• 14th_cylon@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    27
    ·
    2 months ago

    It is more for a show I guess, which is not to say they shouldn’t do it.

    Surely first step in invasion over the bridge would be to just hit that bridge with some rocket…?

      • FundMECFSResearch@lemmy.blahaj.zoneOP
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        2 months ago

        I think it can be for two things at once. Definetly more for show, but increases annoyance/makes a possible invasion more annoying.

        Obviously I imagine they have a way to blow up the bridge too which sounds far more effective.

          • FundMECFSResearch@lemmy.blahaj.zoneOP
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            2 months ago

            Would make sense that main invasion would be from the east, but a second front may be opened to try and collapse the “enemy” who would likely be stretched thin.

            • protist@mander.xyz
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              edit-2
              2 months ago

              If Russia tries to go to war with NATO, Kaliningrad is instantly blockaded and defeated. Russia can hide nothing in Kaliningrad

              • FundMECFSResearch@lemmy.blahaj.zoneOP
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                2 months ago

                Unless Trump withdraws, Russian war would have to be won in a week. By the time american logistical supplies and reinforcements start coming in strong, Russia is fucked.

                • protist@mander.xyz
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  2 months ago

                  You don’t think Europe has the means to defend itself against Russia?! Lmao

                  • FundMECFSResearch@lemmy.blahaj.zoneOP
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    2 months ago

                    Just coming back to this, Russia has the capacity to produce multiple times the amount of shells than the entirety of europe can put together.

          • GenosseFlosse
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            2 months ago

            "Well the war on one front didn’t work out, now let’s try a war on 2 fronts instead.”

    • Miles O'Brien@startrek.website
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      2 months ago

      100% for sending a message.

      That bridge is pre-sighted for artillery or has its own dedicated missile just waiting for someone to hit the proverbial button.

      If it’s not, then that’s just bad planning.

      The real question is “do they wait for someone to try crossing before blowing it up, or just do it the moment Russian forces twitch in that direction?”

      • skillissuer@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        2 months ago

        if sappers can get to that bridge, then it can be just mined and if needed removed at milisecond notice. much more reliable, faster and more efficient than artillery