Those same bridges across the Dnieper: Gerani have also taken on the Northern Bridge in Kyiv.

Attacks on bridges across the Dnieper continue. Yes, those very same bridges, whose importance to the enemy is difficult to overestimate, as has been discussed for literally years, including on "Military Review."

There are reports of a jet arriving. drone On Kyiv's Northern Bridge. With the Southern Bridge closed, traffic congestion in Kyiv, Ukraine's capital and largest city, is set to worsen significantly.

If the Northern Bridge over the Dnieper also stops functioning, this will mean a situation close to a transport collapse, since the lion's share of car traffic from the left to the right bank of Kyiv and vice versa passes through it and the Southern Bridge.

For reference, daily vehicle traffic across the Northern Bridge reaches 80 vehicles, and across the Southern Bridge, approximately 100. One can imagine the strain on the Ukrainian capital's transportation system if all these tens of thousands of vehicles try to "search" for an alternative route from one bank of the Dnieper to the other.

Now the enemy is asking itself what to do if the Russian Armed Forces continue to systematically target bridges across the Dnieper, and not just in Kyiv. They haven't yet found an answer. Meanwhile, proposals are already being made to establish crossings. For the Geran, there's no fundamental difference between a bridge or a crossing, if a target is assigned, say opponents.

Comments

[tralflot1832]

"Google" wasn't shy; the satellite was filled with a continuous stream of "long-haulers" with and without escorts. Probably the year 2024.

[Andrey Malashchenkov]

Kyiv region, October 3 — Avia.pro. The situation around Kyiv's Southern Bridge, which was subjected to a series of precision strikes, has reached a critical point. As a result of pinpoint hits by Russian drones. Severe structural damage was recorded at the engineering structure's nodes.According to information from specialized monitoring sources and technical services, impacts at the point where the stay cables are attached to the pylon completely severed some of the powerful steel cables. Bridge construction experts assessing the current condition of the structure are declaring a direct threat to the static balance of the entire structure.


Ha know ours

[Andrey Malashchenkov]

The photo is not clear, but the damage is still visible.

[GueST90]

Yes, that same website says traffic has resumed. But the metro, even after inspection by specialists, continued to operate. The traffic jams were only for cars. Someone must be lying.

[Pravodel]

...bridges across the Dnieper: Gerani have also taken on the Northern Bridge in Kyiv.

Better late than never...
Maybe now things will go even better for our guys at the front and our victory will be closer and closer, not on the horizon, but in reality, and our victory banner will finally be raised on Motherland in Kyiv!

[Poplar]

I think we need to pay special attention to railway bridges: there will probably be more freight traffic there. Then things should definitely be easier for our soldiers.

[ilimnoz]

This doesn't look like systematic work. This should have been addressed two or three years ago. Or is the goal of the war not just to the last Ukrainian but also to the last Russian—or rather, to the last Russian patriot. And will only foreign agents remain?

[rytik32]

Quote: ilimnoz

This should have been done two or three years ago

What means could have ensured a precise hit on the support 2-3 years ago?

[Fan-fan]

And they are not hitting the bridge support now, they are hitting the roadbed and the pylons with cables.

[rytik32]

Quote: Fan-Fan

And they don’t hit the bridge support now, they hit the roadbed and the pylons with cables

The question is not "where" to hit, but the required accuracy.

[YES UZH]

For example, a truck, a semi-trailer, an underwater drone, a wagon with TNT, a Topol missile taken off duty and fine-tuned to perfection... The version is, of course, incredible.

[topol717]

Quote: YES

For example, a truck, a semi-trailer, an underwater drone, a wagon with TNT, a Topol missile taken off duty and fine-tuned to perfection... The version is, of course, incredible.

We've had geraniums since 2023. The altitude and coordinates of the pylon are known, so one of the 3-4 geraniums would definitely have hit. So it's definitely not a lack of weapons.

[PavelT]

Why hit the support???
Who has been aiming and hitting the bridge supports in the last 30-40 years???
Give such examples.

Our Iskander missiles hit the bridge span, and it collapsed. This can't be erased or hidden, no matter how those sycophantic patriots try to get away with it. There are videos and photos, including here:

https://topwar.ru/220557-rezultat-udara-otrk-iskander-po-antonovskomu-mostu-pod-kotorym-prjatalis-boeviki-vsu-popal-na-video.html

There's video and photos. Here's a video of the landing itself: https://smotrim.ru/article/3430857

In 1999, the Americans destroyed all 7 of the 11 Serbian bridges across the Danube with JDAM glide bombs (the basic version of the GBU-31 JDAM) based on their good old 2000-pound (894-945 kg) MK-84 aerial bomb (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_84_bomb - they've had it since the Vietnam War) which only contains 429 kg of explosives! And it falls on the bridge more slowly than an Iskander warhead. If it hits the middle of the span, it tears it in half, and both parts of the span fall into the river at one end. And that's it. The supports have nothing to do with it. At all.

They bombed some bridges 12 times. They were tenacious. And that was 26-27 years ago!!!
What prevented them from repeating their approach???

But here they'll try it once, then stop - as already happened with the Ukrainian bridges in Zaporizhzhia...
It smacks very much of betrayal.

[rytik32]

Quote: PavelT

Why hit the support???

Restoring the support is the most labor-intensive operation. The span can be restored in a couple of months, see Crimean Bridge.

Our Iskander missiles hit the bridge span and it collapsed.

Not the entire span collapsed, but only part of it.

If it hits the middle of a span, it breaks it in half, and both parts of the span fall into the river with one end. And that's it.

An FAB hit the middle of the Ostrovsky Bridge span. Why didn't the span collapse?
https://anna-news.info/fab-3000-vysokotochno-porazil-most-v-hersone/

In 1999, the Americans demolished all 7 (out of 11) Serb bridges across the Danube.

Why didn't the Americans destroy all 11 bridges?

Some bridges were bombed 12 times.

There are already glimmers of hope. It's not that easy to demolish the bridge.

What prevented them from repeating their approach???

Risk of losing planes in the skies over Kyiv

It smacks very much of betrayal.

The enemy still hasn't destroyed the Crimean Bridge either - are traitors to blame there too?

[PavelT]

Restoring the support is the most labor-intensive operation. The span can be restored in a couple of months, see Crimean Bridge.

And maybe then the bridge piers will be destroyed (sarcasm).
Once again: the support is several times THICKER than the span—bringing it down requires several times more explosives. Even when their own sappers destroy a bridge (plant charges), they don't destroy the support itself, only its cap, blowing both spans off the support with the explosion. But they can easily climb up there and leisurely place charges right on the side of the support, on the cap. How can a bomb fly in there (into the support)? There's a span above! To hit the support from the side, a missile would have to hit its narrowest profile, 3-6 meters (and the thickness of the support itself under the bridge span can be 9, 18, or more meters). And the span can be 100 or 150 meters long, and from 5-6 meters wide (railway) to 30 meters wide (multi-lane highway or combined bridge)—it seems obvious which is easier to hit from the air!!

Regarding the restoration of bridges that collapsed into the river: just look at how long it took the Serbs to rebuild their bridges that had collapsed into the Danube. And this was during peacetime! No one interfered.
Example: The Zheleyev Bridge was finally restored only in 2018, https://ren.tv/news/v-mire/336949-serbiia-vosstanovila-most-bratstva-i-edinstva-razrushennyi-nato-pochti-20-let-nazad, and our Russian Railways participated in this: https://sdelanounas.ru/blogs/110549/ And the entire restoration (or rather, rebuilding) cost 54 million euros, half of which was allocated by the EU. https://rutraveller.ru/place/162771

Once again, the question: who, where, and when deliberately targeted a bridge support with a missile or bomb? Who in history ever set such a crazy goal? Don't evade the question!
Answer honestly: "I don't know of any such cases."

Not the entire span collapsed, but only part of it.

The photo clearly shows that the entire span in one direction has collapsed. It's not just a section—it's a single truss of the span. It was hit, and that's what caused it to fall. If they hit the second truss, the second truss will fall. It all makes sense.

An FAB hit the middle of the Ostrovsky Bridge span. Why didn't the span collapse?
https://anna-news.info/fab-3000-vysokotochno-porazil-most-v-hersone/

Because there wasn't enough charge, maybe it exploded at the wrong time (late), or maybe the explosives were bad. There could be a ton of reasons: maybe it wasn't a FAB-3000, but a FAB-1000, and Anna News is reporting false information (is the General Staff reporting to them? Oh, I doubt it...)

Why didn't the Americans destroy all 11 bridges?

We simply didn’t have time - the war ended.
The Serbs realized that they couldn't cope, that the country was already practically torn apart, and with the collapse of the remaining four bridges, it would be reduced to pieces.

Risk of losing planes in the skies over Kyiv

Our planes flew over Kyiv very frequently during the first two months of the war, despite the losses. Back then, they could easily have been destroyed, even while retreating from Kyiv. Not doing so was stupidity bordering on treason.

But right now I'm not talking about Kyiv, but about Zaporizhzhia: there are four bridges there and the Dnieper Hydroelectric Power Station with its lock, just 45 km from the front line. The UMPK has a range of 70 km—you could launch it every day. All those bridges in Zaporizhzhia could have been destroyed by bombing them 12 times, like the Americans. No, it didn't work once—they stopped right away...

The enemy still hasn't destroyed the Crimean Bridge either - are traitors to blame there too?

There, first of all, the president himself is a traitor. They've been saying so for a long time.

But seriously, the same question can be asked about the Serbs (why didn’t they destroy some bridge in Europe in 1999?) and about the Iranians (why didn’t they destroy a bridge in the USA?).
Is there even one Ukrainian bridge on the Dnieper that is as well defended as our Crimean Bridge?
No, it's not even close - they simply don't have enough missiles in their air defense!

[rytik32]

How could a bomb fly in there (into the support)? There's a gap above!

They're firing across the bridge. For example, at the Sudost Bridge in the Chernihiv region—ours with FABs, or the enemy with Heimars on the Antonovsky Bridge.

Just look at how long it took the Serbs to rebuild their bridges.

But they didn’t have the funds!

Who, where and when deliberately hit a bridge support with a missile or bomb?

Why a missile or a bomb?
https://topwar.ru/284442-nashi-bojcy-pokazali-kak-43-fpv-drona-vyveli-iz-jekspluatacii-most-cherez-nitrius.html
https://topwar.ru/285516-protivnik-vyvel-iz-stroja-most-na-trasse-doneck-mariupol.html

The UMPK flies 70 km - launch it every day

But the Patriot or S-300 missiles fly much further. Maybe that's why Zaporizhstal was taken out with expensive Iskander missiles, not cheap FABs?

No, it didn't work out once - we stopped right away...

IMHO, they took out the air defenses, opened a window, and took advantage of it. And then the window closed.

At least one Ukrainian bridge on the Dnieper is defended just as well.

In and around Kerch, they've already destroyed everything they could: the Askold, the thermal power plant, the oil depot, the oil terminal in Taman, the ferry crossing, the ferries themselves, and the tankers in the Kerch Strait. So if they'd wanted to break through the air defenses to get the bridge, they could have. But apparently, the enemy's generals aren't such fools either, and they understand that even Flamingo, Neptune, and Storm Shadow would only scratch the Crimean Bridge.

[PavelT]

Oh! An answer with examples appeared!

For example, on the bridge over Sudost in the Chernihiv region - ours with FABs, or the enemy with Heimars on the Antonovsky Bridge.

Let's do it this way: let's not use examples of bridges over stinking rivers, with spans up to 10-12 meters long. The support there is at most a meter thick, which will soon collapse on its own. Or a set of piles instead of a support. But then again, repairing the bridge there isn't a problem (or building a new one nearby).

Here is an example of a typical Soviet single-track railway bridge made of reinforced concrete, a little larger (with spans up to 15, or more precisely up to 16.6 meters) - a typical design from 1975: https://meganorm.ru/Data2/1/4293827/4293827077.pdf - there are sections of all possible spans (page 27) and nowhere is the reinforced concrete in the span thicker than 140 cm vertically (these are just two ribs 50 cm thick, horizontally), and solid reinforced concrete capital supports for such spans 16.5 m long (for a single-track span 418 cm wide) the width must be at least 320 cm, the thickness at least 220 cm (general plan on page 22 or types of capital reinforced concrete supports on page 43).
Just look at this project, the thickness of the concrete in the span and the thickness of the concrete in the support.

It's clear that the spans across the Dnieper and Danube aren't 15-30 meters long, but much longer and stronger. But the supports there also become thicker: the proportions remain the same. The supports are solid, while the spans are box-shaped or with multiple ribs, 1.5-3 times thinner than the supports.

And tell me honestly: what's easier to destroy with a bomb or a missile? A span or a support?
And you already know the second question: what's easier to hit? The span or the support?

Two simple questions, two honest answers - and the crazy idea of ​​"you have to hit the support" is thrown into the trash.

Regarding the strange example of the Ukrainians shelling the Antonov Bridge with HIMARS (and Olkha) multiple rocket launchers – it's just plain crazy to claim the Ukrainians were aiming these weapons at the supports UNDER the spans! How can you even imagine that??? It's simply an aerodynamic adjustment based on GPS coordinates during the second half of the trajectory. Did even one missile hit the support? Or are you counting all the missiles that accidentally hit the span EXACTLY above the supports that hit the supports? A "brilliant" approach... I'm afraid it's just not serious.

Why a missile or a bomb?
https://topwar.ru/284442-nashi-bojcy-pokazali-kak-43-fpv-drona-vyveli-iz-jekspluatacii-most-cherez-nitrius.html
https://topwar.ru/285516-protivnik-vyvel-iz-stroja-most-na-trasse-doneck-mariupol.html

Because the drone doesn't carry enough explosives. For those reasons alone.

I saw these "examples" from yet another adherent of the "you have to hit the support" sect—the blogger "Russian Engineer" on his Telegram channel...
He's supposed to be an engineer, but he's spouting the same nonsense: supposedly the Ukrainian bridges across the Dnieper near Zaporizhzhia should be destroyed with drones (by striking the supports), and FABs with UMPKs (with a warhead 10-20 times more powerful!) should be used to bomb the traffic jams on these bridges and the approaches to them! He supposedly wrote this during the first use of our UMPKs on those bridges. No, that's just crazy. I suspect he simply benefits from prolonging the war and having our Armed Forces buy hundreds of drones from his friends and comrades for years, wasting them endlessly on these four bridges...
I just don’t have any other working versions of his quirk.

And the same thing: well, there’s no need to give an example of a stinking river with a span of even less than 10 meters and with matchstick supports even thinner than 1 meter!
Can you build a bridge across the Dnieper with such supports? ... And no one else can.

The main thing: How did it all end? The answer is in the text of your second example:
"A temporary bypass route has been promptly organized for civilian and military transport."
This won't work on the Dnieper (Danube)!

But the Patriot or S-300 missiles fly much further. Maybe that's why Zaporizhstal was taken out with expensive Iskander missiles, not cheap FABs?

I don't know anything about Zaporizhzhia Steel being hit by Iskander missiles, honestly. But I do remember our fighters dropping FABs on the plant, but only after the entire city of Mariupol had been encircled.

Perhaps you haven't read the news in the last two or three months? Every day they report that the Ukrainian Air Defense Forces are experiencing a severe shortage of missiles. There aren't enough of these missiles for more important targets, EVEN in the Kyiv region.
Zaporizhzhia most likely hasn't had any of these since spring, just as it probably doesn't have these air defense systems either.
How many operational air defense systems does Ukraine have?

As of the beginning of 2026:
There are almost no S-300s left, maybe a couple near Kharkov, maybe a couple deep in the rear,
Patriot air defense missile systems 2-3 pieces and all around Kyiv.
NASAMS: approximately 10
IRIS-T SLM: 8-9
SAMP/T: 1-2 received, more deliveries expected (8 planned).
Beech/Tor: Soviet Park (residual quantities). Up to 10-20 pieces.

How can this meager barrier cover two megacities (Kyiv and Kharkiv), three ports on the Black Sea, a 1000-kilometer frontline, and three or four groups of bridges with hydroelectric power plants, not to mention thermal power plants, nuclear power plants, substations, and railway junctions? It's simply unrealistic... No one can do it.

IMHO, they took out the air defenses, opened a window, and took advantage of it. And then the window closed.

In your opinion, the solution to the problem is to move the air defense system back in.

Moreover, it can be carried out simultaneously with bridge attacks: loitering drones are launched in advance and fly to the areas where enemy air defense systems are suspected to be located. Then aircraft with UMPKs take off and force the enemy to activate their air defense system radars. If they don't activate them, good for them; bombing raids are conducted. But if they do activate them, the aircraft either evade the air defense system missiles and fly to the UMPK launch point, or fire the UMPKs at the limit of their range. Meanwhile, the drones neutralize the air defense systems that have revealed themselves. It's a classic method of provoking air defense systems to destroy them. The Americans have long since perfected this maneuver (even before drones, they used it with two groups of aircraft: provocateurs and SAM hunters).
Why don't we do this here? It's a great mystery...

In and around Kerch, they've already destroyed everything they could: the Askold, the thermal power plant, the oil depot, the oil terminal in Taman, the ferry crossing, the ferries themselves, and the tankers in the Kerch Strait. So if they'd wanted to break through the air defenses to get the bridge, they could have. But apparently, the enemy's generals aren't such fools either, and they understand that even Flamingo, Neptune, and Storm Shadow would only scratch the Crimean Bridge.

You've painted an apocalyptic picture: the Crimean Bridge stands, but all of Kerch and the surrounding area has been bombed to smithereens. I'm afraid the residents of Kerch (as well as the residents of Kyiv, by the way) won't agree with you. There's no such horror.

I believe that Ukrainian generals know better than you or I their ability to simultaneously launch Flamingo, Neptune, and Storm Shadow missiles at the Crimean Bridge. And they can estimate for themselves (on paper) that the total number of missiles in such a salvo is not enough to overwhelm our air defenses at the Crimean Bridge. But they are forced to create the appearance of a "victory." Therefore, all their shelling of the Crimean Bridge is pure PR for show. It's just that their media is logically silent about it.

[rytik32]

And tell me honestly: what is easier to destroy with a bomb or a missile?

Of course, it's easier to hit a bridge with a bomb or missile, and easier to break a span than a support; it's silly to argue with that. But this "easier and simpler" isn't exactly simple in reality. You can count how many things hit the bridge in Zatoka before the span collapsed.
A drone with a shaped-charge warhead can damage a support by cutting the reinforcement located close to the support's edge. A drone is cheaper, more accurate, and will take longer to disable a bridge. I hope you won't argue with that.

"You have to hit the support" sect follower

It wasn't me or him who came up with the idea for the supports; that's what they say in blasting textbooks. It even says the first blast will crumble the concrete, and the second blast should break the support's reinforcement. Why would a sapper blow up a bridge twice? He could have collapsed the span the first time...

so that our Armed Forces would buy hundreds of drones from his friends and comrades for years

How many missiles were spent on the bridge in Zatoka? And how many geraniums could have been made with that money?

How many operational air defense systems does Ukraine's air defense have?

I'm even embarrassed to ask the source of this knowledge )))

And if you turned it on

The radar will be operational, but far behind the front line and for short periods, with shifting positions. And the SAM battery will be in ambush near the front line...
So it's not all that simple. Even the US couldn't completely defeat Iran's air defenses.

The Americans have been practicing this maneuver for a long time.

I read about Vietnam. They know how to write beautifully! But if they're so smart, then why did they lose around a thousand aircraft to SAMs in Vietnam? Such losses are unacceptable today.

And they can figure out for themselves (on paper) that the total number of missiles in such a salvo is not enough to overwhelm the capabilities of our air defense at the Crimean Bridge.

This doesn't stop them from launching missiles at Moscow, even though Moscow's air defenses are far more powerful than those of the Crimean Bridge. So the problem isn't the air defenses, but rather the fact that it would take a truckload of explosives to bring down the bridge.

[PavelT]

You can count how much of it hit the bridge in Zatoka before the span collapsed.

By the way, I still haven't seen any decent photos of the collapsed bridge span in Zatoka. So this whole thing raises a huge question: why did it take so long to fix it? I can't even count them, because I don't know everything, and not everything hit the bridge, and not everything exploded (it's pointless to count what missed—it has nothing to do with the bridge's strength or the adequacy of the warhead).

A drone with a shaped-charge warhead can damage a support by cutting the reinforcement located close to the support's edge. A drone is cheaper, more accurate, and will take longer to disable a bridge. I hope you won't argue with that.

This is precisely what I WILL ARGUE about. This is such a childish and ridiculous approach (it smacks of a prank or trolling): You're asking me to believe that some UAV (with a warhead of up to 90 kg - I don't think we've used more than that yet) can bring down a 3-4 meter thick support structure (the width of the span)??? Are you out of your mind?
Ah, your "clever" excuse/excuse is "damage the support"—not collapse it, but damage it! Brilliant... That's exactly what our guys did for four long years in Zatoka: damage it. Are you happy with this pace?
But the Americans in Yugoslavia, for two months, didn't damage, they simply DESTROYED. Hence the results.
Your idea that a drone would cut through the outer layer of reinforcement closest to the edge of the support is simply ridiculous. So what if it cuts it? There are still about 20-40 layers of reinforcement (spaced 10-20 cm apart) in the support (if the support is 4 meters thick)... The support won't fall because of that.

It wasn't me or him who came up with the idea for the supports; that's what they say in blasting textbooks. It even says the first blast will crumble the concrete, and the second blast should break the support's reinforcement. Why would a sapper blow up a bridge twice? He could have collapsed the span the first time...

I had already guessed that the adherents of the "you have to hit the support" sect originated from the fact that some "genius" confused sappers (and saboteurs) blowing up a bridge manually with an air attack on the bridge.

You're further proof of that... Do you really not see the difference? Or is this a joke?
Do you really not know where exactly the sappers, demolition experts, and saboteurs plant charges in the main bridge?

But about two explosions, about two times... you've truly broken all the molds. The sappers would have died of shame if anyone among them had suggested such nonsense about the bridge.
Are you not aware that bridges are often blown up when the enemy breaks through to them?
What two explosions? They shot for making a mistake with one.

[rytik32]

This has nothing to do with the issue of the bridge's strength and the sufficiency of the warhead.

Thus, the question of the bridge's strength and the sufficiency of the warhead has no practical meaning without taking into account the probability of a hit.

Ah, your "clever" excuse/excuse is "damage the support"—not collapse it, but damage it! Brilliant... That's exactly what our guys did for four long years in Zatoka: damage it. Are you happy with this pace?

Just a nuance: in Zatoka, it was the spans that collapsed, not the supports. So Zatoka is your solution, not mine.

But the Americans in Yugoslavia did NOT damage, they simply DESTROYED.

The Americans had the ability to drop laser-guided free-fall bombs. Ours didn't.

There (if the support thickness is 4 meters) there are about 20-40 more layers of reinforcement in the support (increment of 10-20 cm)

Look at the photo. One of the supports belongs to the Crimean Bridge. Is there a lot of rebar in the middle of the support?

Do you really not know where exactly the sappers, demolition experts, and saboteurs plant charges in the main bridge?

So enlighten me))

The sappers would die of shame if anyone among them suggested such nonsense about the bridge.

So, have you read the literature or are you just imagining things? Read, for example, Lopatin's "The Demolition Service of the Local Air Defense," section "Blowing Up Reinforced Concrete Bridges."

[Plate]

Quote: The Truth

Maybe now things will go even better for our guys at the front.

It's highly unlikely that the destruction of the Kyiv bridges will affect the Ukrainian Armed Forces' ability to conduct combat operations in the foreseeable future. East of the Dnieper, there are certainly vast reserves of everything and anything. If they're not transported through Kyiv, then they're transported across another bridge. If they're not transported across bridges, then they're transported across pontoon bridges, even with reloading from trains to trucks—or even directly by truck from the western borders and their own enterprises. Spending ballistic missiles on pontoon bridges would be ruinous, but a drone would have a long flight time: they'd be able to transport a lot. And that adds to the lag in detecting the bridge.
So, no, I don't think even the infamous disabling of all bridges will directly impact the Ukrainian Armed Forces' ability to conduct combat operations. What it will impact is Ukraine's ability to exist as a whole. But before it impacts the conflict, it will likely have to endure these difficulties for three to four months, without any way to resolve or even alleviate them.
There is no point from which everything will collapse, there is none.

But Kyiv's problems certainly evoke moral satisfaction. There's no arguing that.

[PavelT]

So we need to destroy all the Ukrainian bridges across the Dnieper. We've had a rare stroke of luck in this war: Ukraine is geographically divided into two parts by the enormous Dnieper River. Destroying all the bridges across the Dnieper means tearing the country in half.

The Americans did this with Yugoslavia (Serbia) in 1999. The country there is divided by the Danube (a river no smaller than the Dnieper). And in just two or three months, the Americans collapsed seven of Serbia's eleven bridges into the Danube. And that's it – the Serbs realized that further war was futile.

Why can the Americans do this, but we can't? Why were they able to, while our sycophantic patriots (unofficial ones) come up with idiotic arguments why it's impossible or why it's unnecessary (simply treasonous). The official authorities remain silent, and the General Staff usually stops even attempting to attack the Ukrainian bridges across the Dnieper.

[tralflot1832]

Google is not shy even now.

[ximkim]

Now the enemy is asking itself what to do if the Russian Armed Forces continue to systematically attack bridges across the Dnieper, and not just in Kyiv. They haven't yet found an answer to that question.

Because the Russian Armed Forces do not have the goal of destroying these bridges.
Again, what goals can there be if there is no action plan?

[Sergey3]

Because the Russian Armed Forces do not have the goal of destroying these bridges.

I've never understood why!!! Even if we hypothetically assume they suddenly formed part of Russia, these bridges were built a long time ago, haven't been maintained for a long time, and will still have to be rebuilt. And they're being built quickly now. For example, the bridge over the Volga on the M-12 highway was built very quickly.

[HAM]

Zelensky will urgently request or demand a "bridge truce," which always happens when things start to get heated... then whining will be heard from Brussels, and then the "menacing roar" of the Redhead, the "under-peacemaker without a bonus"...

[pudelartemon]

A truce is only possible for his funeral.

[PavelT]

Already!
"Sybiha instructed his partners to stop Russia's attacks on Kyiv bridges."
https://eadaily.com/ru/news/2026/10/04/sibiga-dal-ukazanie-partneram-ostanovit-udary-rossii-po-kievskim-mostam

Some Ukrainian bureaucrat gave an ORDER to someone to prohibit Russia from hitting the bridges of the Ukrainians!

No, well, he said this without any inhibitions at all, he let go of all his inhibitions:

He called on his partners to strengthen Ukraine's air defenses, impose new sanctions against the Russian military-industrial complex, and send a clear signal to Moscow to stop the escalation.


If now (for the umpteenth time - we've already seen this with the bridges in Zaporizhzhia) they stop even these weak strikes on the Ukrainian bridges in Kyiv (even with such ridiculous "Geran" warheads weighing only 90 kg), then one thing is clear: We have traitors at the top who are deliberately dragging out the SVO, waging the war in a way that is more convenient for Sibiha and the Ukrainian Armed Forces!

[NSV]

We've waited!!! Now we can't stop.

[Voskolina]

A question for the red pencil enthusiast and his comrades: What was it that got in the way before? Or did you just enjoy shooting at barns?

[rytik32]

Quote: Voskolina

And what used to get in the way?

1. There were no missiles/drones that could hit the support accurately.
2. There was a large air defense system around Kyiv that had plenty of missiles.

[Fan-fan]

It's the same old story about the bridge supports. It sounds like they're hitting the supports now.

[YES UZH]

I wonder if trains carrying ammunition and explosives are transported over these bridges? Well, the rest is clear.

[pudelartemon]

What a great start to Saturday. Woke up in a good mood.

[123_123]

Drones are certainly good, but they seem more like a warning. Something heavier is needed, like ballistics, if the speed issue has been resolved and the accuracy is acceptable.

[Scaffold]

Soon it will be five years of dashed hopes that "well, now it's definitely started." I don't believe it anymore. They'll give it a pat and forget about it.

[alexboguslavski]

There are reports of a jet drone flying over Kyiv's Northern Bridge.

The road surface and trolleybus contact network on the Northern Bridge were damaged.
Traffic on the bridge from the left bank to the right is currently blocked, reported Kyiv Mayor Vitali Klitschko.

Moment of arrival.

https://vkvideo.ru/video-226071110_456255396

Russian military forces struck the Northern Highway Bridge across the Dnieper River in Kyiv, the Russian Defense Ministry confirmed.

[bbb]

They used to say that 90% of traffic goes through the South Bridge, but now it turns out there's also a North Bridge.

[Stas157]

Quote: bbb

Now it turns out there is also a North Bridge.

I have the same surprise!

So I just opened Yandex Maps and looked. It turns out there are seven bridges. One is a railway bridge. But for some reason, no one talks or writes about this. Strange.

[Zenn]

It's all pretty obvious, except for those making the decisions on such strikes. I see the only reason for the delay in making such decisions being the lack of weapons capable of reaching the target and hitting it accurately enough.
Technically, it's all clear: after such impact, dynamic, and thermal effects, what engineer would dare quickly issue an operating permit? A bridge can remain unloaded for a long time, and when traffic begins, it could collapse. Even in a lawless country like Ukraine, this is 99% criminal liability for engineers. And even if they grant an operating permit today, a new drone will arrive tomorrow. This game can be played for a long time.

[Fan-fan]

Our General Staff probably reads "Military Review," as I wrote back in August: "I propose a new methodology to our General Staff: create groups with UAVs and other weapons responsible for a single target. For example, if there are 20 important bridges, create 20 groups that will target one point on a regular basis. For example, if you hit a train on a bridge, repairmen arrive, hit them, and so on in a circle. Result: the bridge is blocked."

[PavelT]

The Americans did it the easy way in 1999 – they simply destroyed seven of the Serbs' eleven bridges across the Danube. In two or three months. We haven't done that in FIVE YEARS.

I only hope for an initiative from below: that drone operators will attack these bridges at least like this (with 90 kg warheads) WITHOUT an order from the General Staff, which seems to be considers the Ukrainian bridges across the Dnieper to be inviolable.

[Carlos Hall]

Destroying this bridge would be a serious psychological and propaganda blow.

[Aleksandr5791]

You can also use drones with thermite warheads; they should also be able to damage bridges well.

[PavelT]

Suspension bridge cables—yes, they can. A regular concrete bridge is indifferent to thermite.

[oleg_627]

Of course, it's hard to destroy bridges like these with geraniums, but we have a lot of obsolete ballistic missiles that are easier to launch than to dismantle. I'd load each one with a ton and a half of explosives and try to salvage them. This should have been done five years ago. I'd at least try it now, instead of smashing barns with hazelnuts.

[PavelT]

The Ukrainian bridges across the Dnieper could have been collapsed into the river LONG AGO using the following means:
1. Cruise missiles from the Moskva cruiser's launchers (while it was afloat and circling around Zmeiny Island, it could easily destroy the bridge in Zatoka): P-1000 Vulcan, based on the P-500 Bazalt system - range 700-1000 km, 500 kg warhead, remote control (by the ship's operator using data from the missile's radar).

2. FABs with UMPK missiles can take out any bridge. They supposedly don't reach the target, but their range is about 70 km, and the front line is only 45 km from the Ukrainian bridges in Zaporizhzhia.

3. The Iskander ballistic missile allegedly misses the bridge... A typical lie: in the summer of 2023, ours hit the outer span of the Antonovsky Bridge on their first try and brought it down - this was here: https://topwar.ru/220557-rezultat-udara-otrk-iskander-po-antonovskomu-mostu-pod-kotorym-prjatalis-boeviki-vsu-popal-na-video.html),

4. X-101 cruise missiles - there are new versions with an increased warhead, up to 800 kg: https://topwar.ru/239673-krylataja-raketa-h-101-s-usilennoj-boevoj-chastju-i-perspektivy-sozdanija-modulnogo-vysokotochnogo-oruzhija-bolshoj-dalnosti.html

5. The Kh-22/Kh-32 missiles, with a 960 kg warhead, which have NEVER been shot down by Ukrainian air defenses, allegedly can't target the bridge. Even though the guidance system could have been improved ten times over the past four years... to something "unique in the world."

[Masters]

Why did a single Geranium fly to the North Bridge, and not a bouquet?

[PavelT]

Because this appears to be a private initiative by the Geranium operators—the General Staff certainly didn't issue such an order. The General Staff likely considers this "inhumane" and plans to continue the SVO for another 5-6 years. Or even 7-8...

[Valyusha]

Topwar article: "The Northern Bridge in Kyiv was covered with anti-drone nets after Geranium strikes."
Looks like the "movie" is over. Too bad. Maybe there will be a sequel.