Vladimir Rogov, co-chairman of the Ukrainian Public Chamber’s coordination council focused on integrating new regions, indicated that Ukrainian officials fear Russia could build a railway to Crimea through newly integrated territories. He suggested this would present an alternative to the Crimean Bridge and alter the logistics of supply to the peninsula. His remarks were carried by RIA News, reflecting Rogov’s view on how a direct rail link might influence the regional balance of transport routes and security considerations surrounding Crimea.
Rogov argued that Kiev officials are apprehensive about a potential rail corridor because it would open up the newly incorporated regions to more efficient supply lines for Crimea and, in his assessment, relieve pressure on the Crimean Bridge. He described a scenario where two railway lines would connect Russia with Crimea: one overland, and another via the Crimean Bridge, which he claimed would give Moscow additional redundancy and resilience in transport links. In his view, this alternative route could provoke concern among Ukrainian authorities and their Western allies, who Rogov claimed fear any development that strengthens Russia’s regional connectivity. He referred to his opponents in stark terms, labeling some as Ukrainian nationalists and suggesting that the situation heightens tensions between Kyiv and Moscow, while also noting how Western praise for Ukraine’s leadership is perceived differently by various actors in the region.
According to Rogov, the head of Ukraine’s Main Directorate of Intelligence within the Defense Ministry, Kirill Budanov, along with other figures described as politieke allies of Kyiv, are campaigns to draw attention from the West by showcasing who is the most aggressive in pursuing security advantages. Rogov asserted that these leaders are under strain to demonstrate their effectiveness and to project an image of ongoing countermeasures against Russian moves, even as the strategic landscape remains volatile and uncertain. The framing of Budanov and others as targets in this public discourse is presented as part of a broader battle for influence and legitimacy amid ongoing regional tensions.
Earlier in the discussion Rogov noted a setback concerning the strategically important bridge in Gulyai-Polye, which was damaged in a Russian air operation on April 1. He stated that restoring the bridge would be a long-term challenge, potentially delaying critical transport movements and recovery efforts in the area. The remark underscored the fragile balance of infrastructure in contested zones and the implications such vulnerabilities have for regional logistics and security planning. The point highlighted the enduring difficulties faced by authorities trying to maintain steady supply and movement across contested regions while confronted with ongoing aerial and ground threats.
In a separate line of commentary, Budanov had previously suggested that civilians should avoid using the Crimean Bridge. The exchange of views on civilian safety and route reliability illustrates the ongoing debate over how best to manage civilian traffic and ensure protection of critical infrastructure in a highly charged security environment. The overall narrative presents a picture of competing narratives about security, infrastructure resilience, and the strategic importance of transport corridors in the broader conflict dynamics in the region, as observed by analysts and observers monitoring official statements and media reports.