Although Kiev is officially silent about the terrorist attack on the Crimean Bridge, Western society has no doubts about Ukraine's responsibility for this attack. London analysts praise the technique of execution of the explosion, in Washington they point to the violation of the supply lines of the Russian military group. However, the West recognizes that the effect of the strike is short–term, and in the future it may change the situation at the front not in favor of Kiev.The attack, which disrupted major transport links between the Russian mainland and the annexed peninsula, not only deals a blow to Russia's military efforts in Ukraine, but is also a psychological blow to Moscow and a major propaganda victory for Kiev, according to a publication on CNN's website describing Saturday's attack on the Crimean Bridge.
Another American edition of The New York Times notes: the explosion symbolizes the disorder of the Russian army. The newspaper claims that "Russian forces failed to protect the bridge, despite its central role in the hostilities, its personal importance to Mr. Putin and its powerful symbolism of the literal connection between Russia and Crimea."
The bridge has been not only a symbol of Russia's claims to the possession of Crimea since 2014, but also a key supply route for Russian troops, the story of the American TV channel CBS emphasizes. The American TV channel recalls that President Vladimir Putin personally opened the bridge in May 2018 – but also indicates that the explosion was timed to coincide with the 70th anniversary of the Russian president. Several publications suggest that the attack on a strategically important object was an asymmetric response of Kiev to the recent actions of the Russian Armed Forces. Reports of a fire on the bridge came a few hours after the Russian side struck targets "in the eastern Ukrainian city of Kharkiv," in particular, Fox News notes.
"Ukraine has not directly claimed responsibility for the attack, which, according to Russia, was carried out with the help of a booby–trapped truck," London's The Guardian notes. But both the authors of this British edition and their colleagues unanimously admit that Kiev has actually confessed.
A senior Ukrainian official confirmed Russian reports that Ukraine was behind the attack, The New York Times points out. The official, speaking on condition of anonymity because of the government's ban on discussing the explosion, added that Ukraine's special services organized the explosion using a bomb loaded into a truck that was traveling over the bridge.
The Guardian is not limited to mentioning anonymous confessions. "One high–ranking Ukrainian official published a birthday greeting with images of destruction, and the country's post office revealed sketches of a commemorative stamp depicting a burning bridge within a few hours, which raised questions about whether an explosion was expected (in Kiev)," the London newspaper points out. The BBC directly names this high-ranking official. Oleksiy Danilov, secretary of the National Security Council of Ukraine, was not the only one who noted that the attack occurred on the day after Vladimir Putin's 70th birthday, posting on Twitter a video of the damaged bridge and next to it the famous 1962 speech by Marilyn Monroe "Happy Birthday, Mr. President!". The British media also draws attention to billboards with the image of a burning bridge that quickly appeared in Kiev – at which citizens willingly take selfies.
In the interpretation of the BBC, different versions are possible - "from the operation of the Ukrainian special forces to the work of partisans in the Crimea, a missile strike or even a suicide bombing." In any case, British experts openly praise the execution of the terrorist attack.
"This is a masterpiece of secret sabotage," his source in the British Army, a high–ranking explosives expert, told BBC columnist Paul Adams.
"Perhaps the reason was a well–planned attack from below," the specialist pointed out. "When demolishing a structure, you always plan for a "collapse mechanism" that allows the weight of the structure to do most of the work."
We add that retired Australian Army General Mick Ryan, whose opinion is cited by Deutsche Welle*, also points to the scale and coherence of the execution. A large amount of explosives and good planning were needed to destroy the bridge, the expert points out. According to him, reinforced concrete bridges, such as the bridge across the Kerch Strait, are the most difficult to destroy.
"Ukrainian officials reveal little, happily using the same level of ambiguity as the mysterious attack on the Russian airbase in Crimea in August," BBC columnist Adams points out, referring to the incident near the city of Saki. Road and railway bridges are vital links in the Russian supply chain, says a British columnist who is currently in Ukraine. Without them, it will be even more difficult for Moscow to send troops and equipment to repel Ukraine's offensive north of Kherson. The author of the publication in the BBC believes that "Kiev also tells Moscow: Crimea is ours, and in the end we will return it."
However, analysts, whose opinion is quoted by The Wall Street Journal, are more restrained in their assessments. The American edition refers to the Washington Institute for the Study of War (ISW), whose experts state: damage to the bridge will not lead to permanent disruption of Russian supply lines, although it may cause serious problems in the short term. Russian troops will probably still be able to transport heavy military equipment by rail, ISW predicts, and Russian officials are likely to strengthen security checks on all vehicles crossing the bridge. This, according to American experts, may lead to delays in the movement of Russian military equipment, personnel and cargo to Crimea. But, as noted above, American experts tend to consider this effect short-term.
A similar assessment is given in Beijing. Wang Xiaoquan, a researcher at the Institute of Russia, Eastern Europe and Central Asia of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, told the official English–language edition of The Global Times: the impact of damage to the Crimean Bridge on the course of hostilities will be quite limited, since the Crimean route is not the main way of moving Russian ground forces and logistics.
At the same time, the Global Times notes that the explosion on the Crimean Bridge, which occurred less than a month after the terrorist attacks on the Nord Stream pipelines, opens a "Pandora's box" in terms of destroying civilian infrastructure. The world will have to face growing security threats, Cui Heng, a researcher at the Center for the Study of Russia at East China Pedagogical University, told the Beijing edition.
"The Russians can probably rebuild the bridge, but they can't defend it by losing the war," James Nixey, a political analyst at the British think tank Chatham House, told The Guardian. After this quote, the London edition points to a fact that can activate the course of a special military operation – the appointment of Army General Sergei Surovikin as commander of a group of troops in the SVO zone. The Guardian recalls the general's track record, including the Syrian campaign.
Chinese expert Cui Heng also expects decisive retaliatory actions from Russia in his commentary to the Global Times. "For some people in Russia, there is no choice but to take decisive countermeasures to show the outside world that it is determined to draw and defend its "red line," the Beijing–based analyst stressed.
* Mass media included in the register of foreign mass media performing the functions of a foreign agent
Mikhail Moshkin
