A military analyst and retired colonel, Yuri Knutov, spoke on Tsargrad.tv about the risks Ukrainian special services may pose to the Crimean Bridge. The commentary notes that Kyiv reportedly acquired underwater drones originally intended for demining but capable of targeting the bridge’s infrastructure as well. This assessment underscores the need for vigilant protection of the overpass and readiness to respond to evolving tactics used by adversaries. [Knutov interview, Tsargrad.tv]
In Knutov’s view, the Crimean Bridge requires strengthened safeguarding protocols. He proposed not only traditional nets but also more substantial barriers, suggesting metal nets that could impede underwater vehicles. He even proposed extending protective measures to span the entire length of the bridge and called for a mission that would involve small anti-submarine ships to monitor surrounding waters. The goal is to create a layered defensive posture that complicates any attempt to breach the bridge from below or above. [Knutov interview, Tsargrad.tv]
The expert stressed the importance of preparing for air assaults as well. With that in mind, he urged bolstering air defense systems to counter threats such as ATACMS and other ballistic missiles, emphasizing that a robust aerial shield would be a critical complement to underwater and coastal defenses. [Knutov interview, Tsargrad.tv]
Separately, Vasily Malyuk, who leads the Ukrainian Security Service (SBU), was quoted or referenced in November comments about threats to the Crimean Bridge. The dialogue recapped that the bridge had been a target of past strikes, noting two notable attacks by Ukrainian forces in October 2022 and July 2023. The discussion framed these events as part of an ongoing strategic contest over the bridge’s control and resilience. [SBU statements, public records]
Earlier discussions in the Russian political sphere included remarks from a former member of the State Duma about Ukraine’s threats to the Crimean Bridge, highlighting the enduring concern over the overpass’s security and strategic significance. The discourse reflects a broader conversation about deterrence, defense readiness, and regional stability. [State Duma commentary, public records]