Nikita Shenderovsky 09:34, 04.08.25 UNIAN
The expert believes that Ukraine is close enough to leaving Russia without air defense
It makes no sense for Ukraine to destroy the Crimean Bridge at this time, says Yevhen Dyky , a veteran of the Russian-Ukrainian war and former company commander of the Aidar battalion .
“Why should we destroy it now? We are using it as bait. We can destroy it once. This will make a lot of sense when our army approaches Perekop. Moreover, it will be very unpleasant for the Russians, politically sacred, but no more from a military point of view,” Dykyi said on Radio NV .
Instead, according to the expert, Ukraine regularly knocks out Russian air defenses on the occupied peninsula. And the Russians are constantly bringing new air defense systems to the peninsula.
“We use the Crimean bridge, in particular, and the entire peninsula as a large, specially trained Chornobayvka. Only not sharpened for aviation, but as such Chornobayvka for Russian air defense. Because they constantly replenish it there. In this way, they expose the already poorly covered internal regions of the Russian Federation. They are trying to cover Crimea, Moscow, and of course the front line. And when their air defense systems are ground up in Crimea, like in a meat grinder. And they supply them there again. Accordingly, there will be no more of them left in Russia itself. It seems that we are already close enough to this,” Dykyi added.
“Why should we destroy it now? We are using it as bait.”
LOL, sounds like we were right about this too.
I kind of get what he’s saying. Right now Russia keeps moving their high-end air defense equipment to Crimea, via the bridge. These systems keep getting destroyed, so by keeping the bridge intact, they keep this flow of systems going. If the bridge was destroyed, Russia would likely keep those systems in Russia, making it harder to fly drones and missiles into Russia.
Exactly. The choice for the invaders is to go through the minefield known as the Donbas, or across the bridge and the bridge is much easier for the defenders to monitor.
I get his argument but I still say it needs to be attacked directly.
Look the bridge is far to big and solidly built to “Destroy” it. That would take hundreds of hits. Remember how much damage the bridge in Kherson took? The Kersh bridge dwarfs that one.
On the other hand repeated attacks accomplish several things:
1) The symbolic value. The Kersh bridge is the biggest symbol of the Putin regime. When it gets hit, it REALLY hurts Putin’s Cult of Personality and the image of the “Superiority of Mother Russia”. Which is Ukraine greatest enemy.
2) With that in mind no matter how damaged bridge takes Putin will keep on defending it and keep the repair crews busey until it is done. So the air defense “Target Rich Environment” will persist until the shooting stops. If Putin only has two rubles to rub together he will spend them on that bridge. Make it literally “a hole in the water that he throws money into.”
3) The bridge is not the only supply route to Crimea anymore but with out it most of the supplies for the southern front will be going along the new coastal railroad track which is in easy targeting distance of the frontline and more easily interdicted than the bridge.
5) While it is not the main supply route it once was the Kersh straight is still and important shipping route and if the channel can be blocked it will hurt Russian exports at no additional cost. A tow for one deal.
6) You want Trump’s support? Show him Putin is the a loser he truly is. Short of bombing Red Square the bridge is the best way to do that.