Comments by "Carey\x27s Corner" (@careylymanjones) on "Why the Kerch Strait Bridge Attack is BAD for Russia || Peter Zeihan" video.

  1. Not under active combat operations. Supplying a garrison in peacetime is much easier than supplying an army at war.
    3
  2. Because FJB won't give Ukraine anything with the range to hit it. A couple of dozen ATACMS missiles for the MLRS launchers we've given the Ukrainians, and the bridge's life expectancy would be measured in hours. Of if the Brits would give Ukraine the full-range version of Storm Shadow, instead of the "export version", they'd do.
    2
  3. "If you don't let me conquer Ukraine, I'll starve Africa." Reminds me of that National Lampoon cover with the dog.
    2
  4. Sending goods by train to a port, offloading them and loading them onto a ferry, sailing 15 miles, then offloading them and loading them onto a train is a major PITA, compared to simply driving the train across a bridge. And if you're using roll-on roll-off ferries, you're shipping stuff to the port by truck, which is less efficient than shipping by rail. This will reduce cargo throughput.
    2
  5. The bridge is already in range of the ATACMS missile used by MLRS. If FJB would release them, Ukraine could take down the bridge easily. Likewise, the full-range version of Storm Shadow would work. But the Brits have only released the shorter-ranged "export version".
    2
  6. Water IS more economical for long-distance transport. But when you are only going 15 miles over water, moving cargo to a port, offloading it and loading it onto a ship to go 15 miles, and then offloading it from a ship and onto trucks or trains, is a PITA, compared to loading it onto a train, crossing directly over a bridge and going directly to a destination on the other side. Even with roll-on roll-off ferries, you shipped the cargo to the port by truck, which is less efficient than going directly by rail.
    2
  7.  @davidfirmino3829  The problem is that no one other than the US has much of a navy, nowadays. China has a lot of ships, but most of them are coastal-defense ships, with limited range. Japan has a good navy, but it's small, and Japan has legal issues acting as a "policeman". The Brits built a couple of carriers, but they don't have the escorts to support them. They normally operate with the US Navy providing escorts. The French have a carrier, but it's underpowered, and it needs a decent headwind, in order to launch aircraft. Russia? As if anyone would trust Russia to police anything. If the US Navy doesn't protect the world's maritime commerce, who do you suggest? I'm curious. Exactly where has the US Navy been "behaving as a pirate at sea"?
    2
  8. To paraphrase Rhett Butler, it will matter to a great many Russian gentlemen.
    1
  9. If Ukraine can take back Crimea and the Sea of Azov Coast, holding Donbas isn't much of a victory for Putin.
    1
  10. Peter is too bullish on America to appeal to the news networks. They hate America, and would never hire someone who believes in America's future. He harshes their narrative.
    1
  11. The Nordstream bombing wasn't THAT difficult. Any military with a combat swimmer service could do it, as well as a number of private underwater service companies. Nordstream was only about 70 meters down. They put it in shallow water so it could be more easily serviced, if needed.
    1
  12. If the Ukrainians get some long-range missiles, the ports can be targeted, too.
    1
  13. Cut off Crimea, and keep it cut off, and not only does it become Dien Bien Phu II, but it hoses the Russians' supply system for the southern front. Russia suffers its worst losses since WWII, losing all or most of its troops in Crimea and all of the southern front, at least to Mariupol. A "special operation", not even a war, going that horribly wrong, is the sort of thing that can break a government. At some point, the military says, "F*ck this sh*t!", and mutinies.
    1
  14. Short-haul water transport is more expensive, if goods must be moved any significant distance, either to the source port or from the destination port. The unloading, loading, unloading, and loading eats up any efficiency of water transport. Water is great for long-haul. For short-haul, not so much.
    1
  15.  @mkdmitry  Perfectly adequate, for a partisan force waiting by the side of the road. Blow the lead truck and the tail truck, and hose the cabs of the rest down with machine guns. Now the partisans are resupplied with food and ammo, courtesy of the Russians.
    1
  16. It certainly would, if FJB would release some longer-ranged missiles to Ukraine.
    1
  17. You can't move nearly the volume of cargo that way. Do you think the Russians built the bridge because they just happened to have a bunch of steel and concrete lying around, and had nothing better to do with it? They built the bridge because the ferries WEREN'T adequate.
    1
  18. And maybe NATO should obliterate the Russian Army. Knock down the air defenses and let the A-10s fly. Highway of Death III. Be careful what you ask for, you might not like the retaliatory strike.
    1
  19. Two Russians, traveling on the most strategic road in the war zone, get killed, and you're in tears. What was your reaction to the hundreds of Ukrainians killed in their apartments, by Russian terror missile strikes, Putin-head? Sit on a military target, don't b*tch, if you get hurt or killed.
    1
  20. "Ethnic Russians" in Ukraine are descendants of colonists Stalin sent to Ukraine, after the Holodomor. They were a privileged minority under the Soviets, and they're about as well-liked by Ukrainians as white settlers are, in southern Africa.
    1
  21. No supplies, no offensive.
    1
  22.  @bryan143  If NATO is foolish enough to permit Russia to conquer Ukraine, NATO will regret it. Putin will not stop, until someone STOPS him.
    1
  23. If FJB would give Ukraine some longer-ranged missiles, they could completely cut the bridge, and starve the Russians out. It would be Dien Bien Phu II.
    1
  24. @@invisobull Because if we "let them have the disputed area", they will soon be back for more. The way you stop aggression is to beat the sh*t out of the aggressor. That would be Russia, for the terminally confused folks, out there.
    1
  25. Hiking and talking at 12,000 feet will do that to you.
    1
  26. If NATO were supplying them with long-range missiles, I'm sure they would. FJB won't approve anything with enough range to hit the bridge. A couple of dozen ATACMS missiles for the MLRS launchers we've given the Ukrainians would do that bridge a treat. So would the full-range Storm Shadow missiles, but the Brits have only given Ukraine the shorter-ranged "export version". Launch aircraft would have to fly through too much heavily defended airspace to use the export Storm Shadows.
    1
  27. A Starlink ground unit would fill a large suitcase or a small trunk, not really something that's practical for traveling with.
    1
  28. Probably vlogging with his phone. I wouldn't want to haul a big camera rig up there.
    1
  29.  @cbob213  The way Peter was wheezing, I don't think he wanted to carry any more weight.
    1
  30.  @cbob213  A lavalier mic with a windscreen would be the simplest, lightest option. There are lav mics that plug into a headset jack, or the iPhone USB dongle that tuck into a pocket.
    1
  31.  hayder88  Duuude! You need to lay off the vodka. It's made you null and void.
    1
  32. It still stands because FJB won't approve long-range missiles for Ukraine. They're having to use home-built stuff built with a degraded industrial plant. If FJB would release a couple of dozen ATACMS missiles for the Ukrainians' MLRS launchers, or the Brits would release some of the full-range Storm Shadows, instead of the "export version", the bridge's life expectancy would be measured in hours.
    1
  33. The Soviets in WWII had a lot more people to throw at their problems. Throwing people at problems has been the Russian Way for centuries. Only now, the Russians are short of people, especially military-age people, so throwing people at problems gets counterproductive.
    1
  34. Fifteen miles of pontoon bridge??? Any attack capable of destroying the existing bridge would vaporize a pontoon bridge. Even a cluster warhead would probably wreck a pontoon bridge. Nobody except Putin's immediate family recognizes Crimea as Russian territory. Destroying a bridge there would not be an attack on Russian territory. Even Xerxes' pontoon bridge across the Hellespont was less than a mile long. And it only had to carry foot traffic and animal-borne transport.
    1
  35. How do you eat a 30-inch pizza? One bite at a time. If the Ukrainians manage to cut the bridge, they'll get to take a big bite out of the Russian Army.
    1
  36.  @SeraHonduras  And garrisons at peace require far less supplies than armies at war. There's an order of magnitude difference in sitting around the barracks and engaging in active military operations. If Ukraine gets long-ranged missiles capable of cutting the Kerch Bridge, those same missiles will have ample range to strike at the Kerch port facilities. Conflating wartime logistics with peacetime logistics is a typical Putin-head trick.
    1
  37. With the canal cut off, food requirements went up. Even food could become a problem.
    1
  38. Shipping stuff across Crimea and then to the Kherson area is safer than shipping stuff to Kherson via the land bridge, from Donbas, through Mariupol. The Ukrainians have partisans operating along that line who would love to score some Russian equipment.
    1
  39. They weren't conducting active military operations, then. The required supply levels are vastly different.
    1
  40. Targeting with a cobbled-together homebuilt underwater drone is probably not as precise as we would like it to be. This isn't something you can buy, off the shelf. A submersible with the range to reach the bridge from Ukraine, while carrying a worthwhile payload, probably doesn't have a lot of room for advanced terminal guidance, even if the Ukrainians had the tech base to build such a guidance system.
    1
  41. Putin can stop the violence, any time. He just needs to order his troops home.
    1
  42. The bridge is out of range of the third-rate armory sweepings that FJB has approved, so far. You're too used to being to rely on long-ranged missile strikes and USAF airstrikes. Ukraine's got next to no air force left, and no long-ranged missiles. They're having to cobble together homebuilt naval drones out of what they can buy, off-the-shelf, on the world market. Hitting that bridge is almost as hard for them, as the Doolittle Raid was for us, back in WWII.
    1
  43. You have to realize that, due to NATO's refusal to provide Ukraine with any long-range missiles, these attacks are almost as difficult for Ukraine as the Doolittle Raid was for America, in WWII. These underwater drones aren't off-the-shelf items. Ukraine can't simply phone in an order for another 200. They're building them themselves, with an industrial plant that has been degraded by Russian attacks. Necessity is a mother, and Ukraine has risen to the challenge.
    1
  44. I don't think the Sea of Azov is a trout fishery, but if the Ukrainians could drop the whole bridge, it would make a dandy artificial reef for other fish species to use.
    1