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.
Removed by mod
The death of civilians is not good news.
death of civilians is never good news, but if russia doesn’t want its citizens to be at risk then they shouldnt invade other countries
This is why war is horrible. Ukraine made a brilliant tactical move here in terms of strategy, but civilians still died. Whatever you think of the adults, a child was injured and is now orphaned because of this attack. But it was still necessary, and there will be more situations like this as Ukraine continues its counteroffensive and hopefully fully recaptures their stolen land. Crimea belongs to Ukraine.
Lemmy is way more intelligent, both cognitively and emotionally, than Reddit was. We can recognize the necessity of this attack and cheer Ukraine for making such a huge tactical move, but we can also be remorseful for the civilians who have had their lives changed because of the attack.
This is why war fucking sucks. There are no gentleman or ladies in wars. There is nothing honorable about it. There’s just cold logic for killing your enemy and how you can more easily do that. If you can avoid civilian casualties you will, but if it can’t be avoided, then it is what it is.
Lest someone mistake this as a pro Russian “stop the war!” comment – Putin can stop all of this anytime he wants. He withdraws all forces, the war ends. He fights for conquest, Ukraine fights for survival. As long as Ukrainians want to fight for their country and Putin doesn’t end the war, the war continues. Make no mistake, all of this carnage is his fault.
Any Russian citizen moving into Crimea negates the privilege of being labeled a civilian at this point.
I have to wonder how many are told it is safe or that they aren’t stealing a living family’s stuff
There is no way to know how long they have been living there and this is the reasoning war criminals use
Like Putin the the people running his army?
You are not wrong but this is well within the strategic definition of collateral damage in this case so it is not relevant.
That’s literally the reasoning putin used to take it…
There are records. Russia and Ukraine are modern-ish states Russian backwardness aside.
Such a backward state that it has Hypersonic missles while the west provides munitions that can’t seem to aid the counter offensive (they are stil proooobin’) or disable a rail line on a bridge.
Death of civilians in Crimea wouldn’t happen if Russia didn’t invade.
They’d have still gotten their shit blown up by Kyiv, who has been blowing up everyone who voted in a referendum to become Russian. Fucking christ am I the only one capable of remembering anything more than two fucking years old? Or is this another one of those “conveniently ignored” bits for y’all NAFO rimjobbers?
Don’t worry, I remember what happened before 2014. I didn’t have any sympathy for separatists then and I don’t have now either.
…So for the crime of wanting to separate from an increasingly-fascist government, you want their bridges blown up and their civilians turned into chunky salsa. You’re a fucking ghoul; and part of me wonders how you’d feel about American separatists when that day eventually comes.
If they want to join Canada or Mexico then the same. Independence =/= stealing for another country.
Nobody is forcing Russians to visit Ukrainian territory.
You’re a fucking ghoul, and I pray you wind up having to live through the monstrosity you’d subject others to.
“The 2004 Madrid train bombings (also known in Spain as 11M) were a series of coordinated, nearly simultaneous bombings against the Cercanías commuter train system of Madrid, Spain, on the morning of 11 March 2004—three days before Spain’s general elections. The explosions killed 193 people and injured around 2,000. The bombings constituted the deadliest terrorist attack carried out in the history of Spain and the deadliest in Europe since 1988. The official investigation by the Spanish judiciary found that the attacks were directed by al-Qaeda, allegedly as a reaction to Spain’s involvement in the 2003 US-led invasion of Iraq”
On 6 July 2006, a videotaped statement by Shehzad Tanweer was broadcast by Al-Jazeera. In the video, which may have been edited to include remarks by al-Zawahiri, Tanweer said:
Tanweer argued that the non-Muslims of Britain deserve such attacks because they voted for a government which “continues to oppress our mothers, children, brothers and sisters in Palestine, Afghanistan, Iraq and Chechnya.”
Targeting civilians with explosives because the country they are citizens of is engaged with war is decried as “terrorism” so are you stating that the Ukrainian officials responsible for this are terrorists?
That’s a bad faith argument if ever there was one. At that point Russia could walk into any country behind human shields and nobody would be allowed to do anything.
There is a giant difference between targeting civilians and a couple civilians getting killed while targeting strategic infrastructure.
How is it bad faith?
Intentionally targeting civilians because they country they are from is at war with the country initiating the attack is called terrorism by many other countries. Ukraine could have focused their attack on disabling the rail line, which is the primary aspect of the Russian supply chain, instead it was against the civilian roadway, exactly the same as the previous attack utilizing the truck bomb. Exploding vehicles is another common mode of terrorism, I might add.
The roadway is used by both. Don’t be more ignorant that you must.
The nation these civilians were attacked in is at war so it is not by any definition a terrorist attack.
Wrong the rail line is the means by which military support is moved, Russia has a history of utilizing rail as their supply lines.
“The reason Russia is unique in having railroad brigades is that logistically, Russian forces are tied to railroad from factory to army depot and to combined arms army and, where possible, to the division/brigade level. No other European nation uses railroads to the extent that the Russian army does.”
“Trying to resupply the Russian army beyond the Russian gauge rail network would force them to rely mostly on their truck force until railroad troops could reconfigure/repair the railroad or build a new one. Russia’s truck logistic support, which would be crucial in an invasion of Eastern Europe, is limited by the number of trucks and range of operations.”
https://warontherocks.com/2021/11/feeding-the-bear-a-closer-look-at-russian-army-logistics/
“Russia has to defend in 360°. It is heavily dependent on barge and rail movement. It does not have the manpower of Soviet times. It cannot be strong everywhere at once and has gone to highly mobile brigades so that it can rapidly assemble forces where needed.”
“The vast majority of personnel and cargo are transported via rail for civil and military purposes. Rail transport is the primary means of logistical support for most military operations (including current operations in and around Eastern Ukraine) and is an absolute necessity for any type of large-scale movement throughout the great expanse that is the Russian Federation”
“Due to the importance of rail for military operations, the Russian Federation has a separate branch, the Railroad Troops, dedicated to protecting, servicing, and maintaining rail service in combat and austere conditions for the Russian Armed Forces.”
https://www.armyupress.army.mil/Portals/7/Hot Spots/Documents/Russia/2017-07-The-Russian-Way-of-War-Grau-Bartles.pdf
The bridge is a military target though.
No because unlike your examples, which are false equivalences, the bridge is in a nation actively at war. Those civilians died occupying land.
If I die due to visiting an active war zone is it my fault?
I am not in the business of victim blaiming rather assigning blame to those who executed the attack. Given my response quoting us army knowledge of Russian operations why would they not disable the rail line? Instead they target vehicles on the civilian bridge hence my classification as a terroist attack, one assigned to the PREVIOUS attack on the SAME bridge, one would think they would learn unless their motive is different