By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Following reports of increased security measures and a suspension of shore leave in Crimea, families of senior Russian Black Sea Fleet officers have reportedly evacuated the peninsula. This heightened security, including covert patrols and the concealment of military hardware, suggests a growing sense of vulnerability within the Russian military presence. These actions follow recent Ukrainian attacks on Russian military assets in Crimea, and coincide with discussions of supplying Ukraine with long-range missiles capable of striking key infrastructure. The Atesh partisan group, known for its sabotage operations in occupied territories, attributes the heightened security and evacuations to increasing anxiety within Russian ranks.
Read the original article here
Ukraine’s partisans are reporting widespread panic within the ranks of the Russian Black Sea Fleet stationed in Crimea. The claims suggest a level of unease extending beyond mere military anxieties, with reports indicating that families of Russian officers are fleeing the peninsula. This exodus suggests a deeper-seated fear than might be expected from routine wartime anxieties.
The timing of these reports is intriguing. There’s a noticeable increase in online chatter regarding this alleged panic, though whether this reflects genuine intelligence or is a carefully crafted Ukrainian disinformation campaign remains unclear. The possibility of such a campaign shouldn’t be dismissed, as information warfare is a crucial component of modern conflict. Ukraine undeniably possesses the capacity to strike key military targets within Crimea, a capability undoubtedly heightened with the recent delivery of Taurus missiles.
The current “peace” negotiations, or what some might call a ceasefire, feel strategically significant. It is speculated that this period of relative calm may serve a dual purpose for Russia: allowing them to consolidate their defenses in Crimea while simultaneously attempting to solidify international recognition of Russian sovereignty over the peninsula. The potential US recognition of Crimea as Russian territory looms large, a development which could significantly alter the dynamics of the conflict and severely limit Ukraine’s options.
This explains why attacking Crimea directly presents a significant risk for Ukraine. Such action risks alienating Western allies providing crucial military support, potentially including the supply of Patriot missiles. The political fallout from such an attack could be substantial, especially given the possibility of a former US President framing Russia as the victim. Therefore, Ukraine is potentially navigating a delicate strategic game, balancing the need for decisive military action against the risk of international condemnation.
The symbolic importance of the Kerch Bridge cannot be ignored. Although incredibly difficult to completely destroy, the bridge remains a vital artery for Russian supply lines into Crimea and the southern front. While targeting the bridge may appear less strategically sound than focusing on high-value military assets like airfields or ammunition depots, its symbolic value and the subsequent disruption to resupply efforts make it a tempting target. The ongoing, though arguably limited, effectiveness of the bridge is directly linked to how many air defense and other military resources are tied up protecting it. Taking out those resources could be a smarter move in terms of overall military effectiveness.
However, the panic reported by the partisans may extend beyond the threat posed to the bridge. The fear among Russian troops and the flight of their families might stem from a deeper concern about the potential for further Ukrainian offensives. The reported 30-day ceasefire (that’s gone beyond this timeframe), viewed cynically, could be interpreted as a period allowing Russia to redeploy forces and manage their narrative ahead of renewed Ukrainian attacks.
The conscription of naval and technical personnel for frontline duties points toward a potential manpower shortage within the Russian forces. This shortage, combined with the rising fear among troops, strengthens the likelihood that Ukrainian offensive actions are anticipated and feared. The families fleeing indicate a belief amongst these soldiers that survival is uncertain.
The strategic importance of targeting the Kerch Bridge should also be considered in relation to other potential targets. While it is a significant symbol, the impact of destroying the bridge might be less substantial than taking out key military assets like ammunition dumps or airbases. Furthermore, Russia has allegedly already invested in building alternative supply routes. Targeting ferries could be considered but they present a more challenging, and ultimately less efficient, alternative to the bridge. The Donbas rail line, though closer to the frontlines, might present a more effective targeting solution, along with the other strategic targets mentioned above. The panic reported amongst the Black Sea Fleet, therefore, may well relate to the looming anticipation of far-reaching offensive actions from the Ukrainian military, making the Kerch Bridge situation only a part of the overall strategic considerations at play.