There are burnmarks high up on the pillars of the train bridge but not on the lower parts. This would suggest that the explosion happened on top of the bridge.
I believe the burn marks you see on the train bridge would mostly be due to the fuel train cars that ignited shortly after the blast on the car bridge… that said I’m no expert just saw the cctv footage on youtube…
It is amusing to see "trolling" casually used in the correct, modern sense in a BBC article. Doubly so given serious circumstances surrounding it use.
Also I find it hard to believe Russia destroyed the mysterious drone boat that washed up. Seems like a colossal waste if true.
Edit: I also wonder if it is some kind of response to nord stream getting blown up, like "Just look at that, some of your infrastructure out at sea can mysteriously blow up too with no one claiming responsibility, funny isn't it?"
Language evolves. People have come to understand the difference between windows in a house, and windows in the context of a computer. I'm sure you understand this.
> "This is a concrete manifestation of the conflict between the FSB [Russia's internal intelligence service] / PMC [private military contractors, like the Wagner Group] on the one hand, and the Ministry of Defence / general staff of the Russian Federation on the other hand," he said.
> Did Mr Podolyak know something everyone else didn't? Or was he, perhaps, trolling Moscow, playing on extremely raw nerves exposed by Russia's recent setbacks on the battlefield in Ukraine?
The use of trolling here isn't to carefully a systematically search for an area of something. The use is much more akin to the internet's version of the word, which has the meaning of 'saying something meant to bring an extreme response from another targeted party'.
If there was a mention of investigators trolling the area for evidence of bomb vehicles, I'm with you, even though that feels like an uncommon usage in a BBC article. But this does feel different to me.
The internet slang variant is in dictionaries now so the usage is correct! And modern, seeing as it was added post-internet era. The amusement comes purely from seeing it in the BBC, an institution known for their formal English who at one point standardized the accents of their presenters.
It seems like a completely valid military target regardless of nordstream. It'd certainly be in Ukraine's interest in blowing up the rest of the rail and road connections to Russia, I'm guessing trade relations will be pretty strained for some time.
This bridge was completed in 2018, and has only carried freight trains since 2020. So Ukraine has never used this bridge.. it was only built to tie Crimea closer to Russia after its annexation.
Right, I think regardless of who/when it was built, it is in Ukraine's interest to disrupt supplies and troop movements. Unfed troops are not going to really be motivated to defend territories.
It absolutely is. I just find the timing interesting since it happened soon after. Its not like the bridge just became an available target, its been there the whole time. Still, those responsible may not have been able to pull it off until now so it's probably just a coincidence.
The other interesting timing is the recent Russian conscription drive. This explosion disrupts one of the primary routes for getting troops and supplies across the border.
> Edit: I also wonder if it is some kind of response to nord stream getting blown up, like "Just look at that, some of your infrastructure out at sea can mysteriously blow up too with no one claiming responsibility, funny isn't it?"
Do you seriously think Russia blew up a pipeline that it had complete control over? Why would Russia give up leverage like that?
> Russian President Vladimir Putin accused Ukraine of attacking the bridge in an "act of terrorism".
When 2 countries are at war, with active combat going on, is an act of terrorism possible? Isn’t it just a normal thing in war to destroy infrastructure?
Russia never declared war on Ukraine. It's all "special military operation" for them, lots and lots of untrained Russian soldiers going to Ukraine for some reason and not coming back.
What's even better is that recently, Russian government proclaimed some oblasts of Ukraine to be Russian territory, _even the areas they never controlled_, such as Zaporizhzhia city or Sloviansk. Russian government is not all there.
> What's even better is that recently, Russian government proclaimed some oblasts of Ukraine to be Russian territory, _even the areas they never controlled_, such as Zaporizhzhia city
Even better, Russia shelled what they considered their own city (Zaporizhzhia) in retaliation for the strike on the Kerch Bridge.
Yeah, many people don't get that. They listen to Putin's drivel and conclude he's either stupid or crazy. But his message is mostly aimed at the Russian population, already believing most of what they see in their state TV. In their minds, Ukraine is the aggressor and Russia is the protector and liberator.
That's correct. That's the reason why a lot of civilian infrastructure in Gaza becomes a legitimate military target during Hamas-Israel confrontations.
That’s interesting.
Can you name any other concentration camps that shoot thousands of rockets at civilian cities? ‘Cause that’s what coming out of Gaza.
Bridges are the kind of poster child for civil infrastructure that is usually targeted by belligerents in a war. The Kerch Bridge is a key part of Russian military logistics for Crimea, so it shouldn't be a surprise that it's a target.
Define "actively used". Is an ammo depot with no one currently removing items from it actively used? What about a bridge that's used to bring in reinforcements but has no vehicles currently on it?
As an obvious counter-example: a runway at a military airfield is a legitimate target even if not in active use. Same for military aircraft sitting dark in hangars at that airfield.
The bridge is certainly a legitimate military target. However, if indeed a bomb in a civilian-marked truck were used as Russia alleges (I have my doubts based on the footage and pattern of destruction), then it would be an act of terrorism that violates the rules of war (and such an act would be doubly egregious due to the civilians killed as collateral damage in Thai attack).
Yes, but if you violate the laws of war in an attack (e.g. if we stipulate that Ukraine did use a truck bomb, either with or without the knowledge of the truck driver), then the entire attack is unjustified and the collateral damage becomes murder.
For sure they have. The thing that makes me feel sick about this one is that it's an attack that killed civilians that has been widely celebrated.
I dont remember this happening before.
Being reminded that it is legal under our interpretation of international law doesnt make it feel any better. The same would apply to virtually all Russian attacks too.
As bad as it sounds, it's not against laws of war. For yet more clear example, munition factories are worked by 100% civilians (or close to 100%) and they're still legitimate targets. It's enough that civiians weren't deliberately targeted.
Also see https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grdelica_train_bombing, where a train got hit while passing a bridge, which was the real target. 20-55 civilians were dead, but ICTY found no wrongdoing, because the train was just unlucky to be in the wrong place at the wrong time, and pilot failed to notice it.
If you take an equally liberal interpretation (which they obviously do), there isnt any clear evidence that Russia has broken any laws of war either.
Regardless of the law, I think it's pretty sickening to watch Russians military attacks that inadvertently killed civilians. Im no less revulsed by us doing it.
> If you take an equally liberal interpretation (which they obviously do), there isnt any clear evidence that Russia has broken any laws of war either.
Is raping and torturing civilians against the laws of war?.
Cause we have plenty of evidence of that alone, let alone the evidence of Russians directly targeting civilian buildings and evacuation corridors.
>Is raping and torturing civilians against the laws of war?
It is, which is why Lyudmila Denisova made up accusations in order to get more weapons for Ukraine. She made the mistake of getting caught doing it and so was fired. A lot of people assume that this was an isolated incident. I dont.
There is a lack of independent observers of war crimes (there are satellite photos of dead bodies, but that in itself doesnt prove war crimes were committed) as well as powerful incentives for Ukraine to lie about this on an industrial scale - Ukrainian military supply lines are utterly dependent on western sympathy not drying up.
> There is a lack of independent observers of war crimes (there are satellite photos of dead bodies, but that in itself doesnt prove war crimes were committed) as well as powerful incentives for Ukraine to lie about this on an industrial scale - Ukrainian military supply lines are utterly dependent on western sympathy not drying up.
The UN recently released a independent report that says they uncovered evidence that Russian soldiers raped and tortured civilians in Ukraine, including children.
> The Commission has documented cases in which children have been raped, tortured, and unlawfully confined. Children have also been killed and injured in indiscriminate attacks with explosive weapons. The exposure to repeated explosions, crimes, forced displacement and separation from family members deeply affected their well-being and mental health.
> It is
So you are in agreement with me Russia commits war crimes, good to know.
The UN recently released an "independent" report refusing to assign blame for shelling on Zaporizhia.
I would like to trust the UN but when the truth of what happened in Zaporizhia was so very obvious and they made no comment on it after a thorough investigation, they undermined their status as an impartial investigator.
Rape is a difficult allegation to prove at the best of times. During the fog of war, with no impartial observers and a paucity of evidence other than witness testimony it becomes nearly impossible. This is pretty much where we are.
>Children have also been killed and injured in indiscriminate attacks with explosive weapons.
How do you prove that attacks are indiscriminate? For 50 years Israel has been accused of this after killing thousands of children and has successfully batted away the accusation with "well, we were firing at militants, civilians just happened to be there whoops".
This (among other things) set a precedent under international law that the standard of evidence required to prove mens rea was almost impossibly high.
So far we havent had anything like the Srebrenica massacre (clear cut evidence of militants caught on camera admitting to massacring civilians) we've just got a lot of unreliable witnesses, a lot of accusations flying and a lot of largely western leaning institutions that are as credulous of Ukrainian accusations of warcrimes as they are incredulous of Russian accusations.
>So you are in agreement with me Russia commits war crimes
I suspect everybody of committing war crimes but I trust nobody to actually investigate and punish them.
I realize this puts me in a minority. To most people, this war seems to be a team sport and demonstrate the same level of introspection as a knicks fan or somebody wearing a MAGA hat.
> It's hard to prove that attacks are indiscriminate. For 50 years Israel has been accused of this and has successfully batted away the accusation with "well, we were firing at militants, civilians just happened to be there whoops".
The Russians level entire cities, the leader of the DPR even explicitly said they where going to kill all Ukrainians they couldn't 'convince', threatening to kill them all.
As I said, the bridge is a legitimate military target, and attacking it (with or without collateral damage) would be legitimate. What isn’t legitimate is breaking the rules of war to attack it (e.g. using an unmarked truck bomb if that was indeed how the attack was carried out).
If their aim was killing civilians, they would have chosen a busy time. They chose the least busiest time. Also, to clear the bridge of all traffic to then attack, would reveal your intentions to the enemy. There was no way the bridge was being destroyed without casualties. Civilian deaths are always bad, however if this act shortens the length of the war, that will save countless more lives than the ones lost on that bridge.
Meanwhile, Russia retaliates by hitting residential buildings with rockets. I am eager to hear what you think of that.
Attack on one of the largest supply routes during the least crowded time to minimize potential victims vs shelling an apartment building far away from the front lines in the middle of night.
One is just not like the other, no matter how you spin it.
This amnesty report is very biased and undermines whole organisations credibility. And no, Russia is currently bombing apartment buildings with no military targets in sight, with the sole goal of terrorising the population, just an hour ago they did it again.
Ukraine has not taken credit for the bridge attack. We still don’t fully know who did it. It could have been Russia for all we know. They have shown a much greater willingness to indiscriminately kill civilians throughout this conflict, which they started .
Tell me of a single major conflict that didn’t involve civilian casualties. I will wait. It is terrible, but unavoidable, especially given the circumstances that Russia has created in Ukraine, unprovoked.
There are major differences between the participants with regards to intent. Intent of their actions. Russian soldiers have raped, tortured and executed civilians. There have been mass graves found in the liberated territories.
I don’t see how you can equate these with the destruction of a bridge that is vitally important to Russia’s control and supply of Crimea and southern Ukraine. The intent would be to deprive Russia of re-supply and access. The intention of mass killings, torture and rape, is to kill and torture people. There is no legitimate strategic objective for these actions.
It's hard to say. For example, when the new secular Afghan government called the USSR to come "help them" with the local population, the USA and Saudis secretly funded and trained local fighters (Mujahideen) as local resistance, as well as encouraging foreign fighters (Afghan Arabs) to travel and also attack with Stinger Missiles and RPGs. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_military_equipment_use...
But also blowing up things up to and including civilian infrastructure. Lots of bridges, etc. were attacked for years. This is a guerilla insurgency. Wikipedia says:
They concentrated on both civilian and military targets, knocking out bridges, closing major roads, attacking convoys, disrupting the electric power system and industrial production, and attacking police stations and Soviet military installations and air bases. They assassinated government officials and PDPA members, and laid siege to small rural outposts. In March 1982, a bomb exploded at the Ministry of Education, damaging several buildings. In the same month, a widespread power failure darkened Kabul when a pylon on the transmission line from the Naghlu power station was blown up. In June 1982 a column of about 1,000 young communist party members sent out to work in the Panjshir valley were ambushed within 30 km of Kabul, with heavy loss of life. On 4 September 1985, insurgents shot down a domestic Bakhtar Airlines plane as it took off from Kandahar airport, killing all 52 people aboard.
So even if USSR "won", or supported the local secular government, they'd get attacked, similar to how the Taliban would fight the USA in the last 20 years and eventually make our army leave too (this year). The USA used this force to, in the words of Brezhinski, national security advisor "make the soviets bleed for as much and as long as possible": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A9RCFZnWGE0
Unfortunately, the longer a protracted proxy war like this goes on, the more civilians are killed. After the Soviets "won" in Afghanistan, the ensuing proxy war claimed the lives of 2 million Afghan civilians! https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet%E2%80%93Afghan_War
In Ukraine, the CIA thought Russia would quickly make the government in Kyiv capitulate and agree to Putin's demands, so they started training Ukrainian paramilitaries to do the work of Mujahideen, here is an article in Yahoo News about that from before Feb 24:
"Terrorism" does have a real meaning, but in practical real-world effect its meaning is potentially or actually lethal acts of violence/destruction by groups we refuse to recognize as legitimate. Yes, that sucks. I wish people would use the word more honestly.
Are you suggesting the Ukrainian postal service pulled it off? This was months in the making; I bet they already have projects for the liberation of Crimea ready.
They don't have to be told about the attack as part of the promotion. A group of stamp artists gets told "we want to make stamps of 50 different Russian monuments getting blown up to support national unity." Then, they produce some art - Lenin's tomb, this bridge, the Kremlin, some sort of iconic skyscraper, etc. One of the 50 gets blown up, and a stamp line gets released. For bonus points, if one of those artists actually is a Russian asset, the Russians now waste resources guarding all the other monuments expecting future attacks.
The screenshot-the-TV approach also works, and there are ML filters that can stylize that art, so we wouldn't know how the stamps were actually created.
If they had prints available the next day it would be telling. This bridge has been talked about as a next target since the flagship was hit. Not surprising there was art available.
I've been amusing myself with mental scenarios of the trained Russian attack-dolphins detecting Ukrainian frogmen and deciding that they're not getting decent enough fish for this bollocks and swimming away looking casual.
The images of the damage seem to thoroughly rule out the boat theory. There's clear evidence of lateral shockwaves on the upper-side of the deck (the guardrails are basically completely blown off), and the underside doesn't have the same lateral damage--the catwalks are mostly intact, for example.
I'm also skeptical of missile theory--if you're targeting this with a missile, and you have the precision of such, the place to blow up the bridge wouldn't be where it was hit, but on the high portion of the bridge, where replacing damaged sections would be hard.
The truck bomb does seem the most likely option to me.
Like the article points out, CCTV footage of the explosion shows that it did not originate from the truck; there is a bright light above and to the right of it the instant before the explosion.
There's also debris and stuff coming from above and to the right of the truck once the picture returns. And there's the expert in the article saying what he sees is not consistent with a large truck bomb.
They don't actually show any frames of the footage illustrating what they mean, but I've seen one explanation that what was seen is actually an artifact of the camera: the brightness of the frame changes mid-capture, and that it makes look like the explosion is happening elsewhere.
Occam's razor leads me to the conclusion that it was most likely done by the Ukrainian intelligence agencies and that the truck was loaded with explosives.
Question is did the driver know or was he unavare.
How did it lead to the truck being the source of the explosives though? How did they time the explosion to the train's crossing so well?
Feels to me like attacking from the ocean would have a higher probability of success than trying to sneak a truck packed with explosives onto a bridge that (one assumes) the Russians are very watchful over.
By being packed with explosives. The video of the inspection of the truck before it crossed the bridge shows a not very thorough inspection and it was not X-rayed.
Also the underside of the bridge is untact as far as burn mark go.
And in terms of timing, even if the driver was unaware (i.e. wasn't a voluntary suicide mission), all it would take is a radio detonator and someone watching from afar with a telescope, if not a drone.
For me this is weird because the truck was coming from Russia and there are checkpoints too, so Ukrainians would need to have somehow access to explosives inside Russia. In theory you would find more Ukrainian sympathy in Crimea and not in Russia, but I do not know that area of the world so maybe the level of incompetence in Russia is even larger then I thought.
It could be that truck, but it could be the Putin "clever" tactics to claim Ukrainians are terrorists(for some reason Russians started to use the terrorist word when a military target is bombed but when they bomb civilian apartments and malls it is just the old soviet incompetence excuse)
Could be a false flag, we don't know now and I don't think we will get the full truth.
If it was the Ukranians they would never admit to it as the bridge is used by civilians and civilians died in the explosion. The same reason why Russia won't admit to its own terrorist actions in Ukraine.
As for the explosives, besides corruption, one could improvise in all sorts of manners, especially with the know-how and resources of a state actor.
My understanding is that "terrorism" means you target civilians with the purpose to terrorize them to push for goals. When you are a Russian retard and destroy a civilian airplane because you are dumb I would not claim in terrorism because it was not intended like that, when you target a bridge, military base , munition depo you are not a terrorist even if civilians are victims... but when you fire at apartments because you are a frustrated cunt and want to terrorize civilians then you are a terrorist state.
But I think there are enough photos and videos from the bridge that experts can figure it out, even if Russian propaganda will spin some cigarette story or other weird excuse.
There's nothing terroristic about killing civilians on a bridge. A bridge is a valid military target (esp. in this case), and so bombing the bridge is fine in a war. If civilians are on the bridge and die, too bad: that's what happens in a war.
Bombing a hospital or a school is terroristic and illegal according to the rules of war.
Sure, but the case with the hospital, the malls and today bombing was just random acts of terror but Russia would claim that 3 different official lies by 3 different officials before they converge one something ridiculous like "in fact we were targeting some military stuff 1 km away but Igor was drunk entered coordinates wrong"
The number of anti-russian-infrastructure sabotage attacks happening in recent days is getting troubling. First Nordstream and now this.
It seems unlikely that this was a missile strike or a boat attack from the analyses I have seen. A car bomb or a big explosive placed on the top of the bridge seems like the most likely possibility. This attack is certainly something that a Ukrainian special forces unit would be capable of doing.
It is certainly possible that these are Russia's doing to get their population interested in the war and cut off Europe from gas, but a false flag would not be my first guess.
Edit: I am not trying to say that these attacks are "anti-Russia" or that they were not done by the Russians. I am only saying that a lot of people have been destroying strategically important infrastructure operated by the Russians. Who is doing it is anyone's guess. To think we know who actually did any of these attacks without a thorough investigation is silly.
I agree the few number of attacks is concerning, hopefully this is the start of a more substantive campaign to degrade the Russians capability to wage war.
I find it concerning that you seem to be feeding into the Russian trollfarm narrative that the Nordstream sabotage was "anti-Russian" as opposed to Russian led
I am not saying that it was anti-Russian, just that it was an attack on Russian infrastructure ("anti-russian-infrastructure" isn't the cleanest wording, sorry).
However, we don't know who did it. It could have been the Russians. It could have been the Americans. It could have been the Germans. It could have been an extremist climate activism group. We have no idea.
I think this is the most plausible theory that explains Russian backing. An alternative theory is that this was an accident from them trying to fix hydrate plugs in the pipes, and doing it wrong. Another possibility is that Russian popular support for the war could be flagging, and Putin was trying to drum up unity.
However, Putin has not been shy about simply seizing assets using the Russian legal system, so destroying an important strategic asset to keep the oligarchs in line seems like an extreme move. The popular support battle, for Putin, already seems to be lost, and it's unclear why blowing up a pipeline would help.
If he did blow up the pipeline, whether it was an accident or a power play, blaming the US (which he is doing) makes a lot of sense.
The elephant in the room is that there is a great reason why the US (or Ukraine, if they had the operational capability, or Turkey or France, for that matter) would blow up the pipeline: it closes off Europe's options to buy oil from Russia this coming winter, which, in turn, ensures that they have no reason not to support the war. However, if they did blow up the pipeline, they certainly couldn't admit it, and they would need to find a scapegoat, and the best scapegoat is the country they want Europe to be angry at: Russia. The US has an additional possible motivation: it opens the path to selling LNG to the EU.
So here we are. Russia blames the US, the US and NATO blame Russia, and nobody has claimed responsibility. This is consistent with either truth of who actually did it. Eventually, we may know the truth about what happened. We certainly don't know today.
- It was not being used anyway and was less likely to be used every single day
- Apparently the gas wells in Siberia's permafrost areas have frozen due to lack of use and Russia doesn't have the tech to reopen them without Western help which falls under sanctions (note I read this in another forum and haven't been able to validate this)
- The attack happened one day after the opening of the Baltic pipe from Scandinavia to Poland. Could be a way of putting NATO on notice that their infrastructure is vulnerable, without actually attacking it. Like a veiled threat.
I also thought it was unlikely to be Russia at the time but in light of the arguments above (which I read brought by other people) it became more likely to me.
On the other hand the Ukrainians have always hated Nord Stream because it meant a loss of transit fees for them. Somehow I don't think this is their biggest worry right now though. And I doubt they'd want to risk agitating NATO counties which own half of it.
I'm still not convinced either way. I'm not very good at geopolitical insight :(
> - It was not being used anyway and was less likely to be used every single day
Once EU countries found themselves paying >5x what they're used to paying to keep their houses warm in a month or so, they might well have decided to pinch their noses and start buying Russian gas again. Russia would very much have liked this, non-European NATO countries would not. Now it's not even a question.
> - The attack happened one day after the opening of the Baltic pipe from Scandinavia to Poland. Could be a way of putting NATO on notice that their infrastructure is vulnerable, without actually attacking it. Like a veiled threat.
Shooting yourself in the foot is a strange way to demonstrate that you have a gun.
> On the other hand the Ukrainians have always hated Nord Stream because it meant a loss of transit fees for them. Somehow I don't think this is their biggest worry right now though. And I doubt they'd want to risk agitating NATO counties which own half of it.
I don't think Ukraine would have been involved in it either, but they stand to benefit in the short-term from anything which would isolate Russia further. In terms of agitating European NATO states, they've already gone through the initial shock of cutting off cheap gas, the damage of permanently losing access to it isn't as politically costly.
Destroying infrastructure is part of war, Ukraine has obviously lost a lot of infrastructure as well.
Not sure about the pipeline, whoever did that seems to have made sure to do it in a manner that leaves enough ambiguity for everyone to just imagine whatever they want as the cause.
For the bridge, I'd be be surprised if it wasn't someone at least intending to work in favor of Ukraine. Maybe it was planned from the top, maybe it was done by irregulars, maybe it is somewhere in between like special forces on a really, really long leash. But it is used to bring in troops and supplies, seems like a smart target, right?
The global media is very fragmented, and people don't get information from other countries very easily.
Russians have already launched an ongoing investigation, and are reporting it locally as follows... I'll use Google Translate from one of the Telegram channels carrying the news:
The case of the explosion on the Crimean bridge was brought under the article "terrorism". During the investigation of the terrorist act on the Crimean bridge, many witnesses and eyewitnesses were interrogated, special expert studies were started and largely completed — Bastrykin
As the head of the Investigative Committee noted at a meeting with the President of the Russian Federation, explosive, genetic and forensic examinations were carried out. He also said that relevant instructions had been given to the FSB and the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia to conduct operational-search activities.
Later that day:
In preparing the terrorist attack on the Crimean bridge, the Ukrainian special services resorted to the services of a fly-by-night company - it was through it that they ordered the ill-fated truck
According to media reports, the driver Mahir Yusubov was transporting cargo on the order of the TEK-34 company, which ordered him to transport the film from Armavir to Simferopol on October 6. As Readovka already wrote, the driver could have been on the Crimean bridge on October 7, Vladimir Putin's birthday, but stopped nearby for the night.
As Readovka found out, the head of TEK-34 is Oleg Aleksandrovich Antipov, and the company is registered in Ulyanovsk. Antipov has been in charge since November 13, 2020. Previously, the company was registered in the Volgograd region, but at the end of March 2022, the legal address was changed to Ulyanovsk.
For 2021, according to our data, the company's revenue was equal to zero, and the company itself is listed as unreliable, since it has not paid taxes for at least the last three years. On the forums of carriers, comments were written on behalf of the TEK-34 company in the period from 2018 to 2020 - on behalf of a certain Olga.
All this points to the work of the Ukrainian special services, whose involvement in the terrorist attack is no longer in doubt after publications in major Western publications. To implement their plan, they resorted to the use of a fly-by-night company, of which, unfortunately, there are a considerable number in Russia.
And today:
According to information from KP military correspondent Alexander Kots, the cargo, ordered by a citizen of Ukraine, arrived by sea from Bulgaria in the form of 22 pallets of film to Georgian Poti. After that, it was loaded onto a truck and sent to Armenia, where it was cleared according to the rules of the Customs Union. As a result, the truck again entered Georgia, and then crossed the border with the Russian Federation through the Upper Lars checkpoint and went to Armavir, where the cargo was transferred to another truck, which drove onto the Crimean bridge.
Most likely, the explosives were planted in rolls of film to avoid detection through x-rays. This happened in Bulgaria, which indicates the participation of foreign intelligence services in organizing the attack.
How big are these rolls that we're talking about? Not 35mm. Are we talking movie projector rolls? Or something larger and more industrial or medical?
Also you would think that if anything were required to be hand-inspected 100% of the time, you'd think it would be things that couldn't be x-rayed... precisely like rolls of film...
Not saying it isn't true, just saying that the inspection incompetence is shocking for something that is a known top priority military target.
Bulgarian here: our government when it was around and currently our president are very anti supplying Ukraine with weapons or provoking Russia in any way. Only us and Hungary haven’t supported Ukraine in a military manner from all the EU/NATO countries.
Our president refused to sign the recent Ukraine into NATO document that all of Eastern Europe signed, citing that he doesn’t want to be directly involved in the war and this would allegedly enter us in the war.
This allegation that Bulgarian intelligence services had a hand in this seems really unlikely, as there’s quite a bit of pro-Russia sentiments in a lot of politicians and military leaders. I’d be extremely surprised that they had a hand in it.
On the other hand, any repercussions or threats from Russia would finally force even the most pro-Russia politicians to take a stance against them or be looked on as a traitor.
Very interested to see what message Russia puts out regarding this, if any.
From the size of it, I'd say it's about the size of Timothy McVeigh's Oklahoma city bomb, which was a 16 ton truck filled with fertilizer. All trucks over this bridge were supposedly inspected, so I think it would have to be a more compact explosive. Perhaps the secret services have classified explosives the could produce this kind of explosive punch just from a car trunk load?
> All trucks over this bridge were supposedly inspected
The operative word is “supposedly.” I suspect the same corruption that is everywhere in the Russian sphere exists in their infrastructure security apparatus.
When I moved from California to New Mexico I hauled a cargo trailer crammed full of my possessions across Hoover Dam. A cop pulled me over at the entrance and had me open it up. When he saw how full it was, he poked around it a bit, and told me he really shouldn't let me through, but go ahead, and don't do that again. It would have been several more hours to drive down to Needles and cross there.
In the EU at borders lorries and freight trains are x-rayed. I've only crossed the external EU border by land a couple of times, but lorries had to drive at a constant speed (without stopping!) through a metal archway, which presumably was the x-ray machine.
I haven't seen a similar system near vulnerable infrastructure, but it might exist. It may be overkill for a lightly trafficked road.
138 comments
[ 3.6 ms ] story [ 180 ms ] threadAlso I find it hard to believe Russia destroyed the mysterious drone boat that washed up. Seems like a colossal waste if true.
Edit: I also wonder if it is some kind of response to nord stream getting blown up, like "Just look at that, some of your infrastructure out at sea can mysteriously blow up too with no one claiming responsibility, funny isn't it?"
[0] https://mobile.twitter.com/Ukraine/status/157863482541765017...
The "correct" definition hasn't changed:
> carefully and systematically search an area for something.
Not sure how you came to the idea that internet slang is anything other than internet slang.
That is trawling, not trolling.
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/troll#Etymology_2
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/trawl#Verb
> Did Mr Podolyak know something everyone else didn't? Or was he, perhaps, trolling Moscow, playing on extremely raw nerves exposed by Russia's recent setbacks on the battlefield in Ukraine?
The use of trolling here isn't to carefully a systematically search for an area of something. The use is much more akin to the internet's version of the word, which has the meaning of 'saying something meant to bring an extreme response from another targeted party'.
If there was a mention of investigators trolling the area for evidence of bomb vehicles, I'm with you, even though that feels like an uncommon usage in a BBC article. But this does feel different to me.
Do you seriously think Russia blew up a pipeline that it had complete control over? Why would Russia give up leverage like that?
When 2 countries are at war, with active combat going on, is an act of terrorism possible? Isn’t it just a normal thing in war to destroy infrastructure?
Therefore, I suppose he can only call this an act of terrorism.
What's even better is that recently, Russian government proclaimed some oblasts of Ukraine to be Russian territory, _even the areas they never controlled_, such as Zaporizhzhia city or Sloviansk. Russian government is not all there.
Even better, Russia shelled what they considered their own city (Zaporizhzhia) in retaliation for the strike on the Kerch Bridge.
https://theintercept.com/2018/05/20/norman-finkelstein-gaza-...
Surgical precision drone strikes at weddings for example, where it turns out nobody there was a terrorist.
I dont remember this happening before.
Being reminded that it is legal under our interpretation of international law doesnt make it feel any better. The same would apply to virtually all Russian attacks too.
Also see https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grdelica_train_bombing, where a train got hit while passing a bridge, which was the real target. 20-55 civilians were dead, but ICTY found no wrongdoing, because the train was just unlucky to be in the wrong place at the wrong time, and pilot failed to notice it.
Regardless of the law, I think it's pretty sickening to watch Russians military attacks that inadvertently killed civilians. Im no less revulsed by us doing it.
Is raping and torturing civilians against the laws of war?.
Cause we have plenty of evidence of that alone, let alone the evidence of Russians directly targeting civilian buildings and evacuation corridors.
It is, which is why Lyudmila Denisova made up accusations in order to get more weapons for Ukraine. She made the mistake of getting caught doing it and so was fired. A lot of people assume that this was an isolated incident. I dont.
There is a lack of independent observers of war crimes (there are satellite photos of dead bodies, but that in itself doesnt prove war crimes were committed) as well as powerful incentives for Ukraine to lie about this on an industrial scale - Ukrainian military supply lines are utterly dependent on western sympathy not drying up.
The UN recently released a independent report that says they uncovered evidence that Russian soldiers raped and tortured civilians in Ukraine, including children.
> https://www.ohchr.org/en/statements/2022/09/update-chair-ind...
> The Commission has documented cases in which children have been raped, tortured, and unlawfully confined. Children have also been killed and injured in indiscriminate attacks with explosive weapons. The exposure to repeated explosions, crimes, forced displacement and separation from family members deeply affected their well-being and mental health.
> It is
So you are in agreement with me Russia commits war crimes, good to know.
The UN recently released an "independent" report refusing to assign blame for shelling on Zaporizhia.
I would like to trust the UN but when the truth of what happened in Zaporizhia was so very obvious and they made no comment on it after a thorough investigation, they undermined their status as an impartial investigator.
Rape is a difficult allegation to prove at the best of times. During the fog of war, with no impartial observers and a paucity of evidence other than witness testimony it becomes nearly impossible. This is pretty much where we are.
>Children have also been killed and injured in indiscriminate attacks with explosive weapons.
How do you prove that attacks are indiscriminate? For 50 years Israel has been accused of this after killing thousands of children and has successfully batted away the accusation with "well, we were firing at militants, civilians just happened to be there whoops".
This (among other things) set a precedent under international law that the standard of evidence required to prove mens rea was almost impossibly high.
So far we havent had anything like the Srebrenica massacre (clear cut evidence of militants caught on camera admitting to massacring civilians) we've just got a lot of unreliable witnesses, a lot of accusations flying and a lot of largely western leaning institutions that are as credulous of Ukrainian accusations of warcrimes as they are incredulous of Russian accusations.
>So you are in agreement with me Russia commits war crimes
I suspect everybody of committing war crimes but I trust nobody to actually investigate and punish them.
I realize this puts me in a minority. To most people, this war seems to be a team sport and demonstrate the same level of introspection as a knicks fan or somebody wearing a MAGA hat.
The Russians level entire cities, the leader of the DPR even explicitly said they where going to kill all Ukrainians they couldn't 'convince', threatening to kill them all.
https://mobile.twitter.com/JuliaDavisNews/status/15798208107...
We have videos of the Russians committing war crimes if you really need that.
Here Russia killing two unarmed civilians, caught on camera.
https://edition.cnn.com/2022/05/11/europe/ukraine-video-russ...
Here's a link to an article, cause I don't want to link the video. Of a Russian soldier castrating a Ukrainian PoW.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torture_and_castration_of_a_Uk...
Here's a link to a Russian tank obliterating a car with civilians on it, on camera.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nQz1UUkmuqM
Here's a article that mixes video and witness testimony which says Russia executed 8 civilians.
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/05/19/world/europe/russia-bucha...
So will you finally admit Russia commits war crimes, or will video evidence suddenly not be good enough?.
How many wars didn’t violate the rules of war?
"3 civilians killed by bomb in terrorist attack on bridge" is how we used to report ISIS doing the exact same thing.
Im not sure if a seat at the UN is the difference between this being a terrorist attack and a glorious act of bravery.
Meanwhile, Russia retaliates by hitting residential buildings with rockets. I am eager to hear what you think of that.
I think they share your willingness to enthusiastically excuse collateral murder in pursuit of military advantage.
Enthusiastic supporters on both sides of this war are strikingly similar.
One is just not like the other, no matter how you spin it.
https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2022/08/ukraine-ukrai...
They are more alike than not, no matter how you try to spin it.
Tell me of a single major conflict that didn’t involve civilian casualties. I will wait. It is terrible, but unavoidable, especially given the circumstances that Russia has created in Ukraine, unprovoked.
There are major differences between the participants with regards to intent. Intent of their actions. Russian soldiers have raped, tortured and executed civilians. There have been mass graves found in the liberated territories.
I don’t see how you can equate these with the destruction of a bridge that is vitally important to Russia’s control and supply of Crimea and southern Ukraine. The intent would be to deprive Russia of re-supply and access. The intention of mass killings, torture and rape, is to kill and torture people. There is no legitimate strategic objective for these actions.
But also blowing up things up to and including civilian infrastructure. Lots of bridges, etc. were attacked for years. This is a guerilla insurgency. Wikipedia says:
They concentrated on both civilian and military targets, knocking out bridges, closing major roads, attacking convoys, disrupting the electric power system and industrial production, and attacking police stations and Soviet military installations and air bases. They assassinated government officials and PDPA members, and laid siege to small rural outposts. In March 1982, a bomb exploded at the Ministry of Education, damaging several buildings. In the same month, a widespread power failure darkened Kabul when a pylon on the transmission line from the Naghlu power station was blown up. In June 1982 a column of about 1,000 young communist party members sent out to work in the Panjshir valley were ambushed within 30 km of Kabul, with heavy loss of life. On 4 September 1985, insurgents shot down a domestic Bakhtar Airlines plane as it took off from Kandahar airport, killing all 52 people aboard.
So even if USSR "won", or supported the local secular government, they'd get attacked, similar to how the Taliban would fight the USA in the last 20 years and eventually make our army leave too (this year). The USA used this force to, in the words of Brezhinski, national security advisor "make the soviets bleed for as much and as long as possible": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A9RCFZnWGE0
Unfortunately, the longer a protracted proxy war like this goes on, the more civilians are killed. After the Soviets "won" in Afghanistan, the ensuing proxy war claimed the lives of 2 million Afghan civilians! https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet%E2%80%93Afghan_War
In Ukraine, the CIA thought Russia would quickly make the government in Kyiv capitulate and agree to Putin's demands, so they started training Ukrainian paramilitaries to do the work of Mujahideen, here is an article in Yahoo News about that from before Feb 24:
https://news.yahoo.com/cia-trained-ukrainian-paramilitaries-...
https://nitter.net/ThreshedThought/status/157864691554543206...
https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/explosion-rocks-russia...
We'll know it was the Ukrainian postal service when someone asks Putin to sign to confirm delivery of a whole parcel of humiliation.
Zelensky is a former actor who clearly understands PR, so it is not unlikely that he would plan something of that sort.
It doesn’t seem like it would take hours to grab a screenshot off of a TV broadcast and photoshop it onto a stamp, without advanced knowledge.
I expect the Ukranian post office has many similar stamps designed and ready. They make good material to promote Ukraine.
The screenshot-the-TV approach also works, and there are ML filters that can stylize that art, so we wouldn't know how the stamps were actually created.
(stolen from someone's .signature)
I'm assuming Photoshopping up a taunting stamp design is easy and fun when you're patriotically inclined.
I'm also skeptical of missile theory--if you're targeting this with a missile, and you have the precision of such, the place to blow up the bridge wouldn't be where it was hit, but on the high portion of the bridge, where replacing damaged sections would be hard.
The truck bomb does seem the most likely option to me.
Question is did the driver know or was he unavare.
Feels to me like attacking from the ocean would have a higher probability of success than trying to sneak a truck packed with explosives onto a bridge that (one assumes) the Russians are very watchful over.
Also the underside of the bridge is untact as far as burn mark go.
It could be that truck, but it could be the Putin "clever" tactics to claim Ukrainians are terrorists(for some reason Russians started to use the terrorist word when a military target is bombed but when they bomb civilian apartments and malls it is just the old soviet incompetence excuse)
Not necessarily. It is close to the Caucasian region and Russia has been involved in hostilities there for centuries.
As for the explosives, besides corruption, one could improvise in all sorts of manners, especially with the know-how and resources of a state actor.
But I think there are enough photos and videos from the bridge that experts can figure it out, even if Russian propaganda will spin some cigarette story or other weird excuse.
Bombing a hospital or a school is terroristic and illegal according to the rules of war.
It seems unlikely that this was a missile strike or a boat attack from the analyses I have seen. A car bomb or a big explosive placed on the top of the bridge seems like the most likely possibility. This attack is certainly something that a Ukrainian special forces unit would be capable of doing.
It is certainly possible that these are Russia's doing to get their population interested in the war and cut off Europe from gas, but a false flag would not be my first guess.
Edit: I am not trying to say that these attacks are "anti-Russia" or that they were not done by the Russians. I am only saying that a lot of people have been destroying strategically important infrastructure operated by the Russians. Who is doing it is anyone's guess. To think we know who actually did any of these attacks without a thorough investigation is silly.
However, we don't know who did it. It could have been the Russians. It could have been the Americans. It could have been the Germans. It could have been an extremist climate activism group. We have no idea.
There are many, many scenarios that could result in everything that we have seen.
To get the part of Russias elite on board who just wanted to go back to selling gas/oil to Europe a sacrifice had to be made.
I mean not that I find that very likely, but it is an explaination
However, Putin has not been shy about simply seizing assets using the Russian legal system, so destroying an important strategic asset to keep the oligarchs in line seems like an extreme move. The popular support battle, for Putin, already seems to be lost, and it's unclear why blowing up a pipeline would help.
If he did blow up the pipeline, whether it was an accident or a power play, blaming the US (which he is doing) makes a lot of sense.
The elephant in the room is that there is a great reason why the US (or Ukraine, if they had the operational capability, or Turkey or France, for that matter) would blow up the pipeline: it closes off Europe's options to buy oil from Russia this coming winter, which, in turn, ensures that they have no reason not to support the war. However, if they did blow up the pipeline, they certainly couldn't admit it, and they would need to find a scapegoat, and the best scapegoat is the country they want Europe to be angry at: Russia. The US has an additional possible motivation: it opens the path to selling LNG to the EU.
So here we are. Russia blames the US, the US and NATO blame Russia, and nobody has claimed responsibility. This is consistent with either truth of who actually did it. Eventually, we may know the truth about what happened. We certainly don't know today.
- It was not being used anyway and was less likely to be used every single day
- Apparently the gas wells in Siberia's permafrost areas have frozen due to lack of use and Russia doesn't have the tech to reopen them without Western help which falls under sanctions (note I read this in another forum and haven't been able to validate this)
- The attack happened one day after the opening of the Baltic pipe from Scandinavia to Poland. Could be a way of putting NATO on notice that their infrastructure is vulnerable, without actually attacking it. Like a veiled threat.
I also thought it was unlikely to be Russia at the time but in light of the arguments above (which I read brought by other people) it became more likely to me.
On the other hand the Ukrainians have always hated Nord Stream because it meant a loss of transit fees for them. Somehow I don't think this is their biggest worry right now though. And I doubt they'd want to risk agitating NATO counties which own half of it.
I'm still not convinced either way. I'm not very good at geopolitical insight :(
Once EU countries found themselves paying >5x what they're used to paying to keep their houses warm in a month or so, they might well have decided to pinch their noses and start buying Russian gas again. Russia would very much have liked this, non-European NATO countries would not. Now it's not even a question.
> - The attack happened one day after the opening of the Baltic pipe from Scandinavia to Poland. Could be a way of putting NATO on notice that their infrastructure is vulnerable, without actually attacking it. Like a veiled threat.
Shooting yourself in the foot is a strange way to demonstrate that you have a gun.
> On the other hand the Ukrainians have always hated Nord Stream because it meant a loss of transit fees for them. Somehow I don't think this is their biggest worry right now though. And I doubt they'd want to risk agitating NATO counties which own half of it.
I don't think Ukraine would have been involved in it either, but they stand to benefit in the short-term from anything which would isolate Russia further. In terms of agitating European NATO states, they've already gone through the initial shock of cutting off cheap gas, the damage of permanently losing access to it isn't as politically costly.
Not sure about the pipeline, whoever did that seems to have made sure to do it in a manner that leaves enough ambiguity for everyone to just imagine whatever they want as the cause.
For the bridge, I'd be be surprised if it wasn't someone at least intending to work in favor of Ukraine. Maybe it was planned from the top, maybe it was done by irregulars, maybe it is somewhere in between like special forces on a really, really long leash. But it is used to bring in troops and supplies, seems like a smart target, right?
In all seriousness though, who knows, the job is done and that's all that matters.
Russians have already launched an ongoing investigation, and are reporting it locally as follows... I'll use Google Translate from one of the Telegram channels carrying the news:
The case of the explosion on the Crimean bridge was brought under the article "terrorism". During the investigation of the terrorist act on the Crimean bridge, many witnesses and eyewitnesses were interrogated, special expert studies were started and largely completed — Bastrykin
As the head of the Investigative Committee noted at a meeting with the President of the Russian Federation, explosive, genetic and forensic examinations were carried out. He also said that relevant instructions had been given to the FSB and the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia to conduct operational-search activities.
Later that day:
In preparing the terrorist attack on the Crimean bridge, the Ukrainian special services resorted to the services of a fly-by-night company - it was through it that they ordered the ill-fated truck
According to media reports, the driver Mahir Yusubov was transporting cargo on the order of the TEK-34 company, which ordered him to transport the film from Armavir to Simferopol on October 6. As Readovka already wrote, the driver could have been on the Crimean bridge on October 7, Vladimir Putin's birthday, but stopped nearby for the night.
As Readovka found out, the head of TEK-34 is Oleg Aleksandrovich Antipov, and the company is registered in Ulyanovsk. Antipov has been in charge since November 13, 2020. Previously, the company was registered in the Volgograd region, but at the end of March 2022, the legal address was changed to Ulyanovsk.
For 2021, according to our data, the company's revenue was equal to zero, and the company itself is listed as unreliable, since it has not paid taxes for at least the last three years. On the forums of carriers, comments were written on behalf of the TEK-34 company in the period from 2018 to 2020 - on behalf of a certain Olga.
All this points to the work of the Ukrainian special services, whose involvement in the terrorist attack is no longer in doubt after publications in major Western publications. To implement their plan, they resorted to the use of a fly-by-night company, of which, unfortunately, there are a considerable number in Russia.
And today:
According to information from KP military correspondent Alexander Kots, the cargo, ordered by a citizen of Ukraine, arrived by sea from Bulgaria in the form of 22 pallets of film to Georgian Poti. After that, it was loaded onto a truck and sent to Armenia, where it was cleared according to the rules of the Customs Union. As a result, the truck again entered Georgia, and then crossed the border with the Russian Federation through the Upper Lars checkpoint and went to Armavir, where the cargo was transferred to another truck, which drove onto the Crimean bridge.
Most likely, the explosives were planted in rolls of film to avoid detection through x-rays. This happened in Bulgaria, which indicates the participation of foreign intelligence services in organizing the attack.
How big are these rolls that we're talking about? Not 35mm. Are we talking movie projector rolls? Or something larger and more industrial or medical?
Also you would think that if anything were required to be hand-inspected 100% of the time, you'd think it would be things that couldn't be x-rayed... precisely like rolls of film...
Not saying it isn't true, just saying that the inspection incompetence is shocking for something that is a known top priority military target.
This allegation that Bulgarian intelligence services had a hand in this seems really unlikely, as there’s quite a bit of pro-Russia sentiments in a lot of politicians and military leaders. I’d be extremely surprised that they had a hand in it.
On the other hand, any repercussions or threats from Russia would finally force even the most pro-Russia politicians to take a stance against them or be looked on as a traitor.
Very interested to see what message Russia puts out regarding this, if any.
The operative word is “supposedly.” I suspect the same corruption that is everywhere in the Russian sphere exists in their infrastructure security apparatus.
Now I know what he was afraid of.
Are you implying cops are on heightened alert for bridge detonations in the US? If so, why?
I haven't seen a similar system near vulnerable infrastructure, but it might exist. It may be overkill for a lightly trafficked road.
Art exhibition of x-rays of lorries: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2yk0Rb8XNyM
A few seconds showing an inspector looking in detail at an x-ray of a train: https://youtu.be/LQdtJ9skyuY?t=219
In fact, this looks very similar, in California. I haven't see this car-sized version in the EU: https://www.cnet.com/news/privacy/dhs-x-ray-scanners-could-b...