Worldwide large-scale infrastructure projects are drivers of economic development. And only in Russia the infrastructure is built for geopolitical self-assertion and theft of budget money. The bridge across the Kerch Strait is the triumph of the Russian corrupt "philosophy". The construction of the century did not solve any problems, having already devastated the budgets of several Russian regions, the money from which settled on the accounts of Putin's pocket "rottenbergs", wrote on the Observer political expert Andrei Voropayev.

The construction confirmed that the sawing, rolling back and skidding were the three main "whales" of infrastructure construction in the Russian Federation. The construction of the Kerch bridge was 13 times more expensive than the bridge in Louisiana, which, moreover, is twice as long as the Crimean bridge. Moreover, there already started talking about a new megastroke - a bridge to Sakhalin. Its cost will exceed by 3.5 times Kerch. This is despite the fact that there are no traffic flows in the region that require additional logistics capacity.

But the lack of common sense never scared the rulers of Russia. They are engaged in global money-laundering. This is confirmed by the May report of Sberbank CIB that the beneficiary of the construction of key gas pipelines in Russia are private contractors, and not the state-owned company Gazprom. Mainly - the companies of Putin's friends - Rotenberg and Timchenko. "Gazprom's decisions become logical only if it is assumed that it is managed for the benefit of contractors, and not for commercial gain," the report says.. According to analysts, Gazprom unjustifiably refused to build the Altai gas pipeline for $ 10 billion in favor of the Siberian Power ($ 55.4 billion). It is estimated that the "Turkish flow" will reach break-even in 50 years, and "Nord Stream-2" - in 20.

Immediately after this publication of analysts Sberbank CIB Alexander Fack and Alexander Kudrin fired for "unprofessionalism," and the head of Sberbank Gref personally apologized to Timchenko and Rothenberg. Although analysts themselves said about the absolute correctness of calculations.

... The Kerch bridge became for the elected Russians a way of enrichment, and for the majority - a symbol of national "greatness". For a cotton TV audience, Putin's "television bow" on Kamaz, which opened the bridge. For a civilized world, the short-legged little muzhik who, with a hard time getting sandals to the pedals, riding without a driver's license to the Ukrainian Crimea, without having the slightest right to do so, became the personification of inferiority and wretchedness.

It is obvious that the bridge does not solve any strategic problem of the inhabitants of the annexed Crimea. His technological future is vague, given the experts' skeptical predictions about exploitation. The bridge will not become a factor in the economic development of the surrounding regions. This would have been possible under the Ukrainian jurisdiction of the Crimea and the inclusion of a bridge in the system of trans-European corridors. But this is unrealistic, since the bridge is an illegal dead-end ferry to an unrecognized occupied territory.

Even if the bridge is launched in full, it will not improve the tourist potential of the peninsula. After all, the main reason for the desolation of the Crimea - not logistical failures. The problem is in the status of the peninsula as an annexed territory. The only value of the Kerch bridge for the Kremlin is the ability to quickly transfer with it military units and equipment. This factor was assessed in due time by another Crimean occupier - Hitler. In 1943, the Germans erected over the Kerch Strait cable car with a capacity of up to thousands of tons of cargo per day. So Hitler provided the supply of the 17th Army of the Wehrmacht.

Given the similar views and actions of Putin and Hitler in the occupation of the Ukrainian Crimea, there are fundamental differences between them. Hitler planned to go forward, considering the peninsula and the Kerch crossing as elements of logistics in the offensive operation. He thought globally as Putin and set out more ambitious tasks.

For Putin, Crimea is a fetish. He views the Crimea as a PR-scheme, rather than a means to achieve global objectives. Crimea is a geopolitical dead end of Putin. He sooner or later will have to escape from there. And the bridge for him is the infrastructure of retreat. Perhaps this escape from the Crimea will become a mission of the next ruler of the Russian Federation, since by that time Putin may cease to be president or simply cease to be.

It can be assumed that at one hour or another the Kremlin will need to rapidly withdraw from the territory of the peninsula significant military units, equipment and assets. Air travel requires more time. Marine waters adjacent to ports de jure Ukrainian Crimea, by that time can control the Ukrainian Navy and its allies.

At the same time, the risk of destruction of the crossing by the impact of high-precision Ukrainian weapons, which the influential Washington Examiner predicts, is actually small.

First, the bridge is calculated as one of the assets for the contribution of the Russian Federation to Ukraine.

Secondly - in the conditions of the collapse of the Russian Federation, the crossing will become a link between the Ukrainian Crimea and the Kuban. This strategic line has already been supported by the Kuban People's Republic, banned in Russia,.

Thirdly, the world community, given the nuclear status of the Russian Federation, will have to offer Putin or his successor a compromise version of the withdrawal from the Crimea. And thanks to such a compromise, "Putin's bridge" risks becoming a "Putin's departure place". The most expensive in the world ....