On October 8th 2022 the bridge built by Russian connecting it with Crimea underwent a mysterious
and sudden deconstruction event.
The world was quick to give credit for the explosion to Ukraine, but the nation hasn't
actually come forward yet to claim responsibility.
It's almost certain that the attack on the Kerch bridge was the work of Ukraine, but
the question is how.
Using aircraft is out of the question given that the entire area is very well protected
by S-400 and S-300 air defense units.
American stealth aircraft could likely evade these defenses to get close enough to launch
stand-off munitions, but Ukraine simply lacks the capabilities.
Missile attack is also extremely unlikely, as to date the United States has refused to
give Ukraine the long-range attack weapons it has been asking for for months.
The distance from Ukrainian held territory to the Kerch bridge is also considerable-
over 120 miles.
This does put the bridge inside range of the US Army Tactical Combat Missile System, or
ATACMs, but this is the exact weapon that the US has so far withheld for fear of Ukraine
using it to strike inside Russia and escalate the war.
But it isn't impossible this is the weapon responsible, given that right before the attack
on the bridge, Ukraine had offered to give the US complete oversight of all targets it
used long-range weapons on.
There's a possibility that the bridge was mined by Ukrainian special forces, who have
shown incredible skill and creativity throughout this conflict.
However the currents under the bridge are treacherous and the waters near it patrolled
by the Russian navy.
It would then require operators to make a significant climb up to the floor of the bridge
itself to plant explosives.
Not impossible, just extremely improbable.
What's likely is that the Kerch bridge attack was undertaken with use of a truck bomb- though
details are extremely scarce.
Was the driver of the truck aware of his payload or did Ukraine use a suicide bomber to carry
out the attack?
Suicide attacks have not been a feature of the Ukrainian playbook, so this is unlikely-
which likely means that the payload on the truck was unknown to the driver.
The attack managed to kill three people, damage one of the rail lines, and destroy one segment
used by cars.
It has crippled motor vehicle traffic in and out of the area, and put a serious hamper
on the use of the motorway to move supplies and troops into Crimea.
But if the goal of the attack was to shut down Russia's capability to use it for resupply,
then the attack failed- within days the all-important railways were once more operational.
Russia famously uses rail to resupply its troops, a serious deficiency because it lacks
the truck transport capability to then move those supplies from safe rail heads to the
front lines.
The further away the front is, the slower Russia can move supplies as it requires its
limited truck pool to drive further for longer.
But the attack has left Russia shaken to its core, as evidenced by the fact that in retaliation
to the attack Putin ordered a barrage of missiles against mostly civilian targets in Ukraine.
Kyiv was hit specially hard with multiple civilians killed as missiles landed on a pedestrian
bridge- or near it, Russian precision weapons have never really been...precise- and a public
park.
The attack was almost a knee-jerk reaction to once more being humiliated by Ukraine in
a place that Ukrainian forces were supposed to be incapable of reaching.
Even more than that though, it's not just a war crime, but also foolish as Russia expends
what remaining precision weapons it has attacking civilians instead of the military targets
that are even now defeating it on the battlefield.
While the attack on the Kerch bridge may have been a tactical failure, it had significant
strategic value.
For starters, it once more puts Russian on the backfoot.
The Kerch bridge is a critical link between Russia and occupied Crimea, through which
much of the weapons, personnel, and vehicles needed for the war in Ukraine flow.
Severing this vital logistical artery would cripple the ability to resupply Russian forces
in Crimea and the south of Ukraine.
But just the fact that Ukraine managed to attack what is supposed to be a very secure
feature far from the front shows the vulnerability of Russia to asymmetrical attacks, and defending
against these types of threats is extremely resource intensive.
When the United States was waging its wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, it had to devote
significant resources to countering asymmetrical threats from terrorists to guerilla attacks
on supply bases, consuming a lot of its manpower and limiting the scope of operations it could
undertake.
The US however is far more capable than Russia and was able to successfully prosecute offensives
while protecting from asymmetrical threats.
A lack of capability isn't the only difference though, as Russia must now deidicate manpower
and resources to protecting areas once seen as safely out of reach of Ukraine- and manpower
and resources are two things that Russia is in critically low supply of.
The attack also had a significant effect on the morale of both the Russian people and
its military.
Every time that Ukraine does the impossible, it makes Russians feel more vulnerable.
This has a very real psychological effect on both the population and conscripts which
are even now being thrown into combat.
If Ukraine can strike such sensitive areas as the Kerch bridge and supposedly safe air
bases deep inside Crimea, then where else can it hit?
And the frontline Russian conscript has to also ask himself- was this the work of saboteurs,
or is Ukraine fielding advanced NATO weapons that are now being aimed directly at you?
It's a hugely demoralizing turn of events for sure.
The bridge however has significant value as a target for one other reason- it basically
immortalizes Russia's annexation of Crimea.
It's an impressive feat of Russian engineering, stretching over 10 miles (16km) in length
and featuring a span for both rail and road traffic.
Construction began in 2015, a year after Crimea was seized by Russia, and meant to legitimize
Russia's claim to the territory.
At a cost of $3.7 billion, the bridge was completed in record time in 2019, officially
making it the longest bridge in Europe.
Putin himself was present at the ceremony opening it for traffic, signaling a new height
of Russian power and prestige.
And that's why the bridge has significant value for Ukraine as a propaganda target.
Destroying, or even just damaging the bridge, is like directly attacking Putin and the legitimacy
of his special military operation.
But for Ukrainians, the bridge is a symbol of Russia's aggression and the great crime
they perpetuated in 2014 by seizing Crimea- traditionally known as the jewel of the Black
Sea for its vast beauty.
Destroying the Kerch bridge is not just a strategic goal of Ukraine, but an act of revenge.
If in the future Ukraine can manage to fully down this impressive span, it will almost
certainly signal not just the collapse of Russia's supply lines into Crimea, but the
very collapse of Russia's war efforts in Ukraine.
Now go check out Why is ukraine's counteroffensive so successful?
Or click this other video instead!