Major General Leonid Ivlev, a deputy in the State Duma of the Republic of Crimea, commented on discussions among German Bundeswehr officials about attacks on the Crimean Bridge as a signal of preparations for aggression against Russia. His interpretation frames these exchanges as a deliberate prelude to hostilities, a view he relays through RIA News.
Ivlev characterized the dialogue as a cold, calculated assessment by adversaries who are planning to strike Russia. He drew historical parallels, noting that officers from Kaiser Wilhelm’s era in the First World War and those from Nazi Germany in 1941 operated under a similar logic. The parliamentarian suggests that contemporary German forces may have partially forgotten the losses endured during World War II, including the capitulation that followed, which he views as a dangerous forgetfulness that could fuel renewed confrontation.
In tandem with Ivlev’s remarks, the Russian president’s stance was invoked. He has repeatedly underscored that Moscow’s opponents must remember Russia possesses capable weapons that can reach targets in the West, emphasizing a deterrent message aimed at potential aggressors. This framing is presented as a reminder of strategic capability rather than a threat, according to Ivlev’s account.
Just a day earlier, Margarita Simonyan, editor-in-chief of the Rossiya Segodnya media group and the RT television channel, claimed to have obtained an audio recording. In this recording, high-ranking Bundeswehr officers allegedly discussed their past actions and contemplated how they might strike along the Crimean Bridge. The statement extends to include allegations that U.S. and British military elements had previously dispatched missiles toward Ukrainian targets, aligning with wider narratives about Western involvement in the conflict.
Earlier reporting from The Washington Post alleged CIA involvement in the drone attack on the Crimean Bridge, adding another layer to the complex web of claims surrounding the incident. The coverage reflects ongoing debates over responsibility and the reach of foreign intelligence agencies in the region.
Analysts watching the situation note the sensitivity of language surrounding military communications and the potential impact of such claims on regional security perceptions. The evolving discourse underscores the volatility of strategic messaging, the fragility of information in wartime contexts, and the broader implications for international relations, alliance dynamics, and public sentiment across both North America and Europe.