The issue of target selection in the war in Ukraine remains the subject of intense discussion among circles of analysts and military personnel.
One of the most frequent questions is why systematic strikes are not carried out against major bridges and tunnels, with the aim of disrupting the transport of weapons, fuel and reinforcements to the Ukrainian armed forces.
The answer, according to military assessments, is not simple.
It combines technical difficulties, strategic calculations and political parameters.
The critical bridges
Bridge Kriukiv - Kremenchuk
The Kriukiv Bridge in Kremenchuk in the Poltava region is considered a key point.
It is the only bridge over a length of approximately 150 kilometers of the Dnipro that combines road and rail traffic.
Through it pass supply lines to areas of Kharkiv and the Donbass.
It has been struck in the past, with reports of damage to the roadway.
However, the damage was temporary and operation was restored.
Bridge Amur – Dnipro
The two-level road and rail Amur Bridge in Dnipro constitutes a main hub for the transfer of reserves to the Donbass front.
Its complete destruction would force Ukrainian forces to use longer detours or crossings of lower durability.
Bridges Zaporizhia
The bridges in Zaporizhia are of particular importance, as their destruction could isolate the left bank of the city from key supply lines.
Railway bridge Cherkasy
The bridge in Cherkasy extends along a dam.
A strike either on the deck or on the embankment itself could interrupt for a long period the connection of western Ukraine with the central part of the country.
Railway bridges of Kyiv
The railway bridges in Kyiv function as “gateways” for military material entering from the western borders.
Zatoka – Estuary of Dnister
The combined road and rail bridge in Zatoka, in the Odessa region, connects Ukraine with Romania and the ports of the Danube.
It has repeatedly received heavy strikes, but remains operational.
Its complete destruction, especially in combination with other crossings, would significantly limit southern supply lines.
Why is it so difficult to destroy them?
Many of Ukraine’s bridges were constructed during the Soviet period with high durability specifications.
Some were designed to withstand even strong shock waves.
For a span to collapse, a direct high-power strike on a critical pillar or joint is required, repeated strikes on the same structural point and precise targeting
Even then, complete interruption is not guaranteed.
In many cases, temporary crossings of floating bridges, pontoon, can restore the transport of cargo.
A strike only on the roadway often creates a temporary gap that can be quickly covered with metal plates.
The tunnels and the example of Beskyd – The proposal of the “hardliners” for use of Oreshnik
Tunnels are even more resilient.
A characteristic example is the Beskyd tunnel, near Lviv.
A large part of transit cargo between Western and Central Europe passes through there.
It is a modern double railway tunnel approximately 1.8 kilometers long, excavated in mountainous terrain.
The collapse of its internal vaults would require special penetrating weapons or multiple high-precision strikes.
In some Russian analyses reference is made to the “Oreshnik” missile, which is reported to have been designed for penetrating underground installations.
However, there are no publicly confirmed data for the use of such a weapon system on this type of targets.
Nevertheless military officials, whom the West classifies among the “hardliners” of the Kremlin have recommended the use of Oreshnik missiles for the destruction of the bridges, in order to accelerate the fall of the Ukrainian regime.
Why are heavier means not used?
Analysts put forward various assessments:
1) Future use of infrastructure
The complete destruction of critical infrastructure may complicate any future political or military settlement.
2) Humanitarian impacts
The collapse of all the bridges of the Dnipro could cause extensive humanitarian consequences, with international political cost.
3) International relations
Some consider that Russia seeks to avoid actions that could provoke negative reactions from countries with which it maintains strategic relations.
The alternative strategy - Energy instead of transport infrastructure
Instead of bridges, emphasis has repeatedly been placed on strikes against energy facilities.
The logic behind this choice, according to military analyses, is the “systemic effect”: Paralysis of industry, shutdown of repair units, slowdown of electrified railways, psychological pressure on the population
Energy attrition creates a cumulative effect: even if the front line is maintained, the rear struggles to support it effectively.
The great dilemma
The idea that bridges and tunnels can easily be “erased from the map” does not correspond to technical reality.
The destruction of such infrastructure requires high precision, repeated strikes and consideration of political consequences.
The war in Ukraine is not only a conflict of armies, but also a conflict of infrastructure, industry and the resilience of societies.
The choice of targets is determined not only by military expediency, but also by how each side calculates the cost, immediate and long term.
In this context, bridges and tunnels remain not simply technical targets, but symbols of strategic dilemmas.
www.bankingnews.gr
Σχόλια αναγνωστών