Traffic on the single bridge that links Russia to Moscow-annexed Crimea and serves as a key supply route for the Kremlin’s forces in the war with Ukraine came to a standstill on Monday after one of its sections was blown up, killing a couple and wounding their daughter.

The RBC Ukraine news agency reported that explosions were heard on the bridge, with Russian military bloggers reporting two strikes.

RBC Ukraine and another Ukrainian news outlet Ukrainska Pravda said the attack was planned jointly by the Security Service of Ukraine (SBU) and the Ukrainian navy, and involved sea drones.

  • Lenins2ndCat@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    26
    arrow-down
    84
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Crimea is 76% russian. It was almost 70% russian before 2014 and it is around 76% russian today. Almost all of these people lived there already.

    • Heresy_generator@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      86
      arrow-down
      10
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Russian speaking != Russian. A majority in Crimea voted for independence from Russia in 1991 and that desire for independence from Russia did not lessen between 1991 and 2014 when Russia’s imperial war of conquest against Ukraine began.

      • Filthmontane@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        16
        arrow-down
        51
        ·
        1 year ago

        A majority of Russians rose up in opposition against the Ukrainian government during the Ukrainian revolution in support of Russian annexation. You can’t just ignore that a large number of people in Crimea were onboard with annexation.

        • andyburke@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          30
          arrow-down
          8
          ·
          1 year ago

          Certainly can, and will! Nothing justifies another country just annexing that territory. Nothing. No amount of you talking will justify it. No number of people there who speak Russian justify it. There is no justification.

          • Filthmontane@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            13
            arrow-down
            26
            ·
            1 year ago

            So, you don’t care about the people or how they feel about anything? So when the people in Crimea felt they were being treated unfairly by the Ukrainian government, they should’ve just put up with it instead of standing up for themselves? With that attitude, the US would still be a British territory.

        • fidodo@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          16
          arrow-down
          7
          ·
          1 year ago

          Then do it democratically through referendums. An illegal war is inexcusable. Claiming land is yours because there are people from your country there is textbook fascist strategy.

          • Stovetop@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            7
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            To offer an example, this was Hitler’s basis for invading and annexing the Sudetenland, part of what was then Czechoslovakia.

        • InverseParallax@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          15
          arrow-down
          13
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          I’m going to quote this next year when Xi annexes Sakalin.

          Russia has been too large for too long, it should have been split into a dozen separate countries centuries ago.

          • Packet@lemmygrad.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Yeah man, I agree. USA should do so too. Ya know, too big of a country eh? Texas and Florida should separate and California following them as an example. Especially California, I hate California.

            • InverseParallax@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              It’s funny you say that, because both California and texas each have a larger GDP than russia by themselves.

              Of course that was before the catastrophic failure of a war, now I’m sure Russia’s smaller than Florida too.

              BTW, it’s pronounced “Knee-how”, just to help you for next year.

      • Lenins2ndCat@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        13
        arrow-down
        64
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Sure. But that doesn’t really change the census data much.

        This applies to Donetsk and Luhansk too. All three of these regions were ethnic majority Russian, and the separatism kicked off when the Maidan government banned the Russian language in official government usage (schools, local institutions etc).

    • kescusay@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      54
      arrow-down
      7
      ·
      1 year ago

      As others have pointed out, Crimea is not 82% Russian. The majority of the populace speaks Russian, but a shared language does not indicate a shared culture. They don’t want to be part of Russia, and were illegally invaded.

      • Lenins2ndCat@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        arrow-down
        81
        ·
        1 year ago

        Crimea wasn’t “invaded”. Russia was already there as it leased the port and officially managed it for military use already. That’s why there was no fighting. They already ran the checkpoints, they already were the entire military presence in the region. The changeover from “this is Ukraine” to “this is Russia now” was entirely the signing of papers and changed absolutely nothing about the presence in the region or the average day to day. They certainly took it over, but to say it was invaded is somewhat misleading, more of a “we’ve decided that this is ours now”.

        • kescusay@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          56
          arrow-down
          8
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          This is a gross and flagrant distortion of events in Crimea leading up to the illegal annexation. It leaves out the fact that the operation of the checkpoints was still subject to Ukrainian governmental oversight, the fact that prior to the take-over, Russia illegally brought soldiers in unmarked uniforms over the border (the “little green men”), and the fact that the “changeover” was far from violence-free, let alone just a “signing of papers.”

          • Lenins2ndCat@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            14
            arrow-down
            52
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            The denial of reality going on here is absurd. Pre 2014 I know they operated the checkpoints because I went to Crimea for 2 weeks in 2009. I’m not saying that there wasn’t also fuckery involved but denying the reality of events is nonsensical. There is even a vice documentary that shows just how casual the transition was. It’s extremely painful discussing these topics with people online whose only understanding of these regions comes through the lens of this war.

            • kescusay@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              24
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              1 year ago

              I never said Russia didn’t operate the checkpoints. But prior to 2014, Crimea was indisputably Ukrainian territory, and Russia operated security checkpoints inside Ukraine at Ukraine’s discretion.

              No one is claiming that the annexation of Crimea involved violence at the scale of the current war, but it was not non-violent, either. Characterizing it as just “signing of papers” is false.

              It’s extremely painful discussing these topics with people online whose only understanding of these regions comes through the lens of this war.

              What other lens should we look at the annexation through? It was clearly the early stages of this war.

              • Lenins2ndCat@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                8
                arrow-down
                28
                ·
                1 year ago

                I’m not saying it wasn’t Ukrainian territory. I’m saying that the presence there was 100% russian military because it was functionally operated as their military port.

                This is precisely why there was no battle over it, no deaths, no nothing. Just “this is russia now” and continued operation of it as they always had but with different flags.

                What other lens should we look at the annexation through? It was clearly the early stages of this war.

                I’d much prefer a non-war lens of the place and how cool it is. Most people in america hadn’t even heard of it until the annexation, it’s very unfortunate.

                I don’t think calling it the early stages of this war is quite accurate but it’s not really that important and kinda gets into unnecessary semantics. The war probably wouldn’t be happening if the Minsk agreement had been kept. Russia were never going to let Crimea go because they needed it as a military port but they avoided Donetsk and Luhansk up until the Minsk agreement failed. If they had taken these regions in 2014 it would have been a breeze for them as Ukraine had no military to speak of, which is why the civil war was fought by the nazi volunteer batallions (azov, right sector, etc etc). Ukraine’s military was ramped up between 2014 and 2021. They did not really have much of anything until the 2016 Stategic Defense Bulletin followed by the State Program for the Development of the Armed Forces (2017-2020). In 2014 the military was only 90k active personnel with over half being civilian staff.

                • kescusay@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  16
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  We’d all prefer a non-war lens of Crimea. You’re right, it was a cool and interesting place, and hopefully still will be when the war is over.

                  But Russia has no say over whether another country’s territory will be used as Russia’s military port. The fact is, Ukraine was amenable to hosting Russia’s military there, so long as Russia didn’t try to actually own the land, but they’ve forfeited their right to use it now.

                  Ultimately, Russia’s military will be ousted from Crimea along with the rest of Ukraine, and that will be that. Had they never annexed it or escalated to open warfare, they would still be operating there freely today, with a much friendlier Ukraine happily hosting them.

                  • Lenins2ndCat@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    7
                    arrow-down
                    22
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    1 year ago

                    I uhh. Don’t share your optimism or actually care who runs it, I only really care that the people I know there remain safe. For them and for myself the flag be waved around is somewhat meaningless compared to the human impact of all this nonsense, particularly because some of my socialist friends are gone now. With that said I don’t see Crimea changing hands again, nor does anyone I have spoken to currently in Crimea. I might change that assessment if the counteroffensive ever actually sees the first line of dragon’s teeth but so far it’s been completely underwhelming. Everyone also sees the deployment of clusterbombs as a “let’s salt the earth so it’s worthless to them” move rather than anything that will change the counteroffensive’s prospects.

    • galloog1@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      arrow-down
      11
      ·
      1 year ago

      This is an ethnic argument, further pointing to the idea that you are making distinctly fascist points in this thread.

      • Lenins2ndCat@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        14
        arrow-down
        16
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        It is impossible to talk about a genocide without talking about ethnicity. Stop being so pigheaded. I’m going to block you now.