TASS, the Russian State news service, says that an attempt by Ukraine to blow up the Kerch Strait bridge to Crimea was prevented when the Russians blew up a Ukrainian sea drone.
According to news reports, the Ukrainians tried three times to hit the famous bridge on September 1.
The Russians have created a sea barrier of sunken ships to protect the bridge from sea attacks. These obstacles channel any attacking vessel and give the Russian an opportunity to interdict them and destroy them.
But there is more to the story than what is in TASS.
According to a report on the Military Channel, the Ukrainian attempt to destroy the bridge was aided and abetted by US overhead assets coordinating the Ukrainian operation.
According to the report, the US fielded a Global Hawk Forte II (RQ-48) which is equipped with sophisticated sensors; a US Navy P-8A Poseidon (to track Russian ships and submarines); an Army CL-60 Artemis (Airborne Reconnaissance and Targeting Multi-Mission Intelligence System) and a Navy EP-3E Aries II, a multi-intelligence platform based on the venerable P-3.
These platforms were intended to support the Ukrainian attempt to probe vulnerabilities in Russia’s defenses adjacent to and on the bridge while also supporting the Ukrainian counter-offensive in southern Ukraine, the report said.
The Russians, at least so far, have said nothing other than that they had repulsed the attacks on the bridge.
The Kerch Strait bridge connects the Russian mainland to Crimea. It features a roadway and also supports the transit of freight trains. It is a vital roadway for Russian military operations in Crimea, Kherson and Zaphorize. The bridge is important enough that, after it was seriously damaged by a Ukrainian truck bomb attack in October 2022, and repaired, Vladimir Putin himself made a show of driving a Mercedes car across the bridge.
As in the case of Russia’s Nordstream pipeline, the US has made no secret of its desire to destroy the bridge. Whether the bridge can survive is anyone’s guess. especially when the US is pouring significant efforts into its destruction.
The overall situation in the Kherson and Zaphorize regions, the focus of the main thrust of Ukraine’s counter offensive, appears to show that Ukraine will not succeed in its declared objectives to breach Russia’s defenses and re-take Melitopol. Meanwhile the Ukrainians have lost significant amounts of armor and incurred heavy casualties. Not only have these losses taken a toll, but many of Ukraine’s best units have been chewed up.
Washington’s best hope is to try and stabilize the front and bring the intense fighting to a halt, buying time for Ukraine to mobilize new forces, train them and reequip their troops. That enterprise would take six months to a year if it happens.
The plan, if it can be called that, is so far based on Russia’s reluctance to commit the bulk of its forces into an offensive to break the Ukrainian army. While there has been talk about Russia launching a big operation in the Kupyansk area, it has so far not materialized. Some suggest that Moscow is waiting for Ukrainian forces to be reduced even further before Russia’s generals are willing to risk a true offensive.
The problem for the Russians is that if they wait too long they will have to repeat everything again and take losses that the Russian public might not be willing to accept. There is a lot of talk in Moscow and on social media, some by serious politicians, that Russia should nuke Ukraine and go home. Others say that Russia should attack the supply depots in Germany and Poland and elsewhere, in effect to strangle the Ukrainian army.
None of these proposals has gained much traction, but that could change if the war is drawn out. Oddly, Ukrainian attacks using drones and sabotage of installations on Russian territory may backfire on Ukraine by creating significant public anger in Russia that will require strong action by the government.
The potential for new troubles has been aided and abetted by an interview with Ukraine’s chief of military intelligence Kyrylo Budanov, who says that Ukraine should take the war to Russian territory. This would mean using Ukraine’s main army forces to attack across Russia’s border (not merely fire artillery shells, send in swat teams or carry out arson, drone attacks and assassinations).
His interview, if it is taken seriously, could have unintended consequences for Ukraine by stepping up the overall Russian response beyond the alleged limits of the “special military operation.” For example, that could mean massive attacks on Kyiv or Odessa, or other actions designed to cripple Ukraine and its government.
Budanov makes many claims and a good many of them have to be taken with a grain of salt. However, we don’t know which ones the Russians will take seriously.
Meanwhile, Washington continues to take big risks, starting with its decisions to supply cluster munitions and, now, depleted uranium anti-tank shells. The use of US intelligence assets to target Russia is also a risk that could lead to a bigger conflict in Europe. If the Washington escalation continues, it is hard to predict what will happen in the weeks ahead.
Stephen Bryen is a senior fellow at the Center for Security Policy and the Yorktown Institute. This article was originally published on Weapons and Strategy, his Substack. Asia Times is republishing the article with permission.