“What a piece of work is man…” Shakespeare [sort of]
Dear Readers:
Yesterday we talked about trains, today we talk about bridges. With every day that goes by, Ukraine loses more and more of its precious infrastructure. Stuff that was built up by generations of hard workers. It’s a tragedy, for sure, and a testament to the duality of man. Man who builds, and then destroys. I can’t think of any other animal who does this: Can you imagine a beaver just diving in and destroying its own dam in a frenzy of anger?
Enough philosophy, let’s get down to business, I have this piece from yesterday by reporter Alexei Peskov. The title is:
Why Are We Preserving The Strategic Bridges Over The Dnepr?
The Ukrainian army are actively blowing up all the bridges before the advancing Russian forces, but Russia herself is not engaging in anything similar. Up until now the strategic bridges over the Dnepr are still whole, and yet it is precisely these bridges which allow Western weapons, and supplies, and fuel to be brought across to the Donbass. Why has the destruction of these bridges not been seen as a goal for Russia in the Ukrainian [operation]?
From the first moment when the West started pouring weapons into the Ukraine, both military analysts and even just ordinary [Russians] started asking themselves the question: Why are the Dnepr bridges still intact? Russia is shooting off many rockets, but does not regard the bridges as a target. Those same bridges across which march echelons [of Ukrainian troops] heading for the front. In answer to this question, Russian military people have explained: During that period when a mass evacuation of civilians was taking place, from East to West, they decided to preserve the infrastructure out of humanitarian concerns. But currently that [humanitarian] concern is no longer relevant. The number of refugees from the Donbass, and from the Ukraine in general, has decreased significantly. And nowadays the opposite is true: Weaponry and military technology is flowing from West to East, delivered into the Ukraine by practically all the NATO countries. Under which circumstances, the destruction of bridges in the enemy rear, is practically the alphabet of wartime actions. In order to cut off the enemy’s communications.
Not to mention that the Ukrainian armed forces (ВСУ) themselves have blown up dozens of bridges, even those not having any strategic significance, in the zone of Russian and DPR/LPR offensive operations. They would blow up bridges in an attempt to slow down the advance.
On the other hand, there are starting to be some reports, from Ukrainian sources, that [the Russians] are starting to blow up bridges as well. (The Russian Defense Ministry has not responded to these allegations.) For example, it was reported that a [Russian] Kalibr damaged a bridge to the West of Odessa. This bridge was being used to carry fuel and weapons from Romania.
There is also a theory, according to which the Russian command is deliberately sparing these bridges, thus allowing the ВСУ to transport a large number of troops to the East. So as to [add them to the kettle] and grind them down once the decisive battle for the Donbass has begun. A corollary to this theory: I mean, all the weaponry from the Western border has to go somewhere, and be brought together and concentrated in a few spots for unloading and unpacking, right? And it would be much more economical to just wait and destroy a clump of them all at once, using regular artillery, than to waste expensive Kalibrs picking off individual shipments one by one.
Well, these are the military considerations. But there are broader considerations as well, both cultural and political. A bridge across the Dnepr serves the people living on the banks of that great River. A bridge is more than just a structure that helps people cross a giant barrier. It’s much more than that. There are only 25 bridges [across the Dnepr], of which the majority are located in the two largest cities in the country: Kiev and Dnipro.
[to be continued]
Awful Avalanche 
I’ve been thinking about the bridges a fair bit myself. I believe there is an important prior to which we do not know the answer – is Russia planning to invade Western Ukraine (other than Odessa) at some point? If yes, there’s at least some point to not blowing them up, though it seems likely that the other side will, should Russia elect to cross the Dnieper north of Kherson.
If not, the main reason is the to-date focus on a minimal damage campaign, which, given the “Fight to the last Ukrainian” policy of the combined west, looks pretty iffy. The only other possible benefit for the Russian side is to enable refugee flows both into West Ukraine and the EU, which will predictably exacerbate Ukrainian and EU internal tensions, as well as getting the women and kids out of the way of combat operations. Neither of these seem weighty enough to not just say Do svedanyie, mosti !
But then, I’m just some random jerk with an opinion.
LikeLike
Well, I for one don’t think you are a random jerk, Stephen! 🙂
Me, I’m a random jerk. Or maybe just a jerk but not so random at all.
In any case, jerky or not, we are all entitled to our opinions. I for one believe that Russia has no designs West of Odessa. I think the Bear’s rage will be appeased when Ukraine becomes a landlocked country. Checking the map, there is Odessa and a strip just southwest of Odessa along the coast; and after that, it’s Romania. In which case, Russia will become neighbors with Romania.
Hello, Romania! Meet your new neighbor…
LikeLike
Pingback: Apr 30, 2022 | Situation Report: The World