Listen to a Summary of This Article
Russian drones struck two of Kyiv’s principal bridges across the Dnipro in the opening days of October, interrupting road and metro traffic and forcing diversions across the capital. The attacks extended a fortnight of bombardment against electricity supplies, communications, ports and factories. Neither bridge collapsed, but repeated closures showed how damage to a handful of crossings could disrupt the city around them.
The Southern Bridge was attacked repeatedly on 1-2 October, interrupting both vehicle traffic and the green metro line. On 3 October, drones struck the Northern Bridge, damaging its road surface and trolleybus wiring and closing the route from the eastern bank towards the western bank. Another strike hit its roadway the following day. 1, 2, 3
Russian military commentators increasingly describe a connected campaign against the networks sustaining both Ukraine’s armed forces and its everyday economy. In their reading, repeated disruption can exhaust resources even where individual attacks fail to destroy a target. The question is how far the damage demonstrated supports that ambition.
Two crossings, different vulnerabilities
The Southern Bridge combines two essential functions. It carries road traffic across the river and the Syretsko-Pecherska metro line, connecting residential districts on the eastern bank with workplaces and services to the west. Its road approaches join Saperna-Slobidska Street and Stolychne Highway on the western bank to Mykoly Bazhana Avenue in the east, forming part of the M03-E40 route towards Kharkiv. Its railway tracks carry metro trains, rather than mainline freight trains.
A metro train was crossing during the first attack on 1 October, when two drones struck near the bridge’s supporting structure. The blast pushed dust through its ventilation system. Passengers and the driver escaped injury, and the train was taken for inspection. Authorities split the green line into separate services on either bank, with trains terminating at Vydubychi and Osokorky instead of crossing the river. 4
The initial examination found no critical structural damage. Later attacks brought further damage and closures. By 2 October, the Southern Bridge was shut in both directions. Buses were diverted, while restrictions on other crossings compounded congestion. Other crossings continued to operate, subject to changing restrictions. 1, 5
Transport specialist Dmytro Bespalov told DW that the Southern Bridge was particularly important for trucks because alternative crossings had restrictions or less convenient road connections. Cars could not readily replace the lost metro capacity. Freight and mass transit depend on the same structure. 5
The Northern Bridge serves a different part of the city. Formerly called the Moscow Bridge, it connects the western bank with eastern residential districts including Troieshchyna, Voskresenka and Raiduzhnyi. Damage to its road deck and trolleybus network therefore affected both motorists and public transport. Two people were injured in the 3 October attack, according to Kyiv’s mayor. 6
The immediate effect was to constrict movement within Kyiv and complicate onward road journeys. How much this reduced military deliveries remains unknown: the available reporting provides neither a breakdown of freight using the bridges nor a measured loss of supply to the front.
The crossings depended on Kyiv’s air defences, although public accounts do not identify the weapons assigned specifically to protect either bridge. Their vulnerability has become part of a wider debate over Russia’s jet-powered drones. Ukrainian analyst Oleksandr Kovalenko argued that stronger layered air defences were needed, while suitable interceptor drones had yet to be deployed at sufficient scale. After the first Southern Bridge strike, President Volodymyr Zelensky said officials had adjusted their response and identified resources for redistribution. The precise failures that allowed the bridge strikes have not been publicly established. 5
A fortnight of pressure
The bridge attacks followed a fortnight in which Russia repeatedly struck infrastructure well beyond the front.
On 22-23 September, Naftogaz reported damage to gas extraction and processing facilities in Poltava region. Railway and electricity infrastructure in Vinnytsia region, including the Zhmerynka junction, was damaged on 22, 24 and 29 September, according to the Polish Centre for Eastern Studies’ chronology. It also recorded repeated attacks on industrial, storage and transport facilities in Zhytomyr region. 7
Communications infrastructure became another conspicuous target. The Russian publication Voennoye Obozreniye, or Military Review, described attacks affecting Datagroup, Cosmonova and other operators during the final week of September. Its account presented the targets as elements of a connected telecommunications system, while acknowledging that backup facilities had preserved services and customer data. 8
The electricity campaign intensified sharply on 30 September. Centrenergo confirmed damage to generating equipment at the Trypilska thermal power plant in Kyiv region. DTEK reported damage to energy infrastructure and said it had restored supply to 8,000 customers on the capital’s eastern bank. Emergency outages continued, and Kyiv spent more than 20 hours under air-raid alerts. 9
The consequences spread immediately into transport. Kyiv’s administration reported that power cuts stopped electric surface transport in the Shevchenkivskyi and Holosiivskyi districts, with numerous tram and trolleybus routes suspended before services resumed. The same day’s municipal bulletin recorded three deaths in the capital. Electricity failures were disrupting travel before the bridges themselves came under attack. 10
Russia’s Defence Ministry described the broader operation in its bulletin covering 26 September-2 October: one massive and seven group strikes against telecommunications and logistics centres, energy, transport and port infrastructure, drone production and storage facilities, and ammunition and fuel stocks. Moscow said these supported Ukraine’s military. 11
On 2 October, a separate ministry statement claimed attacks on a Kyiv crossing, the Kyivska electricity substation at Nalyvaikivka, an industrial complex at Izmail port and a cargo ship heading towards Odesa. The military use of each facility and the contents of the vessel were not independently established. 12
Ports had already been under sustained pressure. The Centre for Eastern Studies recorded daily attacks on the Greater Odesa port area and its hinterland between the evening of 22 September and the morning of 29 September, with warehouses among the principal targets and at least five ships damaged. The record shows serious disruption to maritime commerce, but does not establish a complete blockade. 7
The Russian argument: repeated interruption
The pro-war channel Two Majors set out the bridge campaign’s logic in its 4 October assessment. Persistent attacks can restrict movement without demolishing a crossing: authorities must stop traffic, inspect damage, repair surfaces and reconsider whether reopening is safe. The threat of another strike can prolong the interruption. 13
Mikhail Onufrienko, speaking to Vzglyad, emphasised the political impact of striking crossings in the capital, while distinguishing road disruption from military freight moving by rail. Correspondent Alexander Sladkov went further, interpreting the attacks as an effort to block Kyiv and bring normal urban life to a halt. Neither commentator cited an operational order establishing that objective. 14, 15
Readovka’s 1 October reporting discussed a purported new Geran warhead designed to attack substantial structures, drawing on comments attributed to Ukrainian drone specialist Serhiy Beskrestnov. Its effectiveness against the Kyiv crossings remains unverified. 16
The underlying argument is cumulative. An electricity outage interrupts production; a closed bridge delays deliveries and workers; damaged communications force operators onto backup systems. Repetition consumes equipment, money and repair capacity even when no individual strike produces a lasting shutdown.
Communications also illustrate the limits. Rybar claimed at least 27 strikes against Ukrainian data centres since 20 September in its 3 October assessment, yet acknowledged that digital platforms continued operating. It described network failures as local and temporary, citing overseas servers and limited damage at some sites. 17
Russian specialist Dmitry Kornev told Business FM that commercial data-centre attacks could affect civilian providers and some state functions without disabling battlefield communications. Starlink’s distributed network, he argued, could not be brought down simply by destroying an individual Ukrainian facility. 18
From disruption to military results
For the bombardment to deliver the military results its advocates anticipate, these interruptions would have to translate into sustained shortages at the front. Even Two Majors, while endorsing the infrastructure strategy, acknowledged the absence of a battlefield breakthrough during the preceding week. 13
Larry Johnson, the former CIA analyst, takes the argument further. In an interview, he predicted that pressure on Kyiv would eventually force the Ukrainian government to relocate to Lviv. He also argued that the campaign could open the way for Russia to take Odesa. 19
These are Johnson’s forecasts. No government relocation plan is established by the sources examined, and the infrastructure strikes do not demonstrate that Russia can capture Odesa.
The bridge attacks have already imposed a narrower, tangible burden: inspections, repairs, diverted buses, interrupted metro journeys and less reliable road connections. Whether those costs accumulate into a decisive military advantage will depend on the duration of the disruption and Ukraine’s ability to keep alternative routes and services working.