Political organization

Ukrainian General Aims To Destroy Crimean Bridge – The Organization for World Peace

On Thursday June 17, Major General Dmytro Marchenko of the Ukrainian Armed Forces declared the bridge that connects the Crimean peninsula to Russia their first target of destruction. This marked a break with the cautious ambiguity that has so far characterized Ukrainian rhetoric about attacks on Russian territory. Although Kyiv and much of the world insist that Crimea is Ukraine, this is largely irrelevant in terms of rhetoric. Ukraine has sought to avoid escalating the conflict by openly attacking Russia itself, and Western partners have asked for guarantees on this issue when supplying weapons that could strike Russian territory. Regardless of Crimea’s status under international law, a Ukrainian attack on the alleged territory of the Russian Federation would further destabilize the conflict.

The Crimean Bridge, which crosses the Kerch Strait to connect Krasnodar Krai in mainland Russia with the annexed Crimean Peninsula, opened in 2018. It was possibly the flagship Russian-funded infrastructure project that sought to herald a new era of peace and prosperity in Crimea. Moscow’s approach to Crimea differs markedly from that of other parts of Ukraine, with a rapid and almost bloodless occupation preceding its formal incorporation into the Federation. Donbass, on the other hand, was forced to endure eight years of bloodshed and the breakaway republics only received recognition from Russia in February this year – formal incorporation remains a more distant prospect. So, while constant artillery duels in Donetsk, Luhansk and Kherson oblasts are permitted and enacted by Russia, Crimea has long been considered a different case, and the Crimean Bridge is its greatest symbol.

When Ukrainian intelligence officials announced that they had technical documents regarding the bridge, such as the terrain, road surface, bridge piers, anti-landslide structures, and entrances and exits, Moscow was alarmed. Marchenko’s bold threat, announced on Radio Liberty, was based on the military rationale that the bridge was “a means of bringing reserve forces” into the Ukrainian theater and therefore had to be cut to support the war effort of the Ukraine. Ukraine in its other territories. However, the Kremlin did not see this only as a threat to its military position. Putin’s spokesman Dmitry Peskov said the Russian military had put in place preventive measures and it was safe for passengers to cross. The framing contrast between Russia’s emphasis on homeland security and Ukraine’s own military strategy highlights the dangers of contested perceptions.

Kyiv has always declared its intention to return Crimea to its governance. This is perhaps a more maximalist war goal, but one that Ukraine would no doubt pursue if it became feasible. However, igniting a conflict on territory that Russia also claims carries great risks – not least that Russian nuclear doctrine allows the use of nuclear weapons “in the event of aggression against Russia with the use of conventional weapons when the very existence of the state is threatened”. .” Attacking Crimea may well reach this threshold in Russian eyes and should therefore be approached with extreme caution. Wars can be fought for peace, and this is true in terms of logic and grammar. The logic of Ukraine’s fight is that peace is only possible if Russian aggression is defeated; not fighting would rule out any future peace considered more than the absence of military violence. But the grammar or conduct of war is also important. Ukraine must pursue its strategy in a way that can bring about future peace, and attacking Crimea without a conducive political scenario to support the military effort would be futile and dangerous.

Defeating the Russian invasion and returning Crimea to Ukraine are both possible. But these are not endpoints in themselves; they are only military and political contributions to a future peace process that will involve the whole of society. It is important for the Ukrainian military to view its role from this perspective, as actions undertaken solely in pursuit of military objectives can be myopic in the multi-generational context of peace.