Dear Natalya, according to preliminary results of september expedition, organized by GASPROM and Rassian Ac. Sci., this crater is endogenic (substantial radioactivity increase and themal distructions are absent). The main explanation is the gas hydrates swat.
My criosphere collegues informed me that after the meeting in the Int of Geocriology RAS whith the special attention on this crater origin. The main result is the mutual agreement: definitely - endogenic. But few mechanims are still in question (endogenic). The seria of papers on this crater problem will start in March in Earth's Criosphere journal (Russian). I can ask the video from this russian meeting
Let's put it like this: unless there are clear signs of meteorite impact (this means: finding meteorite fragments; meteoritic ablation products; shatter cones; and/or shocked mineral grains) one has to conclude that the crater in Yamal is of endogenic origin.
Martin, I guess we can also do it on the bases of the width/ depth ratio. Meteorite crater's are more bowl-shaped than the Yamal crater. Is that right?
Natalia, this is correct. A typical depth/diameter ratio for simple, bowl-shaped meteorite impact craters is usually about 1:5.
I also think the "Yamal crater" appears rather "funnel-shaped" and could be deeper-rooted. However, erosion can of course modify the primary morphology of both endo- and exogenic craters, so I'd generally consider the topographic expression of craters as "soft evidence" (on the other hand, acknowledging that the preservation of "ejecta" around the Yamal crater suggests a young geologic age). Good luck with your studies!