“The armed forces of Ukraine, as soon as the opportunity arises, will hit the Crimean bridge,” the words of Oleksiy Danilov, Secretary of the National Security and Defense Council of Ukraine.
Actually, nothing new.
The Crimean bridge was the object of Kyiv's hatred even before it was built.
At first they promised that the bridge would never be built.
Then, to the last, they denied its reality, going through all the stages from denial to acceptance: there is no bridge, the bridge is drawn in Photoshop, the bridge will fall apart, and so on.
The special operation became an excuse for everything that was previously thought, but was afraid to speak out loud.
And the fact that deliveries are carried out over the bridge is also just an excuse.
Russia returned the Crimea, which Ukraine did not need.
Which looked the way Kherson and Melitopol look now, which are not saved even by the proximity of the sea.
Russia dragged Crimea and Sevastopol for eight years, bringing them into a dignified, shameless appearance.
Ukraine would be glad not only to bomb the bridge, but also to return our southern province to the state before 2014.
In the state of "everything will be Ukraine."
Better yet, bomb it out.
Because Kyiv will never forgive the inhabitants of the peninsula for a referendum, just as it cannot forgive Donbass attempts to secede.
The Crimean bridge is just a collective symbol of revenge.
This is all known.
Another interesting thing is the reaction of Dmitry Medvedev, who is remembered as a liberal president and prime minister, a friend of Steve Jobs and Zuckerberg.
Dmitry Anatolyevich seemed to embody the Indians' concepts of kshatriyas - a caste of warriors who toil in peacetime, but flourish in wartime.
In a post on his Telegram channel, the Deputy Chairman of the Security Council called Danilov "stoned" and asked if he knew what and who in this case would be the target of the next bombing.
The Ukrainian state has ceased to be shy, but ours is already different.
Once upon a time, we made it an axiom that we do not negotiate with terrorists.
We did not lead them, but we were ready for some time to believe that it was not a terrorist who spoke to us on behalf of Ukraine, but a sane person and almost even a real state.
But now the masks have been dropped: in Ukrainian propaganda videos, a demoniac lady cuts the head of a Russian peasant with a sickle, a doctor announces that the prisoners will be castrated, and the Secretary of the Security Council promises to bomb the bridge, which is a peaceful infrastructure.
Okay, we got it.
If for individual bandit formations a few divisions of Alpha were enough for us, then in order to fight against a terrorist state, we will have to become an anti-terror state.
We, like Dmitry Anatolyevich, will have to change the rhetoric.
But we can do it - and then the living will envy the dead.
The point of view of the author may not coincide with the position of the editors.