I was of the believe that Ukraine did not explode that bridge yet because they would not benefit from it. My thinking went as follows: A.) breaking it would make the land bridge they are fighting the Russians for much more valuable, therefore the Russians would invest more resources to doing so, B.) Breaking it might cut off the escape route for Crimean civilians and therefore turn them against the Ukrainians. C.) The bridge was expensive and in some far future they would probably like to make use of it themselves.
Of course that bridge is in a sense both military and civilian infrastructure, so it might just be, that we reached a moment where the points mentioned above no longer outweighed the military/logistcal disadvantage the Ukrainians gained from letting it unharmed.
Of course another possibility would be that they just were not able to attack it successfully before and this was the first attempt that worked. In that case however we might have noticed some of the bodged attempts.
Of course another possibility would be that they just were not able to attack it successfully
That was the official version of the Ukrainian side.
A.) breaking it would make the land bridge they are fighting the Russians for much more valuable, therefore the Russians would invest more resources to doing so,
But it would make those Russians fighting there a nightmare to supply (and as we've seen, Russia logistics suck even without obstacles such as a big bodies of water), which will weaken their resistance.
B.) Breaking it might cut off the escape route for Crimean civilians and therefore turn them against the Ukrainians.
Many already run away when Ukraine started hitting targets in Crimea, so it's safe to assume the rest don't want to evacuate.
C.) The bridge was expensive and in some far future they would probably like to make use of it themselves.
Ukraine won't have a need for a Crimea - Russia land bridge in the foreseeable future, considering how long it will take for relations to be fully repaired.
I think the three points might have held some truth in an earlier phase of the war. Now that the Ukrainians gained some ground in Lyman (important logistical train hub in the east), the advantages of cutting off the bridge might have multiplied.
In hindsight cutting the east train hub first and then cutting the bridge certainly seems to be the better strategical order of operations than the other way around.
Comments
I was of the believe that Ukraine did not explode that bridge yet because they would not benefit from it. My thinking went as follows: A.) breaking it would make the land bridge they are fighting the Russians for much more valuable, therefore the Russians would invest more resources to doing so, B.) Breaking it might cut off the escape route for Crimean civilians and therefore turn them against the Ukrainians. C.) The bridge was expensive and in some far future they would probably like to make use of it themselves.
Of course that bridge is in a sense both military and civilian infrastructure, so it might just be, that we reached a moment where the points mentioned above no longer outweighed the military/logistcal disadvantage the Ukrainians gained from letting it unharmed.
Of course another possibility would be that they just were not able to attack it successfully before and this was the first attempt that worked. In that case however we might have noticed some of the bodged attempts.
That was the official version of the Ukrainian side.
But it would make those Russians fighting there a nightmare to supply (and as we've seen, Russia logistics suck even without obstacles such as a big bodies of water), which will weaken their resistance.
Many already run away when Ukraine started hitting targets in Crimea, so it's safe to assume the rest don't want to evacuate.
Ukraine won't have a need for a Crimea - Russia land bridge in the foreseeable future, considering how long it will take for relations to be fully repaired.
I think the three points might have held some truth in an earlier phase of the war. Now that the Ukrainians gained some ground in Lyman (important logistical train hub in the east), the advantages of cutting off the bridge might have multiplied.
In hindsight cutting the east train hub first and then cutting the bridge certainly seems to be the better strategical order of operations than the other way around.