Comments by "King Ace" (@kingace6186) on "Ten Reasons Why Ukraine Hasn't Destroyed the Crimean Bridge" video.

Ethnic cleansing followed by gentrification still haunts demographics and geopolitics everywhere. And "correcting" these scars of history leads to further ethnic cleansing followed by gentrification.
9
Not to mention, if democracy in Ukraini falls and greater Russia is achieved, Europe as a whole will be far too destabilized to thrive.
3
@rogerhearn5243 Europe is once more facing the iron grips of tyranny; a fight that the United Kingdom knows all too well. And just as Great Britain under PM Winston Churchill weathered through the brink, it must do so again. For if Ukraini is allowed to be trampled by the odious apparatus of Russian Authoritarianism, Europe and the world at large shall be worse off for it. So we must all share in the struggle together, "until, in God's good time, the New World, with all its power and might, steps forth to the rescue and the liberation of the old."
1
@awalk5177 What you are not mentioning is that Crimea has always been ground zero for proxy wars and expansionism for countries around the Black Sea and from the Euroasian Steppes. Before the Ottomans, several nomadic tribes conquered and settled it; the Mongols being the most well-known. The Ottomans controlled Crimea for centuries until the Russians tried taking it (starting with Sevastopol). During the Crimeans War, the Russian Empire was defeated by the Ottomans and the other European empires. The Russian Empire could never secure the peninsula long enough to rule. Then came the Soviets who took Crimea and annexed it -- since the Ottoman Empire died and AttaTurk advocated for semi-isolationism. This is when Stalin came to power and deported the ethnic Tartars, native to Crimea, and began moving Slavic people there. Premier Khrushchev gave it the Soviet Ukraini as a sort of Trojan Horse, since it had a large Russian population. In conclusion, the history of Crimea is one of military annexations and ethnic cleansings. The latest case of ethnic cleansing was when Putin invaded & invaded Crimea; then, deported or scared off ethnic Ukrainians living there since 2014.
1
@BRMCX69 So in summary, "I am gonna deny everything you said so Russia doesn't look as bad". This comment wraps facts to support a pseudo-claim just like how Noam Chomsky denied the Milokovic-sanctioned Bosnian genocide.
1
@awalk5177 A biased comment that dilutes the facts. But, hey! Freedom of speech, right?
1
@BRMCX69 Here is some education. During the 1990s, Chomsky felt very sympathetic toward the Milosevic Regime. Because of this, he utilized his linguistic skills to twist the fact. All to deny the Bosnian Genocide carried out by the Serbs. Similarly, you are twisting the facts due to your Russian sympathies to deny the state-sanctioned ethnic cleansing in Crimea.
1
@BRMCX69 Okay bro. One the Russian Empire IS DEAD so Cathy the Great IS IRRELEVANT. Jesus, you sound like Putin talking about "Greater Russia". The Bolsheviks were the ones that reconquered the territories of the DEAD Russian Empire (and then some). And Stalin was the one Lenin sent to subdue the Ukrainians and the Pole. It was then when the Red Army militarily annexed Crimea. I gave Stalin the credit because he was the one responsible for the ethnic cleansing that followed the annexation.
1
You might be underestimating partisan activity. If Ukraini really wants to, helped by the US backchanneling, it could discretely communicate with partisans in occupied territory (most likely what happened with the explosions in Crimea). The most likely reality is that Kyiv has factored in the risk-to-reward ratio. So, objectively speaking, they probably decided they shouldn't destroy the Crimean bridge -- at least for now.
1
A very important observation that William no doubt understands. But what he is referring to is correlation, not causation.
1
I think all ten reasons are cummulatively the reason why Ukraini hasn't destroyed the bridge. The main reasons are probably the difficulty of launching a ranged strike, the potential civilian casualties, and the negatives of backing Russia too far into the corner.
1