Shattering Russia’s Invincibility: Ukraine Strikes Where It Hurts Most – Crimea

When Ukrainian forces chose to strike Russian assets in Crimea in the dead of night, they shifted more than just ordnance; they shifted the spotlight onto a strategic fulcrum that Russia thought was securely under its control. Crimea, from Russia’s point of view, is supposed to be an extension of its might, a veritable “fortress” from which it can project military power into Ukraine and beyond. But by engaging the Russians here, Ukraine has transformed the peninsula from a launchpad of aggression into a defensive liability.

Why would Ukraine aim for advanced anti-aircraft systems like the S-300 or even the more modern S-400? By neutralizing these sophisticated platforms, Ukraine would be tearing down Moscow’s aerial shield in the region, achieving a sort of “David versus Goliath” moment. Think back to the Israeli preemptive strikes against Egyptian air bases during the Six-Day War, rendering a significant portion of the Egyptian Air Force incapacitated and turning the course of the war. This recent strike has similar implications: cripple the advanced defensive measures, and you lay the groundwork for further tactical and strategic moves.

It’s also a psychological game. Russia has long relied on its high-tech weaponry to instill a sense of invincibility. When such symbols of military prowess are destroyed or damaged, the reverberations are felt beyond the mere loss of hardware; they chip away at the edifice of invincibility that Russia has strived to build. You could draw parallels to the famed Doolittle Raid over Tokyo during World War II, which while not devastating in terms of material damage, had a profound psychological impact on both American and Japanese morale.

To launch these strikes, Ukraine reportedly used drones and cruise missiles, assets that are often seen as the purview of technologically superior powers. By employing these means, Ukraine is also signaling its own increasing sophistication and the capability to wage modern warfare. It’s the equivalent of the British using state-of-the-art radar to fend off the Luftwaffe during the Battle of Britain, turning the tide by employing superior technology effectively.

Given the limited information available, it would be premature to declare these strikes as game-changers in the long-term strategy. However, what is beyond dispute is that they add a new dimension to Ukraine’s operational calculus. No longer can Russia consider its Crimean fortress as an inviolable base of operations; it must now account for the possibility, nay, the reality, that Ukraine is willing and capable of hitting back where it hurts most.

Let’s pull the focus onto the intensification of Ukraine’s operations targeting the strategic Crimean Bridge, often considered the lifeline for Russian forces in Crimea. This 19-kilometer-long engineering marvel was once hailed as a symbol of Russia’s steadfast hold on the annexed peninsula. However, repeated Ukrainian attacks have transformed it into a symbol of vulnerability, much like Russia’s besieged Leningrad during World War II – a city surrounded but defiant. Ukraine’s ability to repeatedly hit the Crimean Bridge signifies a chipping away at this narrative of Russian invincibility.

For those unfamiliar with the geopolitical chessboard – pardon me, battlefield – the Crimean Bridge connects the Russian mainland to the Crimean Peninsula over the Kerch Strait. In military parlance, it’s a LOC, a Line of Communication, making it one of the most significant strategic assets for Russia. Think of it as Russia’s Highway 1 in the Vietnam War; a critical supply line that, if severed or disrupted, could significantly hamstring military operations.

It’s not merely the movement of troops that hangs in the balance; it’s also the flow of logistics – ammunition, food, medical supplies, and more. If you harken back to the North African Campaign of World War II, you’ll remember how vital the supply lines were for both Axis and Allied Powers. Rommel’s Afrika Korps was famously plagued by supply issues, causing a powerful military force to falter. Here, the Crimean Bridge serves a similar purpose; it’s Russia’s logistical jugular, so to speak.

By employing maritime drones in their latest attacks, Ukraine adds an extra layer to their military capabilities. It’s akin to the Allies’ use of advanced submarines to target Axis shipping in World War II; an underdog finding innovative means to disrupt a seemingly more powerful foe. This showcases Ukraine’s adaptation to modern warfare techniques, incorporating technology to offset traditional military disadvantages.

Repeated attacks on the bridge not only disrupt Russia’s immediate military capabilities but also act as a drain on resources. Each attack necessitates repair, heightened security, and rerouting of essential supplies. It’s death by a thousand cuts – or in military jargon, attrition. In layman’s terms, it’s forcing your opponent to fight on an ever-expanding number of fronts, diluting their strength and focus. This recalls the relentless bombing campaigns against German industrial centers during World War II, forcing a constant diversion of resources to repairs and anti-aircraft defenses.

Now, we must consider what the perpetual targeting of the Crimean Bridge tells us. It announces that Ukraine is no longer merely on the defensive; it has taken a leaf out of history to understand that the best defense often includes a robust offense. The bridge is more than just metal and concrete; it’s a psychological battleground, and each strike on it erodes the certainty of Russia’s control over Crimea.

If war is the greatest game of risk and reward, then Crimea is the ultimate prize on the table, a jewel that both Ukraine and Russia are desperately eyeing. But why does this slab of land, this peninsula jutting into the Black Sea, command such unwavering attention? The answer is as old as war itself: Strategy.

The Black Sea Fleet, harbored in Crimea, serves as Russia’s sword arm, striking deep into Ukrainian cities with cruise missiles like the Kalibr. It’s not just an offshore artillery platform; it’s Russia’s eastern gateway to the Mediterranean and beyond. This geopolitical role of Crimea is akin to the British Isles during the Napoleonic Wars – a launchpad for naval power that can project influence far beyond its immediate surroundings.

But let’s not forget the flip side. The Black Sea Fleet is also a shield, defending Russia’s southern flank. If you remember the Falklands War, British naval power was essential in both launching an offensive thousands of miles from home and securing territorial integrity. In the same vein, Russia uses Crimea to shield its southern borders and secure a chokehold on the Sea of Azov, essentially transforming it into a Russian lake.

One might argue that Crimea is Russia’s unsinkable aircraft carrier. Based there are planes loaded with munitions that take off to raid Ukrainian territories, returning only to refuel and rearm. This recalls the Pacific island-hopping strategy of World War II, where each island served as a mini-airbase to extend the range and impact of the American air force. The difference here is that Crimea isn’t an island captured from the enemy; it’s a home base, a stationary aircraft carrier that Ukraine wants to sink.

The logistical importance of Crimea can’t be understated. It serves as a funnel, channeling supplies to Russian forces arrayed in southern Ukraine. If you consider the historical example of Stalingrad – another logistical chokepoint – you’ll realize how a well-placed disruption can spell catastrophe. The German Sixth Army was starved, surrounded, and eventually crushed due to a breakdown in logistics. Crimea serves a similar purpose for Russia, and by targeting it, Ukraine hopes to sever this vital umbilical cord.

But there’s more. Crimea gives Russia the ability to impose a naval blockade on Ukrainian ports, strangling the economy and hampering military resupply efforts. Remember the Union blockade of the Confederacy in the American Civil War? It gradually squeezed the life out of the South, weakening it to the point of collapse. Ukraine understands this, and its counteroffensives aim to break this stranglehold.

The calculus is complex and layered. On the one hand, Crimea is the lock, and the Black Sea Fleet is the key that Russia uses to open multiple doors – military, strategic, and economic. On the other hand, Ukraine sees the recapture of Crimea as a necessary, albeit not sufficient, condition to turn the tide of war.

As we traverse the labyrinthine corridors of the Ukrainian War, we come upon a question that seems to linger like fog over a battlefield: Could the recapture of Crimea be the salvo that finally breaks the Russian bear? According to Valerii Zalujn?i, the Chief Commander of Ukraine’s armed forces, Crimea is the fulcrum upon which the balance of war tips. But he adds a caveat – recapturing Crimea could weaken Russia but may not necessarily end the war.

Think of the Pusan Perimeter during the Korean War, a last-ditch defense line that, once broken by UN forces, turned the tide of war but did not end it. Even after recapturing Crimea, Russia could simply shift its axis of attack, focusing more on Eastern Ukraine or other vulnerable points, just as the Chinese and North Koreans did after the Pusan breakthrough. The fight could move inland into Russia itself, becoming a war of attrition, akin to the slog that characterized the Western Front in World War I.

There’s also the aspect of national pride and symbolism. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy firmly believes that the war began in Crimea and it will end there. This assertion harkens back to the emotional and symbolic gravitas that certain territories hold in conflicts. Take, for instance, the Golan Heights in the Arab-Israeli wars – a piece of land so strategically vital that its control could signify not just military victory but also psychological dominance. The Battle of Stalingrad, though a city, had a similar aura; its capture was more than a strategic move for Nazi Germany – it was intended to be a fatal blow to Soviet morale.

Now, let’s talk about the diplomatic chessboard – yes, Moscow has been cagey about direct negotiations, but consider this: regaining control over Crimea could force Russia back to the negotiating table. You see, wars aren’t just won on battlefields; they’re also won in smoke-filled rooms where diplomats and politicians spar over maps. Just look at the Treaty of Versailles after World War I, where the reshaping of boundaries changed the face of Europe forever. If Ukraine could march into Crimea and establish control, it would, at the very least, throw a wrench into Russia’s military and geopolitical plans, potentially making Moscow more amenable to talks.

Finally, there’s the not-so-small matter of international optics. Recapturing Crimea would be a significant PR victory for Ukraine, raising its profile in the court of world opinion. In a war where international sanctions, aid, and diplomatic support play an outsized role, this cannot be underestimated. During the Falklands War, British victory had a ripple effect far beyond the islands themselves, strengthening Britain’s hand on the global stage.

Despite this, Ukraine’s escalating aggression in Crimea sends an unambiguous message to Moscow: the peninsula is not an impregnable fortress, and Kiev is willing to contest it inch by inch. The notion that Moscow might not be willing to come to the negotiating table is fast becoming a secondary issue. Ukraine’s recent moves are shaping a narrative of their own, one that redefines what is possible in this conflict.

Feel free to clap if you find this perspective enlightening, and by all means, let your thoughts be known in the comments section. After all, when it comes to war, history has shown that the pen is often mightier than the sword.