Originally Posted by
Semreh
From a military point of view, the Kerch bridge is an obvious fat target - but because it is not a purely military structure, the justification for attacking it needs to be well thought out and needs to be able stand up in court.
Was the Kerch bridge a military target when the truck exploded and a span dropped?
Were the blown bridges across river Seym in Kursk area civilian targets?
How about the pontoon bridges or Antonivka bridge across Dnipro earlier in the war?
Consensus seems to be that those were legitimate targets, even the Russkies haven't shouted "war crimes".