All Things Russia & Ukraine

[old salt]

Finnish prime minister Sanna Marin was asked about a potential off-ramp for Russia to end the war in Ukraine. Her reply:

https://twitter.com/RikhardHusu/status/ ... 6709590017

She nailed it.

She's happy to let the Ukrainians do the fighting & dying, while the US picks up the tab & expends our critical weapons inventory, while she scurries under the US nuclear umbrella.

Not sure how you saw from that video clip, all I saw was her saying that the war ends if Russia leaves Ukraine. You have seem to issues.

She excludes the possibility of a negotiated settlement.

https://nypost.com/2022/10/07/biden-fre ... -off-ramp/
“I’m trying to figure out what is Putin’s off ramp?” Biden continued. “Where does he find a way out? Where does he find himself in a position that he does not not only lose face but lose significant power within Russia?”

Biden has made several remarks criticized as “too weak” during the Russia-Ukraine crisis.
When asked about Biden’s remark, Finnish Prime Minister Sanna Marin gave a simple rebuttal.
“The way out of this conflict is for Russia to leave Ukraine. That is the way out of the conflict,” Marin told reporters Friday in a snap-back widely circulated on social media.

Rather than walk it back, as the White House has had to do with several Biden remarks the past few months, press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre deflected a reporter’s question about the “off ramp” remark during a brief gaggle aboard Air Force One on Friday.

A reporter said to Jean-Pierre, “[Biden] talked about the fact that you’re trying to figure out what Putin’s off-ramp is or something that would allow him to save face. Is there any concession being discussed between the US and allies that would be acceptable to make sure that this conflict deescalates?”

Jean-Pierre answered without directly addressing possible concessions.
“You’ve heard us say this before: there’s only one country that is responsible for this war, only one country, and that’s Russia. And they started this conflict and Mr. Putin has the ability to stop this conflict today,” Biden’s spokeswoman said.

Although Biden has presided over the distribution of massive amounts of US financial and military aid to Ukraine, he also has repeatedly irked Ukraine advocates with rhetorical missteps.

Biden said in June that Ukraine might have to cede land to Russia in a “negotiated settlement” and that “I’m not going to tell them what they should and shouldn’t do” — after European leaders including then-UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson demanded a full Russian withdrawal.

Putin launched a full-scale invasion of Ukraine on Feb. 24 about a month after Biden said at a White House press conference that the US would respond differently if Russia launched a “minor incursion” into the country, as opposed to a full-scale war, a comment which horrified Ukrainian leaders.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky publicly responded to Biden that “there are no minor incursions.” And a Ukrainian official told CNN, “This remark potentially gives the green light to Putin to enter Ukraine at his pleasure. Putin senses weakness.”

Biden sought to walk back the minor incursion remark by saying that Putin “has no misunderstanding” about the “severe” economic sanctions that would follow a Russian invasion of Ukraine. He said he wanted to clarify, “If any, any assembled Russian units move across the Ukrainian border, that is an invasion.”

Biden also upset Ukrainian officials in January by allegedly telling Zelensky to brace for a “sack” of Kyiv. White House National Security Council spokesperson Emily Horne described the report as “completely false.” But Zelensky later said he rejected a US offer to fly him to safety. The Ukrainian president said he replied, “The fight is here; I need ammunition, not a ride.”

[Kismet]

Looks like somebody blew up the Kerch Bridge last night - both spans (rail and vehicle) inoperable. Will heavily impact Russia's ability to resupply south battlefield via Crimea as well as the same for the Crimean military supply.

https://apnews.com/article/russia-ukrai ... 01f5e2db1f

Continually posting only right wing media sources to support your positions is typical for you OS. Perhaps you might consider widening your horizons.

As for characterizing people who disagree with you as stupid, you should know being an expert in stupid.

[Seacoaster(1)]

Looks like somebody blew up the Kerch Bridge last night - both spans (rail and vehicle) inoperable. Will heavily impact Russia's ability to resupply south battlefield via Crimea as well as the same for the Crimean military supply.

Continually posting only right wing media sources to support your positions is typical for you OS. Perhaps you might consider widening your horizons.

As for characterizing people who disagree with you as stupid, you should know being an expert in stupid.

https://twitter.com/Seveerity/status/15 ... 9686616064

[CU88]

Looks like somebody blew up the Kerch Bridge last night - both spans (rail and vehicle) inoperable. Will heavily impact Russia's ability to resupply south battlefield via Crimea as well as the same for the Crimean military supply.

Continually posting only right wing media sources to support your positions is typical for you OS. Perhaps you might consider widening your horizons.

As for characterizing people who disagree with you as stupid, you should know being an expert in stupid.

Old Soviet will tell us it was an accident, just like falling down stairs or out of a window...

NATO needs to force Ukraine to surrender to Putin and give him what he wants, for historical sake!

[Typical Lax Dad]

Looks like somebody blew up the Kerch Bridge last night - both spans (rail and vehicle) inoperable. Will heavily impact Russia's ability to resupply south battlefield via Crimea as well as the same for the Crimean military supply.

Continually posting only right wing media sources to support your positions is typical for you OS. Perhaps you might consider widening your horizons.

As for characterizing people who disagree with you as stupid, you should know being an expert in stupid.

Old Soviet will tell us it was an accident, just like falling down stairs or out of a window...

NATO needs to force Ukraine to surrender to Putin and give him what he wants, for historical sake!

[DocBarrister]

Putin personally opened this bridge in 2018, driving a truck across it.

A Ukrainian government official told The Washington Post on Saturday that Ukrainian special services were behind the bridge attack. The Ukrainska Pravda news site first reported the government’s purported role, citing an unidentified law enforcement official who said Ukraine’s security service, the SBU, was involved.

… Ukraine previously has mounted daring attacks deep in Russian-held territory, including on an air base in Crimea and on military targets across the border in Russia’s Belgorod region. But if the bridge explosion is confirmed to have been planned, it would be the most stunning strike yet by Ukraine, which has been under invasion since late February by Russia’s far larger and better-equipped military.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/20 ... a-ukraine/

DocBarrister

[Farfromgeneva]

seems like this thread is basically Os arguing that we’re idiots and Russia is super smart and running. Circles around us and everything is our fault and everyone pushing back (reasonably imo from the russia first position he presents). The people naming us and defending any behavior of Putin are as intransigent as election deniers do not sure there’s anything other than redundancy left here to discuss subject to a real actual new catalyst

[PizzaSnake]

seems like this thread is basically Os arguing that we’re idiots and Russia is super smart and running. Circles around us and everything is our fault and everyone pushing back (reasonably imo from the russia first position he presents). The people naming us and defending any behavior of Putin are as intransigent as election deniers do not sure there’s anything other than redundancy left here to discuss subject to a real actual new catalyst

Curious, it is, this position certain parties take re Russia and Putin. If I may, a brief divagation into motivation:

“It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.” --Upton Sinclair

Can't think of any other motivation. Anyone got any other rationale for the seemingly inexplicable?

[Farfromgeneva]

seems like this thread is basically Os arguing that we’re idiots and Russia is super smart and running. Circles around us and everything is our fault and everyone pushing back (reasonably imo from the russia first position he presents). The people naming us and defending any behavior of Putin are as intransigent as election deniers do not sure there’s anything other than redundancy left here to discuss subject to a real actual new catalyst

Curious, it is, this position certain parties take re Russia and Putin. If I may, a brief divagation into motivation:

“It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.” --Upton Sinclair

Can't think of any other motivation. Anyone got any other rationale for the seemingly inexplicable?

Some belief of benefit at least. Even if just opposing one side lock stock and creating narrative fallacies around it to support a unsupportable position.

[Typical Lax Dad]

Vladimir putin began the war in Ukraine in the belief that it would be a cosplay of triumphs in 1945, that his troops would be marching through Kyiv and he, like Stalin, would be watching the parade in the Red Square. Now it looks as though he is trying to cosplay 1941—the dramatic start of the Great Patriotic War against Nazi Germany.

This is the third version of the Kremlin’s original plan. The first, a blitzkrieg to capture Kyiv, failed within the first month. The second, the seemingly inevitable offensive, stalled in the summer and was abandoned in early September following the success of Ukraine’s counter-offensive. In the third version, the Russian motherland has been declared in danger and hundreds of thousands of men are being drafted to fight. The “partial mobilisation” declared by Vladimir Putin on September 21st looks like forced improvisation and it is disrupting the balance of interests and loyalties in Russian society, where views on the war are very mixed.

According to recent opinion polls, conducted by pollsters such as the Levada Centre which has offices in Moscow, 70-75% of respondents in Russia support the war with Ukraine. (These surveys were conducted before Mr Putin announced his mobilisation drive.) But these shocking figures are deceptive. Public opposition to the war can result in criminal prosecution, so people who are critical of the war and the regime are less likely to agree to speak to a pollster. This results in skewed samples and inflates the level of support for the war.

To understand the nature and composition of the pro-war majority, you need to dig deeper. By analysing some additional questions, taken from a survey by the independent pollster the Russian Field Group, we know that about a third of the Russian population constitutes a solid party of war; some 15% support the war with reservations; another 20% support the war but would have preferred it had the war never happened. Russian state television—instrumental in shaping public opinion—serves all these audiences.

Two main narratives circulate. One is peddled by the best-known talk-show hosts who tell viewers that the “special operation” is part of Russia’s total and existential war with the West—which is, of course, hell-bent on obliterating Russia. This apocalyptic narrative sets up Ukraine as the site of this great battle. The second narrative, prevalent on news programmes, emphasises that the “special military operation” in Ukraine is being conducted by professionals to liberate the Russian people of Donbas and other regions. It is presented as a “just war” predicated upon Russia’s responsibility to help Russians in need. Conflict with the West is a secondary consideration.

The pro-war party consists of three main groups: one is in favour of total war and a decisive confrontation with the West; the second believes that Russians are fighting a just war under the banner “responsibility to protect”. The third group mostly supports military action, but they conform possibly because they fear to confront Mr Putin and his supporters. The first group passionately supports the way because they feel that the enemy is already on Russia’s doorstep; the other two see the threat as far away.

In his mobilisation speech on September 21st, Mr Putin used choice rhetoric of the party of total war to persuade Russian citizens of the enemy’s proximity and the need to defend the motherland. Many commentators declared that this rhetoric would undermine the fragile support of the majority for the war. I urge more caution. Mr Putin has a long record of masterfully manipulating public sentiment. By siding with the more militant part of the pro-war camp, which has long demanded mobilisation, Mr Putin may force doubters to pick a side and thus polarise society. He calculates that the greater (though still limited) involvement of the Russian population in Ukraine may push Russians to support their boys in uniform more strongly. It will drive a wedge between families whose members fight, and those whose run for the border or curse the war.

In theory, this could work. The educated and the wealthy, many of them urban residents, are fleeing mobilisation. Those with more meagre resources are going to recruiting stations. They may be frightened and apprehensive, and not very keen to fight, but they are not ready to break away from the imaginary “national body” whose will and aspirations are expressed for them by Mr Putin. The fraught nature of their decisions to enlist will increase their hostility toward those who make the opposite choice. The idea may be that the departure of defectors will leave a more faithful nation that will fight and die without hesitation.

In practice, however, the chaotic nature of the mobilisation is throwing off Mr Putin’s calculations. It has undermined the common man’s confidence in the state machine, its efficiency and its dedication to a common cause. Thus it has undermined the very sense of unity and nationhood that Mr Putin hoped to manipulate. For one thing the mobilisation was announced too late, when Russian troops were already being defeated by Ukrainian ones. For another, it has exposed how the centralised administrative machinery, built by Mr Putin, struggles in an emergency. That is because it is built on corruption and sycophancy, not competence.

Overall, the war’s outcome will depend on the mood of the group who support it and on the group of conformists who go along with it. That is because its most avid proponents, and its most intractable opponents, will not change their minds. If those who see it as a “just” war start to suspect that it is slipping into an existential conflict with the West, or if conformists change their risk calculations because they face being drafted, the balance of opinion may shift decisively.

That is why recent protests in Dagestan and Yakutia, organised by the relatives of those being mobilised, are more important than the protests in Moscow and St Petersburg organised by anti-war activists. The more radical the narrative justifying the war, the higher the cost and the more hopeless the management of the mobilisation, the more likely it is that the consensus in favour of the war will crack. After the muddled start of the mobilisation campaign, this looks probable. But it would be premature and irresponsible to say that this has already happened, or that it is inevitable. ■

Kirill Rogov is a Russian political scientist, journalist and writer. He is a fellow at the Institute for Human Sciences in Vienna and the founder of Re: Russia, a policy network.

[admin]

Trump is the “smart set”
Peace and no Russian aggression.

JoeTard and the DeepStateTards have the world on the brink of destruction in just over 1 year of their “WMD in Iraq” level stupidity.

Trolling. 64 minutes (128 days). The penalty will release on February 16 at 11 PM.

https://fanlax.com/forum/viewtopic.php? ... 11#p405311

[Farfromgeneva]

Trump is the “smart set”
Peace and no Russian aggression.

JoeTard and the DeepStateTards have the world on the brink of destruction in just over 1 year of their “WMD in Iraq” level stupidity.

Trolling. 64 minutes (128 days). The penalty will release on February 16 at 11 PM.

https://fanlax.com/forum/viewtopic.php? ... 11#p405311

There’s a few that probably just need to be excommunicated. There’s zero effort to contribute anything or value to the community you’ve created here.

[old salt]

Looks like somebody blew up the Kerch Bridge last night - both spans (rail and vehicle) inoperable. Will heavily impact Russia's ability to resupply south battlefield via Crimea as well as the same for the Crimean military supply.

Continually posting only right wing media sources to support your positions is typical for you OS. Perhaps you might consider widening your horizons.

Read the post. It's Biden quotes. You consider that right wing ?
Biden was sharing his strategic thinking with his political donors. Right wing ?

Your left wing news sources overstate the damage to the Kerch Bridge.
Nobody "blew up" the bridge. It's still operable & repairable.
The rail span & 1 of 2 vehicle spans are back in operation.
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/ru ... 022-10-08/

[Farfromgeneva]

I would hope folks don’t label Axios as left wing. A person who does so…obviously some people want to be willfully blind and live in echo chambers.

Fireball engulfs key Crimean bridge for supplying Russian troops

Herb Scribner
Herb Scribner

Axios on facebook

Axios on twitter

Axios on linkedin

Axios on email
A screen grab from a surveillance footage shows flames and smoke rising up after an explosion at the Kerch bridge.
A screen grab from a surveillance footage shows flames and smoke at the Kerch bridge. Photo: Security Camera/Anadolu Agency via Getty Images
A massive fireball damaged a well-known Russian bridge Saturday that links the Crimean Peninsula and the Russian mainland, according to multiple reports.

Why it matters: The explosion will likely cause an immediate blow to Russia's supply route to troops fighting in southern Ukraine.

The Kerch bridge has been a longtime symbol of Russian President Vladimir Putin's claim to the Crimean Peninsula.
As a response to the explosion, Putin signed an order heightening security on the bridge late Saturday, the AP reports. Russia's federal security service, known as the FSB, will be in charge of security measures at the bridge.
Putin has also ordered an investigation into the Kerch Bridge "emergency" in Crimea, Russia's state-run TASS news agency reported Saturday.
Details: The Kerch Strait Bridge, which runs for 12 miles, was rocked by an explosion of a truck early Saturday morning, Russia’s Investigative Committee said in a statement, per NBC News.

The explosion “resulted in the ignition of seven fuel tanks of a train heading towards the Crimean Peninsula,” the statement said.
Multiple lanes of the bridge reportedly crashed into the Black Sea. Images show the entire bridge encapsulated by a large fireball.
The full extent of the damage, including deaths and injuries, remains unclear.
Russia's transportation department said the railroad section would likely be back in working order by Saturday night, per the New York Times.
What they're saying: Neither Russia nor Ukraine took immediate responsibility for the explosion, though both sides hinted that it wasn't an accident.

"Crimea, the bridge, the beginning. Everything illegal must be destroyed, everything stolen must be returned to Ukraine, everything occupied by Russia must be expelled," said Mykhailo Podolyak, adviser to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, in a Twitter post.
The Kremlin’s spokesman, Dmitri S. Peskov, said Putin has "directed the prime minister to form a government commission to find out the causes of the incident and eliminate the consequences as soon as possible," according to the New York Times.
A screen grab from a surveillance footage shows flames and smoke rising up after an explosion at the Kerch bridge
Photo: Security Camera/Anadolu Agency via Getty Images
Context: Dozens of Russian military convoys have used the bridge in recent months to help provide armor and fuel to soldiers in southern Ukraine, CNN reports. Any disruption to the bridge could impact how smoothly the military operates in that region.

Ukraine has recently made advancements in the Kherson region, which is in the south.
Zoom out: The bridge was created as a symbol of Russia's annexation of the Ukrainian peninsula in 2014, per CNN. The Russian president has often used the bridge as a political tool to demonstrate his claim to the region

Putin opened the Kerch bridge in 2018 and drove a truck across it, NYT reports.
Go deeper: Zelensky: Ukrainian forces recaptured 200 square miles in a week

Zelensky pledges fair treatment for Ukrainians in reclaimed territory
Biden: Putin could escalate "prospect of Armageddon" with nuclear weapons
Editor's note: This story has been updated with more details.

[Seacoaster(1)]

Trump is the “smart set”
Peace and no Russian aggression.

JoeTard and the DeepStateTards have the world on the brink of destruction in just over 1 year of their “WMD in Iraq” level stupidity.

Trolling. 64 minutes (128 days). The penalty will release on February 16 at 11 PM.

https://fanlax.com/forum/viewtopic.php? ... 11#p405311

Thank you.

[Typical Lax Dad]

Looks like somebody blew up the Kerch Bridge last night - both spans (rail and vehicle) inoperable. Will heavily impact Russia's ability to resupply south battlefield via Crimea as well as the same for the Crimean military supply.

Continually posting only right wing media sources to support your positions is typical for you OS. Perhaps you might consider widening your horizons.

Read the post. It's Biden quotes. You consider that right wing ?
Biden was sharing his strategic thinking with his political donors. Right wing ?

Your left wing news sources overstate the damage to the Kerch Bridge.
Nobody "blew up" the bridge. It's still operable & repairable.
The rail span & 1 of 2 vehicle spans are back in operation.
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/ru ... 022-10-08/

Russian exceptionalism on display!

[Seacoaster(1)]

https://www.theatlantic.com/newsletters ... mb/671689/

President Biden has warned the Russians that the use of a nuclear weapon in Ukraine could lead to a wider nuclear conflict. He’s right to be worried—and he’s right to warn the Russians yet again not to take that fateful step.

The Brightest Red Line

The president of the United States said last night that he is concerned about nuclear war. “I don’t think there’s any such thing as the ability to easily [use] a tactical nuclear weapon and not end up with Armageddon,” he remarked, seemingly off-the-cuff, at a Democratic fundraiser. The reactions were what you’d expect: Strategists and foreign-policy experts tried to unpack his statements, while right-wing pundits declared that the old man is too unsteady for the job. Many Americans are, understandably, scared.

I have criticized Biden for intemperate remarks in the past. I gladly stipulate that I never want any president talking about nuclear war extemporaneously (and I wonder what moved the president to speak out this time). But I understand the message Biden is trying, in every possible venue, to send to Russia, and I’m glad that he’s trying to shake us—and Russian President Vladimir Putin—out of our complacency about this potentially cataclysmic issue.

What I suspect Biden knows, and what Americans and their allies should realize, is that Putin is almost certainly talking a lot about nuclear weapons because he wants to accustom the West to the idea that he has the right to use them. From the first day of the war, Putin has woven nuclear threats into both his offensive against Ukraine and his warnings to the West. Like other Russia-watchers, I think the chances that Putin will resort to nuclear use are low. But I have been worried about it since the moment Russia’s military started collapsing on the battlefield.

Now the Russian president is making sure to mention the use of “all means available” to defend Russian territory, and describing the nuclear bombing of Japan as a precedent—a clear implication that he is threatening to use tactical nuclear weapons, smaller bombs delivered over short distances. These arms, however, are “small” only relative to the massive weapons on bombers, submarines, and intercontinental missiles; even the tiniest of them can do immense damage, especially against civilian areas.

By raising the threat of tactical nuclear weapons, Putin is trying to play both sides of the nuclear game. He wants the rest of the world to internalize the idea that a small nuclear attack isn’t really all that different from any other kind of bombing, while still shattering the nuclear taboo, with all the anxiety that word provokes. He might see this as allowing him to use a nuclear weapon to achieve the trifecta of terrorizing the Ukrainians into surrender, holding the West at bay, and escaping the consequences of crossing the military world’s brightest red line.

Putin has played the same game with other breaches of international norms. He talks about doing something terrible, does it, and then assumes the rest of the world will absorb it all as a new reality and just live with it. It’s a gamble that has paid off for him in the past, especially when he seized Crimea.

Tactical nuclear use would be far riskier than the Crimean adventure. But Putin is not the only one who thinks the West might simply take it if Russia uses a nuclear weapon. When the writer Eric Schlosser interviewed former Secretary of Defense William Perry in The Atlantic just a few weeks ago, Schlosser noted that Russia has already engaged in various atrocities and that a very small nuclear weapon “might not seem too controversial.” Perry agreed: “I think there would be an international uproar, but I don’t think it would last long,” he said. “It might blow over in a week or two.”

I think that President Biden, however, is right that the first use of a nuclear weapon is only the beginning of a slide toward global disaster. The world would be different the moment Russia ushered in a new age of nuclear combat. And the uproar would not die, because television cameras would show the world what even a small nuclear attack looks like: Unless Putin chose to do something dramatic but militarily useless, such as an explosion out at sea, there would be ghastly burns, people dying of radiation sickness, and fires that would make the current images from Ukraine seem like the results of mere skirmishes.

Such an attack would demand a response. Despite Perry’s fears—and whatever Putin’s hopes—there is virtually no chance that the United States, NATO, the European Union, and even other nuclear powers such as India and China will simply shrug if Putin makes nuclear weapons just another form of usable ordnance. More to the point, Biden has already said to the Russians publicly and privately that America and its allies would impose “catastrophic consequences” on Russia and its military. I am reluctant to predict what those measures might look like, but they could functionally end Russia’s ability to make war in Ukraine and the Black Sea region.

At that point, Putin—if he is still in power—would either have to accept defeat, or escalate and throw the dice yet again. (And, as even Secretary Perry noted, the United States would have to “take off the gloves the second time around.”) Putin might then claim that the U.S. and NATO are presenting an existential threat to the Russian state, and go to a full nuclear alert that directly threatens all of Europe and North America.

The United States would have to respond and go to a similarly heightened status. Putin, as the Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev put it during the Cuban missile crisis, will have tied the knot of war, and each side’s actions would then run the risk of pulling it tighter. Even the slightest miscalculation could lead to an apocalyptic outcome. The only option that avoids such a disaster is agreement to Putin’s terms, an immediate Ukrainian surrender, and general Western abandonment of East-Central Europe. This is likely what Putin expects, but it would be one more mistake from a Russian dictator who has underestimated his opponents and made horrendous miscalculations at every turn.

Putin is trying to normalize the use of nuclear weapons for imperial conquest. If he succeeds, he will not stop. The United States did not fight two world wars and the Cold War merely to bow to blackmail and accept the demands of a despot holding the entire global order of peace and security hostage with a nuclear bomb. It was Biden’s duty—as it would be for any American president—to say clearly and directly that the use of nuclear weapons runs apocalyptic risks."

[Seacoaster(1)]

Just thought everyone would like to see Putin's American fanboy, the Criminal Michael Flynn, supporting the RU and its leadership:

https://twitter.com/RonFilipkowski/stat ... 1685054467

Anyone shocked? Mildly surprised? Like the sun coming up in the morning?

[MDlaxfan76]

Just thought everyone would like to see Putin's American fanboy, the Criminal Michael Flynn, supporting the RU and its leadership:

https://twitter.com/RonFilipkowski/stat ... 1685054467

Anyone shocked? Mildly surprised? Like the sun coming up in the morning?

He is a white ‘Christian’ nationalist
That’s what has always been his motivation
Those views get articulated on here frequently, though less obviously nutso

[Farfromgeneva]

Looks like somebody blew up the Kerch Bridge last night - both spans (rail and vehicle) inoperable. Will heavily impact Russia's ability to resupply south battlefield via Crimea as well as the same for the Crimean military supply.

Continually posting only right wing media sources to support your positions is typical for you OS. Perhaps you might consider widening your horizons.

Read the post. It's Biden quotes. You consider that right wing ?
Biden was sharing his strategic thinking with his political donors. Right wing ?

Your left wing news sources overstate the damage to the Kerch Bridge.
Nobody "blew up" the bridge. It's still operable & repairable.
The rail span & 1 of 2 vehicle spans are back in operation.
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/ru ... 022-10-08/

Russian exceptionalism on display!

This is Russian exceptionalism!

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.ebaums ... /85039840/