The video certainly requires that parties offer *some* explanation in a way that the Saki strike did not, but the fact is that nothing in the video is at all conclusive. The fact that the parties "agree" on what happened is completely orthogonal to what actually happened, whatever that was.
Is it possible that it was a truck bomb, as everyone says? Yes. I'm not an expert, and there are experts who say it's possible, or even likely.
Is it possible that it was a missile strike? Yes. I'm not an expert, and there are experts who say it's possible, or even likely.
Of the explanations I've seen, two argue in detail against the truck bomb theory and seem plausible to me.
First: An analysis thread from Zahed Amanullah, a former structural engineer who became an executive at a UK think tank, who strongly believes that an explosion on the road deck itself would simply have dispersed and caused localized damage rather than structural damage (note that he does not offer an alternate theory, merely evidence that the explosion happened from below rather than above, thus making the truck theory implausible):
Second: An analysis from Chuck Pfarrer, screenwriter / former Seal leader / trained underwater demolitions expert. He notes that the piece of evidence he finds most compelling for a missile strike was the hole punched in the deck of the fallen bridge segment:
These are not wackos. They are experts in their respective fields. They could, of course, be wrong.
It's also important to note that there are also confounding factors for *all* proposed explanations.
For the truck bomb theory to be true, Ukrainian forces would have had to assemble such a bomb on Russian territory, because the truck was driving from Russia to Crimea. That seems implausible -- but it also allows for all kinds of fun propaganda-friendly explanations. It allows Ukrainians to claim that either (a) they've got operatives in Russia capable of such work, or (b) that the Russians themselves were responsible, as Zelensky advisor Mykhailo Podolyak has already suggested. For obvious reasons, Ukrainians would love to "represent these hands", as poker players say. (It's also the explanation that the Russians like because it allows them to paint Ukrainians as truck-bombing "terrorists" rather than as a powerful military that is starting to outgun them.)
For the sapper theory to be true, Ukrainian forces would have had to deploy a team with an absolute shitton of explosives to place a shaped charge -- but having such an opportunity, it seems extremely likely that they would have put those charges on the railroad bridges directly rather than hitting one of the road bridges instead. That makes the sapper theory seem unlikely to me.
For the boat theory to be true, Ukrainian forces would have had to get such a vessel with those kinds of explosives into the Sea of Azov and into the vicinity of the bridge unnoticed, which, given the surveillance of that bridge by Russians, seems again possible but unlikely.
For the missile theory to be true, Ukrainian forces would have to have a missile that could be strong enough to hit and destroy the target from a very long distance. We already *know* this to be true, because it's what they did in Saki, and Ukrainians have already confirmed it. But it may not have been an ATACMS, because (a) the ATACMS is supposed to be more accurate, and thus would also have hit the rail bridge, and (b) the ATACMS, according to most analysts, is not big enough to create the alleged hole in the bridge.
Which points to the possibility of the homegrown Ukrainian Hrim-2 missile: a short-range ballistic missile. Fast enough to avoid countermeasures, with enough distance to get to the bridge, and enough weight and power to blow through it, but also would not have the accuracy of the ATACMS, and so might not have hit the intended target, the rail bridge, but instead hit the road bridge. Of course, we don't know if the Hrim-2 is actually operational, or how many they have, but if they do have a few, what better use for one than to hit the Kerch bridge, one of Putin's proudest achievements, on Putin's birthday?
Again, this is *all* speculation, and of the available evidence, there's nothing to make the truck theory any more viable from my perspective than the missile theory -- although there's lots to make the truck theory more attractive than the missile theory, for all sides.
OK, I'm done.
(Oh, one more thing: when Zelensky talked about the explosion, he noted that it was "sunny in Ukraine but cloudy in Crimea." According to the Financial Times, one of their sources said "check for cloudy weather — thunder, rain?" The word "hrim" in Ukrainian means "thunder".)
