I’ve seen the argument that it is actually better to cripple the bridge than take it out completely. As it is, Russia still has to expend significant resources to protect a symbol that has very little strategic military value. Once it’s destroyed, those resources are freed up to use elsewhere. I think I agree with that. It can be destroyed later as a final triumph.
I’ve seen the argument that it is actually better to cripple the bridge than take it out completely. As it is, Russia still has to expend significant resources to protect a symbol that has very little strategic military value. Once it’s destroyed, those resources are freed up to use elsewhere. I think I agree with that. It can be destroyed later as a final triumph.