It’s a legitimate target. Calling the attack “terrorism” is silly.
How far back down the supply chain can one go and still have it be a defensive act of war? The USA is providing all the munitions for Ukraine. If Russia dropped the Brooklyn Bridge (or some other bridge that would block a major harbor) into the Hudson River would that be a legitimate tactic of war?
> It’s a legitimate target. Calling the attack “terrorism” is silly. <
Absolutely correct. It is certainly open to debate who is ultimately responsible for this war. Good people can have very different views on that subject.
What shouldn’t be open to debate is that a bridge is a legitimate military target. As would be a factory or a rail yard. So what then is terrorism? It’s when civilians are deliberately targeted. The 9/11 Twin Towers attack is a perfect example of that. The Towers had no military value at all. None.
The West blowing up pipelines and now bridges bodes not well for the Ukie leadership. What happens when Vlad decides the same strategy? He does of course have all the capabilities to bring Ukie infrastructure to a leveled heap, water treatment plants, electricity, bridges, train centers, dams, sewage treatment, cell phone stations, etc….Vlad has shown much restraint.
Why is the West so intent on committing suicide? Fighting bad Vlad down to the last Ukie is insane ( the Ukie population is not fully behind that) but serves to demilitarizing them so no problem for Vlad.
Poking the Bear WILL most certainly have many huge consequences, stay tuned.