4 ms·

For now. It's absolutely possible to keep a territory under your control by force if you look at the historical record. You can't extrapolate such a far fetche

For now. It's absolutely possible to keep a territory under your control by force if you look at the historical record. You can't extrapolate such a far fetched conclusion from one data point on how string the Ukraunian resistance seems in the first weeks of a war.

mirntyfirty 5y ago
I don’t think they have the economic resources to sustain a prolonged engagement or occupation.
- BbzzbB 5y ago
  Isn't their capacity to maintain an ongoing assault about available meat sacks, ammunition, food and oil - none of which they lack - rather than money?
  - justinclift 5y ago
    > food There have been mentions that they're already short on food for their soldiers. Wonder if that's an actual thing, and if so, then how badly short they are? Especially with that old phrase "an army marches on it's stomach" coming to mind. :)
    - thejohnconway 5y ago
      The lack of food among the Russian invading forces (if real) is due to them outrunning their logistics, not a general food shortage in Russia. Russia’s army is not designed to operate more than about 50-100km from their rail network.
Supermancho 5y ago
The Israeli's have managed to hold territory by force. The difference is that worldwide support was in favor of them instead of the Palestinians. I would say that you cannot hold a region by force alone unless you commit to multiple generations of occupation AND manage to maintain when superpowers oppose it.
- gruez 5y ago
  > The Israeli's have managed to hold territory by force. The difference is that worldwide support was in favor of them instead of the Palestinians. what? My impression is that "worldwide support" was in favor of the Palestinians. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_General_Assembly_resolution_67/19 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_General_Assembl... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_General_Assembly_Resolution_43/177 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_General_Assembl...

mirntyfirty 5y ago

I don’t think they have the economic resources to sustain a prolonged engagement or occupation.

BbzzbB 5y ago
Isn't their capacity to maintain an ongoing assault about available meat sacks, ammunition, food and oil - none of which they lack - rather than money?
- justinclift 5y ago
  > food There have been mentions that they're already short on food for their soldiers. Wonder if that's an actual thing, and if so, then how badly short they are? Especially with that old phrase "an army marches on it's stomach" coming to mind. :)
  - thejohnconway 5y ago
    The lack of food among the Russian invading forces (if real) is due to them outrunning their logistics, not a general food shortage in Russia. Russia’s army is not designed to operate more than about 50-100km from their rail network.

Supermancho 5y ago

The Israeli's have managed to hold territory by force. The difference is that worldwide support was in favor of them instead of the Palestinians. I would say that you cannot hold a region by force alone unless you commit to multiple generations of occupation AND manage to maintain when superpowers oppose it.

gruez 5y ago
> The Israeli's have managed to hold territory by force. The difference is that worldwide support was in favor of them instead of the Palestinians. what? My impression is that "worldwide support" was in favor of the Palestinians. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_General_Assembly_resolution_67/19 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_General_Assembl... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_General_Assembly_Resolution_43/177 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_General_Assembl...