Putin Opens Europe's Longest Bridge, Linking Russia With Crimea

Construction started 2 years ago, and the project was completed 6 months ahead of schedule, a rare feat for corruption plagued Russia. During the entire duration of the bridge’s construction, Ukrainian lawmakers could regularly be seen angrily wagging their fingers at Russian construction workers, while ordering them to “stop this atrocity, this very minute!!!”(citation needed). Of course they didn’t stop.
Anyway, Mzito was at hand to officially open the bridge, and drove a truck all the way.


And that, kids, is your daily dose of propaganda.

[SIZE=7]Bomb Putin’s bridge, US commentator bizarrely advises Ukraine[/SIZE]
Published time: 16 May, 2018 18:40Edited time: 17 May, 2018 09:03
Get short URL
Crimean bridge is now open for traffic. © Aleksey Malgavko / Sputnik

Russia’s opening of a bridge to Crimea, a former part of Ukraine which officials in Kiev consider rightfully theirs, requires a swift bombing raid by Ukraine’s air force, believes a conservative US commentator.
The bold suggestion to the Ukrainian government to escalate a conflict with a much more powerful nation came on Tuesday from Tom Rogan, a prolific British-educated conservative commenter with the Washington Examiner. The Washington DC-based journalist sees the bridge, which was opened by Russian President Vladimir Putin, not as a major infrastructure feature. No – it’s Putin’s way to mark Crimea as his own, the journalist says.
“This bridge is an outrageous affront to Ukraine’s very credibility as a nation. Of course, from Putin’s perspective that’s the whole point,” he wrote. “The bridge cost Russia’s near-bankrupt government billions of dollars, but it offers Putin a formal physical and psychological appropriation of Ukrainian territory.”
Read more
https://cdni.rt.com/files/2018.05/thumbnail/5aeb3207fc7e9318478b45b3.jpgCyber-bomb Russia, McCain begs in new book
So an air raid on the bridge launched by Kiev is an appropriate response to the debacle, believes Rogan, whose background apparently includes a BA in War Studies from King’s College London.
“Fortunately Ukraine has the means to launch air strikes against the bridge in a manner that would render it at least temporarily unusable. Because of its significant length, the Ukrainian air force could strike the bridge while mitigating the risk of casualties by those traversing it,” he said.
So what would Putin do in response to such an insult to his supposed ego? Not much, according to Rogan. He will order an “escalation against Ukrainian interests in eastern Ukraine,” which, the commentator claims, is inevitable anyway because Putin wants to “slowly absorb Ukraine rather than conquer it outright.”
OK, where do we start?
A “near bankrupt” Russian government exists in a parallel universe, where Russia’s economy produces only gas and is in tatters from American sanctions. Kiev’s desire to win back Crimea, the people of which are quite happy to be back in Russia, is doubtful: you don’t cut supplies of freshwater and power to people whom you want to see as your fellow citizens. And why would the Kremlin seek to “slowly absorb” its western neighbor with all its crumbling infrastructure, international debt and partially hostile population is beyond comprehension.
Read more
https://cdni.rt.com/files/2018.05/thumbnail/5afacef9fc7e93b6618b45bd.jpgPutin drives Kamaz truck across newly-opened Crimean bridge (VIDEO)

But suppose the government in Kiev will actually have the guts to directly attack Russia, taking inspiration from Georgia, which started its ill-advised military adventure in South Ossetia in 2008 by killing Russian peacekeepers stationed there. Does Ukraine really have the means to damage the bridge, which, among other things, is a military asset defended by Russian forces?
There are two regiments of S-400 anti-aircraft systems deployed in Crimea – primarily to defend the Russian naval base on the peninsula. But their range is more than enough to shoot down missiles and aircraft trying to hit the bridge. Judging by what Rogan wrote elsewhere, he doesn’t doubt that the S-400 could make the better-armed Israel think twice.
Ukraine’s military assets remain in poor shape despite four years of increased military spending. It has several dozen Soviet tactical, ballistic missiles of the Tochka type – the weapon system closest to delivering an airstrike with no risk of losing manned aircraft – but it’s not clear how many of them are ready to be launched. The Ukrainian military would also have to deploy dozens of launchers within less than a hundred kilometers from the bridge to have a chance to overwhelm Russian defenses, and do so discretely to avoid preemptive counter-measures.
Ironically Rogan joins a long list of experts and politicians in Ukraine who have suggested various scenarios of attacking the Crimean bridge in the past few years, from retired general Igor Romanenko, who too envisioned a devastating airstrike, to nationalist leader Nikolay Kokhanovsky, who said his group “may hang a banner there” – or simply attack a Russian diplomatic mission instead. As the saying goes, the dog barks, but the caravan goes on.

Crimea was part of USSR , well done Putin !

That last sentence sums up Tom Rogan’s nonsense :D:D
The west is good at advising some states (Georgia, Ukraine) on how to confront Russia, but when the bear strikes, all they do is call for UN resolutions, sanctions and condemn Russia’s actions “in the strongest terms possible”.

It’s a beautiful bridge.
Some nations have fearless leaders. We need those kinds of leaders in Africa.
Good job Russia, good job Putin

Crimea is home to Russia Baltic navy fleet. Some people at cia thought if they takeover Ukraine that base will be their own. Well half of Ukraine has now permanently gone to Russia and the rest is still dependant on Russian oil.

This bridge is beautifully made and it took them 2-3 years only. Putin ataki upuzi.

So was Russia, and Ukraine, what are you trying to say

Gazprom announced that it is tired of being charitable to Ukraine. The Ukrainians pay below market rates for Russian gas because Russia uses their pipelines to transport gas to other European countries. So they know it is impossible for Russia to stop the flow of gas to Ukraine because it will affect the other countries. The Russians are planning new pipelines to bypass Ukraine. In the end, Ukraine’s belligerence will prove to be a costly mistake. First wapoteze shamba (Crimea) then cheap gas and transit fees.

hizi ujinga nilifikiria ni magufuli tu hufanya

Ona sasa, the usa convinced them they will get a pipeline of natural gas from Qatar through Iraq, Syria and Turkey to Ukraine. Well Qatar split from their puppet regional power Saudi Arabia over ME influence, half of Iraq is controlled by Iran and they have lost the Syria war to Russia/Iran as its only the west jets stopping a complete victory in South Syria against the west Isis.

Ukraine is f*cked for allowing the usa misadventures in their country.

Russia has no alternative. Unless they build pipelines through Belarus then Poland or through black sea. In both cases, the routes are longer and in any case, they will still pay transit fees

You are calling development ujinga?

You are wrong on this. Russia has an extensive network of oil/gas pipeline to europe. eu is wholly dependent on cheaper and readily available Russian oil/gas especially during fall and winter seasons. Gasprom has financial muscle to build more pipelines it needs. Their is even a joint german/Russian pipelines coming up. Modern natural gas plants produce less carbon emissions making them popular for industry.

If they wish tothey can take over Ukraine too ! Make USSR great again !

True, other pipelines might be longer, but this might be a price the Eu and Russia might be willing to pay to knock out the Ukrainian middleman. The Nord Stream is an undersea pipeline, which takes Russian gas straight to Germany. Russia supplies 40% of German gas needs. EU countries have interlinking pipelines, so it is actually possible for Russia to transport the gas straight to Germany, then reroute it to the other countries. Due to the Nord Stream, Western European countries like Germany do not suffer much when Russia and Ukraine have these disputes. It is Ukraine’s neighbors like Bulgaria, Romania, Serbia, Bosnia-Herzegovina and Macedonia that suffer the most.
In fact, the Nord Stream is thoroughly underutilized. It currently supplies only half of its capacity, due to EU restrictions on Gazprom. I think the Europeans restrict how much gas the Russian giant can supply because they do not want to be too dependent on the Russians. Nevertheless, Nord Stream 2 will come onstream by 2020, meaning Gazprom will be more than able to meet European demand.
So even if it might be a little more expensive, I’m thinking these countries might pick that option rather than depending on unstable Ukraine.

You beat me to it :D:D

Dont you think this will depend on the location of the gas/oil fields in Russia, bear in mind the size of Russia

You’re right, there might be many other factors to consider. Russia IS huge, one country having 11 time zones is very hard to fathom. I think the idea is not to cut off Ukraine completely, rather its just to cut them down to size. Show them that gas can be transported with or without their cooperation.

You must not be aware of Northstream I, II & Turkishstream pipelines. Kweli ujinga ni ulemavu.

The game changer is the Power of Siberia pipeline to be completed in 2019.

Oil and gas directly to China. Russia might not even need the European market any more.



so not being aware is ujinga?