Burning Bridges

"Part of the crossing collapsed into the sea." That's a quote from voluminous Saturday coverage of extensive damage to the Kerch Strait Bridge, the sole link between Russia and Crimea. "All I can say is that an echelon with fuel intended to supply occupation forces in the south of Ukraine was passing over the bridge," a senior Ukrainian military official said. That "echelon" burst into flames when an adjacent truck blew up. "A truck coming from the Taman Peninsula exploded on the road part of

Join institutional investors, analysts and strategists from the world's largest banks: Subscribe today for as little as $7/month

View subscription options

Or try one month for FREE with a trial plan

Already have an account? log in

Leave a Reply to RIACancel reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

22 thoughts on “Burning Bridges

  1. The Ukrainian invasion gets worse for Russia every single day. As far as I am concerned the Ukrainians should do whatever they have to do. My sincere hope is no nukes or bio weapons will be brought to bear in this war. But it is looking inevitable. If that happens Nato is likely going in, and a trip to Moscow/St. Petersburgh and a Nurenburg style trial could be in the offiing. I pray that all this does not happen, but there is no off ramp for Putin now- other than an unconditional withdrawal.

    1. Yeah, the objective reality here is that he’s losing. Outright. Not just relative to how the Russian military should’ve performed. And it’s not just “because Western weapons.” That’s a big part of it, but some of it is just poor performance and what certainly looks like a combination of strategic ineptitude and, more importantly, reluctant ground troops. I’m sorry, but this bridge should’ve been closed to anything other than military traffic. I mean, they’re at war. And it’s a supply route. If Russia was fighting NATO and NATO bombed it, that’d be excusable, but if you’re Russia, you can’t let Ukraine blow up that bridge with a truck bomb. The optics are terrible.

      1. I probably shouldn’t speak so definitively about logistical issues. Obviously, I don’t know the details of how Russia is handling traffic on that bridge during the war. Maybe they have an elaborate set of procedures for safeguarding it, etc.

        But what I can say is this: It’s a very important asset, both from a strategic and symbolic perspective, so it’s not ideal when it’s severely damaged by a truck bomb.

      2. I have seen some analysis that suggests that a truck bomb would have been insufficient to do that much damage. The analyst said it would have had to have been a missile or ordinance under the bridge. Not sure about what to make of that analysis.

  2. I’m concerned about the news that Russia’s Defense Ministry announced that the air force chief, Gen. Sergei Surovikin, would be the commander of all Russian troops fighting in Ukraine.
    It’s bad news. That dude is one cruel, hardcore, brutal SOB.

  3. Russia is already seeing hard times economically and seeing a real reduction in better goods availability from European and North America, a lot of young Russian men are dying in an unpopular war and now they see the supreme leader threatening the use of nuclear weapons when they are downwind of Ukraine. I think more and more Russians are thinking Putin needs to die… and quickly.

  4. A truck can carry far more explosive than a missile, so seems plausible it was a truck bomb. It isn’t clear if the rail line is hors combat, and that’s the logistically important part.

  5. I think Putin is a dead man walking- for many reasons- I don’t undertand how or why he is still alive…Perhaps his inner circle is to some degree in denial-the Russian empire of the nineteenth century could easily fall apart- I think you’ll see big cracks in the firmament soon.. The trick is to get there without nukes..In the meantime, Biden’s attention to the Cuban missile crisis is spot on, after all it’s our only previous experience. What disturbs me is that the US is so fractured that we can’t unite around a very clear and present danger….The Republicans, who didn’t object to Vietnam, 2 wars in Iraq, and Afghanistan are suddenly concerned by a war that was started by an opponent. Did we help load the gun? Yes, but Putin, and only Putin, pulled the trigger. This is the key fact. Look at Sweden and Finland’s response- it says great deal…Switzerland has moved off their historical position a bit too.

  6. What happens if or when Putin withdraws from Ukraine, is defenstrated, or otherwise loses? I imagine the markets rip.

    We think more about the downside risk from the war, but I think the upside risk is more likely.

    1. Given that he chose partial mobilisation rather than “declaring victory and going home”, the idea that Putin will voluntary withdraw is unlikely.

      Personally, I thought that was his best chance. Having screwed up the decapitation of Ukraine by seizing Kyiv in 2 days, losing the prolonged war and unable to drive a big enough wedge between Ukraine and its Western supporters, he ought to have given up and concentrate on regime survival.

      With enough internal repression, I have little doubt he could have survived a defeat that had costed very few Russian conscripts lives.

      But getting tens of thousands of Russian kids killed kind of commit him to victory or death… i.e. it raises the specter of nukes/chems being used.

  7. One of the best counters to 9/11 conspiracists (this ties in nicely to your counter-narrative article), is that people who think it was a controlled demolition don’t understand reinforced concrete. The fact that Ukraine was able to pull this off is seriously impressive.

    My favorite thing though is the pro-Russian mouthpiece calling Ukraine “Vandals.” If they knew their Roman history better, they’d be hesitant to assign such an inauspicious label to their foes.

NEWSROOM crewneck & prints