Simultaneously with the attacks on the bridges, the Ukrainian strategy is increasingly focused on another critical point – fuel and its distribution. In addition to strikes against land routes and attacks on railway infrastructure, including locomotives on the important Moscow-Simferopol line, open fears of an attempt to completely cut off the peninsula from fuel supplies began to appear in the Russian information space.
Russian authorities at the highest level responded to this pressure. Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov had to publicly acknowledge the discussion about fuel shortages in Crimea and assure that the situation is under control. Shortly afterwards, Crimean representatives Sergey Aksyonov and Mikhail Razvozhayev reported directly to President Vladimir Putin on the state of supply.
Despite the statements of the authorities, reports appeared in the Russian pre-war online environment about the practical unavailability of the free sale of fuels.
Social networks were flooded with footage of burning fuel tankers and kilometer-long queues at gas stations where, according to the testimonies of local residents, it took up to eight hours to get gas. The lack of fuel has become such a serious problem that it is already felt by Russian mobile air defense groups designed to shoot down Ukrainian drones.
Ukrainians want to isolate Crimea
Moscow’s supply options are inexorably narrowing. The Crimean bridge, which Russia stopped using for transporting fuel after a massive attack in 2022, no longer has enough capacity. Russia is thus forced to the strategic highway R-280 Novorusko, which leads through Mariupol, Berdyansk and Melitopol.
The commander of Ukraine’s Unmanned Systems Forces, Robert “Hungarian” Brovdi, said the volume of Russian military traffic on the route had dropped by 71 percent, but this figure could not be independently verified.
“We will create conditions that will make it significantly more difficult for any military personnel or defense industry worker to stay in Crimea, temporarily occupied territories or use access routes to them. We will isolate Crimea in the near future,” Brovdi.
Macko points out that the consequences of this campaign present the Russian command with a serious dilemma. On the one hand, it is trying to continue the pressure in Donbas, on the other hand, it must allocate significant forces to the defense of Crimea.
“They will have to tie up larger forces and resources to protect the entire land corridor along the Sea of Azov against medium-range Ukrainian strikes,” the Slovak general warns.
Threat of future offensives
The destruction of logistics directly affects Russia’s ability to conduct offensive operations. If the supply becomes more complicated, the logistics routes are lengthened and the volume of material that can be delivered to the front is reduced on a daily basis.
“Extending the supply route by 80 to 100 kilometers can reduce the daily transport capacity of one truck by about 30 percent, according to Ukrainian estimates,” UNITED24 Media.
In practice, this means less ammunition, equipment and fuel for Russian troops in the Kherson and Zaporozhye regions.
The American Institute for the Study of War (ISW) has a similar situation, according to which systematic attacks on supply routes can significantly limit Russia’s ability to plan and conduct future offensives in the south and east of Ukraine.
Siege of the 21st century
According to General Mack, the main goal of Ukraine is to achieve a state where Crimea ceases to function as a safe base.
“Although the Ukrainians are not currently trying to physically occupy Crimea, they are making it uninhabitable for Russian troops and unusable for any further attack,” he explains. At the same time, he reminds us of the geographical reality: “Whoever controls Crimea largely controls the Black Sea.”
While in previous years, Ukraine managed to push a significant part of the Russian Black Sea Fleet out of Crimea, today the peninsula is becoming a risky place for the deployment of aviation, missile systems and large military warehouses.
Therefore, the former colonel of the British army, Philip Ingram, compared the current situation to a classic military siege adapted to the modern battlefield in Ukraine’s 24 Kanal. Since Ukraine currently does not have the means to carry out a massive amphibious operation, it is choosing the path of systematic cutting off resources.
“We’re not talking about laying siege to a medieval castle. We’re talking about laying siege to the whole of Crimea,” Ingram said.
From a strategic advantage to a political burden
In addition to the military, this persistent pressure also has a deep political and psychological dimension.
Crimea has long been presented by Moscow as a showcase of successful annexation and a safe holiday destination. Today, this image is crumbling. Russian accommodation systems report a huge drop in bookings for the summer season. Local businessmen publicly advise tourists not to travel, and even pro-Russian military bloggers admit that the attacks dealt a serious blow to the morale of the population.
The Kremlin thus faces a difficult situation, when the consequences of the war are spilling over into everyday life in the territory that was supposed to remain inviolable. From the point of view of experts, Crimea is changing from a strategic advantage to a logistical and political burden.
Macko adds that Crimea may be strategically more valuable for Russia than Donbas itself in the long term. According to him, while Donbas is primarily of political importance, Crimea remains a key military-strategic hub for controlling the entire Black Sea region.
This is precisely why the Ukrainian isolation campaign is so crucial for the future development of the war.
