The latest episode of the Ukraine-Russia chronic conflict has shown why the Ukrainian forces have been able to carry out a successful raid in which a key Russian bridge was blown up. The operation is to weaken Russia’s option and hence by destroying the key infrastructure is a considerable setback to Russia in the region, more xpring that Ukraine has shifted its tack in countering Russia’s warfare in its soil. It has been part of the supply line used to ferry supplies to Russia troops, regarded as necessary for sustaining Russian operations in Ukraine. They are geared to exert a direct and immediate pressure on Russia’s capacity to continue subsidizing the continuation of the war in Ukraine.
It also played the role of a logistic where vehicles, troops and many others which were very instrumental to the Russian frontline in the war were moved across the supply chains. The lack of such infrastructure is one of the ways in which the Russian military is heavily diminished as such logistical networks are a way through which the continuation of the force’s activity can be supported. From the Kharkiv city’s point of view, the bombing of the bridge is Pyrrhic victory for Ukraine since it guarantees the constant difficult access to reinforce and resupply Russian troops in the occupied territories.
Because an operation described as having been carried out by very sophisticated contacts like specific aim at objectives like precise hits by the Ukrainians’ special force or airborne hit squad means a shift in the model of the warfare. While the large-scale battles and shelling dominate the war at the moment, this particular attack suggests that Ukraine becomes better at providing accurate strikes aimed at crippling Russia’s war finances. The destruction of the bridge shows that Ukraine is interested in severing crucial supply chains that could help shift the balance of the war by outflanking and outpowering Russia a military and nationally larger neighbour to Ukraine.
This last Ukrainian attack also provokes several discourses concerning the function and value of structures in the current conflict. Washing and so on are related to sustaining extensive warfare and thereby their interdiction entails consequences on the theatre of war. An infrastructure of this kind is what Ukraine aims at to weaken the impact of the Russians most notably, when it comes to the replenishment and restructuring of forces. It is also a strike on the psyche of the Russian side, which loses not only warehouses but also has to cope with the staking of the possible Ukrainian strikes on critical infrastructures.
As to Russia, this destruction provide an iron challenge. Solving reconstruction or restoration of the bridge will be then a serious concern let alone when it will be an exercise done in the hot area where Ukrainians will keenly look forward to dismantling any construction they will find to have been embarked by Russians. In the short-run, Russia loses supply routes which either pass through Ukraine territory or is functionally controlled by Ukraine through such transit paths as the Black Sea. More of this disruption can weaken the power of Russia’s forces at the most inappropriate time given the fact that this conflict does not appear to be ending anytime soon.
It also has the positive unintended consequence of increasing morale for Ukraine and for its allies. After several months of intensive armed conflict, the representatives of the actively advertised operation increase the desire of Ukraine and, at the same time, showcase its capabilities to launch counterattacks in the Russian-occupied territories. This implies that the Ukrainians are not only defending themselves but are able to attack the Russian enemy as and when they want, and can inflict a great deal of damage to the enemy’s capacity to wage war. On the international level, this operation may help to attract additional resources from the partners for Ukraine since it reveals the effectiveness of the shipments and preparations for Ukraine’s military made by partners.
In turn, I expect that Russia will act on this occasion. Earlier, the Russian military only acted by increasing the bombing, in order to take vengeance or to recapture lost territory. Maybe Russia will step up the bombing of Ukrainian infrastructure, or introduce new attacks to mitigate the losses. But it may also overstretch Russian forces even more, especially if Ukraine’s Armed Forces keep striking logistics depots.
The general impact of this incursion cannot therefore be taken in isolation of the general strategic outlook. Ukraine moving on with the demolition of the Russian bridge implies that the Ukraine may attack other core infrastructures required by Russia for war. It also gives rise to such questions as, indeed, how sustainable Russia is in maintaining its war effort if its logistical support is going to remain vulnerable and gradually destabilized in the longer term. After such operations Ukrainian might face the change of the nature of the battles: the opponent may opt for raids or pinpoint strikes instead of the massive battles.
Nevertheless, like in the case of the image of Caesar’s corpse, the breaking of the bridge can contain political consequences. That Italy is able to coordinate strikes which deep into Russia-controlled assets illustrates that Ukraine is learning and has the potential to counter, which will be brought to bear on the current discussions towards cessation of hostilities. That is, even with no signs of breakthrough in peace talks, such victories like this one enhance Ukraine’s leverage because they prove that Ukraine is indeed viable and capable of fending off efforts to supplant it. On the contrary, it may result in enhanced war actions or make Russia seek for other solutions since in the present situation it faces increasing challenges with logistics and operations.
All in all, the Ukrainian attack and subsequent destruction of one of Russia’s supply bridges can viewed as the turning point of the entire war. It records a strategic achievement for Ukraine because it aims at the Russians’ logistical corridor and also underscores the improvement in the capabilities of Ukraine’s military in delivering precise strikes on critical assets. There are significant military mental and even more geophysical implications of the operation that may shift the balance in the future. Therefore as the two sides continue to search their further lessons from the war experiences and already striving to adjust to the war’s long-term consequences, this event once again accentuates the role of the infrastructure in the modern warfare and the importance of the domination over the main supply lines.
