Почему Россия не разрушает мосты, а выключает их - Алексей Кущ и Романенко о новой тактике

Main arguments & analysis (commentary by the guests)

Why Russia targets bridges (not necessarily “destroying” them)

The speakers argue the key objective is not always total destruction. Instead, attacks are designed to disable the bridges’ functionality—making them unsafe/unusable during air alerts, forcing partial closures, and disrupting logistics and daily operations. Even if a bridge remains standing, it can be effectively “neutralized” by repeated strikes and operational restrictions.

Engineering rationale behind specific targets (South Bridge)

The discussion focuses on the technical vulnerability and load-transfer structure of the “South Bridge” (described as cable-supported), which makes it particularly susceptible to strikes using drones and explosive charges capable of cutting through concrete/structural elements.

They also mention a perceived analogy with the Crimean (Krymsky) Bridge, claiming it shares structural weaknesses in principle, while emphasizing that different bridges serve different strategic purposes.

Strategic/logistical importance vs. symbolism

• The Krymsky (Crimean) Bridge is portrayed as less critical in the long run because it mainly supports Crimea supply.
• The South Bridge is framed as strategically essential for connecting the Left Bank and Right Bank and supporting high-volume truck logistics.

The speakers argue that disrupted bridge crossings contribute to a broader logistics crisis, intensified by problems on rail/trucking networks (including mention of locomotives being knocked out and railway operator difficulties).

---

“How the tactics changed” (from mass strikes to “thousand cuts”)

Timing and escalation context

They claim that later in the war—described as an endgame escalation—both sides remove earlier “red lines,” leading to broader use of attacks on infrastructure, including bridges.

Shift in Russia’s strike pattern

The guests argue Russia has moved away from concentrated mass attacks toward more frequent, smaller, time-stretched strikes using drones/missiles—launching fewer attacks at a time but increasing frequency. This is framed as a way to stretch resources and prevent recovery windows.

“A thousand cuts” concept

The key tactic is described as many small injuries instead of a few large blows, continuously complicating repair and forcing constant tension. Recovery crews may arrive only to be struck again shortly afterward.

---

Reported operational effects on crossings (examples mentioned)

During air alerts, several bridges are described as being:

• Fully closed (South Bridge)
• Partially restricted or limited by direction (Metro bridges, Northern bridges)
• Traffic regulated in one direction during alerts
• With one bridge (Darny bridge) described as remaining open or least restricted

---

Claimed broader societal impact

• Constant disruption causes economic slowdown and social stress (people cannot shop/work normally; production freezes).
• The speakers also emphasize mental exhaustion from ongoing alerts and uncertainty, describing it as a deliberate pressure tool (compared to historical psychological “pressure” methods).

---

Question of duration & historical analogy

They suggest the “endgame” logic could last a long time, estimating it as a significant fraction of the war timeline. They draw a historical comparison to 1917–1918 (Bolsheviks and an uprising near the Arsenal factory), arguing the current situation may evolve through similar pressure and maneuver dynamics, with implications for societal stability and morale.

---

Ukraine policy discussion (capital relocation)

When asked whether Ukraine might move government institutions to western regions, the speaker argues this would be symbolically catastrophic, because the capital is portrayed as more than administration—it has a “sacred/mystical” symbolic function for state legitimacy. Therefore, they claim the most terrible option would be shifting the capital.

---

Presenters / contributors

• Алексей Кущ
• Романенко (speaker credited in the title as “Романенко”, also referenced as “Romanenko”)
• Никита Роченко (viewer/questioner whose question is quoted)
• Катя Худыш (viewer/questioner whose question is quoted)
• Участники/зрители, чей комментарий упоминается: an unnamed viewer mentioning the Krymsky bridge (no name provided)