Moscow pulls out of landmark UN agreement in response to ‘terrorist’ incident
A Ukrainian official has claimed responsibility for an attack on the main bridge linking Russia to the Crimean peninsula that left two people dead and their daughter wounded.
- SEE MORE Rebuilding Ukraine: why reconstruction can’t wait until after the war
- SEE MORE Ukraine counter-offensive: do attacks inside Russia jeopardise West’s support?
- SEE MORE Will Nato use Ukraine membership as a bargaining chip with Russia?
Russia was quick to label the incident a terrorist attack on what Reuters described as “a major artery” for Russian troops fighting in Ukraine and a “prestige project” personally opened by President Vladimir Putin in 2018, said The Independent.
The 12-mile Kerch bridge, the longest in Europe and which carries both road and rail traffic, “holds huge strategic and symbolic importance for Moscow”, said CNN.
A source in Ukraine’s security service (SBU) told the news network that the attack early this morning was a joint operation between the SBU and the country’s naval forces.
The governor of Russia’s Belgorod region, Vyacheslav Gladkov, confirmed that two people had been killed when the car they were travelling in was hit, while their daughter was also injured.
It is not the first time the bridge has been targeted. Last October, a huge blast partially damaged the crossing, causing parts of it to collapse. At the time Ukraine denied direct involvement, although officials have since argued the structure represents a legitimate target because of its vital logistical role in the Kremlin’s war effort.
Even before the Ukrainian official claimed responsibility for the latest attack, Russia announced it was pausing its participation in a landmark UN agreement that allowed Ukraine to export its grain by sea despite a wartime blockade.
The announcement appeared to be “the most serious blow yet to a year-old agreement that had been a rare example of cooperation between the warring nations”, reported The New York Times. The deal was also seen as “essential to keeping global food prices stable”, said the paper.
Aid agencies are “bracing for the impact of the deal’s end on global food prices, which they say will hit the world’s most vulnerable in food-insecure countries the hardest”, said Politico.
