Former CIA analyst Larry Johnson explained why, at the beginning of the special military operation in Ukraine, the Russian army did not destroy all the bridges across the Dnieper.

He argued that if Russia had struck and demolished the bridges, Ukrainian forces would have been concentrated on the right bank of the Dnieper, which in turn would have allowed them to strengthen their positions through Western military assistance. According to Johnson, such a development would have been far more dangerous for Russia than the current strategy, which enables its forces to systematically destroy Ukrainian troops in the east.

Johnson reminded that the main supply route for the Ukrainian army is the railway system. If the bridges had been destroyed early on, most of Ukraine’s forces would have remained concentrated on the western bank of the river, making it significantly harder for Moscow to achieve its stated goals of demilitarization.

He added that NATO, under such circumstances, would have continued sending advisers, equipment, and ammunition, which would only have reinforced Ukrainian forces. By choosing not to destroy the bridges, Russia ensured that Ukrainian troops and hardware continued moving eastward.

In his words, the result is that Russia is able to eliminate them in one place, in disproportionate numbers.