It doesn’t surprise me at all that the Russians are concerned about [the] Kerch bridge. It’s incredibly important to them.General Philip Breedlove
According to former supreme allied commander for Europe, Philip Breedlove, commenting last July, the Russians are “very worried about Ukraine launching an attack on the bridge.” And this morning, 8 October 2022, the day immediately following Vladimir Putin’s birthday, the bridge was attacked (supposedly by a truck bomb).
Breedlove made an additional comment: “There are discussions about how the West can respond if this happens. Several people I have spoken to say ‘dropping’ Kerch bridge would be a huge blow to Russia. Kerch bridge is a legitimate target.” Breelove also said, “Russia has invaded Ukraine and has launched attacks not just from inside Ukraine but also from Russia, Belarus, Crimea and the Black Sea, and have killed tens of thousands of people.”
In other words, Russia has it coming. But is such an attack strategically wise? Does it open the way to Russian nuclear escalation? Russian President V. Putin has said he would use “all the means at our disposal” to defend Russia’s conquests in Ukraine. The Russian leadership has also warned of dire consequences if the Kerch Strait bridge came under attack.
Posted 23 hours ago, prior to the bridge attack, a BBC interviewer asked V. Zelensky, “Mr. President, the Russians are accusing you of saying that you want the West to start preemptive — perhaps nuclear — strikes on Russia. Do you? Is that what you’ve been saying?”
Zelensky wagged his finger grimly, answering in English, “They begin to prepare their society. That is very dangerous. They are not ready to use it, but they begin to communicate….”
The interviewer interrupted the Ukrainian president: “What? You mean prepare society for using a nuclear weapons?”
Zelensky immediately responded, “You know, it’s — they don’t know if they will use or they will not use. I think it is dangerous even to speak about it. I said, ‘You have to … prevent kicks, not attacks,'” correcting the translation of his recent remarks to an Australian group this past week. “We are not terrorists, and we do not fight on another [country’s] territory. Even our attitude from our society — attitude to Russians after this — after all this invasion, after this eight years [of] war, eight years of bloody tragedy — even after this, [our] attitude to them, to [their] society, [is that] we are not ready to kill people like Russians do….”
Zelensky then restated his thesis: “I would like to say, that it is necessary to act, and I will return to pre-emptive sanctions again. It is necessary to act now. There is no need to think about the risks that will arise later. I agree that this is Armageddon, it’s a risk for the whole planet. But still, why do we have to think about whether it will happen or not, if Russia will take this step?”
As a marked man, facing death at Russian hands, Zelensky has decided to make a stand. If he does this, why should the world blink? The world is more powerful, and safer, than Zelensky. Therefore, he does not reflect on the West’s longstanding role as totalitarian collaborator. In fact, the West has lied to itself about the long-term consequences of its collaboration. And now Zelensky’s country is fighting for its independence from Moscow. Like Patrick Henry at the outset of the American Revolution, Zelensky is thinking of “liberty or death.” His country’s liberty is what matters. Death is not a problem worth thinking about.
When the BBC interviewer asked whether Zelensky thinks Putin is capable of launching a nuclear attack, the Ukrainian president replied, “If I say that he can use them, then this can cause panic in many countries, including Ukraine. All that Putin is afraid of … is his own community, his people, because only these people can remove him now, and take power away from him, and hand it to someone else….”
Asked if Putin will survive defeat, Zelensky said, “I don’t care.”
These answers were given in advance of the attack on the Kerch bridge. It is strange to think the Ukrainians were behind the attack. It is an escalation. Nobody can deny it is an escalation, even as Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov has accused President Zelensky of urging the West “to start another world war.”
As of this writing, an advisor to President Zelensky named Mikhail Podoliak has said the bridge attack is “the beginning.” Commenting in English on Twitter, he added, “Everything illegal must be destroyed, everything stolen must be returned to Ukraine, everything occupied by Russia must be expelled.” In August Podoliak told The Guardian newspaper that the bridge was “an illegal construction and the main gateway to supply the Russian army in Crimea” and that “such objects should be destroyed.”
(For those with short memories, Crimea was Ukrainian territory invaded and annexed by Russia in 2014.)
In terms of the strategic sense of things, a number of general questions remain. Did a truck bomb actually damage the bridge, or is there another explanation? Are Putin’s minions turning against him, or is this itself a deception? Why do most experts believe Russia is out of men and weapons? (Something I do not understand.) Why is China preparing for war against the United States, as reported by Mr. Wang of Lude Media?
Watch Russia’s reaction over the next few hours and days. Watch closely.
Quarterly Subscription (to support the site)