“...the Crimea bridge was a strategic mistake by the Ukrainians. It looked good on T.V but that doesn’t win a war. Russia has seized upon it to go after Ukrainian infrastructure that, for what ever (sic) reason, it had left alone...”
Your statement is contradictory. The bridge is infrastructure. Now the Russians make yet another strike on Ukrainian infrastructure with the implication that infrastructure attacks are indeed the way to win a war.
Strategy is one thing and tactics are another and according to Patton, “There is only one tactical principle which is not subject to change. It is to use the means at hand to inflict the maximum amount of wounds, death, and destruction on the enemy in the minimum amount of time.”
The Ukrainians have had the upper hand lately at the tactical level.
Russia has the capacity to destroy far more of Ukraine’s infrastructure than vice versa. It has a massive industrial/military complex that Ukraine does not have and that no arms imports will compensate for. Russia is the second largest arms exporter in the world. Attacking the Crimean bridge was for PR. So they damage 1 supply bridge for a bit. Now Russia has seized upon this. It has galvanised the Russian public more solidly behind Putin, because whether you like it or not,they view Crimea as part of Mother Russia.