Originally Posted by
Ninthace
That is a short term argument and there is a lot of maritime traffic to Rostov that could be interdicted. Is there a counter argument based on the longer term post war requirement? For example the relief and rebuilding of Mariupol?
If the access to the sea is not interdicted now, then the assumption of recovery of Mariupol is moot. Any action that precludes access to Crimea from the southeast, and impacts the ability for Russia to transfer munitions around to Sevastopol are worth considering. Look on the brightside, the rebuilding of a bridge and dredging of the channel gets to be paid from the funds frozen from the Russian accounts, there has been considerable consideration of that outcome. The problem is immediate, and that is of more concern now than later.
The good thing is, that the discussion at all, makes a need for Russia to reset AAA/SAM capability. There are 4 x S300 locations around Crimea that have been identified and indicated in the public domain. Of those, only one would have any effect to a strike on the western end of Kerch's bridge.
With a 300-600km range of cruise missiles that the URA has come up with, the Red forces have new problems with the defense of their MSR, and that is going to be taking away capability from other areas. Each battery takes combat teams to operate, so dispersal of Red force away from the FEBA is not a bad thing.
If Lavrov is sensitive to having missiles fired at infrastructure, perhaps next time he will be a little more careful in starting something without consideration of the consequences. My cat has about as much of a say as Lavrov has in the affairs of the evil empire of Vlad, and at least my cat is occasionally friendly.