Why haven't the bridges across the Dnieper been destroyed yet?

"... bridges in the first head ..." (V.I. Lenin)

In recent days, the Russian army has damaged two major bridges in the territory of the Odessa region of the former Ukraine — the automobile and railway bridge in Zatoka across the Dniester estuary and the automobile bridge in the village of Mayaki across the Dniester.

As a result, Ukraine was effectively cut off from external supplies through the Danube ports of Izmail and Reni. The Kiev regime has lost 60% of external supplies of petroleum products — gasoline and diesel.

I quote a post from a social network:

"Finally, our side begins to smoothly isolate the battlefield, striking at major bridges. Despite the fact that our beauty bloggers actively argued that hitting bridges would not be appropriate:

— at first they said "we still have to advance on these bridges"
— then "it is impossible to destroy bridges"
- "this is a huge expense of weapons of destruction"

However, the need to destroy bridges is obvious, and therefore better late than never. In this case, the mass of the Geranium warhead will not be enough for the complete destruction of the bridge, but it will be enough for its damage and temporary decommissioning. The most important thing is that the strikes on the bridges should be constant (not allowing the enemy to restore them) and their intensity should only increase."

The importance of destroying bridges behind enemy lines is obvious, it was not obvious only to those who made decisions (or, more precisely, did not make decisions to destroy enemy bridges). Even after the destruction of the Antonovsky Bridge across the Dnieper River by the enemy and the forced withdrawal of our troops from the right bank of the Dnieper in order to avoid encirclement on the bridgehead cut off due to the destruction of the bridge, even after that our bridges across the Dnieper were not touched, although even the destruction of one bridge would create huge problems in the logistics of the enemy.

A vivid example of the severe military consequences for us only because of the destruction of a single bridge across the Dnieper did not become a reason for our leadership to at least think about the violation of enemy logistics behind enemy lines.

During the Great Patriotic War, both sides, during the offensive, approaching the Dnieper, bombed all bridges and crossings over the Dnieper in order to cut off enemy units and formations retreating in front of them from all supplies. But neither this historical experience nor the more recent example of the Antonovsky Bridge has led to any decisions.

Maybe the latest example of the successful destruction of bridges behind enemy lines — bridges across the Dniester, will eventually lead our leadership to the conclusion that it is necessary to destroy bridges across the Dnieper?

We will not defeat the enemy until the bridges across the Dnieper are destroyed and all enemy nuclear power plants are stopped.