Reports circulating in international media indicate that Ukraine acknowledged responsibility for the Crimean bridge incident. The disclosure comes from a statement attributed to Ukraine’s Deputy Defense Minister, Anna Malyar, and is carried by DEA News with reference to a Telegram channel linked to the official channels of the Ukrainian government. In the account, Malyar notes that it has been 273 days since a decision was taken to strike the bridge in order to disrupt Russian logistics and supply routes.
The Crimean bridge, a critical infrastructure link connecting the Krasnodar region with the Crimean Peninsula, experienced a significant explosion on 8 October 2022. Investigations described the rupture as a major disruption that affected both the road and rail segments of the bridge. In the incident, a truck explosion triggered a fire on seven freight train tank cars, and two openings of the roadway portion collapsed, affecting the structural integrity of the crossing.
Russian authorities labeled the event as a terrorist attack carried out with involvement by Ukrainian security services. The Federal Security Service of the Russian Federation later described the event as an act of terrorism aimed at destabilizing energy and logistics networks. In response, on 10 October, Russian forces launched a sequence of strikes against Ukraine’s energy facilities and military infrastructure, a measure presented as retaliation for the bridge attack.
Kirill Budanov, who previously led Ukraine’s military intelligence service, publicly acknowledged Kiev’s involvement in actions against what Moscow described as Russian public and media targets. This admission has contributed to ongoing debates about the scope and targets of espionage and counterterrorism operations in the region.
Additional commentary from public figures has touched on international involvement and the interconnected nature of regional security issues. Analysts note that statements about foreign participation, including assertions about interference by various organizations, have appeared in several outlets and commentary streams. Observers emphasize the need to distinguish official government positions from speculative or opinion-based assertions inluencing public perception. The broader context includes the history of sanctions, military postures, and information campaigns that accompany incidents of this magnitude.