Why is the Crimea Bridge still standing?

23 comments

1. Russia uses a lot of defenses to protect it.

   Ukraine hits it with pop shots occasionally.

   If it was destroyed outright Russia would move those defenses elsewhere which Ukraine doesn’t want.

   That’s my guess anyways

2. I am interested in a conversation around the bridge. I thought it would be destroyed early on in the war. I’m curious why it is still standing. There were several attacks on the bridge to disrupt its use and possibly encourage Russians to flee. Just seems odd that it’s still standing.

3. I think that is one of the “red lines” that keeps Kiev and Odessa only partially damaged

4. Waiting for present from German friends

5. Bridges of this size are very hard to destroy. It also does not make any strategic sense to waste a lot of ordnance for that as the Russians can and already use ferries for logistics.

6. This isn’t 2022, it’s not the lynchpin of Russian military logistics anymore. Russia spent much of 2024 building railways in occupied territories, which they’ve been using instead. When they do need something specifically transported across the Kerch Strait they just use the ferry crossing (which Ukraine has been targeting as well).

7. Maybe the effort to completely destroy it isn’t worth the return? Ukraine has clearly identified lower risk/effort and higher reward in ammo depot’s and energy facilities so it’s been focused on those with it’s limited long range capabilities.

8. maybe not the right time yet.

9. Deffinetely because west forbid to attack it with westen weapons.

10. Ukraine doesn’t have the ability to take it down. At least not at a reasonable cost.

    But they sure as hell would do it if they could.

11. It was mainly the rail part of the bridge UKR wanted to destroy. It was attacked in 2022 and 2023. The railway is still being repaired.

12. i ask the same question to myself everyday, would be an awesome Feb 24 gift

13. The art of war says something along the lines of ‘give your enemy a golden bridge to retreat across’. maybe they want to make it easier and more appealing to run away.

14. Correct me if I’m wrong but I thought Russia stopped transporting military gear through the bridge due to security concerns. If that’s true that would make the bridge mostly symbolic target

15. Call the bridge gay and Putin will order it to be removed.

16. There are better targets for the long range missiles in short supply. It will make sense to blow it up when a reconquest of Crimea begins, not before.

17. 1. To keep air defenses busy.
    2. Just taking out a span in between piers uses up lots of resources, but it’s easily repaired
    3. The piers are independent of each other, so a failure at one part of the bridge does not affect the other piers.
    4. The piers are very hard to damage significantly
    5. it’s actually two bridges side-by-side, one trucks the other trains
    6. The rail Bridge has already been significantly damaged and trains cannot carry full loads. Some say as Crimea becomes untenable for the Russians the bridge will allow them to withdraw behind the 91 border without a Dunkirk like sea lift.

    When Ukraine does try to snuff the bridge, my guess is they will try to drop the central suspension portions.

18. It’s a big failure on the part of Ukraine.
    “It’s hard to do” is a terrible answer. Truth is Ukraine seems to be OK with Crimea being part of Russia permanently and doesn’t want to knock the bridge out, as a sort of olive branch.

19. Probably a backroom deal of sorts (they happen all of the time in every war in history). Likely brokered by the Turks, Saudis, or Emiratis. Essentially, the Ukrainians refrain from striking the Crimean Bridge, and in exchange the Russians refrain from striking the bridges across the Dnipro (don’t forget that two can play this game).

    There were even rumors about a potential deal where both sides would refrain from striking each other’s energy infrastructure. Needless to say, if the proposal was real, it fell through.

20. Bracing for downvotes, but Im assuming there’s backchannel chatter where Russia said something along the lines of “if you hit it, we nuke you”. The only plausible explanation.

21. Because there’s no strategic reason to destroy it.

    Better to make Russia waste resources and troops to defend it, than destroy it and free up those resources.

22. Germany did not deliver TAURUS to destroy them. They had a call with Putin and he apparently said no.

23. > The bridge is a crucial supply route for Russian forces in Ukraine.

    false, and that is why its still there.

Comments are closed.