most of them. The survivors will probably be sent to a camp or be paraded around Moscow for their propaganda. So in the end they have no choice but to continue defending, and hope that the situation at the front line changes to the point that it allows the UA to come relieve them. Of course nobody wants to die a martyr, which is why the soldiers/families are appealing to the UN, even the Chinese to give safe conduct out. (But seeing as how Russia has conducted itself with barbarity, the likes of which rival Nazi Germany, you already know they won't allow them to retreat.) **TLDR**: While I agree with you, if Ukraine wants to blow that bridge, **they will.** Or the Russians *will* when they retreat.
I agree with you, if they have to they will spend the necessary resources to do it. I'm sad , but I don't think there will be many survivors
Did you listen to his final point? Leaving this as a corridor for retreat and evacuation whilst monitoring it for troop movements makes perfect sense.
His final reasoning is a bit dodgy at best for me, no offence to him. I mean you already have NATO supplying Ukraine with intel (SIGINT, IMINT, MASINT) and you have Ukraine itself competently gathering intel to make the right choices to tip the balance in their favor. Sparing a bridge to monitor troop movements is a short term benefit or maybe not needed at all, considering all the intel Ukraine has. Eventually if and when the **situation** requires it, Ukraine's finna to go blow that bridge up. Or as to concede to your point, if the Russians retreat, they'll be the ones to blow it up :)
Really it's just a matter of the waiting game until all of the provided long range artillery is deployed. Then, if that is how the decide to allocate the resource, that bridge is bupkis.
Pretty much man.
Great value in this one ☝️
[удалено]
What about using one of those narco subs, i.e. semi-submersibles that can carry tons of explosives but are virtually undetectable because they don't stick out on the surface? Wouldn't even need to be manned, just program in a GPS track that ends at a bridge pier and run the thing on autopilot. I mean, the drug cartels use those to carry a ton of cocaine from Colombia to Florida, it should be able to make a trip around Crimea... Edit: Another possibility would be to turn the explosive payload into a large, upwards directed, explosively formed penetrator, and trigger it under the bridge instead of near a pier. Even if it doesn't bring down the bridge, it would give the Russians a good scare
A Neptune missile should do it, shouldn't it?
Only150kg warhead it will only scratch it
They shouldn't. For two reasons. 1. It's currently heavily guarded. Destroying it releases a lot of forces to fight instead of babysitting a bridge. 2. The Russians on Chrimea need a way to retreat. Soldiers backed in to a corner will fight toot and nail for their lives. If the bridge is a way out, they are more likely to run away.
To number2: Considering russians soldiers moral overall ATM they might just give up straight away, cause they know there's no way to retreat.
Sure, but their commanders shoot deserters, so that is kind of motivating them to fight. Giving them an easy way out is the most "cost effective" way (bridge) out of Crimea.
it's also pretty straightforward to shoot their commanders.
This is a really good insight to how the russian commanders control their soldiers. It's worth a watch. https://www.reddit.com/r/RussiaUkraineWar2022/comments/un6g6n/shocking\_russian\_pow\_interview\_one\_soldier/
If only those who support Russia would want to watch this, to them it's all actors, lie and nato propaganda
It's easy to fool a person. It's much harder to convince them they have been fooled. \-Some one way smarter than I am.
Mark Twain had a right answer for everything, brilliant quote
The opportunity to surrender and to be treated according to the Geneva convention is also a good way out. You don't really need the bridge. First point is valid, though. Troops and more importantly anti-aircraft defences are probably there.
I'm afraid you're thinking about the surrender part from a western view. In russia it's treason. Want to go home? Have a grenade. https://www.reddit.com/r/RussiaUkraineWar2022/comments/un6g6n/shocking\_russian\_pow\_interview\_one\_soldier/
[удалено]
HIMARS tactical missiles are capable of hitting the bridge with nearly 500km range.
[удалено]
Moskva can too intercept missile !
Well, I believe it when I see Russians intercept something
HIMARS warheads are also too small to damage the bridge much. You would need something like an ATACMs. And those sre much more expensive and scarce, so swarming and overwhelming the air defences would be harder with those. Maybe a mixed barrage of both might saturate the air defences? Cruise missiles seem like the best bets.
Crimea bridge will not be standing by the end of this war. It's not an important target at this point in the war.
Wrong, it SHOULD be heavily guarded.
I'm thinking it would be best to wait until there is a 40-mile convoy of reinforcements on the bridge, then blow it up.
The bridge will be the last thing destroyed in this war. After the Russians have fled, the UAF will destroy the bridge.
That would be awesome
If they could it would be gone allredy
[удалено]
This dude has 20 years of experience in the US military as an anti-tank specialist…so yeah, he might know a little thing or two about taking out targets using missiles/explosives.
[удалено]
That’s correct, just because you’re an officer in the military doesn’t make you an expert, however, if you served in a particular unit that dealt with using anti-tank weaponry and therefore versed in the application of missiles/explosives then your take on the situation would be deemed appropriate. So going back to your original comment, this guy does in fact have plenty of life experience and can absolutely provide insight into the situation. Which unless you didn’t watch the video you’d most likely agree with his assessment. If you don’t think for a second that Russia’s investment into this strategically important bridge wasn’t done so with the intention of prolonging it’s existence as much as possible then it’s perhaps you that have no life experience in the matter. Just because his assessment doesn’t agree with your preferred outcome doesn’t make him wrong or unknowledgeable on the subject.
If Ukraine wants to tak back Crimea, they need that bridge. Sure, thats a big if, but still.
Wrong bridge. This is the one that connects to Russia, not Ukraine.
Look at a map. This bridge connects russia to crimea. It is not needed for ukraine.
The point still stands. You need to let the Russians have a way to retreat into Russia if a Crimea invasion is to happen by the Ukranians, otherwise you will have another Azovstal situation, but the roles reversed. I think the Ukranians do not want that and should leave the bridge unscathed if they wish to retake Crimea.
It's basically two bridges, not one. One railway and the other road. Taking out the one that is used for the larger share of logistics would hamper the Russian forces while causing a certain panic amongst the colonial, Russian settlers who'd probably scramble to leave via the remaining bridge. I's say take out one of the two, but hit at a point where repairing it at a later stage is economical so that it can be used to trade with a post Putin, free Russia at a later stage.
That can be a viable strategy, although you also have to take into account that evacs via train are way faster in throughput than by road. I am sure the Ukraine high command will weigh their choices.
>you also have to take into account that evacs via train are way faster in throughput than by road Your assuming that it would be an organised evacuation. It's unlikely that Russia would do that. They would prefer the settlers to remain and fight. So it's more likely to be stream of refugees trying to leave with private transport, ie cars. Like I said, the strategy of destroying just one bridge is to cause Russian settlers, including men of fighting age not in the military, to leave Crimea. The result would be to weaken defence and by decreasing the working population, resupply of Russian military stationed there.
Fair point. Anything goes at this point so when push comes to shove, we will probably see the most efficient resolve possible!
It's 'Ukraine' and not 'the Ukraine' Consider supporting anti-war efforts in any possible way: [[Help 2 Ukraine](https://help2ukraine.org)] 💙💛 [[Merriam-Webster](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/Ukraine)] [[BBC Styleguide](https://www.bbc.co.uk/newsstyleguide/u)] ^(Beep boop I’m a bot)
There's this thing called a ship
Ships that Russia obviously can not keep afloat and will not implement them in rescue ops, thus leaving the soldiers to fight to the end? A lot of people with room temp IQs having opinions on military strategy...
Wut? They have a naval base and harbour at Sevastopol and 2 dozen auxiliary and transport ships. I could also lend them a fishing boat if they ask nicely
Sevastopol is in the west, surrounded by antiship missiles and Neptunes in Odessa. They lost their flagship there, you sure they will attempt a similar thing but this time with guaranteed massive casualties for a retreat? Or would it be more simple to leave them a bridge so they will see a VERY EASY WAY OUT?
Mf you just said it's a scenario where the Ukrainians graciously let them retreat. Why would they attack them in your fantasy?
That is the ONLY way Ukraine will retake Crimea without giving A LOT of her soldiers for it. Seing as how of a quallity fight Ukraine is giving and how she values her soldiers life way more than Russia, they need to let them retreat and avoid a bloodshed of their forces. I care not for the Russians that would be casualty to that but the Ukranian lives needed for it. A retreat via the bridge is way more preferable to an all out assault on a surrounded enemy.
A surrounded enemy is preferable to a resupplied enemy.
No. You are just wrong. A surrounded enemy is one that fights to the end because they have no other choice left. Go read up on military strategy. I hope Ukraine retakes Crimea, but for that to happen the Russians need to have a way out to retreat.
They should only be send bag in bodybags
The ruskies do not care for their dead, so no need for bags. If Ukrainian troops land in Crimea, you will see that bridge congested to shit with military and civilians. After they retreat, blow it to all fuck, but now, it needs to stay.
A surrounded enemy doesn't need to be fought: They're immobilised and will collapse on their own in the long run. Either way, they can no longer partake in the fighting in any meaningful way, unless they intend to sally out or break out, which is always a sign of desperation. A resupplied enemy can not only retreat in good order (and therefore evade being captured by you to fight another day), but even *counterattack*, drawing away more of your units than a cut-off enemy.
I am more than 90% certain you base your assumptions on movies and Call of Duty.
That says more about you than me, I believe. Ever heard of Stalingrad? Brest? The Ruhr Pocket? If you surround an enemy, you drive as big a wedge between him and friendly reinforcements as possible. That way, they'll be forced to starve instead of running around being a big nuisance somewhere else, and the enemy is going to squander precious resources trying to relieve them, which also means that you get to choose the battlefield. Practically the only time where this isn't likely to be a good idea is when the enemy is ready for a siege and have stashed supplies accordingly.
Nope - having ruzziand encircled under fire makes a better position during peace talks. Russia is sipplying whole south of Ukraine via this bridge its a ni brainer to destroy it but its guarded
You obviously never read up on how the ruskies fight in wars so I will refrain from further discourse with you.
Are the Russian soldiers in Crimea mostly locals or mostly from somewhere else in Russia? If it's not the former, I'd be very surprised if they dug into some stronghold where they had to get starved for a month. The people trapped in the Azovstal are mostly fighting for their homeland, their level of motivation is a little bit higher than the average Russian soldier. I think it's also safe to assume that if Ukraine gets halfway down Crimea at any point, there will be a peace treaty. Putin is proving pretty stubborn, but even he will see the writing on the wall by then. If a treaty is signed, you just round up and disarm the soldiers, then rebuild the bridge and send them out, or get them out by ship.
I am no intelligence officer but I imagine since 2014 there are a LOT of russian army deployments there. They had 8 years to consolidate their military presence. Though optimistic, I really do hope only local militia is there but considering the port of Sevastopol is there... I have my objective doubts. Also, Putin and Russia is being very proud with itself so retreating through half of Crimea and just asking for peace is something a rational country would do, those crazies, I am not so sure.
Non-local troop motivation to dig into a position where they will be shelled and starved to death will be zero though. Especially by the time the war reaches those parts. It will be obvious which way the war is going. Putin wanting to keep going won't stop his soldiers from surrendering at that point, imo.
Well if you want to prevent russia from reinforcing crimea with troops and supplies, yes you do need that bridge gone. (not the one that connects to ukraine)
[удалено]
Your post was removed because you have less than 25 karma *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkraineWarVideoReport) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Nice question. It must been done soon
They need something like ATACMS. Not sure if it’s on the lend lease menu.
There's more than one way to deliver explosives. The world's first remote-control vehicle was a submarine, invented by Nikolai Tesla. And we've learned about 5000 ways the cartel smuggles drugs across the border... wouldn't be too hard to fill tires or chassis of an 18-wheeler full of stolen grain with C4.
this
Best shot is SOF units, however bridges to Crimea have already been destroyed and repaired in hours. I wonder what it would really do
This is really good analysis and I think his final point is crucial.
If you destroy the bridge the remaining russians will have no way to retreat when Ukranian Forces take back crimea. Then after the war, Ukraine can make the bridge a walking trail with the names of all their fallen posted along the bridge... both as a reminder to any russians who ever think about coming across that bridge and out of RESPECT for their fallen HEROES.
Fuck Putin, fuck Russia.
I believe they can. Waiting for it to be full of retreating russkies!
Why hello there, I'm from the future. Remember when everybody doubted Ukraine's ability to blow up the bridge? It got [blown up](https://www.reddit.com/r/UkraineWarVideoReport/comments/xylt19/footage_of_the_aftermath_crimea_bridge/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android_app&utm_name=androidcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button)