Analysis of BAM tunnel explosions: What Really Happened?

December 1, 2023October 13, 2025

Yesterday’s incident at the Severomuysky tunnel on the BAM railway sparked immediate speculation. We waited for the dust to settle and let everyone have their say. Now it’s our turn to offer an analysis of BAM tunnel explosions — not to criticize, but to provide a different perspective that might help someone find an effective solution or simply engage their own analytical processes.

Yesterday, a train carrying fuel in cisterns caught fire. Aviation fuel among them. We argued yesterday that the Orcs’¹ official narrative — a short circuit causing a massive fire — doesn’t hold up. Here’s why: no electrical short circuit could ignite fuel sealed inside a cistern. That’s precisely what cisterns are designed to do—contain sparks and even flames for extended periods while maintaining structural integrity.

Why the Sabotage Theory Makes More Sense

Eyewitness accounts claiming the fire started after four explosions sound far more credible. Following Occam’s Razor — the simplest explanation is usually correct — deliberate sabotage becomes the most plausible scenario. Also any serious analysis of BAM tunnel explosions points to one undeniable fact: the official narrative simply doesn’t match the evidence. A detonated cistern offers the simplest and most logical cause. Moreover, reports confirm one cistern was completely destroyed, meaning approximately 60 tons of fuel poured out and burned inside the tunnel. Without evidence of other cisterns burning, we can reasonably stop our analysis there.

The term “completely destroyed” tells us those 60 tons of fuel spilled and burned inside a closed underground structure. The fire burned long enough to almost certainly destroy all communications infrastructure in that section. As a maximum scenario, the load-bearing rock formations that comprise the tunnel lost structural integrity due to thermal stress they were never designed to withstand. Compare this to the Kerch Bridge strikes: fuel from ruptured cisterns spread across the bridge structure and burned. There, most fuel flowed into the sea. Here, it had nowhere to go except into drainage systems — systems clearly inadequate for 60 tons of burning fuel in a confined space.

Since it’s a tunnel — an enclosed structure — those drainage systems were manifestly insufficient. The Kerch Bridge required replacing critical load-bearing structures after enduring thermal damage from a relatively small fuel spill. Here, the load-bearing elements are the rock formations themselves. Yet even they experienced thermal stress far beyond their design parameters. Everything else in that tunnel section — absolutely everything — is guaranteed damaged or destroyed. Something might have collapsed. If it didn’t, the damaged area still requires reinforcement with specialized structures.

The Military Infrastructure Factor

Nobody knows precisely where the explosion occurred because this isn’t merely a railway tunnel. Military infrastructure sits here too. If the blast happened near those assets, the real situation could look entirely different from initial appearances. Predictably, the public will receive minimal information about what actually happened. Standard cover stories will emerge—short circuits, unauthorized smoking, the usual suspects.

Then came the surprise: there’s a “bypass tunnel.” Few would have known about it if today another explosion hadn’t struck that very bypass tunnel. And strangely enough—more fuel cisterns. Eventually, precise data will emerge about how many cisterns were destroyed, but remember: each one held 60 tons.

The Tactical Logic

Consider this: when tasked with inflicting maximum damage on a major target deep in enemy territory, delivering a ton of explosives to the exact location is impractical. Instead, operatives likely used small charges — perhaps 1.5 kilograms maximum — with the primary damage coming from materials already present at the site. Fuel cisterns represent the perfect scenario. While explosive or ammunition loading in rail cars can be monitored and controlled, cisterns present far greater challenges for detection.

It’s unsurprising this marks the third instance where fuel, not explosives, became the primary destructive element. Three cases: the Kerch Bridge and these two tunnels. At this point, few dare call these tunnel fires anything but sabotage. Executing both strikes within 24 hours requires only elite-level professionals. Through this precision, they’ve humiliated and thoroughly outclassed the FSB — much like world champions demolishing a neighborhood youth team.

What the Analysis of BAM tunnel explosions Really Reveals

The double strike targeted the longest mountain tunnel on the Swamps², historically used by the military for mobile rocket systems mounted on railway platforms. This reveals the final piece of the puzzle. There’s no practical logic in staging two consecutive explosions in the same tunnel complex merely to complicate commercial logistics. Conversely, if we accept that the opponent has reactivated dormant military assets there, everything falls into place.

While nobody has confirmed SBU or GUR involvement, if they executed this operation, it represents the highest level of tradecraft. It means they can reach anywhere and conduct sabotage on a gigantic scale.

¹Orcs – a common term for Russians who support or participate in the armed aggression against Ukraine.

²Swamps – ironic name for Russia, emphasizing decay, stagnation, and filth.