Ukraine hits bridge linking Crimea to Russia with underwater explosives
Ukraine has detonated a massive underwater blast targeting the key road and rail bridge connecting the Russian-occupied Crimean peninsula to Russia, damaging its underwater pillars.
The operation, claimed by Kyiv's SBU security service, is the second high-profile operation by Ukraine in days striking significant Russian assets after a sophisticated drone raid on Moscow's strategic bomber fleet on Sunday.
The attack came as Ukraine confirmed it had been invited to the Nato summit later this month, after President Volodymyr Zelenskyy warned it would be a 'victory' for Russia if it was not present.
The latest strike on the 12-mile-long Kerch Bridge – a prestige project of the Russian president, Vladimir Putin, which he opened in 2018 – comes amid what appear to be determined efforts by Ukraine to change the narrative promoted by the Trump administration that Kyiv holds few cards in the war.
The mining of the bridge, which is heavily defended by Russian forces, follows the audacious long-range drone attack on airbases deep in side Russia, which Zelenskyy claimed had damaged '34% of [Russia's] strategic cruise missile carriers'.
According to a statement from the SBU the operation against the bridge – the third in a series of strikes amid at disabling the key logistics route – had been planned for several months and involved the equivalent of more than a metric tonne of TNT, which it said had 'severely damaged' the base of the bridge supports.
It is the third time that Ukraine has targeted the bridge since Moscow's full-scale invasion in 2022.
In October 2022, a truck exploded on the bridge, while in July 2023, the SBU said it had blown up a part of the bridge using an experimental naval drone. Both times, Russia repaired the damaged sections.
Lt Gen Vasyl Maliuk of the SBU, who supervised the latest operation, described the bridge as 'an absolutely legitimate target, especially considering that the enemy used it as a logistical artery to supply its troops'.
He added: 'Crimea is Ukraine, and any manifestations of occupation will receive our tough response.'
The SBU published footage showing a blast coming out of the water and debris flying, along with a photo of some damage to the side of the bridge.
Road traffic on the bridge linking Russia and the Crimean peninsula had been temporarily suspended, Russian authorities said on Telegram on Tuesday. Russian state media reported it had been closed to traffic for about four hours.
The attack on the bridge came as Russia said on Tuesday said it was wrong to expect a quick breakthrough in Ukraine talks, a day after Moscow rejected Kyiv's call for an unconditional ceasefire at negotiations in Istanbul – more than three years into Russia's offensive that has killed tens of thousands on both sides and forced millions from their homes in eastern Ukraine.
The sides agreed on a large-scale swap of captured soldiers and exchanged their roadmaps to peace, or so-called 'memorandums', at the discussions, which lasted under two hours.
'The settlement issue is extremely complex and involves a large number of nuances,' the Kremlin's spokesperson, Dmitry Peskov, told reporters on Tuesday. 'It would be wrong to expect immediate solutions and breakthroughs.'
Peskov was speaking as Andriy Yermak, Zelenskyy's chief of staff, arrived in the US along with the deputy prime minister Yulia Svrydenko to press for tougher sanctions on Russia.
'We plan to talk about defence support and the situation on the battlefield, strengthening sanctions against Russia,' Yermak said on Telegram.
Moscow is demanding Ukraine pull its troops out of four eastern and southern regions that Moscow claims to have annexed, as a precondition to pausing its offensive, according to the document handed to the Ukrainians that was published by Russian state media.
Kyiv had pressed for a full and unconditional ceasefire. Russia instead offered a partial truce of two to three days in some areas of the frontline, its top negotiator said after the talks.
Peskov also dismissed the idea of a summit between the presidents of Russia, Ukraine and the US.
'In the near future, it is unlikely,' he told reporters, adding that such a summit could happen only after Russian and Ukrainian negotiators reached an 'agreement'.
The White House had said on Monday that the US president, Donald Trump, was 'open' to the idea, which is also backed by Zelenskyy and by Turkey's president, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan.
Zelenskyy's attendance at the Nato summit in The Hague from 24 to 26 June was welcomed by the Ukrainian president after reported misgivings over the potential for the renewal of friction between Zelenskyy and Trump administration officials.
'We were invited to the Nato summit. I think this is important,' Zelenskyy said on Monday after he held a meeting with Nato's secretary general, Mark Rutte, in Vilnius.
Agencies contributed to this report
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Telegraph
40 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Russia is about to suffer its millionth casualty. For Putin, that's a price worth paying
Almost two centuries ago, the Prussian military theorist Carl von Clausewitz cautioned against the temptation to 'shut one's eyes to what war really is from sheer distress at its brutality.' One milestone betrays the sheer scale of the butchery in Ukraine: by the end of June, Russian forces will, in all probability, have suffered their millionth casualty in this war. When Vladimir Putin sent some 200,000 Russian soldiers into Ukraine in February 2022, he expected to seize Kyiv by the third day of a lightning offensive. Today, his troops remain hundreds of miles from the capital, while the number of Russian dead and wounded has grown to nearly five times the size of that initial invasion force. 'Overall, a high of 250,000 Russian soldiers have died in Ukraine, with over 950,000 total Russian casualties,' notes a study by the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), an American think tank based in Washington, DC. Those numbers conjure an image of Putin casting the entirety of his first invading army into a furnace, then gathering another and doing the same – over and over again. On an average day in April, about 1,200 Russians were killed or wounded on Ukraine's battlefields, where killer drones and heavy artillery have together created the most lethal expanse of territory on Earth. If this casualty rate is sustained, the CSIS study concludes, 'Russia will likely hit the 1 million casualty mark in the summer of 2025.' By way of comparison, the combined death toll in every Soviet or Russian conflict since 1945 – from the invasion of Hungary in 1956 to the Second Chechen war in 1999, including the Afghanistan campaign of 1979-89 – came to less than 50,000. Putin has sacrificed about five times that number in the space of three years and four months in Ukraine. Having been thrown back from Kyiv, Putin is now waging what the CSIS calls a 'grinding contest of attrition', in which Russia loses 'vast quantities' of men and materiel for 'mere metres of ground'. Since January 2024, Putin has captured about 1 per cent of Ukraine at the cost of between 800 and 1,600 Russian casualties per day. By comparison, 179 British military personnel were killed during six years of combat operations in Iraq. Yet Putin's frame of reference is almost certainly not the conflicts since 1945. He is steeped in the history of what Russians call the Great Patriotic War – the Soviet Union's epic struggle against Hitler's invasion between 1941 and 1945. That titanic confrontation claimed the lives of at least 24 million Soviet or Russian citizens, amounting to 12 per cent of the entire population of the Soviet Empire. The Battle of Stalingrad alone, lasting less than six months, killed almost 675,000 Russians. The siege of Leningrad – the city of Putin's birth – was even more deadly. His parents lived through those harrowing years from 1941 to 1944; his father fought in the city's defence, while his elder brother was among the children who died of hunger and privation. In total, over 1 million Russians gave their lives to save Leningrad from the Nazis. If that is your perspective, then 250,000 dead and a million casualties in Ukraine become far more acceptable. Putin will doubtless see these figures as just a fraction of the cost of preserving his home city from Hitler. And that is not even to consider earlier episodes of suffering. The Russian civil war that followed the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917 claimed some 10 million lives, mainly from starvation, while Stalin's Great Purge, between 1936 and 1938, is estimated to have claimed between 700,000 and 1.2 million. If, like Putin, your historical memory is dominated by events before 1945, then you take a different view of a million Russian casualties in Ukraine. And the Kremlin's propaganda campaign is designed to ensure that the Russian people think like their leader. Not even the prospect of Putin soon having sacrificed a million of their sons in the country's bloodiest war in 80 years appears to be stirring popular discontent. In March, polling by the Levada Center, a Russian independent, nongovernmental research organisation, found that a 'majority of respondents support the actions of the Russian military and believe that the special military operation is progressing successfully.' For Western policy-makers, by contrast, Putin's cold indifference to suffering presents a strategic dilemma. Effective deterrence depends on an adversary believing that any act of aggression will incur an overwhelming and unacceptable cost. But what constitutes an unacceptable cost in Putin's eyes? Given that a million Russian casualties in the crucible of Ukraine seem to leave him unmoved, sustaining effective deterrence becomes far more difficult. Hence the continued importance of nuclear weapons – perhaps the only price even Putin would be unwilling to pay. Meanwhile, his dogged assault on Ukraine has forced his neighbour to defend itself with ever greater force, vindicating the bleak words of Clausewitz: 'If one side uses force without compunction, undeterred by the bloodshed it involves, while the other side refrains, the first will gain the upper hand. That side will force the other to follow suit; each will drive its opponent towards extremes.' Russia's extreme violence has killed between 60,000 and 100,000 Ukrainians, according to the CSIS, inflicting around 400,000 casualties in total – an astonishing toll reminiscent of the pre-war era. Given that Ukraine's population is less than a third of Russia's, the target of the invasion has endured a heavier toll per capita – a butcher's bill greater even than that of its aggressor. Ukrainian soldiers on the front line know better than anyone that the prospect of a million Russian casualties will not deter Putin. The only counterweight is still greater force.
BreakingNews.ie
43 minutes ago
- BreakingNews.ie
Trump says it might be better to let Ukraine and Russia ‘fight for a while'
President Donald Trump has said that it might be better to let Ukraine and Russia 'fight for a while' before pulling them apart and pursuing peace. In an Oval Office meeting with German chancellor Friedrich Merz, Mr Trump likened the war in Ukraine — which Russia invaded in early 2022 — to a fight between two young children who hated each other. Advertisement 'Sometimes you're better off letting them a fight for a while and then pulling them apart,' Mr Trump said. He added that he had relayed that analogy to Russian president Vladimir Putin in their phone conversation on Wednesday. The US president still left the threat of sanctions on the table. He said sanctions could be imposed for both Ukraine and Russia. 'When I see the moment where it's not going to stop … we'll be very, very tough,' Mr Trump said. Advertisement
The Guardian
an hour ago
- The Guardian
Fighting the climate crisis is vital for national security
Former military leaders rightly point out that climate change is a matter of national security (UK must consider food and climate part of national security, say top ex-military figures, 29 May). What is required in response is a thoughtful, strategic approach that focuses in on actions that are practical and effective in these difficult times and will help build the UK government's 'strong foundations' of national security and secure borders. For example, arguably the biggest near-term threat to UK security is the 'mass population displacement' that Lt Gen Richard Nugee refers to. About 3.5 billion people live in an arc around Europe, across Africa, the Middle East and Asian countries such as Pakistan, India and Bangladesh. People in these regions are already confronting floods and heatwaves of up to 50C that are making large areas uninhabitable. Rural communities are being forced into conflict and migration, while food production and supplies to cities are being affected. Russia has already identified this as a strategic way to undermine European democracies. It stokes conflict and weaponises people – for example, pushing a wave of 4 million Syrian war refugees into Europe and Turkey. The payoff has been the rise of pro-Russian rightwing parties across Europe. With temperatures rising much faster than expected, this problem will accelerate during the present parliament. It requires immediate action as there's no way to contain it. What can we do? The UK has a strong track record of using international aid to promote farming in these vulnerable communities. The best approach is regenerative farming, which produces food, builds resilience to extreme weather and draws carbon out of the atmosphere as it rebuilds soil health. It is a strategy for mitigating, and adapting to, climate change. We must salvage and expand this programme within the remaining aid and climate finance budget. It is essential to our national security that we fight climate change at home, through decarbonisation, and that we promote regenerative agriculture at home and in frontline countries around Adam ParrHertford College, University of Oxford Have an opinion on anything you've read in the Guardian today? Please email us your letter and it will be considered for publication in our letters section.
