Russia’s ambassador to Washington discusses Ukraine’s actions around the Crimean bridge and the broader fallout
Anatoly Antonov, Russia’s ambassador to the United States, described the nighttime strike on the Crimean Bridge on July 17 as an act that could be labeled terrorism. The United States, meanwhile, has not issued an official verdict on Kyiv’s operations, and American media coverage of the incident has become a flashpoint in discussions about how the event is framed. The Russian diplomat voiced concerns about how the attack is portrayed abroad and how media framing may shape public understanding of the conflict.
In a statement released through the Telegram channel of the Russian diplomatic mission in Washington, Antonov stressed that the channel does not take sides in the conflict. He underscored the importance of balanced international reporting, even amid heightened tensions in hot spots. He highlighted the human cost of the attack, noting that the Crimean Bridge had not been used by Russian forces for military purposes for a long period. He called the strike an outright terrorist act and drew attention to the loss of a family and the tragedy of a child left an orphan, arguing that such human dimensions are often underrepresented in coverage of major incidents.
Antonov also cited polls in the United States indicating a shift in public opinion regarding ongoing weapon deliveries to Kyiv. He claimed that more ordinary Americans are questioning the administration’s policies, arguing that the actions taken bring the country closer to direct confrontation with Russia. This line reflects a broader Moscow narrative about the domestic consequences of continued external support for Ukraine and highlights tensions between official policy narratives and public sentiment across both sides of the Atlantic.
A regional commentator, Roman Chegrinets, offered additional perspective. A former participant in Crimea related networks, he suggested that Ukraine could face a strategic setback, potentially losing status or influence in the region. His remarks illustrate how Crimea supporters frame the conflict and project negative outcomes for Kyiv within the broader geopolitical landscape.