Why NATO or Ukraine Cannot Attack the Crimean Bridge: Strategic and Practical Considerations

One strategic consideration often discussed is the potential for NATO or Ukraine to attack the Crimean Bridge. However, multiple factors make such an attack either impractical or inadvisable.

Practical Reasons

The idea of attacking the Crimean Bridge for practical reasons involves several challenges. Firstly, the bridge is a concrete structure, and even modern long-range guided rockets might struggle to cause significant damage. This is further compounded by the requirement of precise weapons and the limited range of available systems. In addition, attacking the bridge would not disable it permanently, as it could be repaired quickly, rendering the attack largely ineffective.

Navigation Challenges

Another significant issue is the potential impact on navigation. The bridge spans a channel, any rubble that falls could severely inhibit maritime traffic, making navigation impossible. Moreover, Ukraine relies on ports in the Azov Sea, and disrupting these ports would severely hamper its logistical and economic needs.

Economic Factors

From an economic standpoint, allowing Russia to use the bridge means they continue to utilize valuable assets and resources, which could deplete their already struggling economy. Conversely, if Ukraine were to gain control of the bridge, it could become a valuable source of revenue through tolls on vehicles crossing from Russia into Ukraine.

NATO's Position and Capabilities

Another important factor is the explicit position of NATO. NATO is currently not at war with Russia, and the alliance is not directly involved in combat. This creates a far more complex political and diplomatic landscape for any potential attacks.

Ukraine’s Current Capabilities

Ukraine’s military capability also limits the feasibility of launching an assault on the bridge. Currently, Ukraine does not have the necessary systems or ammunition to effectively damage the bridge. The majority of their rocket systems, such as the HIMARS and M270, lack the range and payload required to significantly affect the bridge. Additionally, systems like the OTR-21 Tochka have poor accuracy and limited modern capabilities, making them unsuitable for such an operation.

Strategic Alternatives

For a more effective approach, Ukraine might consider reclaiming strategic positions closer to the bridge, such as near Melitopol. Isolating Crimea could make the bridge more of a strategic target and provide Ukraine with more leverage in negotiations or future military operations.

Military and Political Maneuvering

Long-term, the best strategy might be to focus on military and political maneuvers that can isolate Crimea effectively. This could involve asymmetric warfare, intelligence operations, and joint military exercises with allied countries. Waiting for the Russians to blow up the bridge as they withdraw from the region might also be a viable long-term plan, as it could eliminate the necessity of a direct attack.

Conclusion

In summary, NATO and Ukraine face numerous challenges in attempting to attack the Crimean Bridge, including practical obstacles, economic implications, and the current strategic landscape. While alternatives like isolating Crimea or waiting for natural or intentional destruction of the bridge might be more feasible, these challenges underscore the complex nature of this issue. Strategic planning and resource allocation will be critical in navigating the complexities of this conflict.