5 ms·

Western countries have intelligence services with sabotage departments and in general are not above blowing up things their leaders don't like. If the CIA or U

Western countries have intelligence services with sabotage departments and in general are not above blowing up things their leaders don't like. If the CIA or US Navy don't have the technical means to blow up the Crimea bridge with plausible deniability they haven't been paying attention.

petre 2y ago
Thry do but it only benefits Ukraine. So they're the ones who should blow it up, preferably with with weapons of their own in order to avoid NATO escalation. Just lke the Moskva sinking.
- lottin 2y ago
  How does destroying the Crimea bridge not benefit the West? They destroy our infrastructure, we destroy theirs. That's the whole idea.
- jojobas 2y ago
  If Russian leadership doesn't change there's just no chance it will stop at Ukraine. Next those sharing your sentiment will say "it only benefits Poland".
mrguyorama 2y ago
The problem is we (The US) used to swing our """nation building"""/Imperialism dick all around, coup'ing and invading whoever we want, but after Vietnam and wasting trillions bombing sand for 20 years, a lot of us have softened on the idea of forcing our desires through explosions. Add to that a natural conservative tendency in the US to jump at isolationism whenever there's an easy excuse (the guy you like is doing the "bad thing" so you don't actually want to stop him, the war is literally somewhere else and doesn't exactly involve us) So it's hard for people like me, who used to be pretty pacifist, to decide that yeah maybe violence is the right option sometimes? Also, the entire time we are trying to shake off bullshit "Democrats are warhawks" nonsense from the party that did the desert bombing just because Bush wanted to defend his daddy's memory. The same people who call the Dems warhawks spent the 2000s screaming that "you're either with us or against us" and calling anti-war people pussies so I guess they don't have very good memories. So for various reasons, some good, the US is extremely gunshy right now. Even those of us wholeheartedly in support of Ukraine, wishing we gave them a thousand Bradleys and tanks, feel uncomfortable with the idea of boots on the ground. Meanwhile Europe has forgotten what intervention is, and seems utterly unwilling to do anything, lest they have to get off their holier than thou pedestal. Appeasement definitely doesn't work, but the middle east is full of examples of "just bomb them all" also not working very well. Everyone is very nervous. It sure seems like Russia won't stop their horseshit until someone makes them stop, but that's going to require a million dead.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]

petre 2y ago

Thry do but it only benefits Ukraine. So they're the ones who should blow it up, preferably with with weapons of their own in order to avoid NATO escalation. Just lke the Moskva sinking.

lottin 2y ago
How does destroying the Crimea bridge not benefit the West? They destroy our infrastructure, we destroy theirs. That's the whole idea.
jojobas 2y ago
If Russian leadership doesn't change there's just no chance it will stop at Ukraine. Next those sharing your sentiment will say "it only benefits Poland".

mrguyorama 2y ago

The problem is we (The US) used to swing our """nation building"""/Imperialism dick all around, coup'ing and invading whoever we want, but after Vietnam and wasting trillions bombing sand for 20 years, a lot of us have softened on the idea of forcing our desires through explosions. Add to that a natural conservative tendency in the US to jump at isolationism whenever there's an easy excuse (the guy you like is doing the "bad thing" so you don't actually want to stop him, the war is literally somewhere else and doesn't exactly involve us) So it's hard for people like me, who used to be pretty pacifist, to decide that yeah maybe violence is the right option sometimes? Also, the entire time we are trying to shake off bullshit "Democrats are warhawks" nonsense from the party that did the desert bombing just because Bush wanted to defend his daddy's memory. The same people who call the Dems warhawks spent the 2000s screaming that "you're either with us or against us" and calling anti-war people pussies so I guess they don't have very good memories. So for various reasons, some good, the US is extremely gunshy right now. Even those of us wholeheartedly in support of Ukraine, wishing we gave them a thousand Bradleys and tanks, feel uncomfortable with the idea of boots on the ground. Meanwhile Europe has forgotten what intervention is, and seems utterly unwilling to do anything, lest they have to get off their holier than thou pedestal. Appeasement definitely doesn't work, but the middle east is full of examples of "just bomb them all" also not working very well. Everyone is very nervous. It sure seems like Russia won't stop their horseshit until someone makes them stop, but that's going to require a million dead.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]