Russian engineers have restored car traffic across the Crimea Bridge, also known as the Kerch Bridge, following a strike that crippled the structure on Monday.
Russian Deputy Prime Minister of Construction and Regional Development Marat Khusnullin posted online that “vehicle traffic on the Crimean bridge has been restored in reverse mode on the extreme right lane of the Taman-Kerch direction!”
“As was reported to the President today, the bridge was prepared for launch as soon as possible. We carried out a preliminary diagnosis of the structures of the spans, which confirmed that their condition allows for the start of movement.”
Russia has claimed that Ukraine struck the bridge with a series of maritime drones. “2 Ukrainian surface drones attacked the Crimean Bridge on Monday night, leaving 2 adults dead and a child injured. Damage was done to the bridge’s roadway,” the National Anti-Terrorist Committee reported to state-owned media outlet TASS.
While Kyiv has largely denied responsibility for the attack, Ukrainian military intelligence spokesperson Andriy Yusov admitted that a strike on the bridge would complicate matters for the Russian military.
“The peninsula is used by the Russians as a large logistical hub for moving forces and assets deep into the territory of Ukraine,” Yusov stated. “Of course, any logistical problems are additional complications for the occupiers.”
Mykhailo Podolyak, an adviser to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, also added that “any illegal structures used to deliver Russian instruments of mass murder are necessarily short-lived,” alluding to involvement but not claiming responsibility.
Russian President Vladimir Putin vowed revenge for the strike, which he referred to as a “terrorist” attack.
“There will be a response from Russia to the terrorist attack on the Crimean bridge. The Ministry of Defense is preparing relevant proposals,” Putin remarked during a meeting with Russian officials, adding that “I would like to repeat that what happened is another terrorist act” by Kyiv and claiming the bridge held no military significance.