It sounds silly but it fits. NATO's new 5% spending target is somewhat fluff. It's 3.5% for actual defence spending and 1.5% for "critical infrastructure" expenses. It makes sense when you consider most of the infrastructure initally created by NATO countries to counter Russia ends in Germany and envisions a different sort of battleplan, but you could also see it as a way of inflating NATO's apparent military investments.
The Kerch Strait Bridge (aka Crimean Bridge) still stands despite repeated directed hits, albeit occasionally disrupting traffic for extended periods during repairs. The resilience of a bridge during conflict is matter of engineering and defensive tactics. But it does pose the question of whether a large suspension bridge is generally more difficult or easier to defend and repair than a very long box girder bridge.
