Last weekend, the Kerch bridge, Russia’s only direct link to Crimea, was bombed by Ukraine. The attack was a major logistical blow to the Kremlin, which relied on the bridge to transport troops and war materiel to the southern front in Ukraine. Russian President Vladimir Putin responded by accusing Ukraine of “terrorism” and launching missile attacks against infrastructure targets across Ukraine.
But Putin’s accusation is absurd. When transportation infrastructure is requisitioned for war, it becomes a legitimate target for attack, a fact Russia has tacitly acknowledged through prior bombardment of Ukrainian bridges. The Kerch bridge was built by the Kremlin and opened in 2018, four years after Russia illegally annexed Crimea. It symbolized Moscow’s intent to control Crimea in perpetuity through tighter physical and economic ties. When Putin launched his full-scale invasion in February, the bridge was used to transport troops and weapons to Crimea quickly, allowing the Russian military to march northward and occupy most of Ukraine’s southern coast. Considering these factors, the Russians anticipated that the Kerch bridge would be attacked and prepared extensive defenses accordingly, including anti-air systems, radar jammers, and anti-sabotage boats.
VLADIMIR PUTIN’S COLONIAL DELUSIONS
But there was a hole in their security. Though the exact details behind the attack are unconfirmed, it is widely suspected that the bridge was bombed through a truck filled with IEDs. The explosion collapsed a section of the bridge’s roadway and ignited a passing fuel train, leading to a fire that severely damaged the bridge’s railway. The bridge has since partially opened and now accommodates limited traffic.
Again, however, it takes a lot of mental gymnastics to describe the Kerch bridge attack as “terrorism.” According to Article 52 of the Geneva Convention, legitimate military targets are those that “by their nature, location, purpose or use make an effective contribution to military action and whose total or partial destruction, capture or neutralization, in the circumstances ruling at the time, offers a definite military advantage.” Under this definition, attacks on infrastructure that contributes to wartime supply lines, including bridges, are legitimate and not acts of “terrorism.” The military benefits of destroying the Kerch bridge are uncontestable — now, Russia will be forced to rely more heavily on supply lines in southern Ukraine that, running closely parallel to the front line, are highly vulnerable.
Bridges have routinely been attacked in wars around the world, and, this summer, Russia itself destroyed every bridge leading to the Ukrainian city of Severodonetsk. In this light, Putin’s “terrorism” claims are disingenuous and hypocritical. Indeed, on Monday, Russia launched over 70 missiles at Ukraine. Many missiles landed in downtown Kyiv, where, among other places, Shevchenko University was targeted, terrorizing students on their way to class. Universities and civilian apartment buildings, unlike bridges, have no military value. If Putin and his Western apologists want an example of terrorism, they can start by looking there.
CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER
Adam Zivo is a Canadian columnist and policy analyst who relocated to Ukraine earlier this year to report on the Russia-Ukraine war. He is writing a book on how the war is experienced by average Ukrainians.
