possibly an attrition tactic? If they completely destroy the bridge, then Russia might just abandon it and transport stuff there via plane/boat instead. Damaging it just enough that it’s cheaper to fix than to set up a new supply chain, over and over, could be more costly in the long run, and regularly divert construction resources. Not to mention the impact that constantly disabling the bridge could have on Russian civilians in the area - i.e. “how is Ukraine always damaging this bridge?”

Could also be psychological - having the bridge there and hitting it over and over and over sends a pretty clear message.

The next four words in the article explains it… “Connected to a TV”