Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
Articles
Latest reviews
Author list
Classifieds
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles and first posts only
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
Chatting and General Stuff
Politics Of Hunting & Guns (NOT General Politics)
Why are we sending ammo to Ukraine?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="jbs2014" data-source="post: 2530411" data-attributes="member: 94052"><p>Rand corporation said the same thing. But I'm not so sure. They don't need to seize the gas, only prevent it from coming to market. And while I have not seen a BDA roll up of the Ukrainian O&G infrastructure I think it safe to say that it has been severely degraded.</p><p></p><p>I don't think taking and holding Kiev, or all of the Ukraine, was ever part of the plan. The Russians never committed the depth of forces required to do it. I think their plan was to have the forces initially arrayed to the north tasked to fix Ukrainian regular and irregular forces in place for the purpose of enabling success in the south. Which would make the overall objective creating a land bridge from Russia to Crimea and land locking the Ukraine (oops did I just answer the question I asked you)</p><p></p><p>I do agree that it would take at least half of Russia's military to occupy 1/3 of the Ukraine, maybe more. But one does not have to occupy a country to control it. In some instances if one can seize certain key terrain one can essentially control a country.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="jbs2014, post: 2530411, member: 94052"] Rand corporation said the same thing. But I’m not so sure. They don’t need to seize the gas, only prevent it from coming to market. And while I have not seen a BDA roll up of the Ukrainian O&G infrastructure I think it safe to say that it has been severely degraded. I don’t think taking and holding Kiev, or all of the Ukraine, was ever part of the plan. The Russians never committed the depth of forces required to do it. I think their plan was to have the forces initially arrayed to the north tasked to fix Ukrainian regular and irregular forces in place for the purpose of enabling success in the south. Which would make the overall objective creating a land bridge from Russia to Crimea and land locking the Ukraine (oops did I just answer the question I asked you) I do agree that it would take at least half of Russia's military to occupy 1/3 of the Ukraine, maybe more. But one does not have to occupy a country to control it. In some instances if one can seize certain key terrain one can essentially control a country. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Chatting and General Stuff
Politics Of Hunting & Guns (NOT General Politics)
Why are we sending ammo to Ukraine?
Top