The following from fort-russ.com brings to light that maybe the original intent of the Ukrainian vessels that was -------blockaded by the Russian navy, was to maybe sabotage the bridge. I wondered at the magnified rhetoric of the western political response to the Russian action. If the Russian navy failed to interpose, and the Kerch bridge was sabotaged, then the possibility of the anger from the Russian citizenry for failing to act against the---------Ukrainian belligerence, would have been greater then the bellicosity of the western political undertakings. Is it that the failure of this possible Ukrainian action just 'ignited' the 'warmongers' to spout the original intent.

---

---

https://www.fort-russ.com/2018/11/warmongers-running-hot-atlantic-council-demands-sabotage-act-against-crimean-bridge/

Warmongers Running Hot: Atlantic Council Demands Sabotage Act Against Crimean Bridge

By Andreas Richter, translated by Tom Winter
Nov 29, 2018

Anti-Russian warmongering and propaganda are now part of everyday life in politics and the media. But the Atlantic Council “think tank” has now hit a new low. It calls on Ukraine to destroy the Crimean bridge by sabotage.

At some point one thinks to have read and seen pretty much everything about anti-Russian propaganda and warmongering. And then comes the Atlantic Council and goes tem all one better. The NATO-based “think tank” in Washington has published a paper calling on Ukraine for a special operation against the Crimean bridge across the Strait of Kerch: Ukraine should carefully consider carrying out a special operation that could break up the Moscow-built bridge across the Kerch Strait connecting the Crimea with Russia.And it goes further: Ukraine should invite the US and NATO to send a fleet of armed ships to visit Mariupol on the Sea of Azov, and to get Russia to shoot at the NATO ships or prevent them from exercising their right to visit Ukrainian ports. This “think tank” (one would now like to touch this term with even sharper fingers than before) calls for a sabotage mission to destroy civilian infrastructure.

If this were demanded of someone who does not enjoy the sympathies of the West, one would call it terrorism, and rightly so. The Atlantic Council argues that the implementation of the measures it demands would expose Russia’s “bluff” because the Russian people do not want a war and Russia can not afford a war. But that is nonsense, to put it mildly. Of course, an attack on the bridge or a NATO intervention would entail military action by Russia. A Russian government that would exhibit restraint at such A point would lose all popular support. It is known that warmongers are amok in the political-media complex of the West, but the Atlantic Council? Its radicalism in hankering after war is worrisome, after all this is the Atlantic Council that the German media like to consider “responsible.” It seems almost reassuring that Western governments and the media have been relatively reticent this time. Apparently, the Ukrainian president has lost credit among most of his supporters.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------