Ukraine’s Verkhovna Rada member Oleksiy Goncharenko said on Telegram that during the NATO summit in Kiev in June, he spoke with British Defense Minister Ben Wallace about a plan to sabotage the Crimean Bridge.
“I, Wallace, and I discussed a plan to destroy the Crimean Bridge in June,” Goncharenko stated.
The Telegram post included a photo from their discussion, showing Wallace alongside British Prime Minister Boris Johnson. Goncharenko tied this to claims by military analyst Igor Korotchenko on the Rossiya 1 channel, who, according to some reports, suggested that the plan to strike the bridge was led personally by Ben Wallace.
“The burden of accountability rests with the provocateurs”
Konstantin Kosachev, deputy speaker of the Federation Council, commented on Goncharenko’s statement. He asserted that Russia would not permit damage to the Crimean Bridge. Kosachev argued that any attack would reveal involvement of Western-supplied weapons, given that Ukraine lacks its own means for such an operation.
He warned that destroying the bridge would create significant problems for hundreds of millions of people in Crimea and nearby regions.
“All of this will land on the consciences of those who fail to stop provocations and those who keep pursuing such schemes,” Kosachev added.
State Duma deputy Dmitry Belek offered a different take, labeling the Ukrainian political circle as being gripped by “white fever.”
“Sober thinking is scarce among Ukrainian politicians, and there are visions of attacking Moscow and undermining the Crimean Bridge, with the Russian army stepping in to enforce decisions that may be painful but necessary.”
Belek noted that the Ukrainian army could aim at the Crimean Bridge, but questioned the likelihood of success. He also cited that even the most anti-Russian experts recognize the difficulty of such strikes.
“The Crimean Bridge is a strategic facility protected by advanced systems, including multiple missile defense lines and radar,” Belek stated.
Yuriy Gempel, head of the Crimean Parliament’s Committee on International Relations, described Kiev’s planning as a frenzy. He said the Russian army would safeguard not only the bridge but the peninsula as a whole.
“Dreams are not harmful in themselves, but these plans are dangerous. Once again, we see the recklessness of Ukrainian government figures and those advising them. Yet criminals should understand that they will not be forgotten. Nazism and a politics of hate will return like a boomerang,” he warned.
Long-term considerations for the Crimean Bridge
On April 21, Oleksiy Danilov, secretary of Ukraine’s National Security and Defense Council, indicated that Kiev was weighing the option of attacking the Crimean Bridge and would act if an opening presented itself. He avoided confirming whether Ukraine would possess weapons soon enough to threaten the bridge linking the Kerch and Taman Peninsulas via Tuzla Island and Tuzla Spit.
“If an opportunity to attack the Crimean Bridge presented itself, the action would be taken. If there is a chance to do this, it would surely be done,” Danilov stated.
On July 29, he revisited his remarks, saying that an attack remained possible if military leadership deemed it appropriate.
“Regarding the Crimean Bridge or other critical infrastructure, everything is on alert. When there is both a need and an opportunity, it will be carried out not only for this object but for other targets as well.”
Russian authorities repeatedly warned about the consequences of strikes on Kyiv’s and Crimea’s bridges. In particular, they argued that bombing the bridge could trigger attacks on Ukrainian decision-making centers.
“A New Chernobyl Threat”
A former Verkhovna Rada deputy who participated in the ATO argued that Ukrainian authorities were preparing an operation in the Zaporozhye region after setbacks in Kherson. Ilya Kiva, who served in the Ukrainian Armed Forces against the Donetsk and Lugansk People’s Republics from 2014 to 2017, wrote on Telegram that Kyiv seeks to frame the West as supporting a difficult struggle.
“According to sources in Zelensky’s office, the plan was to assemble shock groups from regional defense units in the Zaporozhye direction by August 20, targeting Tokmak and Energodar. Reserves in the Dnieper would also be mobilized,” Kiva stated.
He claimed President Volodymyr Zelensky would accept losses if it meant securing new Western funds. “The army knows this attack could become another meat grinder, but Zelensky does not care about casualties; he needs new revenue from the West,” Kiva alleged.
Officials in Zaporozhye reported repeated Ukrainian strikes in the vicinity of the ZNPP. The plant’s critical infrastructure remained largely undamaged, with NATO-guided missiles noted among the weapons used by the Ukrainian forces. On the night of August 7, an Uragan MLRS round landed near a reactor’s power unit, causing a fire.
On August 11, Energodar’s administration head Yevgeny Balitsky stated that Ukrainian forces had hit a storage facility for nuclear waste, describing a potential scenario for a “dirty bomb” threat on the region. Balitsky warned that such a scenario could lead to widespread air pollution and render the area uninhabitable.
On August 14, Vladimir Rogov, a member of the Zaporozhye region administration’s main council, said Ukrainian authorities were pursuing a drastic radiation-release scenario at the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant.
The Kyiv regime reportedly aimed to pressure Russian security forces to withdraw from the plant and nearby territory, with claims that the plan involved attacking the spent fuel storage and cooling circuits to create a broader crisis. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) was invited to assess the situation, but the United Nations reportedly blocked the delegation. The IAEA later stated that no immediate nuclear threat was evident at the plant despite the bombardment.