(CNN ) — The big explosion that took place on a bridge in Crimea shortly before dawn on Saturday severely restricted road and rail traffic along a major artery—both civil and military—at a critical moment in Russia’s campaign in the Ukraine.
At first glance, it was another embarrassment – even humiliation – for the Russian state, still reeling from battlefield setbacks in Kharkiv, Donetsk and, more recently, in Kherson in the south.
However, by Monday the attack on the bridge had also become the Kremlin’s justification for a sudden barrage of missile attacks throughout Ukraine. By noon, according to Ukrainian authorities, some 80 missiles and rockets had been fired at infrastructure in a dozen cities, with Russian officials promising there would be more.
In the hours after the bridge blew up, Russian investigators clung to one explanation for the blast: it was a terrorist attack using a large explosive charge hidden in a truck that detonated when the vehicle crossed the bridge into Crimea.
Russian President Vladimir Putin took up the issue again on Monday, saying that Kyiv had “raised itself to the level of the most hateful terrorist groups”, which that had prompted the subsequent “massive precision-guided weapons attack on the Ukrainian infrastructure; energy infrastructure, military command and communications.”
“It is simply impossible to leave the crimes of the Kyiv regime unanswered,” he said.
And he continued: “Regarding the new act of terrorism on Russian territory, the Russian response will be harsh and will correspond to the level of threat to the Russian Federation, have no doubt”.
A storm of theories
The explosion, Moscow’s version of what happened and the absence of a statement from Ukraine claiming responsibility for the attack have unleashed a storm of theories about the cause and the person responsible.
The Kerch bridge is about 240 kilometers from the nearest Ukrainian positions, and far beyond the reach of the Western-supplied weapons.However, there have been reports that drones ukraine Nians approached the area in the summer, launching air defense measures.
Some analysts who are not convinced of the version of the truck bombs suggest that the culprit could be a missile or several missiles fired by drones, or that an underwater sabotage team may have placed charges on the bridge’s support structure.
The images and video of the scene were not conclusive. When the truck identified by the Russians crosses the bridge and begins to climb to its highest point, it is involved in a huge explosion.
The Russian Investigative Committee, which was tasked with finding out the cause of the explosion, quickly identified the vehicle. In surveillance video, the truck, with a distinctive scarlet cab, is seen at a checkpoint before entering the bridge. The driver, wearing a short-sleeved shirt, is briefly seen closing the rear doors of the truck.
Cars set on fire after a Russian military attack on the central Kyiv on October 10, two days after the explosion on a bridge in Crimea.
But it is unclear how a truck bomb could have caused two separate sections of the westbound rails in the Kerch Strait to collapse. Furthermore, the force of such an explosion would have been mostly upwards and outwards. Some analysts point out that the way the spans collapsed implies that the force of the explosion came from below. Chris Cobb-Smith , an analyst with the research group Forensic Architecture, is skeptical of the truck story. “It is possible to blow up a bridge using explosives in the span, but it takes a lot and ‘tamping’, that is, a big ballast weight on the load to ensure the blast goes down,” he told CNN.
“I don’t think a truck bomb could have caused this level of damage. This would have involved a suicidal driver, something unheard of in the context of this conflict”.
Cobb-Smith, a veteran of the British Army, is also skeptical about a special forces operation. “There are precise weapon systems that could achieve the objective of destroying the bridge without risking people.”
But he warns: “To resolve this I think we need an analysis of the pieces of the bridge that are currently under water. I still think this would have been easily achieved with a precision munition”.
On Sunday, the head of the Russian Investigative Committee, Alexander Bastrykin, insisted on the explanation of the truck.
In a well-choreographed exchange that came face-to-face with Putin, Bastrykin said the truck had been in Bulgaria before traveling through Georgia, Armenia, North Ossetia and on to Russia. (He would also have had to cross Turkey).
“It was possible to identify suspects among those who could prepare a terrorist attack, and people who operate on the territory of the Russian Federation,” Bastrykin said, referring to “citizens of foreign countries who helped prepare this terrorist attack.”
The investigators came to an “unequivocal conclusion: this is a terrorist attack that was being prepared by the Ukrainian special services,” Bastrykin said.
And a stern-faced Putin replied: “I see.” Then the president continued: “There is no doubt that this is a terrorist attack aimed at destroying the critical civil infrastructure of the Russian Federation”, carried out by the special services of Ukraine.
On the one hand, the “terrorist act” narrative would exempt the Russian Army from having to explain why its multiple layers of defenses around the bridge failed, despite public claims from Ukraine that it was a legitimate target. On the other hand, it provides – through the prism of Moscow – the justification for the great escalation of attacks against the Ukrainian infrastructure.
Ukrainian intelligence claims that these attacks were planned days before the Kerch explosion. Its defense intelligence agency said on Monday that Russian military units had “received instructions from the Kremlin to prepare massive missile strikes against Ukraine’s civilian infrastructure on October 2 and 3.” An obvious target
If not the truck, what could have caused such an explosion? Cobb-Smith says that a ship of any kind should and would have been detected.
Some analysts have suggested that the explosion could have come from below of the bridge. Others believe that satellite images indicate that the impact was from above and came from the north.
In short , according to Cobb-Smith and other experts, there is not enough video evidence to confirm what happened in Kerch.
There is no doubt that that the Ukrainians have considered Kerch as a legitimate objective, even a necessary one.
In June, Dmytro Marchenko, Ukrainian Major General in the south of the country, said that the Kerch bridge was “target number one”.
Marchenko declared to Radio Liberty: “This is not a secret for your military or for ours. Neither for your civilians nor for ours. This will be the number one target to attack. It is as if the main reserves of the intestine had to be cut. As soon as this intestine is cut, they will start to panic.”
However, Ukrainian officials have remained silent on the explosion on Saturday, celebrating the deactivation of the bridge (somewhat prematurely, given that limited road and rail traffic resumed within 24 hours) without acknowledging their involvement.
The same approach was taken with the sinking of the Russian battleship Moskva.In that case it was weeks before an official acknowledgment emerged.
Some Ukrainian officials attribute the Kerch explosion to an internal power struggle between the Russian Security Service and the Russian Defense Ministry, without offering any evidence.
The cause of the Kerch explosion, and its author, remain open questions. They may remain so for some time. But there is no doubt that the conflict in Ukraine has moved to another level: Russia is now embarking on a relentless assault on Ukraine’s power and communications networks, with Ukrainian officials vowing revenge for every missile.
