Why Ukraine should destroy the Kerch Bridge, according to a former US Army Commander
The Kerch Bridge is a pair of parallel bridges that span the Kerch Strait between the Taman Peninsula of Russia and the Crimean Peninsula, which was illegally annexed by Russia in 2014. The bridge, which cost about $3.7 billion to build, is the longest in Europe and the only direct link between mainland Russia and Crimea. It is also a vital lifeline for the Russian military and civilian presence in the region, as it allows the transport of troops, weapons, fuel, and goods across the strait.
However, the bridge has also been a source of controversy and conflict, as Ukraine and its allies consider it a violation of Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity. The bridge has been targeted by several attacks, allegedly carried out by Ukrainian forces or sympathizers, that have caused damage and disruption to the bridge and its traffic.
One of the most outspoken advocates for destroying the bridge is Lt. Gen. Ben Hodges, a former US Army Commander in Europe, who served from 2014 to 2017. In an interview with the Ukrainian news outlet Ukrinform, Hodges said that the bridge is a “legitimate target” and that its destruction would be a “game-changer” for the war in Ukraine. He also said that he has prepared a plan for how to do it, which he has shared with the Ukrainian authorities.
Hodges argued that the bridge is part of Russia’s strategy to dominate Ukraine and the Black Sea region, and that its destruction would weaken Russia’s ability to sustain its military operations and influence in the area. He said that the bridge is resistant to damage and attack, and that conventional weapons would not be enough to bring it down. He suggested that the best way to destroy the bridge would be to use a combination of cyberattacks, electronic warfare, and special operations forces to create a “window of opportunity” for a precision strike with a powerful weapon, such as a cruise missile or a thermobaric bomb.
Hodges also said that the destruction of the bridge would have significant political and psychological effects, as it would demonstrate Ukraine’s resolve and capability to defend its sovereignty and territory, and it would undermine Russia’s confidence and credibility. He said that the bridge is a “symbol of Putin’s power” and that its collapse would be a “humiliation” for him and his regime. He also said that the bridge is a “source of pride” for many Russians and that its loss would erode their support for Putin’s policies and actions.
Hodges acknowledged that destroying the bridge would entail risks and challenges, such as the possibility of civilian casualties, environmental damage, and escalation of the conflict. He said that the decision to do it should be made by the Ukrainian leadership, in consultation with its allies and partners, and that it should be done in a way that minimizes the collateral damage and maximizes the strategic impact. He also said that the attack should be accompanied by a clear and compelling communication campaign, to explain the rationale and the objectives of the operation, and to counter the expected Russian propaganda and misinformation.
Hodges concluded that destroying the bridge would be a “bold and decisive” move that would change the dynamics of the war in Ukraine, and that it would send a strong message to Russia and the world that Ukraine is not a “victim” but a “sovereign nation” that is willing and able to defend itself and its interests.
