> Of course another possibility would be that they just were not able to attack it successfully That was the official version of the Ukrainian side. > A.) bre

> Of course another possibility would be that they just were not able to attack it successfully That was the official version of the Ukrainian side. > A.) breaking it would make the land bridge they are fighting the Russians for much more valuable, therefore the Russians would invest more resources to doing so, But it would make those Russians fighting there a nightmare to supply (and as we've seen, Russia logistics suck even without obstacles such as a big bodies of water), which will weaken their resistance. > B.) Breaking it might cut off the escape route for Crimean civilians and therefore turn them against the Ukrainians. Many already run away when Ukraine started hitting targets in Crimea, so it's safe to assume the rest don't want to evacuate. > C.) The bridge was expensive and in some far future they would probably like to make use of it themselves. Ukraine won't have a need for a Crimea - Russia land bridge in the foreseeable future, considering how long it will take for relations to be fully repaired.