Another note about the bridge at Kersh

[malada]

There's a video going around showing the moment when the explosion rocked the bridge leading to Crimea. I'd like to express a few thoughts on it.

First of all... yes, it appears to be CCTV footage of the actual explosion. However, a careful look at the earliest example that I've seen of that footage shows that it is a camera - probably a cellphone camera - videoing the screen of the playback of the explosion. It's not the actual recording of the incident but a recording of the recording. This is important for two reasons:

First, it's not the best record of the incident being down a generation from the original CCTV footage. Later versions have been digitally stabilized. Any conclusions drawn from this footage has to be taken with a shaker full of salt.

Second, who pulled out their camera to record the footage? I'm assuming they also uploaded it. In addition, was this the same person who had control of the footage so they could play it back and record it? Or were there multiple people in the control room in on this? This leads to all sorts of delightful security questions.

-m

Comments

[siliconshaman]

Security tape, rewind, replay and record using phone camera because most security systems make it really difficult to make copies and even a not-very tech savvy person can work that out.

Thing is... even that crappy footage makes it bloody obvious that the Russians account of events is a crock of lies. The explosion came from close under the road bridge, not a van on top of the bridge. It was a professional demolition charge, not some improvised truck-bomb IED.

Russia is calling it a declaration of war (um.. hello? weren't you already at war?) and blaming the U.S or NATO for it.. not Ukraine. (they can't even get their story straight, a NATO team wouldn't use an IED, but they say Ukraine doesn't have expertise to do anything else.)

Russia is also saying Ukraine wouldn't blow up a bridge they need for international trade... except Ukraine wasn't and never has, used it for that. Only Russia uses it for trade with Crimea, and for moving troops and military supplies lately.

One thing is for sure... it's puts a real crimp in supply logistics for the Russian forces in Ukraine and make it almost impossible to send reinforcements to stop the collapse of the Russian front. However, since it is still just about intact enough to cross on foot, it doesn't stop troops fleeing, just means they have to leave most of their equipment behind. Which is a signature move of the Ukrainian forces.

[malada]

The apparent lack of a crater is another sign that it wasn't a truck bomb. Using the Oklahoma City bombing as an example - which left a big *honking* crater - the roadways seemed to have been dropped intact. The lack of damage to the structural supports also suggests a professional job. I'm thinking more like placed charges and not a missile attack. Frogmen maybe? A trained team could have mounted the pylons, placed the charges and be back in the water in a matter of minutes. Hell of a swim but possible?

I'm expecting the bridge will get nailed again when the HIMARS get in range. If the Ukrainians keep their present tactic they'll target the rail side and leave the road for retreating soldiers.

-m

[siliconshaman]

I think the explosion of the fuel train wasn't coincidence, that's already rendered the rail side unusable. Placed charges on the road bridge, and one on the rail side facing up and wait...