undefined | Better HN

0 pointsethbr02y ago0 comments

Ukraine could hit the Crimean Bridge from territory they control today with ATACMS, which if kept inoperable would make supplying Crimea untenable.

That's Ukrainian territory by international law, a valid military target, and minimal civilian casualties.

The US should have given them examples for that single purpose long ago.

It's not like Ukraine and Russia aren't already shooting SRBMs at each other.

0 comments

denton-scratch2y ago

The Kerch Strait Bridge is seen by Ukrainians as a gross national insult; its destruction would be a huge morale booster for Ukraine.

I don't know how much reliance Russian forces in Crimea place on the bridge. It seems rather fragile to rely on that bridge to supply the entire peninsular. Crimea can be resupplied by sea; it has several ports, including a huge one at Sevastopol.

However Crimea lacks its own water supply; Crimean water supplies come by pipeline from the Dniepro. My guess is that Ukraine would love to control that pipeline.

ethbr0OP2y ago

Rail >> sea. Especially given that Russia doesn't have full sea control outside of Sevastopol, at least not enough so as to guarantee continuous cargo transport.

Or if they deploy their fleet regularly outside of the harbor... well, we saw how that last went when atmospheric conditions aligned against them.

My understanding is that the Dniepro to Crimea water canal was one of the reasons for the invasion. After Ukraine cut off water supply after Russia invaded Crimea (you could see the canal dried up on Google Maps satellite), they were having to spend $$$ to ensure the peninsula had enough fresh water.

You can see where it sources from the river too: https://www.google.com/maps/place/46.7177240,33.4085303

Which should already be in Ukrainian artillery range from the opposite bank, but I imagine it's hard to stop a gravity fed canal from flowing with artillery...

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse