Traffic on the single bridge that links Russia to Moscow-annexed Crimea and serves as a key supply route for the Kremlin’s forces in the war with Ukraine came to a standstill on Monday after one of its sections was blown up, killing a couple and wounding their daughter.

The RBC Ukraine news agency reported that explosions were heard on the bridge, with Russian military bloggers reporting two strikes.

RBC Ukraine and another Ukrainian news outlet Ukrainska Pravda said the attack was planned jointly by the Security Service of Ukraine (SBU) and the Ukrainian navy, and involved sea drones.

  • Move to lemm.ee@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    51
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    The denial of reality going on here is absurd. Pre 2014 I know they operated the checkpoints because I went to Crimea for 2 weeks in 2009. I’m not saying that there wasn’t also fuckery involved but denying the reality of events is nonsensical. There is even a vice documentary that shows just how casual the transition was. It’s extremely painful discussing these topics with people online whose only understanding of these regions comes through the lens of this war.

    • kescusay@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      24
      ·
      1 year ago

      I never said Russia didn’t operate the checkpoints. But prior to 2014, Crimea was indisputably Ukrainian territory, and Russia operated security checkpoints inside Ukraine at Ukraine’s discretion.

      No one is claiming that the annexation of Crimea involved violence at the scale of the current war, but it was not non-violent, either. Characterizing it as just “signing of papers” is false.

      It’s extremely painful discussing these topics with people online whose only understanding of these regions comes through the lens of this war.

      What other lens should we look at the annexation through? It was clearly the early stages of this war.

      • Move to lemm.ee@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        28
        ·
        1 year ago

        I’m not saying it wasn’t Ukrainian territory. I’m saying that the presence there was 100% russian military because it was functionally operated as their military port.

        This is precisely why there was no battle over it, no deaths, no nothing. Just “this is russia now” and continued operation of it as they always had but with different flags.

        What other lens should we look at the annexation through? It was clearly the early stages of this war.

        I’d much prefer a non-war lens of the place and how cool it is. Most people in america hadn’t even heard of it until the annexation, it’s very unfortunate.

        I don’t think calling it the early stages of this war is quite accurate but it’s not really that important and kinda gets into unnecessary semantics. The war probably wouldn’t be happening if the Minsk agreement had been kept. Russia were never going to let Crimea go because they needed it as a military port but they avoided Donetsk and Luhansk up until the Minsk agreement failed. If they had taken these regions in 2014 it would have been a breeze for them as Ukraine had no military to speak of, which is why the civil war was fought by the nazi volunteer batallions (azov, right sector, etc etc). Ukraine’s military was ramped up between 2014 and 2021. They did not really have much of anything until the 2016 Stategic Defense Bulletin followed by the State Program for the Development of the Armed Forces (2017-2020). In 2014 the military was only 90k active personnel with over half being civilian staff.

        • kescusay@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          16
          ·
          1 year ago

          We’d all prefer a non-war lens of Crimea. You’re right, it was a cool and interesting place, and hopefully still will be when the war is over.

          But Russia has no say over whether another country’s territory will be used as Russia’s military port. The fact is, Ukraine was amenable to hosting Russia’s military there, so long as Russia didn’t try to actually own the land, but they’ve forfeited their right to use it now.

          Ultimately, Russia’s military will be ousted from Crimea along with the rest of Ukraine, and that will be that. Had they never annexed it or escalated to open warfare, they would still be operating there freely today, with a much friendlier Ukraine happily hosting them.

          • Move to lemm.ee@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            22
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            I uhh. Don’t share your optimism or actually care who runs it, I only really care that the people I know there remain safe. For them and for myself the flag be waved around is somewhat meaningless compared to the human impact of all this nonsense, particularly because some of my socialist friends are gone now. With that said I don’t see Crimea changing hands again, nor does anyone I have spoken to currently in Crimea. I might change that assessment if the counteroffensive ever actually sees the first line of dragon’s teeth but so far it’s been completely underwhelming. Everyone also sees the deployment of clusterbombs as a “let’s salt the earth so it’s worthless to them” move rather than anything that will change the counteroffensive’s prospects.

            • Nukemin Herttua
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              16
              ·
              1 year ago

              There is an easy way to end the war: Russian withdrawal. It really is as simple as that.

              At any point in history Russian Federation had no right or business to occupy any part of Ukraine. It was up to Ukraine to decide what to do with those areas.

              While we all want the war to stop, it cannot be done at any price. Ukraine must be allowed to return the areas stolen from it and Russia must return to pre 2014 borders. Either they do it willingly or with force. No one likes it, but it’s Russia that chose to attack, not Ukraine.

              I hope your friends are safe, but at the same time I hope they have the sense to leave Crimea until things settle.

              And let’s hope for peace, but recognize that it cannot be achieved by giving into the offender’s demands.

              • Move to lemm.ee@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                arrow-down
                12
                ·
                1 year ago

                There is an easy way to end the war: Russian withdrawal. It really is as simple as that.

                Not physically possible under russian law.

                While we all want the war to stop, it cannot be done at any price. Ukraine must be allowed to return the areas stolen from it and Russia must return to pre 2014 borders. Either they do it willingly or with force. No one likes it, but it’s Russia that chose to attack, not Ukraine.

                Again, this is not possible under Russian law. The notion that it’ll be done with force is similarly unrealistic, nukes would fly before these were taken by force. But before that happens you’d have to see the removal of the Russian warships off the coast which will be obliterating anything that comes near Crimea. It just isn’t ever happening without a navy or an airforce.

                I hope your friends are safe, but at the same time I hope they have the sense to leave Crimea until things settle.

                They’re fine for now. It’s relatively quiet there because the defensive line is so far away, barring these bridge incidents.

                And let’s hope for peace, but recognize that it cannot be achieved by giving into the offender’s demands.

                We’d be there already if not for boris fucking johnson. I really don’t know why you care about the “offender’s demands” either. Are you a nationalist? People are what matter. I could not give a shit about what flag exists between the two, right now it’s just a situation where two extremely shit sides throw thousands of lives into a meatgrinder and all I want to see is the meatgrinder stop.

                • Nukemin Herttua
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  10
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  You are awfully considerate of the Russian law. I suppose it was okay for them to start the war because the law permitted it (did it?)? Annexation of Ukrainian land became okay too, because they made a law that permitted it, right? No matter what the Ukrainian or international law says, right? Please elaborate on how it’s the Russian law that we need to take into consideration and not the others.

                  This reminded me that, thank God Russia was able to use Wagner troops, because the Russian law recognizes independent military organis…wait a minute, it doesn’t. My point: Russia can and will interpret and implement it’s laws however the guy on the top wishes. Law there has nothing to do with regulated and supervised legislature most of the so called western countries have.

                  Trying to take Crimea by force is not optimal, but if it is the only way to do it, and the Ukraisinian’s decide to try it, it’s their decision because it is their territory. Might succeed, might fail, might escalate, might not…we don’t get to decide that, however terrifying the outcome might be. That’s the sad truth, but Ukraine has the right to decide.

                  The reason I care for “offenders demands” is that if you give into them, they start demanding more and more and more. Putin’s Russia is on a path of escalation and it has shown that it cannot be trusted to participate in the international community. The more they get out of Ukraine, the more they emboldened to makes demands and take aggressive steps towards their neighbors. This has been the trajectory since Russo-Georgian war in 2008 and it is not going to stop until they hit a brick wall. And currently the wall they are hitting is Ukraine. Also note that this is a historical phenomenon and the way Russia has operated at least since Soviet Union and a case could be made for even earlier than that.

                  If you must know, I’d probably be what most people call a socialist and a pacifist. I hate war and want nothing to do with weapons or the army. I don’t care for flags or national symbols and I despise imperialism ND colonialism. However, I do care for the letter of law and a rules based international system. Currently Russia is wiping it’s arse on these and that must be stopped, otherwise it’ll just continue and get worse.

                  • Move to lemm.ee@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    7
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    It’s not about being “considerate” of the Russian law it’s about recognising what is and is not possible for the Russians to do, under their law. If the law disallows it they literally can’t do it.

                    Put it another way, you could say that america should allow states to secede because that’s morally right if the people want to. But, it’s literally not possible within american law. You need to change the law to do it, and I have no idea whether you can get that to happen in congress. I am certain that you can not get this change to happen in Russian law. And herein lies the problem. Even if the negotiating teams WANTED to give up the region they can not.

                    You are mistaking my observance of the reality of the situation for a value judgement.

                    cannot be trusted to participate in the international community.

                    The “international community” is just code that the anglo american empire uses to refer to the west and its interests. Africa, the Middle East and Asia are not included in it.

                    However, I do care for the letter of law and a rules based international system.

                    This is just the soft wording that the west uses for their own international hegemony.

                    Russia is wiping it’s arse on these and that must be stopped

                    I personally don’t give a shit that it doesn’t observe western hegemony or the “international community” (the west), but I agree that it needs to be stopped. What this entails is sitting around a negotiating table though and both sides giving something up to come away with narratives to look like winners to their people. This results in the political stability of both states afterwards. And is the only realistic way that you get both sides to agree to something. Otherwise this war will go on forever until either Ukraine runs out of men or nukes fly.

                • kklusz@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  8
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  all I want to see is the meatgrinder stop.

                  Even at the cost of Ukrainian territorial integrity? That’s for the Ukrainians to decide, and so far they’re picking the meat grinder. More power to them.

                  • Move to lemm.ee@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    7
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    Yes. I could not give a shit about “territorial integrity”. This is nationalism. I’m not a nationalist, I don’t like states especially bourgeoise states.

                    You are putting nationalism ahead of people’s lives.

                    That’s for the Ukrainians to decide

                    No it isn’t. It’s for the Ukrainian rulers to decide. The people don’t get any choice in it, that’s the problem. And everyone that opposed this war was rounded up and arrested, every left wing party in the country was shut down, and the left wing tv channels were also shut down, all under the “they’re pro russia” excuse simply for being against the war. There is no “let the ukrainians decide” under that environment.

                • galloog1@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  5
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  And so it is on Russia to leave. You bring up Russian laws like the Ukrainians are not sovereign. They gave their own laws. You know what else was legal? The Holocaust was legal under German law. That didn’t make it right. I hope you can understand that this is why people consider Russia a fascist state right now and yes, it does matter. Your arguments are textbook fascist and you should take that into serious consideration.

                  • Move to lemm.ee@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    5
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    1 year ago

                    You’ve missed the point. They can’t, because the law prevents it.

                    Don’t mistake that for a value judgement about those laws because it’s not. I am just acknowledging the political reality, which is something you categorically have to do in order to reach a conclusion in these matters.

                    You can call me a fascist all you want but the only person between the two of us that is supporting more bloodshed is you and your nationalism. I’m not a nationalist.