Russia invades Ukraine

[Falcon1200]

Imho there will be a negotiated settlement and the sooner the better.

Negotiated in the sense that both sides compromise? Not a chance, no way will (or should) Ukraine allow Russia to retain any of the lands it has invaded this year; Crimea unfortunately is a different issue.

Anyway, Roger Waters' opinions on the cause of the conflict have caused his gigs in Poland to be cancelled;

Roger Waters gigs in Poland cancelled amid Ukraine backlash

The musician was due to play gigs in Poland but faces outrage over his comments on the Ukraine war.

www.bbc.co.uk

Planned concerts in Poland by Pink Floyd co-founder Roger Waters have been cancelled amid outrage over the musician's stance on the Ukraine war.
The controversy was triggered by an open letter Waters wrote to Ukraine's first lady, Olena Zelenska.
In it, he said, "extreme nationalists" in Ukraine "have set your country on the path to this disastrous war".
He accused her husband, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, of failing to fulfil his election campaign promises to bring peace to the Donbas region and and made no mention of Russia's responsibility for the war.

 

[Yew]

He himself has said that he believes the end of the Soviet Union was the greatest tragedy to befall Russia in the 20th century.

That's probably a bit strong, but I would be interested to see what the alternative reality where Gorbachevs reforms could come into place would look like. I fear that Putin might have meant something different though.

 

[Perthsaint]

Negotiated in the sense that both sides compromise? Not a chance, no way will (or should) Ukraine allow Russia to retain any of the lands it has invaded this year; Crimea unfortunately is a different issue.

I don't see Ukraine accepting Russian control of Crimea. Nor should they.

 

[Yew]

I don't see Ukraine accepting Russian control of Crimea. Nor should they.

It certainly seems like reclaiming Crimea has crossed Zelenskyy's mind. Whether that is a practical aim, or was a gambit to lure the Russians off balance is another question.

If Zelenskyy says that he is going to attack, say, the Kerch Bridge; then the Russians have to defend it. However he can simply choose not to attack. Used wisely, that's a very cost-effective way of tying up Russian military assets.

 

[najaB]

It certainly seems like reclaiming Crimea has crossed Zelenskyy's mind. Whether that is a practical aim, or was a gambit to lure the Russians off balance is another question.

I doubt that Ukraine has, or will have any time soon, the necessary personnel and resources to take Crimea by force. They do, however, have the ability to make it too difficult and costly for Russia to keep.

 

[Cloud Strife]

Anyway, Roger Waters' opinions on the cause of the conflict have caused his gigs in Poland to be cancelled;

There was a massive outrage here over it, although no doubt he'll now blame everyone else but himself.

Trouble brewing around Lyman for Russia:

If this is true (and Twitter is full of reports suggesting that it is), then I don't see the Russian defences doing anything other than collapsing. They might fight to the end in Lyman, but it's hard to see them doing anything other than running elsewhere.

If Zelenskyy says that he is going to attack, say, the Kerch Bridge; then the Russians have to defend it. However he can simply choose not to attack. Used wisely, that's a very cost-effective way of tying up Russian military assets.

I think this has been the Ukrainian strategy from Day 1. They know that destroying the Kerch Bridge (or even landing a direct hit) would terrorise Crimea, and so it's something that they can bring out to frighten the Russian forces whenever they need to. It functions largely like the Russian threat of nuclear bombs, except that the Russians have no choice but to defend the bridge.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 25 Sep 2022 ==

I doubt that Ukraine has, or will have any time soon, the necessary personnel and resources to take Crimea by force. They do, however, have the ability to make it too difficult and costly for Russia to keep.

There is an argument here that the best scenario is to wreck the Kerch Bridge, then make sure that the Black Sea ports are unusable. That would force everyone onto ferries between Crimea and the Russian mainland. Combined with a total Ukrainian lockdown of the administrative line between Crimea and Ukraine, it probably causes a huge amount of pain in Crimea itself.

 

[TwoYellas]

So former constituents of the Soviet Union, in his view, should be under Moscow's control and he should be the modern-day Tsar. If the former Soviet block members of NATO had not joined that organisation he would almost certainly have already invaded the Baltic States as well as having picked off the Caucasus nations one by one.

He hasn't the power to do it. Maybe he'd like to but I don't think he's that stupid. He can't even take cities a few miles over the border. Don't forget during the Soviet Union they had no end of trouble in some of those countries and the memory of their disastrous invasion of Afghanistan is also there. Then there's the examples US invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. Therefore I don't buy the 'invading countries one by one' theory. In fact, if he did that he'd severely weaken Russia. Which is what is happening now.

Pure and simple a proxy war is going on. I believe they don't want a hostile military alliance there. Your analysis hasn't taken into account the Russian concerns going back to Gorbachev and the promise that was made to him.

And don't forget NATO destroyed Libya, Afghanistan is a mess. And US along with a coalition invaded Iraq causing hundreds of thousands of refugees and a million deaths.

I'm afraid the stories much more mixed than your narrative which I've read in the papers.

As such any hope of bringing him to any court for war crimes is an idealistic concept only with no realistic prospect of it actually happening.

I've said before - there's isn't the will to do it, not here either. War criminals who invade sovereign countries usually do well. If you're even - handed and truly value human rights then, imho, one should call for a schedule to be created at The Hague! It's all a load of corruption.

Negotiated in the sense that both sides compromise? Not a chance, no way will (or should) Ukraine allow Russia to retain any of the lands it has invaded this year; Crimea unfortunately is a different issue.

A settlement is that both sides compromise. It will happen eventually, in my view I hope it happens soon as this could escalate into nuclear catastrophe - maybe not likely, but I don't want to take the risk. With a hard-liner in charge perhaps cornered, could cause a crisis.

 

[Perthsaint]

If Ukraine and Russia are proxies who is behind them?

 

[najaB]

Your analysis hasn't taken into account the Russian concerns going back to Gorbachev and the promise that was made to him.

The promise that never was. First thing, the assurance against eastward expansion was made in the context of East Germany only, secondly the assurance was that NATO would not expand towards the USSR rather not Russia and, most importantly, it was a verbal statement only, and was never enshrined in any formal agreement.

To understand Russia’s claims of betrayal, it is necessary to review the reassurances then US secretary of state James A. Baker made to former Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev during a meeting on February 9, 1990. In a discussion on the status of a reunited Germany, the two men agreed that NATO would not extend past the territory of East Germany, a promise repeated by NATO’s secretary general in a speech on May 17 that same year in Brussels.

Russia and the West finally struck an agreement in September that would allow NATO to station its troops beyond the Iron Curtain. However, the deal only concerned a reunified Germany, with further eastward expansion being inconceivable at the time.

"The Soviet Union still existed and the countries of Eastern Europe were still part of the Soviet structures – like the Warsaw Pact – which was not officially dissolved until July 1991," said Amélie Zima, doctor of political science at the Thucydide Centre (Panthéon-Assas) in Paris. "We cannot speak of betrayal, because a chain of events that would rearrange the security configuration in Europe was about to take place."

In short, at a time when Westerners were offering the "guarantees" spoken of by Vladimir Putin, no one could have predicted the collapse of the USSR and the historic upheavals that followed.

"In addition, these promises were made orally and were never recorded in a treaty,” recalled Olivier Kempf, associate researcher at the Foundation for Strategic Research. "The turning point of NATO enlargement came much later, in 1995, at the request of the Eastern European countries."

Did NATO ‘betray’ Russia by expanding to the East?

The Kremlin claims the West broke a promise it made in the 1990s not to expand NATO, and is now using this claim to justify threats to invade Ukraine.

www.france24.com

 

[Cloud Strife]

With a hard-liner in charge perhaps cornered, could cause a crisis.

The more likely scenario is that the military and intelligence chiefs get together and remove Putin from power. Using a nuclear weapon means immediate response from the West, which would include seizing all assets owned by Russians. There are a lot of wealthy people in Russia who want to go back to enjoying their luxurious lifestyle, and they will never sanction the use of nuclear weapons.

The truth is that there's simply no agreement in Russia to use nuclear weapons in that way. American society had no problem with blowing Japan to pieces with them, because they had nothing to lose. Russians on the other hand: imagine you've spent 30 years doing the dirty work. You'd like to retire, but Putin has just blown up Kharkiv with a nuclear bomb. Your daughter is immediately arrested in the UK and interned, your son's plane has been forced to land in Croatia and he's been interned, and your assets are immediately frozen. You've got nothing left financially, and now your family are detained by hostile powers.

There will be well established plans on what to do if Russia does use a nuclear weapon, and those plans will almost certainly involve turning Russia into a pariah state beyond anything that has been seen before.

 

[TheEdge]

He hasn't the power to do it. Maybe he'd like to but I don't think he's that stupid.

Thing is he thought he did, and he is that stupid. He thought he'd take Ukraine in a few days, scare the Finnish into moving away from NATO, have the EU kowtow to him. And its spectacularly blown up in his face.

Pure and simple a proxy war is going on. I believe they don't want a hostile military alliance there. Your analysis hasn't taken into account the Russian concerns going back to Gorbachev and the promise that was made to him.

You are right. Its a proxy war between the Korea's. And also Israel and Iran.

The big hole here is NATO is a defensive alliance, not offensive. If he finds a defensive alliance a threat then you have to wonder why.

And don't forget NATO destroyed Libya, Afghanistan is a mess. And US along with a coalition invaded Iraq causing hundreds of thousands of refugees and a million deaths.

Lets also remember both Afghanistan and Libya was NATO leading (not being the only part of) UN Security Council backed missions. You like to say this is all mixed don't try and portray NATO as a force for evil.

Anyway.

What does worry me is that there is a gamble for Vlad to use nuclear weapons and get away with it to "win". Ukraine is not in NATO so it doesn't come under the protection of Article 5 of the NATO charter. And while NATO does allow for first strike use of nuclear weapons I don't see NATO using them in defense of a non NATO member. I could see NATO moving into Ukraine with conventional forces if he used a nuclear weapon but that would give Vlad his excuse to use them on NATO...

 

[yorkie]

I'd never heard of Roger Waters as an individual before, but having looked him and his views up, I'd describe him as an irrelevant dinosaur whose views are out of touch. Perhaps he and his ilk would like to move to Russia? If I was to meet him in the street (not that I'd recognise him) I'd certainly like to have a 'word' with him!

 

[Annetts key]

The U.S.A. has to respond to Russia using a nuclear weapon. If the U.S.A. does nothing, it sends completely the wrong signal to Russia, China, Iran, North Korea and any other country that has nuclear ideas…

Of course, what the response is, does depend on what Russia actually does.

The question on Crimea is interesting. At the moment, Ukraine cannot hit the Kerch Straights Bridges using artillery.

When Ukraine takes back their southern territory, it’s going to cause panic among the Russians in Crimea. If large numbers decide to leave for mother Russia, it may be better to leave the Kerch Straights Bridges in a useable state (maybe attack them but not do too much damage, to cause even more panic).

And of course, when Ukraine is in full control of their southern territory, they can control the water supply to Crimea. Plus parts of Crimea will be in range of Ukraines weapons. This makes it extremely difficult for Russia to defend it.

 

[GS250]

There will be well established plans on what to do if Russia does use a nuclear weapon, and those plans will almost certainly involve turning Russia into a pariah state beyond anything that has been seen before.

You'd like to think there is some kind of robust plan in place. However, whether there would be will to enforce it given the plethora of 'human rights' lawyers eager to take on cases will remain to be seen.

Agreed though....their wealthy will be starting to get extremely anxious at what is happening. Am not sure though, that they would have any influence on whether nuclear weapons are used though. Putin and his cronies appear to be at odds with Russia's young and the wealthy.

I guess even if Russia used a 'small' tactical 5kt airburst weapon, that's pretty much going to open a huge can of worms as far as what response the West takes though. Still absolutely cannot see NATO forces getting involved though.

 

[TwoYellas]

Lets also remember both Afghanistan and Libya was NATO leading (not being the only part of) UN Security Council backed missions. You like to say this is all mixed don't try and portray NATO as a force for evil.

I say again the current crisis in Ukraine is more mixed than the media here generally portray in this country. And I will call illegal invasions by anyone causing untold death and destruction evil. This includes Putins's invasion of Ukraine and the Iraq War.

My point which you've missed is that one person's defensive alliance is another's hostile alliance.

 

[adc82140]

The U.S.A. has to respond to Russia using a nuclear weapon. If the U.S.A. does nothing, it sends completely the wrong signal to Russia, China, Iran, North Korea and any other country that has nuclear ideas…

Of course, what the response is, does depend on what Russia actually does.

NATO would have to respond with nuclear weapons if a NATO state was attacked with them. What happens if Ukraine is attacked is a bit more unclear. I believe from what the US has said today that Russia has been told in private what the consequences would likely be, but those consequences won't be revealed to everyone else until they have happened.

 

[GS250]

NATO would have to respond with nuclear weapons if a NATO state was attacked with them. What happens if Ukraine is attacked is a bit more unclear. I believe from what the US has said today that Russia has been told in private what the consequences would likely be, but those consequences won't be revealed to everyone else until they have happened.

Agreed. I absolutely cannot see NATO responding with even conventional weapons if a nuke was used in Ukraine. Too much to lose as this would enforce Putin's view that the west are coming to get him. Russia's strategic rocket force may be in questionable shape but it probably has enough to guarantee serious problems for the West. Ie kill 100+ million. Is that a risk the West would want to take?

 

[TheEdge]

My point which you've missed is that one person's defensive alliance is another's hostile alliance.

And my point, that you are missing is that it is on paper that NATO is defensive.

If, for example, Poland decided to finally just attack Russia the rest of NATO couldn't really do anything to assist, at least not as NATO. If Russia attacked Poland then NATO can act under Article 5.

If a nation finds its neighbours being members of an alliance which is defensive a hostile act then you have to wonder why.

 

[Annetts key]

Agreed. I absolutely cannot see NATO responding with even conventional weapons if a nuke was used in Ukraine. Too much to lose as this would enforce Putin's view that the west are coming to get him. Russia's strategic rocket force may be in questionable shape but it probably has enough to guarantee serious problems for the West. Ie kill 100+ million. Is that a risk the West would want to take?

The response would not be from N.A.T.O., but from the U.S.A. and possibly some of the other Western countries. Ukraine is not a N.A.T.O. member, so it’s not a N.A.T.O. matter.

If the U.S.A. lets Russia get away with using nuclear weapons, it opens the door for Russia to use them again in the future, or China to use them, say against Taiwan, or North Korea against who knows who, etc.

So you can be very certain that via diplomatic channels, the U.S.A. has informed Russia that the use of any nuclear weapons will have consequences that would be very bad for Russia.

The last thing that the U.S.A. wants, is to encourage countries to get (or get more) nuclear weapons so that they can threaten the countries they don’t like…

 

[adc82140]

China will never use them. They have a strict no first use policy. In fact I believe all their warheads are in storage, the theory being that during the week or so it would take to deploy them, diplomacy would win out.

 

[najaB]

China will never use them. They have a strict no first use policy.

That, one would expect, would change if someone else was to use them and 'get away' with it.

 

[GS250]

China will never use them. They have a strict no first use policy. In fact I believe all their warheads are in storage, the theory being that during the week or so it would take to deploy them, diplomacy would win out.

China's policy is an interesting one. It keeps all of their warheads hidden away deep underground and safe from potential attack. Part of the policy there is that they believe they are able to survive a first strike through sheer land mass and numbers. Given that their main potential enemy the US forbids a first strike...they can therefore sleep well at night knowing they have a sensible policy that is not likely to provoke anyone.

China are still likely to be the ones to influence Putin more than any other.

 

[Shaw S Hunter]

I have spent some time today reflecting on the overall situation and that led me to read a number of Wikipedia articles: I would certainly recommend that others do similar research using whatever source they feel comfortable with. In particular try the Crimean War (for historical geo-political context), the Budapest Memorandum of 1994 (non-proliferation of nuclear weapons which led to Ukraine giving theirs up), the Partition Treaty on the Status and Conditions of the Black Sea Fleet of 1997 (establishment of Russian leasing of Sevastopol naval base in return for discounted gas prices) and the Kharkiv Pact of 2010 (extension of Sevastopol lease from 2017 to 2042).

Having done this research I find it impossible to believe that the current conflict is about anything other than Crimea; the Donbas is a sideshow, a convenient pretext for the wider invasion of southern Ukraine necessary to secure Russian control of Crimea. And history suggests that from Russia's point of view there is no room for compromise on the matter short of somebody else paying for a replacement for Sevastopol's naval facilities somewhere on the eastern shore of the Black Sea, even if such a project is possible. Given that Russia has quite deliberately torn up existing agreements with Ukraine it's also difficult to see why Ukraine would have any reason to even negotiate with Russia.

All in all it is very hard to see how the current conflict can be resolved without considerably more loss of life with one side or the other eventually achieving clear military superiority on the ground though whether such a position could be called a victory is doubtful. That only leaves us here with a choice as to which side we chose to support and the hope that diplomacy can at least prevent the conflict escalating into something much worse or wider. Unless of course there is a replacement of regime in either country whose leadership is prepared to give up their country's previously held position.

 

[TwoYellas]

I have spent some time today reflecting on the overall situation and that led me to read a number of Wikipedia articles: I would certainly recommend that others do similar research using whatever source they feel comfortable with. In particular try the Crimean War (for historical geo-political context), the Budapest Memorandum of 1994 (non-proliferation of nuclear weapons which led to Ukraine giving theirs up), the Partition Treaty on the Status and Conditions of the Black Sea Fleet of 1997 (establishment of Russian leasing of Sevastopol naval base in return for discounted gas prices) and the Kharkiv Pact of 2010 (extension of Sevastopol lease from 2017 to 2042).

Having done this research I find it impossible to believe that the current conflict is about anything other than Crimea; the Donbas is a sideshow, a convenient pretext for the wider invasion of southern Ukraine necessary to secure Russian control of Crimea. And history suggests that from Russia's point of view there is no room for compromise on the matter short of somebody else paying for a replacement for Sevastopol's naval facilities somewhere on the eastern shore of the Black Sea, even if such a project is possible. Given that Russia has quite deliberately torn up existing agreements with Ukraine it's also difficult to see why Ukraine would have any reason to even negotiate with Russia.

All in all it is very hard to see how the current conflict can be resolved without considerably more loss of life with one side or the other eventually achieving clear military superiority on the ground though whether such a position could be called a victory is doubtful. That only leaves us here with a choice as to which side we chose to support and the hope that diplomacy can at least prevent the conflict escalating into something much worse or wider. Unless of course there is a replacement of regime in either country whose leadership is prepared to give up their country's previously held position.

Damn good work sir!

It is very complex and I don't claim to understand it fully at all. I feel it will require careful diplomacy to resolve. The peace is often much more difficult to achieve than the conflict.

 

[Cloud Strife]

Having done this research I find it impossible to believe that the current conflict is about anything other than Crimea; the Donbas is a sideshow, a convenient pretext for the wider invasion of southern Ukraine necessary to secure Russian control of Crimea.

I would say that it's largely about Crimea, but that Russia also has a nasty habit of considering Russian speakers as being ethnically Russian, which simply isn't the case.

It is true that Crimea cannot be under full Russian control without control of the Sea of Azov and the water supply, and that Ukraine was progressively tightening the noose around Crimea. The Donbas is useful for raw materials however, so from a purely geopolitical point of view, controlling Kherson, Donetsk and Luhansk Oblasts is what Russia needs to control Crimea.

When Ukraine takes back their southern territory, it’s going to cause panic among the Russians in Crimea. If large numbers decide to leave for mother Russia, it may be better to leave the Kerch Straights Bridges in a useable state (maybe attack them but not do too much damage, to cause even more panic).

There is a strong argument that the best thing to do is actually to leave the Kerch Bridge in place. It only takes one strike on military equipment being transported by train to stop the train transports, and then you have widespread panic.

Having said that, I wouldn't underestimate the hatred that Ukrainians have for the Kerch Bridge. Taking it out would be *the* victory as far as Ukrainians are concerned, although I'm fairly sure that Russia has massively over-engineered the bridge to resist attacks. It is surprisingly difficult to destroy bridges in war, too.

You'd like to think there is some kind of robust plan in place. However, whether there would be will to enforce it given the plethora of 'human rights' lawyers eager to take on cases will remain to be seen.

Agreed though....their wealthy will be starting to get extremely anxious at what is happening. Am not sure though, that they would have any influence on whether nuclear weapons are used though. Putin and his cronies appear to be at odds with Russia's young and the wealthy.

I guess even if Russia used a 'small' tactical 5kt airburst weapon, that's pretty much going to open a huge can of worms as far as what response the West takes though. Still absolutely cannot see NATO forces getting involved though.

I think the key point is that for Putin to get approval to use such a weapon, then he needs those people onside. They won't agree unless the situation is dire, and they won't consider Russia losing in Ukraine as a dire situation. The Russian doctrine is that the weapons will only be used in the event of a serious threat to Russia, and it's hard to see anyone seriously considering the loss of the Donbas/Kherson as a serious threat to Russia.

On a slightly unrelated note, the situation in Lyman continues to be interesting. Most people thought Lyman was going to fall quickly, but it seems that the Russian defences there have proven to be more resilient than elsewhere. There are also reports that Russia is literally throwing mobilised men into the front lines, which, if true, is nothing short of insanity. The thing that isn't clear is exactly what's happening there, although it seems that the battles are taking place around Lyman rather than in Lyman itself.

 

[Annetts key]

Having said that, I wouldn't underestimate the hatred that Ukrainians have for the Kerch Bridge. Taking it out would be *the* victory as far as Ukrainians are concerned, although I'm fairly sure that Russia has massively over-engineered the bridge to resist attacks. It is surprisingly difficult to destroy bridges in war, too.

I disagree. Destroying some types of bridges from a long distance away may well be rather difficult. But if Ukrainian military forces gain control over Crimea, the days of the Kerch Straights Bridges will be numbered.

How difficult it is to make a bridge unusable, or to destroy one section of it, does depend on the type of bridge, the construction method used, the quality of the design and the quality of the workmanship. And it also depends on what weapons you have available. There are far too many variables in play, so making accurate predictions without all the relevant information is foolish.

I will however say this. If a military is determined, and has suitable weapons available, no bridge is safe from being seriously damaged or partially destroyed.

All bridges have points where they are relatively weak compared to other parts of the same structure.

I’m not a structural engineer or a bridge engineer. But given the length of the Kerch Straights Bridges, the position of them and the cost of building them, I would be surprised if they had been over engineered by any significant amount.

Back before computers, before engineers were able to fully simulate and calculate complex systems, structures like bridges were often over engineered for their intended use, simply because it was not certain if they would survive. And no one wanted a bridge failure.

But in the modern world, bridges, especially long, expensive bridges, are subject to very careful design. Again, no one wants a bridge failure, but at the same time these are extremely expensive, so costs have to be kept to reasonable levels.

That is not to say that the Russians took some limited precautions to make destruction more difficult. But “massively over-engineered the bridge to resist attacks”, I think not.

On a slightly unrelated note, the situation in Lyman continues to be interesting. Most people thought Lyman was going to fall quickly, but it seems that the Russian defences there have proven to be more resilient than elsewhere. There are also reports that Russia is literally throwing mobilised men into the front lines, which, if true, is nothing short of insanity. The thing that isn't clear is exactly what's happening there, although it seems that the battles are taking place around Lyman rather than in Lyman itself.

It looks like the Ukrainian forces are going north of the Lyman area, and are trying to cut it off in this direction. Leaving, for the time being, just the eastern side of that area under Russian control.

The question is, has Putin ordered all his forces to stand and fight? And if so, how many will continue to obey these orders as the threat of being encircled increases…?

Will there be another rout?

 

[DynamicSpirit]

But in the modern world, bridges, especially long, expensive bridges, are subject to very careful design. Again, no one wants a bridge failure, but at the same time these are extremely expensive, so costs have to be kept to reasonable levels.

That is not to say that the Russians took some limited precautions to make destruction more difficult. But “massively over-engineered the bridge to resist attacks”, I think not.

To add to that, at the time the Russians built the Kerch Bridge, they probably didn't have any reason to over-engineer it against military attack anyway: At that time virtually no-one seriously thought the Ukrainians would at any time in the near future gain the military capability to threaten Crimea. Add to that Russia's (with hindsight, obvious) overconfidence in the abilities of their own military forces, and why would they spend the extra money. And of course, even if they had, you have to factor in all the corruption etc. that tends to drain their ability to make anything very reliable.

 

[najaB]

All bridges have points where they are relatively weak compared to other parts of the same structure.

I’m not a structural engineer or a bridge engineer. But given the length of the Kerch Straights Bridges, the position of them and the cost of building them, I would be surprised if they had been over engineered by any significant amount.

I'd also be surprised if they were significantly overengineered. As to weak points, if I was planning an attack it would be on the approach spans on the Crimean side - even if they don't hit the bridge structure directly the ground movement would likely be enough to take the railway bridge out of use at the very least.

 

[brad465]

To add to that, at the time the Russians built the Kerch Bridge, they probably didn't have any reason to over-engineer it against military attack anyway: At that time virtually no-one seriously thought the Ukrainians would at any time in the near future gain the military capability to threaten Crimea. Add to that Russia's (with hindsight, obvious) overconfidence in the abilities of their own military forces, and why would they spend the extra money. And of course, even if they had, you have to factor in all the corruption etc. that tends to drain their ability to make anything very reliable.

I'd also be surprised if they were significantly overengineered. As to weak points, if I was planning an attack it would be on the approach spans on the Crimean side - even if they don't hit the bridge structure directly the ground movement would likely be enough to take the railway bridge out of use at the very least.

The bridge also only took 2-3 years to complete, which doesn't sound long for its length, and certainly doesn't imply enhanced engineering design was used.

 

[Giugiaro]

There will be well established plans on what to do if Russia does use a nuclear weapon, and those plans will almost certainly involve turning Russia into a pariah state beyond anything that has been seen before.

What happens if Ukraine is attacked is a bit more unclear.

If nuclear bombs become involved with Ukraine, Russia should simply be ignored as if it didn't exist.
No more people crossing borders, no more diplomatic ties, nor oil, gas, money, planes, whatever...
And, unlike Russia, NATO shouldn't attack a country that doesn't exist.

If that said hypothetical country decides to make itself apparent by invading or bombing NATO territory... It was nice knowing you all.