Why Crimea’s Kerch Bridge Matters – to Russia and the War

The Kerch Bridge between the Crimean peninsula and Russia, struck by what appears to have been a Ukrainian attack in the early hours of Monday morning, carries both strategic and political significance for Moscow. When the $3.9 billion, 12-mile bridge–the longest in Europe–opened in 2018, it was the most dramatic and tangible symbol of Russia’s control over the peninsula which it annexed from Ukraine in 2014.

For Vladimir Putin, the importance of Crimea is literally spiritual. He has referred to the territory, often considered the birthplace of Russian Orthodox Christianity, as a “holy land” for the Russian people. He described the opening of the bridge as a “miracle” that Russian leaders had dreamed of for centuries. 

In Putin’s view, shared by many Russians, the fact that the predominantly Russian-speaking region ended up as part of Ukraine is exhibit A for why the breakup of the Soviet Union was a “geopolitical catastrophe.” The 2014 annexation, accomplished almost bloodlessly by covert forces, was arguably the greatest triumph of his foreign policy and resulted in the highest approval ratings of his presidency. 

Prior to 2018, traffic from Russia to Crimea had to either cross through Ukraine, or move via ferries which were often disrupted by weather. The Kerch Bridge, which includes both railways and car lanes and which the Russian government says can handle around 14 million passengers and about 13 million tons of cargo per year, underlined Russia’s de facto control of the region, even as all but a small handful of world governments continued to officially recognize it as part of Ukraine.

Crimea has military significance as well. It has been the home of Russia’s Black Sea Fleet since the 18th century. Though Russia’s full-fledged invasion of Ukraine hasn’t accomplished many of its broader strategic goals over the past year and a half, it has succeeded in building a so-called “land bridge” of Russian-controlled territory between the Russian mainland and Crimea. Severing that land bridge appears to be one of the main goals of Ukraine’s recently launched counteroffensive. 

More targets

Monday’s attack, which Ukraine’s digital minister says was carried out by a maritime drone and which reportedly killed two people, appeared to have knocked out car traffic in both directions.

Still, Sam Bendett, an analyst with the Russia studies program at the Center for Naval Analyses, says the military impact will likely be limited. 

“The rail link across the bridge still works because it wasn't damaged, and a lot of military traffic is now shipped overland [through newly occupied areas of Ukraine] precisely so that the military is not going to depend on a single point of failure like this bridge.”

But Bendett says the strike is a reminder of the sheer number of potential targets Russia must defend, even as it focuses most of its resources on holding back Ukraine’s counteroffensive. In the case of the Kerch Bridge alone, the Russians had several possible scenarios to worry about.

“It's very difficult to safeguard an asset like a long bridge from aerial attacks, from vehicle-borne attacks and now from what looks like an uncrewed surface vessel attack,” Bendett says. “It raises the question, where do you want to emphasize your defense?”

Given the symbolic importance of the bridge, the Kremlin will likely scramble to contain the political fallout. After the last strike on the bridge, a truck bombing last October, the damage was quickly repaired, and Putin was eager to emphasize that fact by personally driving a Mercedes over it two months later.

Crimea’s beach resorts are a popular holiday destination for Russians and the strike comes just as the area’s high season should be ramping up. Tourists have continued traveling to Crimea, though the war raging nearby and occasional strikes on the peninsula itself have meant fewer visitors. Tourism flows were down about a third in 2022 and the outlook looked worse this year - even before today’s events.

After the October bombing, Russia retaliated with its largest wave of missile strikes of the war to that point. Several Ukrainian cities have already been under heavy missile attack in recent days, though another ramping up is possible. And several hours after the bridge strike, Russia announced it was pulling out of an internationally negotiated deal to allow grain exports through the Black Sea, though the Kremlin claims the two events are unrelated. 

Questions for Washington

By now this much is clear: Ukraine has the ability to strike targets in Crimea. The Kerch Bridge wasn’t even the first target on the peninsula hit by Ukrainian drones in the past week. 

Asked for comment on the attack, Lt. Col. Garron J. Garn, a Pentagon spokesperson, told The Messenger, “Since the beginning of Russia’s unprovoked war against Ukraine, we’ve deferred to Ukraine to speak to their operations, including any actions which they may take within their sovereign territory, which includes Crimea.”

The official Ukrainian position is that liberating its territory means all of its internationally-recognized territory, including Crimea. “This Russian war … began with Crimea and must end with Crimea,” President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has said. 

Officially, the U.S. supports that goal as well, but with somewhat less enthusiasm. Gen. Mark Milley, chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, has said that the likelihood of Ukraine ejecting Russian troops from Crimea anytime soon is “not high.” Secretary of State Antony Blinken has reportedly said in private that given Crimea’s symbolic and political importance for Russia, he believes it is a “red line” for Putin, and that attempts to retake the peninsula would risk escalating the conflict. 

For now, given the tough going for Ukraine’s counteroffensive over the past month, a final decision on whether to support a Ukrainian push for Crimea is still a question for another day. But officials in the U.S. and Europe will still likely be watching closely to see how Putin responds to this latest attack on his “holy land.”