[_kbh_]

> "Military target" is a curious phrase given that this seems to be civilian infrastructure (of course it's probably important for the military as well). Pre-war, looks like the bridge saw around 15k in daily traffic. https://www.zr.ru/content/news/920305-8-millionov-avtomobili...

It’s a valid military target because Russia uses it to resupply its military in Crimea.

If Russia doesn’t want people targeting their bridges as military targets perhaps the military shouldn’t use them.

> So the real question is, why is Ukraine attacking civilian infrastructure?

Because it’s a military target being used by the Russian military to resupply Crimea and also the forces in the land corridor nearby.

> Is that not terrorism?.

Nope

> And an even better question is, why is the West helping them do this?

Because kicking Russia out of Crimea is something that needs to happen.

[droptablemain]

Crimea voted overwhelmingly to join Russia. ~98% Nearly a decade ago now. This is ancient history. Crimea is not in the Ukraine.

Are you suggesting to forcibly overrule that?

It sounds like Russophobia is leading you to come to some seriously flawed logical conclusions.

I also love how you completely ignored the fact that the Crimean bridge is in fact civilian infrastructure used by thousands daily.

[monnow]

You have to admit 98% sounds just a tad suspicious

[chrysler]

>> Crimea voted overwhelmingly to join Russia. ~98% Nearly a decade ago now. This is ancient history. Crimea is not in the Ukraine.

Crimea is Ukraine. Nobody recognizes the sham referendum held under foreign military occupation. With 100 votes against 11, the General Assembly of the United Nations declared it illegitimate.