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="JimFromTN" data-source="post: 2530367" data-attributes="member: 113268"><p>Thanks you for answering my question. It gives me a reason to research and try to discover for myself. There was a guy with the New York Times that came to the very same conclusion you did about LNG back in March. There are some doubts about this theory. For one, the reserves only make up about 3 percent of Russia's total reserves. Secondly, Kyiv has no LNG, Lugansk Oblasts has only 1% of the countries LNG, and the land along the black sea they have taken only makes up about 4% of Ukraines reserves. The majority of the reserves are in the central eastern part of the country. When Russia made its offer to the Ukraine, it did not ask for the regions that hold the majority of LNG. They just wanted the eastern Donbas region which has little LNG. If they were truly after the LNG they should have invaded further to the north and come south towards Poltava. They have a long painful road ahead of them if they are after the main reserves. Then there is the obstacle of trying get the LNG while trying to occupy the country. There was an estimate that it would require 1/2 of Russia's ground troops to occupy 1/3 of the Ukraine.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="JimFromTN, post: 2530367, member: 113268"] Thanks you for answering my question. It gives me a reason to research and try to discover for myself. There was a guy with the New York Times that came to the very same conclusion you did about LNG back in March. There are some doubts about this theory. For one, the reserves only make up about 3 percent of Russia's total reserves. Secondly, Kyiv has no LNG, Lugansk Oblasts has only 1% of the countries LNG, and the land along the black sea they have taken only makes up about 4% of Ukraines reserves. The majority of the reserves are in the central eastern part of the country. When Russia made its offer to the Ukraine, it did not ask for the regions that hold the majority of LNG. They just wanted the eastern Donbas region which has little LNG. If they were truly after the LNG they should have invaded further to the north and come south towards Poltava. They have a long painful road ahead of them if they are after the main reserves. Then there is the obstacle of trying get the LNG while trying to occupy the country. There was an estimate that it would require 1/2 of Russia's ground troops to occupy 1/3 of the Ukraine. [/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