The opening of the Crimean Bridge was truly a world event. Not only Russian, but also international media devoted their materials to this. And some were even generous with recommendations of a terrorist nature.

Do you respect yourself?

The tones were different. Some admired the Russian achievement, while others wrote that the Kremlin had strengthened control over the “occupied Crimea” and committed another violation international law. However, among all the publications, an article (though written in the “Opinions” section) of the Washington Examiner authored by Tom Rogan stood out.

There are certain common sense thoughts in the author's text. He is right that the bridge "is an outrageous insult to Ukraine and undermines its authority as a nation." Well, yes, that’s how it is, in general. The bridge became the answer to all those who assured that the Russians would not be able to build it. The bridge became the answer to all those who dreamed of continuing to blackmail the Crimeans and the whole of Russia due to problems in supplying the peninsula. Finally, the bridge became proof that the Kremlin really cares about the welfare of the residents of Crimea.

Yes, insults and undermining of authority must be responded to. But how? The author proposes that Kyiv carry out serious internal reforms, deradicalize ideology, engage in effective diplomacy, and stop the ongoing civil war and negotiate with Moscow about some new, post-Crimean modus vivendi? No. The author’s recommendation is simple, and it is included in the title of the article: “Ukraine needs to blow up Putin’s Crimean Bridge".

Moreover, this is not the case when the editor puts a “fried” headline in order to attract readers: here it reflects the meaning of the text. In which the author not only repeats the recommendation, but also gives instructions on methods for its implementation.

According to Mr. Rogan, Ukraine could launch a series of airstrikes on the bridge and make it “at least temporarily unusable.” And at the same time, strike at Putin’s authority. It is immediately obvious that the author specializes mainly in Middle Eastern texts. In that region, such methods may be applicable. In Europe, in relation to nuclear power, they are, to put it mildly, fraught.

Is the West with them?

Despite the dubious quality of the analysis, the article received enormous attention in Russia. The Russian Embassy in Washington was outraged, angry rebuke followed both from famous journalists, and from parliamentarians. “Calls for such actions around the world constitute serious crimes, and the Investigative Committee of Russia should consider opening a criminal case against the author of the article,” says Russian senator Franz Klintsevich.

And in this regard, a logical question arises: is an article, and even one not published in a leading Western media, worth such attention? It’s worth it, because it stimulates certain forces in Ukraine to carry out possible terrorist attacks against the Crimean Bridge. It gives them the illusion (precisely the illusion) that the West, if it doesn’t support it, at least won’t hit them in the neck for such actions.

And such thoughts are already circulating in Kyiv. The Crimean Bridge, which is an unconditional Russian achievement and the most important instrument of Russia’s policy towards Ukraine (if only because it will make Crimea an attractive showcase for other Ukrainian regions), has simultaneously turned into Russia’s Achilles heel, perfect option for impact. This is both a transport hub and a symbol of Russia, and, in what we can agree with Mr. Rogen, proof of Putin’s authority.

Naturally, the Ukrainian Air Force (more precisely, its remnants) will not launch any strikes, because they are fraught with retaliation Russian actions. The scale of which, contrary to Rogan’s opinion, may be such that, as a result, Bandera Avenue in Kyiv may be renamed again. It would be much more effective and safer to carry out an attempted terrorist attack with the hands of neo-Nazi battalions like Azov, who are happy to try. After all, they are actively demanding that the authorities take more active action against the “occupiers” and are ready to wholesale subscribe to Rogan’s words that “any country that allows its territory to be stolen and does not break off relations with the thief is taking a step towards destruction.”

Think right

How should Russia respond to this threat? First, of course, fulfill Klintsevich’s wishes and initiate a case against Mr. Rogan for calling for terrorist attacks. Secondly, the consequences that will occur for Kyiv if Ukrainian citizens attempt to damage the bridge must be clearly and unambiguously announced at the highest level. Yes, perhaps Petro Poroshenko needs a war with Russia (even if it is lost militarily and entails part of the territories, it will allow him to remove pieces from the board, where the game is going extremely poorly for him, and build a new alignment). However, it is not needed by a significant part of the Ukrainian establishment, for whom a sharp deterioration in Russian-Western relations will not bring either dollars or even hryvnia. But they can easily deprive you of your fortune.

Finally, thirdly, we need to realize that Moscow’s inaction also contributes to Kyiv’s adventurous projects. For several months now, Poroshenko has been engaged in demonstrative provocations, and each time they become more and more daring. The latest of these, we recall, was the taking of hostages from among the Russians (the crew of the ship "Nord") and aggression against the RIA Novosti Ukraine portal. The head of this publication has been detained, and an article of “treason” is being prepared for him.

Moscow's position is clear and in some ways even logical. Russia does not want to aggravate the situation before the World Cup, and also does not prevent Ukraine from doing things that will only further discredit official Kyiv in front of its Western partners. However, you need to clearly understand the risks - and they are that Poroshenko is confident in his own safety. The point is that the “red lines” set out for him (which, apparently, were not clearly outlined for Poroshenko personally) are too close to Russia - both literally and figuratively. Therefore, it is possible that at some point Poroshenko will consider that Moscow will swallow much larger provocations just before the start or during the championship - for example, an attack on Donbass or a terrorist attack on a bridge. And such thoughts need to be burned out of his head. By all available means.

On Tuesday, May 15, Russian President Vladimir Putin opened the Crimean Bridge across the Kerch Strait, connecting the Ukrainian Crimean peninsula with Russian territory. Putin did this in typical fashion, leading a convoy of cars across the bridge.

Now the time has come for Ukraine to destroy elements of this bridge.

While such a move would represent an escalation of the conflict with Putin and would inevitably provoke retaliation from Russia, the bridge is a blatant insult to Ukraine as a nation. Of course, from Putin's point of view, this is the whole point. The bridge has cost the bankrupt Russian government billions of dollars, but it is clear evidence of Russia's physical and psychological appropriation of parts of Ukraine.

Fortunately, Ukraine has the means to carry out air strikes on this bridge in a manner that will at least temporarily render it inoperable. Thanks to the impressive length of the bridge, Ukrainian planes will be able to strike it, minimizing the likelihood of casualties among those who will be driving along it at the time of the strike.

Context

The Crimean Bridge causes horror in Kyiv

Crimean Bridge - Putin's geopolitical victory

How will Putin react?

Most likely, he will decide to increase the intensity of the offensive against Ukrainian interests in the east of this country. However, this escalation is likely to happen over the next few months anyway, because Putin wants to gradually absorb Ukraine instead of outright taking it over (he just doesn't want to lose the benefit that the World Cup will bring him by provoking a new diplomatic crisis ). But if the bridge is disabled, even temporarily, it will be a powerful signal from Kyiv to Moscow - a signal that Ukrainians will not accept such a formalization of Putin’s seizure of their territories. The United States can and should support Ukraine in this, relying on our military power.

Air strikes will also achieve two other goals: to draw attention to the cronyism behind the project (the contract for the bridge was awarded to Putin's favorite oligarch, Arkady Rotenberg), and to challenge Russian nationalist narratives in a language that Russians understand. As for the second point, consider that all RT's coverage of the opening ceremony of this bridge contained references to Putin's masculinity and the national superiority of great Russia. Therefore, bombing the bridge would be a sharp personal response to Putin's ambitions and his propaganda narrative.

At this moment, the moral urgency of action is clear. If a state puts up with the seizure of its territories and allows the aggressor to annex them, then this state has already embarked on the path of extinction.

InoSMI materials contain assessments exclusively of foreign media and do not reflect the position of the InoSMI editorial staff.

“The Crimean Bridge is a blatant insult to the essence of Ukraine as a state,” Tom Rogan, a journalist for the influential American publication The Washington Examiner, said shortly after its opening. The columnist, without a shadow of embarrassment, called on the hysterical Kyiv to solve the problem radically - simply destroy the overpass.

ON THIS TOPIC

The completion of construction, the author stated, would allow Moscow to “take possession of the territory of Ukraine physically and psychologically.” He didn’t bother to explain what exactly Rogan meant, but he immediately gave out his recipe for saving Independence Square from the “Russian occupiers.” Kyiv, the journalist said, should launch air strikes on the Crimean Bridge. Well, or make sure that Moscow does not have the opportunity to use it.

This was followed by specific recommendations from the “genius of military strategy and tactics.” The American suggested that his Ukrainian friends strike at a certain point on the overpass, which would reduce the number of casualties, but at the same time take it out of operation. In Kyiv, by the way, the idea was welcomed. Which, however, is quite understandable: adequacy is clearly not the strong point of the current Ukrainian government.

Rogan later wrote on the Internet that he had a “wonderful conversation” with Ukrainian Foreign Minister Pavel Klimkin. The journalist said that he promised him support from Kyiv. It is unlikely that other representatives of the modern political elite of Square reacted differently to the American’s calls. This also applies to the President of Ukraine Petro Poroshenko, who, as you know, is ready to be friends with even the bald devil, most importantly, against Russia.

Independence Square, which is filled with militaristic frenzy mixed with fierce hatred of Russia, has plenty of its own daredevils proposing radical solutions. Thus, even before the opening of the bridge, the former deputy chief of the country’s General Staff, Igor Romanenko, spoke about the possibility of an attack on it. He noted that the overpass is vulnerable to aviation, sea- and ground-based missiles. It is not known whether Rogan was inspired by Mr. Romanenko’s speech, but both think in the same direction. There is an opinion that geniuses have the same thoughts. Fools, they say, do the same.

However, even if Kyiv decides to attack the Crimean Bridge, it is unlikely to use its own armed forces for these purposes. Why, if there is enough cannon fodder from all kinds of nationalist organizations? During Independence, they were thoroughly brainwashed, instilled with some kind of bestial hatred and anger towards Russia. Many of them are now fighting in the Donbass, killing civilians without blinking an eye and razing residential areas with artillery. If they receive an order to attack the bridge, they will carry it out. Perhaps even with a smile on his face. Against “Russian aggression”, for independence, “Ridnu Nenko”, against “occupation” and so on.

Ukrainian nationalists have repeatedly spoken about the possibility of sabotage. One of the latest in this field was the head of the radicals from the OUN Volunteer Movement (an extremist organization banned in Russia - Ed.) Nikolai Kokhanivsky. He threatened to stage a provocation on the day the bridge opened. Fortunately, everything worked out. Either the nationalist is so brave only in words, or our special services worked well. In any case, Russian President Vladimir Putin arrived at the site on May 15, talked with the builders, and said “Let’s go!” and got into an orange KamAZ. The bridge is open. And in Ukraine for several more days there will be numerous streams of bile from journalists, politicians, and, to be honest, from the Ukrainians themselves.

No matter what loud statements are heard from across the ocean or from the opposite side of Perekop, it seems that “a mouse will not slip through” onto the Crimean Bridge. According to the head Federal service security (FSB) Alexander Bortnikov, the situation in the area of ​​the facility is under the complete control of the security forces. And if so, then the military, intelligence services and law enforcement agencies are ready to stop any possible sabotage. And what will they do to stop it? There are a great many options here for a variety of occasions.

The defense system of the Crimean Bridge has several components: aerospace, land, sea and underwater. The Kosmos-K satellite closely monitors the Kerch Strait region from cosmic heights. Aviation groups of the Black Sea Fleet and the Southern Military District are on duty in the skies over the peninsula.

On land, the bridge is guarded on both sides by units of the Southern Military District. Among other things, the S-400 Triumph anti-aircraft missile system is on duty, designed to destroy enemy missiles and protect critical infrastructure. You can be sure that the complex will not miss either ballistic or cruise missiles. The bridge is also protected from air strikes by the Pantsir-S1 missile and gun system. It is designed for the defense of military and industrial facilities from aircraft and helicopters, as well as high-precision cruise missiles. If Kyiv or the forces behind it decide to attack the bridge from the sea, they will be met by the coastal missile system bastion. Its task is to destroy surface ships and even aircraft carrier groups.

Guns and missiles are, of course, good, but constant monitoring and comprehensive control over situations is no less important. As they say, forewarned is forearmed. For these purposes, the Sunflower over-the-horizon radar station, as well as the Voronezh missile attack warning system, operate.

At sea, the Crimean Bridge is ready to be protected by ships of the Black Sea Fleet. Small missile ships of the Shtil type are very convenient for repelling sabotage. In addition, a special naval brigade of the Russian National Guard is being created in Kerch. It will be armed with an anti-sabotage boat of the Rook type.

I have something to answer probable enemy and underwater. The Plavnik water area control system calculates an approaching object and turns on the warning system 300 meters away - this is a warning that it is necessary to leave the restricted area. If a saboteur approaches and reaches a distance of 100 meters from the bridge, the complex turns on such a powerful sound signal that he cannot stand it and floats back.

Thus, the Crimean Bridge is currently a perfectly protected object both from the air and from land and sea. It is possible that in Ukraine or in the West there will be those who want to test our defense to the teeth. But the consequences of such a rash step for the attackers will be the most negative.

Let us remind you that the historic opening of the Crimean Bridge took place on Tuesday, May 15. Russian President Vladimir Putin was the first to cross the new overpass. The head of state also spoke with builders and everyone involved in the project.

Passenger traffic on the bridge was launched on May 16. In just an hour, about a thousand people used it, moving in both directions. The bridge has become the longest in our country - its length is about 19 kilometers.

* The organization is prohibited on the territory of the Russian Federation

Roman Shimaev

The Crimean Bridge is an enemy infrastructure that must be destroyed. This is what Igor Mosiychuk, deputy of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine, thinks. The official representative of the Russian Foreign Ministry, Maria Zakharova, noted that the words of the Ukrainian politician are “a call to commit a terrorist attack.” Last week, the Investigative Committee already opened two criminal cases against American journalists from the Washington Examiner due to material that proposed blowing up the Crimean Bridge. Representatives of the region noted that the development of Crimea will continue to irritate the Ukrainian authorities.

• Traffic on the road part of the Crimean Bridge
• Reuters
• Pavel Rebrov

Verkhovna Rada deputy Igor Mosiychuk called the Crimean Bridge “enemy infrastructure” that must be destroyed. In his opinion, the liquidation of a strategic object of the “aggressor country” is normal practice when waging an armed conflict.

“Any normal country in the world that is at war for its territory, for its people, of course, strives to destroy the enemy’s infrastructure - a bridge, a railway point, an airport,” he said on the TV channel. "112 Ukraine".

The deputy emphasized that he would have given the order for the bombing if he had held the post of the country's defense minister.

"Call for a terrorist act"

Moscow’s reaction to yet another statement from Ukrainian politicians regarding the Crimean Bridge was not long in coming. As noted official representative Russian Foreign Ministry Maria Zakharova, the words of the Rada deputy are “a call to commit a terrorist act.”

A representative of the Russian Foreign Ministry recalled that such statements are criminally punishable in Russia. Thus, on May 17, the Investigative Committee opened a case against the American journalist of the Washington Examiner Tom Rogan, who wrote an article entitled “Ukraine should blow up Putin’s Crimean Bridge.”

A day later, Russian investigators opened a criminal case against another American media employee. The actions of the editor of the weekly online magazine Washington Examiner Hugo Gurdon are seen as propaganda of terrorism, the Investigative Committee explained.

Meanwhile, the head of the Republic of Crimea, Sergei Aksyonov, urged people not to pay attention to calls to damage the bridge connecting the Crimean peninsula with the Taman peninsula.

“Don't read or listen. Their insanity is getting stronger,” the Kryminform agency quotes him as saying.

He emphasized that the Russian special services are effectively fulfilling their duties. “Nothing threatens either the bridge, or Crimea, or Russian Federation“, the head of the region emphasized.

“Kyiv is irritated by the development of Crimea”

In turn, Deputy of the State Council of Crimea Vladislav Ganzhara, in a conversation with RT, expressed confidence that measures aimed at developing the peninsula will continue to be accompanied by aggressive criticism from Ukraine.

“The more Crimea develops, the more infrastructure facilities will be opened: its own power plants, federal highways, including Tavrida. These facts will continue to irritate Kyiv, and we will continue to hear this bile, aggressive rhetoric. But in fact, this does not affect the lives of Crimeans or the development of the peninsula,” said Ganzhara.

Also on topic

On the website of the American weekly Washington Examiner, material appeared calling for “bombing the Crimean Bridge.” The author of the column states...

As the Crimean parliamentarian recalled, Ukrainian politicians tried to convince everyone that it is impossible to build a bridge, and now they continue their “empty statements”, fantasizing about the destruction of the crossing of the Kerch Strait. Any attempt to damage the bridge will be “suppressed in the most severe manner,” Ganzhara added.

“Although the bridge stands strong, its safety will depend only on Russian security tactics. The international community, of course, will not participate in sabotage, but, without a doubt, will find the right words to support Ukraine’s militant fervor towards the peninsula,” said State Duma deputy from Crimea, deputy chairman of the Committee on Nationalities Affairs Ruslan Balbek.

According to him, now no one will say how much longer the Ukrainian authorities will threaten the region.

“Therefore, with regard to the Crimean Bridge, the key to safety is to keep the gunpowder dry,” he explained.

Crimean Bridge

Another anti-Russian information wave arose in Ukraine immediately after the opening of the road part of the Crimean Bridge. According to the senator from Sevastopol, a member of the committee on international affairs Olga Timofeeva, the hysteria of the Ukrainian side will continue as the national economy declines.

“This hysteria will continue as long as the Ukrainian economy degrades, and it will degrade. Accordingly, any of our positive achievements will cause such hysteria, but moving from it to action is actually a declaration of war. It is unlikely that the Ukrainian side will agree to this,” noted a member of the Federation Council.

Let us recall that on May 15, Russian President Vladimir Putin took part in the opening ceremony of the road part of the Crimean Bridge. During the solemn event, the head of state drove at the head of a convoy of trucks driving a KamAZ truck over the Kerch Strait.

“Everything is comfortable, chic, durable, I hope. This is a good modern... asphalt concrete mixture. I think people will like it,” Putin said on the Rossiya 24 TV channel.

In the first 24 hours, over 20 thousand people crossed the Crimean Bridge. Vehicle. As of May 21, this number reached almost 90 thousand.

He stated that he considers it necessary to destroy the Crimean bridge across the Kerch Strait, 112 Ukraine reports.

“The Kerch Bridge is an enemy infrastructure... Of course, during the liberation of Crimea, during further de-occupation, this is a strategic object,

- says Mosiychuk. “Any normal country in the world that is at war for its territory, for its people, of course, strives to destroy the enemy’s infrastructure - a bridge, a railway point, an airport.”

Speaking about whether he himself would have taken part in the destruction of the bridge, Mosiychuk said that he would have done so if he held the post of Minister of Defense.

Deputy of the State Council of Crimea Vladislav has already responded to the statement of the Ukrainian politician. “Ukrainian politicians today are very annoyed by the fact that the Crimean Bridge is open, open ahead of schedule and is an example of a unique structure not only in Russia, but throughout the world... They can destroy the Crimean Bridge only in their fantasies. Today, the safety of the bridge is at the highest level,” said Ganzhara. According to him,

any attempt to damage the Crimean Bridge will be suppressed in the most severe manner.

The deputy believes that due to the successful infrastructural development of the peninsula, Ukrainian politicians will continue to make such statements. “The more Crimea develops, the more infrastructure facilities are opened: its own power plants, federal highways, including Tavrida - these facts will continue to irritate Kiev, and we will continue to hear this bile, aggressive rhetoric,” Ganzhara noted .

Head of the expert group “Crimean Project”, political scientist Igor in the commentary FAN also noted that the threats of Ukrainian nationalists are absolutely empty.

“They have neither the means nor the ability to carry out their threats. But this does not mean that these threats should be ignored. As in the case of the American instigator [Tom] Rogan (Journalist for the Washington Examiner, who previously called for the destruction of the Crimean Bridge - Gazeta.Ru), we will document the threats against the Crimean Bridge with a criminal case against Mosiychuk. It is also necessary to understand that the media where he broadcast, and where other nationalists broadcast with similar speeches, and the security forces of Ukraine that do not respond to these threats must all be held accountable,” notes Ryabov.

The American journalist Tom Rogan, whom the expert is talking about, published an article entitled “Ukraine should blow up Putin’s Crimean Bridge” in the “Opinion” section of the conservative political weekly Washington Examiner on May 15.

However, Rogan does not provide any factual data to support his personal opinion.

He also noted that for Moscow, the bridge is a symbol of “the official physical and psychological appropriation of Ukrainian territory,” so the destruction of the bridge, even temporarily, would serve as “an unmistakable signal that Ukrainians do not want to accept the theft of territory.”

In addition, the 32-year-old journalist gave air force Ukraine has precise instructions on how to carry out a bombing to reduce the number of casualties. Rogan noted that the length of the bridge makes it possible to minimize the number of casualties during an air attack. The main thing, the American reporter believes, is to disable the structure. “Fortunately, Ukraine has the means to carry out air strikes in such a way that it (the Crimean Bridge - Gazeta.Ru) at least temporarily becomes unusable.”

The Russian Embassy in the United States considered that this material does not “fit” into any norms of journalistic ethics. The authors of the statement also called on the editors of the Washington Examiner to explain the motives for publishing this text and recalled that in Russia there is a criminal article for calls for terrorism.

He did not limit himself to reminders and opened a criminal case against Tom Rogan - now he is suspected of promoting terrorism (Article 205 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation). According to the investigation, Rogan’s article contains signs of public calls for terrorist activities on the territory of the Russian Federation, with the goal of destabilizing the activities of Russian authorities and influencing their decision-making.