Ukraine Doesn’t Need to Destroy the Kerch Bridge to Neutralize It

Tuesday’s attack on the ferry Slavyanin in Port Kavkaz has inevitably reignited the debate about when and how Ukraine will deal with the Kerch Strait Bridge. For many, the logic is straightforward: the bridge is the ultimate symbol of Russian occupation, the last major logistical artery, and its destruction would be a devastating political and military blow. It’s the argument that Phillips O’Brien’s three-step process — cutting off maritime, air, and ground traffic — logically concludes with the bridge’s collapse.

Photo by David Martin on Unsplash

I have a different perspective. While I find O’Brien’s framework useful for understanding the overarching tasks at hand, I’ve come to believe that the conventional narrative around the bridge fixates on a dramatic climax that may never come. The attack on the Slavyanin isn’t just a precursor to a future bridge strike; in many ways, it’s part of a superior strategy: making the bridge irrelevant through isolation and attrition.

The Bridge as a “Suitcase Without a Handle”

The most compelling argument for why Ukraine doesn’t need to blow up the bridge is that they are effectively achieving the same result through systemic degradation. The goal isn’t just to break a single span of concrete and steel; it’s to make Crimea a liability for Russia — a resource-sink that drains Moscow’s military capacity while offering diminishing strategic returns. The bridge is just one piece of that puzzle, and a less crucial one than it used to be.

As former U.S. Army Europe commander Ben Hodges noted, the Ukrainians have found the key to liberating the peninsula by systematically isolating it . The idea that Crimea is a “suitcase without a handle,” a burden too heavy to carry and impossible to put down, is becoming a reality.

Consider what Ukraine has already accomplished. On the maritime front, the task of neutralizing the Black Sea Fleet is largely done. The fleet is hiding in the eastern Black Sea, and Crimea’s port infrastructure is regularly under attack. Simultaneously, the destruction of Russian air defenses and airbases is happening at a rapid pace, with ATACMS ballistic missiles creating more and more holes in their air defense umbrella .

But the most devastating blows have been delivered to the ground-based logistics network, and this is where the Kerch Bridge’s importance has been systematically eroded. The bridge itself has been rendered largely useless for military logistics. Since the first Ukrainian strike in October 2022, Russia has been forced to ban heavy trucks from using it, confining it primarily to passenger traffic . This was a major win for Ukraine.

The real blow has been the assault on the “land corridor” along the northern coast of the Sea of Azov. Ukraine’s use of medium-range drones has turned the R-280 highway, a critical route for supplying the peninsula, into a “black hole” of burning fuel tankers and destroyed trucks . The Ukrainian strategy, as articulated by Defense Minister Mykhailo Fedorov, is to create a “complete logistical blockade” . They have established fire control over the “Crimea-Donetsk” corridor, and systematic strikes on key choke points like the Chonhar bridges have further strained Russia’s ability to move supplies .

The Ferry’s Destruction: A Fatal Blow to a Fallback

Now, we come to the ferry. The destruction of the Slavyanin was a masterstroke, not because it was a necessary step before hitting the bridge, but because it eliminated the last functional rail ferry that Russia was using as a fallback.

The logic that Ukraine needed to destroy the ferries first is flawed. It assumes a neat, chronological process, but the war doesn’t work that way. As I see it, if you can hit Port Kavkaz — just 12 kilometers from the bridge — you can hit the bridge, too . The attack on the ferry wasn’t about waiting for the right time to hit the bridge; it was about eliminating the alternative route to the bridge.

Consider the consequences. With the Slavyanin gone and the other rail ferries already destroyed, Russia is now forced to rely on an even more fragile logistical web. The already-heavily restricted Crimean Bridge is now the only viable rail link, but it’s also vulnerable and politically sensitive. So, Russia must look to road traffic via ferries, which is a massive bottleneck. As Ukrainian Navy spokesperson Dmytro Pletenchuk stated, these are not emotional actions but part of a systematic, multi-year plan to destroy Russia’s naval and military logistics .

The Real Cost: Crimea’s Systemic Collapse

This is where Ukraine’s strategy shines. They are turning Crimea into an unlivable and unsustainable outpost. The cost of holding it is beginning to exceed the cost of defending the front lines. This is the essence of a war of attrition, and Ukraine is winning this aspect of it.

The logistical breakdowns we are seeing are not temporary inconveniences; they are indicators of a “deep structural crisis” . Fuel shortages are so acute that civilian sales have been suspended, and even railway services are suspended . The ferry crossings are under such strain that there have been reports of massive queues and delays . The tourism sector in Crimea has completely collapsed, and power outages are commonplace. All of this forces Moscow to pour billions of roubles and thousands of man-hours into simply maintaining basic military functionality .

This is the central strategic concept. Every diesel generator powering a military facility in Sevastopol is fuel unavailable for armored units on the Zaporizhzhya front. Every engineer from the heavily damaged railway battalion in Kerch who is occupied with repairs is one less specialist available for building defensive fortifications on the mainland .

Politics and the Weaponry Question

Of course, you might ask: if this strategy is so effective, why not just destroy the bridge and be done with it? The answer, I believe, lies in a combination of political and strategic considerations.

We know that Ukraine has been “obsessed” with destroying the bridge, and there have been reports of operations like “Lunar Hail” in 2024 that used ATACMS to damage it . But a bridge is an extremely solid structure; it takes a massive, sustained strike to bring it down permanently. The early versions of ATACMS supplied to Ukraine, with their cluster munition warheads, were simply not capable of that task .

This leads to the distinct possibility that Ukraine’s Western partners, particularly the Biden administration, have not provided the necessary heavy, bunker-busting weapons for the job, or have restricted their use for “escalation management.” They may have prioritized other targets, or feared that the destruction of such a potent political symbol would cross a red line .

But what if the political restrictions are a blessing in disguise? By not destroying the bridge, Ukraine is forcing Russia to keep the bridge operational and burning resources on its defense. The bridge is now a trap. Russia cannot abandon it without a massive loss of face, but they also cannot use it effectively. It has become a strategic liability disguised as a symbol of power.

Conclusion: The Strategy of Irrelevance

So, where does that leave us? The attack on the Slavyanin was not a necessary step to hit the bridge. It was a devastating blow to a critical part of Russia’s logistical system that made the bridge more vulnerable and its fallback options less viable. This is part of a larger, devastatingly effective strategy: to make the Kerch Bridge irrelevant through a gradual, grinding process of attrition.

The Kerch Bridge is not the key to Ukraine’s victory, as some have argued; its destruction is not required for victory . By cutting off its maritime and air traffic, and by methodically destroying its ground-based rail and road connections, Ukraine is achieving the same outcome. The bridge still stands, but it’s a hollow symbol. The supply chain that it was supposed to anchor has been broken.

Russia now faces a terrible dilemma. They must choose between continuing to pour resources into a black hole in Crimea or abandoning their “unsinkable aircraft carrier.” Meanwhile, Ukrainian forces have leveraged their advantage in drone technology and innovation to create a “logistical blockade” that is systematically weakening Russian forces across the southern front . In the end, Ukraine may not need to destroy the bridge. By making it an empty, symbolic gesture, they may have achieved something far more significant: making it a monument to a failure.

The question of Crimea’s future hangs over this war like no other. Russia’s invasion began with its seizure of the peninsula in 2014, and who ends up in possession of Crimea remains perhaps the biggest sticking point in any potential end to the conflict. When retired U.S. Army General Ben Hodges — a man whose analysis I deeply respect — recently said he predicts the Kerch Bridge “is going to happen this year,” it set off a familiar wave of speculation . The logic seems so straightforward: hit the bridge, break Putin’s symbol, and cripple Russian logistics. But I’ve come to believe that this narrative, while compelling, might be missing the forest for the trees.

I think Ukraine has found something more effective than destroying the bridge: making it irrelevant. The attack on the ferry Slavyanin in Port Kavkaz wasn’t just a precursor to a future bridge strike; it was the latest move in a devastatingly effective campaign of isolation and attrition. The goal isn’t just to break a single span of concrete and steel. It’s to make Crimea a “suitcase without a handle,” as Ukrainian drone commander Robert “Magyar” Brovdi put it — a burden too heavy to carry and impossible to put down .

The Strategy of Isolation: Three Steps to a Siege

Phillips O’Brien’s framework for understanding Ukraine’s Crimea strategy — cutting off maritime, air, and ground traffic — remains useful. But as I’ve argued before, I don’t see these as strictly chronological steps. They’ve been happening in parallel, driven by the capabilities Ukraine has been able to get its hands on. And the results have been staggering.

The Maritime Task is Largely Done. Since Russia pulled out of the grain deal, Ukraine has systematically dismantled the Black Sea Fleet’s ability to operate. The fleet has been forced to relocate from Sevastopol to Novorossiysk, roughly 350 kilometers to the east . The Kerch Strait’s port infrastructure is under constant pressure. The ferry Slavyanin was the last operational rail ferry in the region . With it destroyed and the other two rail ferries already knocked out, Russia’s maritime logistics are effectively dead.

The Air Defense Umbrella is Full of Holes. Ukraine’s relentless strikes on Russian air defense systems in Crimea have been so successful that Ukrainian air force spokesman recently referred to it as a “graveyard for Russian air defence systems” . The destruction of S-300 and S-400 systems, along with critical radar installations, has opened up the skies. As UK intelligence noted recently, this “expands Ukraine’s opportunities to strike the Crimean Bridge” and other high-value targets .

The Ground Logistics are Strangled. This is where the most devastating blows have been delivered. Ukraine has established fire control over the “Crimea-Donetsk” corridor. Systematic strikes on the R-280 “Novorossiya” highway — a critical supply route running along the northern coast of the Sea of Azov — have turned it into a “black hole” of burning fuel tankers and destroyed trucks . Military cargo traffic on some sections has reportedly decreased by 71% . Key choke points like the Chonhar bridges have been repeatedly damaged, forcing Russia to construct pontoon crossings that are themselves vulnerable . The Kerch Bridge itself has been rendered largely useless for heavy military cargo . Since the first Ukrainian strike in October 2022, Russia has been forced to ban heavy trucks from using it, confining it primarily to passenger traffic and forcing military logistics onto the now-destroyed ferries .

The Ferry’s Destruction: Eliminating the Fallback

This brings me to the attack on the Slavyanin. The conventional wisdom is that destroying the ferries is a necessary step before hitting the bridge. I disagree. The attack wasn’t about setting the stage for a bridge strike; it was about eliminating Russia’s fallback option. If you can hit Port Kavkaz — just 12 kilometers from the bridge — you can hit the bridge, too .

The operation to destroy the ferries was a masterstroke of strategic planning. By eliminating the last operational rail ferry, Ukraine has turned the bridge into a bottleneck. Russia now has a choice: use the bridge for rail traffic (risking a catastrophic strike on a politically sensitive symbol) or rely on a much slower and less efficient road-ferry system. With the Slavyanin gone and the other rail ferries destroyed, the bridge’s importance has actually increased, making it more vulnerable as a single point of failure .

Politics and the Weaponry Question

So, if the bridge is so vulnerable, why hasn’t it been destroyed? I see several possible explanations, and I don’t think any of them contradict the idea that the bridge’s destruction isn’t the key to victory.

The Operation Would Be Complex. As General Hodges rightly pointed out, destroying the bridge isn’t a simple task. “You’re not going to take it out with two or three Storm Shadows or ATACMS or something like that,” he said . The bridge is incredibly solid. Its foundations have been reinforced, and Russia has sunk ships on either side of the main span to protect against naval drones . A sustained operation with multiple phases would be required — something Ukraine might be saving for a moment of maximum impact.

Western Restrictions are a Factor. It’s no secret that the Biden administration has been cautious about escalation. President Zelensky himself has recently hinted that Ukraine is developing its own long-range missiles to avoid dependence on political approval from other countries . It’s entirely possible that ATACMS and Storm Shadow missiles have been delivered with conditions attached, preventing their use on the Kerch Bridge .

The Bridge is Now a Trap. This is the most important point, and it’s why I believe the bridge’s destruction may not be necessary. By keeping the bridge standing but unusable, Ukraine is forcing Russia to make a terrible choice. They must pour enormous resources into defending a symbol that no longer serves a military purpose. As Ukrainian Navy spokesperson Dmytro Pletenchuk explained, the Russians have prioritized protecting the bridge even over defending their own weapons depots . This means every S-400 system stationed to protect the bridge is one less system protecting Russian forces on the front lines.

Conclusion: The Bridge as a “Suitcase Without a Handle”

I believe Ukraine has already achieved the strategic goal of neutralizing the Crimean Bridge without having to destroy it. The bridge still stands, but it’s a hollow symbol. The supply chain that it was supposed to anchor has been broken. Fuel shortages are so acute that civilian sales have been suspended . Power outages are commonplace . The tourism industry in Crimea has collapsed . The peninsula is becoming an unlivable and unsustainable outpost.

This is what victory looks like in a war of attrition. As Oksana Kuzan, co-founder of the Ukrainian Center for Security and Cooperation, put it, Ukraine’s success in isolating Crimea will “lay the groundwork” for forcing Russia to negotiate . By making the peninsula a liability, not an asset, Ukraine has turned the Kerch Bridge into a monument to Russian failure. And that, I would argue, is more devastating than simply blowing it up.