June 3, 2025

Institute for the Study of War: Ukraine attacks the Kerch Strait Bridge for the third time

Institute for the Study of War

Kremlin officials publicly acknowledged that Russia seeks the “complete destruction” of Ukraine, indicating Moscow’s disinterest in good faith peace negotiations and a near-term resolution to the war. Russian Security Council Deputy Chairperson Dmitry Medvedev claimed on June 3 in posts on his Russian- and English-language Telegram channels that Russia needs the negotiations in Istanbul to result in Russia’s “swift victory [in Ukraine] and the complete destruction” of the Ukrainian government and not a “compromise[d] peace on someone else’s delusional terms.”[1]Medvedev stated that Russia’s June 2 Istanbul memorandum was in line with these goals and threatened that Russia will “explode” everything and “disappear” anyone who opposes Russia in response to the June 1 long-range Ukrainian drone strikes against Russia. Kremlin Spokesperson Dmitry Peskov claimed on June 3 that Russia’s Istanbul memorandum is aimed at “eliminating the root causes” of the war in Ukraine and that people should not expect “immediate decisions” from Istanbul.[2] Peskov stated that Russian President Vladimir Putin is interested in a future trilateral meeting with US President Donald Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, but that Putin wants to hold this meeting after all of the technical details are worked out as part of a future ceasefire or long-term peace agreement.[3]

Russian state media has previously cautioned the Russian public against expecting any significant results from ongoing Ukrainian–Russian negotiations, although Russian officials continue to falsely project interest in good faith peace negotiations to US and Western officials.[4] Russian officials have recently engaged with the United States in a series of bilateral meetings and as part of ongoing US efforts to mediate an end to the war in Ukraine, but Russian officials have yet to demonstrate a willingness to compromise on any of their long-standing demands to bring about peace in Ukraine.[5]ISW noted on June 2 that Russia’s Istanbul memorandum reflects the Kremlin’s long-standing public demands for Ukraine to make significant territorial and political concessions while Russia offers no concessions of its own.[6] ISW continues to assess that Russia remains committed to pursuing demands that amount to nothing short of Ukraine’s full capitulation and that Russia will continue to pursue this objective so long as Putin believes Russia can militarily defeat Ukraine.

Ukraine struck the Kerch Strait Bridge on June 3 for the third time since the beginning of Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine. Ukraine’s Security Service (SBU) reported that SBU agents mined the underwater support pillars of the Kerch Strait Bridge and detonated the equivalent of 1,100 kilograms of TNT at 0444 on June 3.[7] The SBU reported that the operation took several months to plan and execute and stated that this is the third time that Ukraine has conducted an operation against the bridge. The SBU reported that the structural integrity of the bridge is in critical condition. The SBU released an image of the bridge which indicates that the explosion did not damage the roadway, though the force of the explosion threw structural elements onto the roadway. Geolocated footage published on June 3 shows an explosion at the base of the Kerch Strait Bridge.[8] Russian opposition outlets Sota and Astra and Russian milbloggers circulated footage indicating that Ukraine conducted a naval drone strike against the bridge around 1500 on June 3, though it is unclear if the strike caused damage to the structure.[9] Ukrainian Navy Spokesperson Captain Third Rank Dmytro Pletenchuk stated that damage to the Kerch Strait Bridge undermines Russia’s ability to resupply Russian units and facilities in Crimea.[10] The Kerch Strait Bridge is a critical Russian logistics route, and Russian forces heavily defend the bridge with layered air defense, anti-sabotage measures, and personnel who monitor surface and underwater activity.[11] Russian sources claimed that authorities temporarily halted traffic across the bridge, but later claimed that traffic resumed.[12] Russian state media and the Russian government have not responded to the strike as of this publication.

Western officials and open-source analysts continue to clarify the battlefield damage following the Ukrainian long-range drone strike series (Operation Spider Web) on June 1. Ukrainian Air Force Spokesperson Colonel Yurii Ihnat told Ukrainian outlet Ukrainska Pravda on June 2 that Ukrainian officials estimated about 10 to 12 of Russia’s 19 Tu-160 bombers and 36 of Russia’s 57 Tu-95 bombers were operational prior to Ukraine’s June 1 strikes on Russian airbases.[13] Bloomberg reported on June 2 that a senior Western official stated that Ukrainian special services likely destroyed or damaged at least seven Tu-95 bombers and four Tu-22 bombers during the June 1 strike.[14]Bloomberg also assessed that Russia will likely struggle to repair and replace aircraft damaged in the June 1 strike as its strategic aviation fleet relies on critical Western components that Russia has failed to source in the wake of Western sanctions. The New York Times (NYT) reported on June 3 that Western officials and military analysts assessed that Ukrainian special services likely destroyed or damaged six Tu-95 bombers, four Tu-22M bombers, and one A-50 airborne early warning and control (AEW&C) aircraft, and that Ukrainian special services may have destroyed or severely damaged up to 20 Russian strategic aircraft during the strike.[15] Ukraine-based open-source intelligence organization Frontelligence Insight assessed on June 3 that satellite imagery and open-source analysis indicate that Ukrainian special services likely destroyed or damaged 11 bombers of various types and one An-12 transport aircraft.[16] Frontelligence noted that publicly available satellite imagery has yet to confirm reporting that Ukrainian special services destroyed or damaged over 20 bombers. Ukrainian military observer Tatarigami and journalists from the Telegraph and Insider stated on June 3 that Ukrainian special services shared a video of Ukrainian drones striking at least two A-50 airborne early warning and control (AEW&C) aircraft and that Ukraine may release this video soon.[17] ISW has not observed the video’s publication as of the time of this report but will continue to monitor for additional information.

Key Takeaways:

  • Kremlin officials publicly acknowledged that Russia seeks the “complete destruction” of Ukraine, indicating Moscow’s disinterest in good faith peace negotiations and a near-term resolution to the war.
  • Ukraine struck the Kerch Strait Bridge on June 3 for the third time since the beginning of Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine.
  • Western officials and open-source analysts continue to clarify the battlefield damage following the Ukrainian long-range drone strike series (Operation Spider Web) on June 1.
  • Russia continues to produce and stockpile missiles and drones to strike Ukraine, demonstrating Russia’s continued commitment to winning the war through military means.
  • Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and Defense Minister Rustem Umerov announced a series of Ukrainian military command changes on June 3.
  • Ukrainian forces recently advanced in Kursk Oblast. Russian forces recently advanced near Kurakhove.
Share the Post:

Wilson Center

Forced displacement represents one of the most pressing humanitarian issues of our time. Individuals and families, torn from the fabric of their communities, find themselves navigating a world of uncertainty, often without basic necessities or a clear path to safety. There are currently some 110 million forced displaced, and this number is growing by 10 million each year!

At the heart of this crisis are the political triggers. Armed conflicts, ethnic or religious persecutions, and systemic human rights abuses force millions to flee their homes in terror. Many are displaced within their own national boundaries, while others seek asylum abroad. If these factors change as a result of political shifts at home or the pressures from abroad, they can return to their homes. Forced displacement is thus different from environmentally driven displacement, as victims of climate change may never be able to return to their homes.

The ramifications of any sort of displacement are profound, not just for those directly affected, but also for host communities and countries. Overburdened infrastructures, socio-economic strains, and cultural tensions can arise, necessitating comprehensive strategies to foster harmony and integration. Yet the root causes of forced displacement can be remedied with a concerted focus by local players and international diplomacy.

Organizations like Refugees International play a crucial role in this arena, advocating for the rights and needs of the displaced, conducting on-the-ground assessments, and influencing policymakers to take informed actions. Their relentless work underscores the gravity of the situation and the urgency ofinternational cooperation. But they, too, are overwhelmed by the rapid expansion of the crisis.

International Humanitarian Law (IHL), with its core principles centered on the protection of civilians during conflicts, plays a pivotal role in this discourse. Yet, despite clear legal frameworks, compliance remains
inconsistent. This initiative emphasizes the importance of upholding and reinforcing these international standards.

It’s not just about recognizing the problem; it’s about active engagement. We urge governments, organizations, and individuals to prioritize the rights and needs of the forced displaced. Through collective efforts, informed policies, and sustained advocacy, we can shift the narrative from passive acknowledgment to proactive intervention.