Why Can't Russia Use Oreshnik Missile to Destroy Key Bridges in Ukraine?

Bridges and Tunnels in Ukraine Could Be Priority Targets in the Special Military Operation. Why Is There No Political Will to Use Oreshnik?

Photo: Vadim Savitsky

Explosion

Key bridges in Ukraine are difficult to destroy.

The question of target selection during the special military operation remains the subject of active debate in Russia. One of the main issues raised is why strikes are not carried out against bridges and tunnels in order to halt the delivery of weapons and fuel to the Ukrainian Armed Forces, as well as visits by European leaders to Kyiv.

The following bridges attract particular attention.

The Kriukiv Bridge in Kremenchuk, Poltava region. This is the most important facility in central Ukraine — the only bridge along a roughly 150-kilometer stretch of the Dnieper River that combines both road and rail traffic. Supplies to Ukrainian groupings in the Kharkiv region and Donbas pass through it. The site has already been struck multiple times. In September 2025, reports indicated damage to the roadway, which temporarily restricted movement.

The Amur (Old) Bridge in Dnipropetrovsk — a two-level road and rail structure that serves as a key hub for transferring reserves toward frontline sectors in Donbas. Its destruction would force the Ukrainian Armed Forces to use longer detours or crossings with lower load capacity.

The bridges in Zaporizhzhia. Their demolition would isolate the city's left bank from Ukrainian logistics.

The railway bridge in Cherkasy, which runs along a long dam. Damage to the embankment itself or to the bridge span would paralyze for an extended period the line connecting western regions with the center of the country.

The railway bridges in Kyiv, which function as "gateway” points for equipment arriving from the western border.

The combined road and rail bridge across the Dniester estuary in Zatoka, Odesa region. Its destruction, especially in combination with the bridge in Mayaky, would physically cut Ukraine off from direct connection with Romania and the Danube ports, paralyzing fuel and weapons supplies on the southern flank. This is the only bridge that has been subjected to heavy missile strikes, yet it remains resilient.

The reason is that many bridges in Ukraine were built during the Soviet era and were designed to withstand even a nuclear strike. To collapse a span requires a direct hit by an extremely powerful munition precisely on a critical support, or even several. Even then, the destructive effect could be mitigated through the rapid construction of pontoon crossings, which often prove to be an effective temporary solution for cargo transport.

A strike on the roadway itself usually creates only a temporary gap that can be patched with metal plates within hours.

The Beskyd Tunnel Was Created as Target for Oreshnik

As for tunnels, they are even more difficult to destroy. Nevertheless, one notable target is the Beskyd Tunnel at the junction of the Lviv and Zakarpattia regions. More than 60 percent of transit cargo moving between Western and Central Europe (Slovakia, Hungary, Italy) passes through it. This is a modern double-track tunnel about 1.8 kilometers long, driven through mountainous terrain. It is often described as a "key artery” for the delivery of Western weapons and fuel.

To inflict serious damage, it would be necessary to collapse the vaults inside, which is extremely difficult to achieve with a cruise missile. However, Russia possesses the "Oreshnik” missile, reportedly designed specifically to penetrate underground bunkers and destroy bridges through a swarm of high-speed striking elements from multiple warheads. If several such penetrators hit a support or critical joint of a bridge span, the destruction would be catastrophic.

Why Is There No Political Will to Use Oreshnik?

In certain analytical circles, the view is expressed that infrastructure may be regarded as necessary for future use.

A second argument holds that Moscow fears accusations of creating a humanitarian catastrophe, which could result from the complete destruction of bridges across the Dnieper. This factor is considered significant for countries of the Global South (China, India), with whom the Kremlin has no desire to enter into conflict. A recent example cited is Cuba: as soon as media reports began discussing the deaths of children due to the absence of medicines that could not be transported, the United States reportedly softened blockade conditions, allowing fuel deliveries to private entities.

The preference for targeting Ukraine's energy sector is attributed to its systemic impact, as such strikes paralyze industry, repair plants, communications and, importantly, electrified railways — in other words, they constitute an indirect strike against the logistics of bridges and tunnels. Another objective is described as the demoralization of the Ukrainian population and armed forces.

Due to regular large-scale attacks, Ukraine is forced to increase electricity imports from the European Union, while the scale of destruction requires billions of dollars for the restoration of energy facilities, creating psychological pressure on Ukraine's sponsors. A blackout in itself does not directly lead to the army's capitulation as long as generators and Starlink systems function. However, it produces a cumulative effect: the front weakens when the rear can no longer service it effectively.