︎






Mark
05



Trying to control all froms of mobilities present in the region, the Russian state turns blind eye towards mombilities of non-humans. The appropriate counter-logistical proposal would come from mobility of soil and broader network of non-human mobilities - or rather, images of their impact - as vectors for a kind of Anti-Adversarial Infrastructure.


Such example of non-human phenomenon, one that has already destroyed a previous incarnation of the bridge, is Ice. To consider ecology, if one speaks from the standpoint of vitalism, means to deny reductionism, attend the limits of knowledge and enter “a world filled with contingency” (Braun 2008). That would bring a productive insight on possible forms of counter-logistics for the Adversarial Infrastructure, as soon as “contingency is the nightmare of logistics” (Rossiter 2012, 26). Such contingency is also achieved by non-human mobilities that are hard or impossible to control like the mobility of earth or ice, typical for the area. Ice is a productive example of a material force that is fuels the spectacle of the bridge’s vulnerability.

Ice is described by the Russian anarchist and geologist Pyotr Kropotkin as an unstoppable force crawling through Europe in the manner resembling the spectre from “The Communist Manifesto” (Kropotkin 1899, Marx and Engels 1848). Ice reminds us that the “physical basis of the state”, the Crimean Bridge, “can be incrementally eroded”, not only expanded (Comaroff 2015 quoted in Chua 2018, 22). As it had already destroyed the previous Crimean Bridge in 1945, ice still poses a threat to the current bridge. The bridge itself alters water flows and levels of salinity, two factors that are reinforcing ice formation in the area (Romashchenko, Yatsiuk, Shevchuk, Vyshnevskyi, and Savchuk 2018). These new levels of ice formation are ignored because of the lack of ecological estimation (Romashchenko, Yatsiuk, Shevchuk, Vyshnevskyi, and Savchuk 2018). Furthermore, Krylov Research Centre, who were appointed to research the resistance of the Bridge to ice flow, is infamous in Russia for the failure of the previous mega-project they were tasked with (Galkina 2017). Further investiations of the activities of this Research Centre would be productive to understand what forms of counter-logistics could be enacted by human actors in the case of Adversarial Infrastructure.

Finally, I claim that in the case of the Crimean Bridge project, counter-logistics has already been put in place⁠—ironically enough, by the state itself. It is realised through the long list of outrageous violations in the construction process committed by the state government and its related networks. Norms for the bridge construction were altered to fit the project and ignore the mobility of the soil. The soil below the Bridge moves not only in the form of silt as outlined above - the area of the Bridge construction is highly seismic. Unstable ground is reinforced by the unstable soil itself. The sludgy ground was not supposed to support an enormous weight of the Bridge.