This comment is more about bridges than Russia. I spent part of my engineering career in bridge design & construction, in both CA and WI states. WI has more water & salt attack, puts up bridges simply and quickly. CA has earthquakes but a mild climate, each modern bridge done carefully and expensively (with extensive environmental review). There is almost no bridge that can't be repaired, and we tend to think of them as "lasting forever" (maybe, if they are probably maintained, not so much otherwise). The punch line of bridges is that the steel (main structural ingredient) needs constant protection (from the concrete, sealer, or paint) and if not, it corrodes and you're screwed. Many large bridges are not quite failsafe, perhaps prone to terrorism by cutting post tension cables or suspension cables. As we all know, most any bridge can be blown up in wars.

The funny thing is that a place like Iraq can rebuild these bridges quickly, while we can't (we have much higher standards which also involve some red tape). I get that Russia and their contractors are corrupt, quick and dirty, but many bridges are simple concrete spans that work even if construction is compromised. Its kind of funny that an event like WW II might've been an excuse to rebuild bridges that were about to fail anyway? Just like in weaponry, the Russian stuff has a high failure rate as they slap it together. With the way the US and Europeans engineer infrastructure and weaponry, we have to be careful to maintain cost-effectiveness and not gold-plate everything.

In any case, I vote for the WI bridge method, a happy medium.