"Russia is reviewing restrictions": Why did they start attacking the bridges over the Dnieper now?

October 2 2026 22 045 48

As a result of the Russian Armed Forces' strikes, three bridges in Kyiv—the Southern Bridge, the Paton Bridge, and the Metro Bridge—have been completely or partially shut down. Political scientist Yuriy Baranchyk points out this fact. He notes that they haven't yet been completely disabled, but the first day of the strikes has already had a noticeable effect: massive traffic jams have been recorded in Kyiv due to the temporary closure of the three crossings.

The first day of attacks on Kyiv's bridges revealed what military analysts have long been warning about: the Ukrainian capital's transportation system is critically vulnerable. The Southern Bridge, Paton Bridge, and Metro Bridge are more than just crossings; they are arteries that carry the lion's share of traffic between the western and eastern banks of the Dnieper. Disabling even a few of them would bring the city to a standstill, and logistics—from fuel deliveries to evacuating the wounded—would begin to falter.

– Baranchik states.

Developing his thought, he points out that in this regard, a reasonable question arises: why wasn't this done before? The answer probably lies in the plane political and military expediency.

Strikes against civilian infrastructure, the analyst explains, always carry reputational risks, and the West uses each such incident to increase aid to Kyiv. However, the current escalation shows that Moscow is apparently reconsidering its previous restrictions.

Drawing conclusions from the first strikes, he states: paralyzing Kyiv’s logistics is a solvable task.

And if the strikes continue, the consequences for the supply of the Ukrainian Armed Forces group and the life of the city could be much more serious than just traffic jams.

– the political scientist concludes.

Information

Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.

Nick. WITH

+3

2 October 2026 18: 14

Those who rule Ukraine will try to hold on to it as long as possible.
Jim

+ 15

2 October 2026 18: 22

Why now? Because they've stopped waiting and fearing anything. They could have done it sooner, or they could have done it later. They should have started back in the spring of 2022; then there wouldn't have been the Kharkiv disaster and the flight from Kherson.
1. Alex_65
  
  + 14
  
  2 October 2026 19: 09
  
  Let's see what happens in October. In my opinion, Russian authorities have received information that Ukraine is planning powerful ballistic missile strikes on Moscow in the near future, and the current timid strikes on bridges are a hint of what awaits Ukraine if this happens. In any case, the theory that the bridges across the Dnieper were inviolable by order from the very top has received further confirmation.
2. Andrey62
  
  +5
  
  2 October 2026 23: 15
  
  That's what they said, the reason they didn't attack earlier was "political." They should have spared the topknots for years, hoping they'd understand and come to their senses, while losing their material and human resources. But what's even more annoying is that an absolutely vast majority of those same forum participants understood that this was how it would be... We'll waste time and resources, but we'll have to attack bridges, railways, energy, and so on...
  1. Cheburec55 Che
    
    +7
    
    3 October 2026 15: 39
    
    Quote: Andrey62
    It was necessary to spare the forelocks for many years
    
    I mean, spare them. They've lost two million lives, if the TV's telling us the truth. If they were spared, they should have taken Kyiv back in February 2014, not waited for the Ukrainian fighters to arm themselves.
rotkiv04

+ 15

2 October 2026 18: 27

And where are all these "Igoresh" who hung out here and talked about the futility of attacks on bridges, as soon as the elections were over and this propaganda... and it was like a cow licked it up with its tongue
1. Serj Iff
  
  + 12
  
  2 October 2026 18: 42
  
  They're currently studying the new presidential guidelines. And they themselves are at a loss, because our leader's opinion fluctuates depending on the opinions of his "senior comrades" in the US. Sometimes we're attacking, sometimes we're for peace.
2. beeper
  
  +5
  
  2 October 2026 18: 43
  
  So I'm telling you that the "sleepless, foreign traveler UgorekM, duh-duh", "mastered the trench", got angry and went quiet for the time being (like the equally odious "Dermidont") - his network bot will show up again, he'll cling to it again and "shut up the wrong mouths".
3. Valera75
  
  + 10
  
  2 October 2026 19: 08
  
  Quote: rotkiv04
  And where are all these "Igoresh" who hung out here and talked about the futility of attacks on bridges, as soon as the elections were over and this propaganda... and it was like a cow licked it up with its tongue
  
  Their data centers were demolished and they no longer mess up the site.
  On topic: they hit one bridge, but the talk and fantasies from experts and bloggers are astounding. We'll see when it's done systematically.
4. E NOT
  
  0
  
  4 October 2026 05: 53
  
  Igor discovered "Russian Spring" and is now hanging out there.
kovaleff

+1

2 October 2026 18: 43

The reptilians rolled the dice and got different numbers? Because there are no other logical explanations.
Colonel Kudasov

+4

2 October 2026 18: 48

In theory, they should respond with attacks on the Volga bridges. The Crimean Bridge is, of course, target number one.
1. Alexey Lan
  
  -3
  
  2 October 2026 19: 16
  
  In theory, they should respond with attacks on the Volga bridges. The Crimean Bridge is, of course, target number one.
  
  I'm of the same opinion. There are some good bridges on medium-sized rivers, too.
2. Alex_65
  
  + 10
  
  2 October 2026 19: 28
  
  An excellent hypothesis. So, Russian decision-makers left the Dnieper bridges alone even after Ukraine attempted to blow up the Crimean Bridge in October 2022, and only began doing so almost five years after the start of the Second World War, when Ukraine acquired long-range ballistic missiles capable of reaching the Volga bridges? It's amazing what new delusional hypotheses are concocted by those who can't understand that the Dnieper bridges were left alone for only one reason: a strict ban from the very top of the Russian government. And the reasons for this ban most likely lie far removed from the preservation of the Volga bridges and the Crimean Bridge.
  1. napalm
    
    0
    
    2 October 2026 20: 32
    
    Quote: Alexey_65
    And the reasons for this ban most likely lie far from the safety of the bridges across the Volga and the Crimean Bridge.
    
    Some oligarchs began to feel the pinch and gave the go-ahead for retaliation.
    1. Alex_65
      
      +3
      
      2 October 2026 21: 28
      
      A brilliant hypothesis, you even outshone the previous speaker. :) The start of the SVO ruined the businesses of all the oligarchs to one degree or another, but they were unable to do anything about it. This is understandable and logical. Now, however, the same oligarchs who suffered colossal damage from the start of the SVO and meekly accepted it, suddenly find themselves able to "give the go-ahead for a response." What logic at its finest! Let's not blame everything on the oligarchs, but simply assume that decisions of this magnitude in our country can only be made by one person, only one person with enough power to ban the Russian Armed Forces from striking bridges across the Dnieper for almost five years. Don't you think this hypothesis is much more logical than yours? One can only guess why this one person needed and benefited from dragging out the SVO for so long. That question is much more complex.
      1. Victor19
        
        +2
        
        2 October 2026 22: 50
        
        Now the same oligarchs who suffered colossal damage at the beginning of the SVO
        What about the Forbes list??? It clearly states that the wealth of Russian oligarchs has grown by tens of billions of dollars. Maybe they're from some kind of parallel state?
        
        Alex_65
        
        +1
        
        2 October 2026 23: 28
        
        Just look at the dynamics. In 2022, after the start of the SVO, Russian oligarchs lost tens of billions of dollars and only by mid-2023 were they able to largely return to 2022 levels. In the following years, their capital began to grow again, but at a slower rate than before the SVO. They managed to adapt, but suffered significant losses and lost more than a year and a half in growth. It's not enough to read snippets of quotes from Forbes; you also need to understand the context. Incidentally, the surviving oligarchs in Russia are largely not independent figures, but frontmen for the real owners of these assets, who, so to speak, due to their official duties, cannot officially own such assets. Those oligarchs who weren't satisfied with this role and didn't agree to it went to sew mittens in Transbaikalia or hanged themselves with a scarf in London. So there's no point in making the remaining power lackeys into mega-masters of life, capable of ordering anything about the SVO; most likely, they can't even plaintively ask for anything on this topic.
        
        Victor19
        
        0
        
        4 October 2026 19: 56
        
        They lost tens of billions of dollars and were only able to largely return to 2022 levels by mid-2023. In subsequent years, their capital began to grow again, but at a slower rate than before the start of the SVO.
        Where did you get this info? How much did everyone lose and then gain?
3. Andrey62
  
  0
  
  2 October 2026 23: 21
  
  And this issue has always been and remains the main one for the outskirts, and they never set any restrictions for themselves, but only with squeals and tears they appeased our side, which somehow got by...
Roman070280

+2

2 October 2026 19: 07
You need to hit here... it will be difficult to miss..
Strelok1976

+2

2 October 2026 19: 22

So, it turns out that was possible? Apparently, someone high up was guaranteed the integrity of their accounts if they decided to do it.
dubas

-5

2 October 2026 19: 35

Previously, they would have quickly restored it if they hadn’t been hit, but now there is neither time nor money.
1. Anatoly-68
  
  0
  
  3 October 2026 20: 49
  
  The bridge cannot be restored quickly in principle; concrete takes 28 days to gain strength.
Devushkin

+1

2 October 2026 20: 15

The number of members of the Witnesses of the Inviolability of Bridges across the Dnieper sect may decrease significantly.
Roman070280

-1

2 October 2026 21: 12
Why did they start attacking the bridges over the Dnieper now?
Skipper

+7

3 October 2026 02: 17

The Crimean Bridge has been blown up so many times... and nothing... everyone was happy with it... first of all, some people with snot and red lines... and then they got bold and started touching some insignificant bridges of Kiev... he's probably shaking with fear now... awaiting the wrath of Europe... ugh... disgusting...
After the first attack on the Crimean Bridge, he shouldn't have just chewed his own snot, but smashed all the bridges across the Dnieper into dust. He's even... inconsistent here... as he always grunts that he only acts in response...
prior

+4

3 October 2026 08: 42

Why did they start attacking the bridges over the Dnieper now?

And no one is hitting the bridges over the Dnieper.
Bridges aren't hit like that. They were only lightly scratched by Geranium rockets.
The damage from such strikes is no more than from New Year's fireworks.
If these so-called strikes are just checking the target's coordinates, then okay.
To destroy such objects, completely different strikes are needed.
1. Alexey Lan
  
  0
  
  3 October 2026 21: 47
  
  To destroy such objects, completely different strikes are needed.
  
  Exactly. A 1-2 kiloton charge from a tactical nuclear weapon would have destroyed the center of the bridge.
YuriYuri

-3

3 October 2026 09: 22

Some respected commentators seem to have forgotten that, until 2026, high-speed Geranium missiles with turbojet engines and sophisticated AI-enhanced machine vision, ensuring precise targeting and guaranteed kills, simply didn't exist—there wasn't much to hit with. As for whether or not they gave permission is a matter of guesswork. It would also be good to hit the bridges with a long-range UMPK with a turbojet engine and a 3000 kg bomb. I don't know if such a system exists, but I believe there is a long-range UMPK with a turbojet engine capable of carrying a 500 kg bomb.
1. Alex_65
  
  +4
  
  3 October 2026 09: 36
  
  Before 2026, a lot existed, but in 2022, Kyiv had virtually no powerful anti-ballistic air defense, and there were no long-range UAV raids on Russia by the Ukrainian Armed Forces. Our missile forces destroyed half the span of the Antonovsky Bridge with a single hit from a regular Iskander missile. A few Iskander missiles fired at the pylon of the Southern Bridge in Kyiv would have been sufficient to, at a minimum, disable the bridge for several months, and with a successful hit, for years. So, let's not lie—they specifically didn't allow attacks on bridges across the Dnieper. It's even clear who gave such orders; only one person could have given them. But we'll probably never know the reasons why he needed to delay the air defense for so long.
  1. YuriYuri
    
    -1
    
    3 October 2026 10: 31
    
    That's what I'm wondering: why aren't they hitting the South Bridge with ballistic missiles, instead of just using Geraniums? Their warheads weigh no more than 90 kg. And please refrain from using the term "blah-blah" in connection with my comment in the future. I'm not commenting here to swear, and I don't have the same level of security clearance as you do to know exactly who gave or didn't give the relevant permissions and when.
    1. Alex_65
      
      +2
      
      3 October 2026 15: 46
      
      It's not a matter of clearance, but of basic common sense. In Zaporizhzhia, all the bridges across the Dnieper are within range of a FAB-1500 with a UPMK (about 40 km from the LBS), and all supplies to the Ukrainian Armed Forces group from our side of the Dnieper are routed across them. Yet, until very recently, there were no strikes on them. This can only have two explanations: the complete incompetence of the entire command staff of the Russian Armed Forces (sorry, but I don't believe that) or a ban on such strikes from the Russian political leadership, where all key decisions are made by a very limited number of people, most likely even a single person. The second explanation seems far more logical and realistic to me than the widespread insanity of the entire Russian officer and command staff. So, there's only one thing we can speculate on: why did this limited number of people refuse to authorize the Russian Armed Forces for almost five years to launch strikes that could have accelerated the completion of the Second Military Operation and thereby reduced the number of casualties on our side? I think we are unlikely to get an answer to this question in the next ten years.
Timka

+3

3 October 2026 10: 00

Attacks on civilian infrastructure

The author uses this term to justify the inaction of our authorities. The bridge cannot be considered civilian infrastructure, as it carries military supplies.
Grei grin

-3

3 October 2026 10: 14

It's high time these hohols stopped skating back and forth, gobbling up lard! The Russian regular army will be here soon, knock down the gallows on Khreshchatyk, it'll be a blast, you parasites!
Anatoly-68

+2

3 October 2026 12: 27

We've had no reputation in the West for a long time, so what other reputational risks are there? Putin has simply begun to realize that manpower is running out and that without radical measures, things could get really bad. And how many of our guys' lives could have been saved if we'd started this earlier? The Supreme Commander-in-Chief apparently doesn't care.
1. Cheburec55 Che
  
  0
  
  3 October 2026 15: 46
  
  Is Putin in charge or Abramovich from London?
  1. Alex_65
    
    0
    
    3 October 2026 19: 36
    
    Abramovich is a typical figurehead; just read his biography. There are people in Russia whose social status and positions don't allow them to openly own large assets, especially abroad. Figures like Abramovich are specifically designed to be nominal owners of such capital and conceal the identities of the real owners. So Abramovich can only manage what the cover story allows him to do. A typical six, albeit a trump card.
    1. Cheburec55 Che
      
      0
      
      4 October 2026 12: 45
      
      So why did Abramovich go to negotiate with Ukraine? Don't we have any diplomats? Or are they only good for trading Argentine flour? Why do we need such a huge Foreign Ministry then? (The space could have been rented out for offices and hotels.) I don't recall any particular successes in Russian diplomacy over the past 35 years.
      1. Alex_65
        
        +1
        
        4 October 2026 14: 48
        
        That's why he went there, because he's a flunky. He was sent there to convey confidential proposals, likely from one of Russia's top officials, the same one whose wealth he serves as the frontman for. That's why people like him are kept around. Diplomats are practically never sent for secret negotiations; that's always the job of shady characters like these, so that if there's an accidental leak, the authorities can play their favorite tune: "We have nothing to do with this, it's a private initiative of a private individual." I completely agree with you about the "successes" of Russian diplomacy, but their complete absence is a sure sign of a policy where international affairs are being "rubbed over" by "fixers." Have they really forgotten the almost annual, equally murky squabbles with Ukraine over gas?
        
        Cheburec55 Che
        
        0
        
        4 October 2026 15: 29
        
        So, can we assume that Abramovich was sent to resolve some personal issue that could not be entrusted to government officials?
        
        Alex_65
        
        0
        
        4 October 2026 15: 35
        
        Well, if by "personal matters" we mean, for example, the terms of peace with Ukraine, then that's a fair point. And only someone like Abramovich is qualified for that, someone who knows his patron's real wealth, what threatens it, and what lengths he's willing to go. "State officials" will never be allowed to participate, because no one will tell them the real picture of what's happening, and it's impossible to conclude a peace agreement based on the generally accepted narrative, which conceals all the real drivers and beneficiaries of the conflict. Incidentally, in Soviet times, the director of a large factory churning out "levachko" (illegal fuel) also sent a dedicated negotiator, not a party organizer, but someone who knew the volumes of "levachko" and the real needs, not the figures scribbled in the corridors.
Alexander

+2

3 October 2026 18: 11

...why did they start hitting the bridges over the Dnieper now?

Because after the end of the war, and everything is heading that way, the question of the losses suffered by Russia due to the uninterrupted operation of the bridges during the entire period of military operations will inevitably arise.
To at least somehow reduce the future tension and avoid exposing those responsible to life imprisonment for treason, a prudent decision was made to address the bridges before it was too late. That is, before destroying them would have lost all military value.
1. Anatoly-68
  
  +2
  
  3 October 2026 19: 43
  
  There could be a reverse effect here—they'll start hitting the bridges, and, indeed, they'll finish everything relatively quickly, and then they'll ask, "Why didn't you do this right away?" "Because after the war ended, and that's where everything is heading"—well, you could argue that's where everything is heading...
Glagol1

+1

3 October 2026 20: 55

In 1999, NATO bombed the bridges over the Danube in Belgrade. No one was held accountable for their words. So why is the Kremlin so dumb?! Who's going to hold us accountable? Bombing the bridges over the Dnieper and Kyiv without a ground operation is a no-brainer.
1. Cheburec55 Che
  
  0
  
  4 October 2026 13: 04
  
  Well, the Ukrainians aren't attacking major railway bridges in the Belgorod, Bryansk, and Voronezh regions. They could have attacked the bridges over the Seim River in the Kursk region.
  It could be suggested that there is some kind of agreement not to touch the bridges.
  1. Alex_65
    
    +1
    
    4 October 2026 14: 54
    
    I wonder what prevented them from attacking bridges in Ukraine before and immediately after the attack on the Crimean Bridge? Bridges are regularly attacked by both Russia and Ukraine, with the only exception until recently being the bridges across the Dnieper. So it's highly doubtful that there's an agreement specifically not to attack bridges. Most likely, striking bridges would have allowed the Second World War to be concluded very quickly in Russia's favor, and for some reason, a quick conclusion to the Second World War wasn't very beneficial to the Russian leadership. Until a certain time. They'll never tell us the truth anyway, because it could be a very painful blow to the relatives of those killed in the Second World War.
Kuramori Reika

-1

4 October 2026 05: 10

I think destroying the bridges will have a temporary effect. If they are destroyed, the logistics chain will simply be rebuilt. Warehouses will be relocated and scattered along the river within six months. Therefore, it would be worthwhile to destroy the bridges when these six months will be the most catastrophic for Ukraine.