Given we're a net exporter, I can't see how we wouldn't be able to. Unless we reduce pumping for some reason.
Thats like saying because you use a vehicle to drive to work, you can haul mining machinery halfway across the country because it needs to be transported via a vehicle. Your Ford Focus isn't gonna cut it.
Last I checked, the entire of Russia was not an oil field.
Sending your men to hold large areas of land, in an isolated, hostile environment isn't done to often for a reason. I was assuming you weren't planning on throwing away men on suicide missions, but I might have been mistaken. Generally you want a land corridor of some sort...
Whose going to notice precisely? America? They wouldn't turn up to the war until it'd been going for a few years. Europe? even when they've finished executing governments and decided which side they're on, they're as much use as a chocolate fireguard.
Echum. A Third of the worlds oil and natural gas stops going where its meant to, and nobody is going to have a clue, we will just all get on with our happy lives. I see. I failed to include that in my calculations. I assume you were going to convert the jets to run off horse urine? I heard its possible...
Last I checked they were having elections, which is a pretty big difference really. More than the Soviet Union managed anyway. And it's not like the insurgents have managed much. A few hundred dead for how many of theirs, a few thousand? Insurgencies tend to rely on killing more of the enemy than they kill of you.
Actually, The soviet union brought health care, infrastructure, education and law enforcement levels up to quite a high level, higher than what we have now. The government at the time was democratically elected and continued to run the country for several years afterwards at even higher levels again.
Insurgencys in recent history have always lost more. Its not a case of how many you lose, its how many your willing to lose. If the Taliban are prepared to lose 30 000 men and be fighting 20 years, they are going to beat an invader who has the idea of 5 years and a few hundred dead.
Look at the Vietnam war, the Soviet-Afghan war or the Algerian war. In those three the winning side lost more. And the more you look at, they all follow that trend.
Why Ukranian tanks, why not just move our tanks to the Ukraine and use their fuel? Or is Ukranian diesel incompatible with Western combustion engines?
From the Ukraine, or are we only allowed to utilise equipment manufactured in our own countries for some reason? A logistic line into Russia is actually easier than the one we currently have to Afghanistan, yet I don't believe we have any supply issues there.
I assumed you meant Ukrainian equipment, Sorry, I misinterpreted that. Ok, you use Ukrainian oil. Pity the Ukraine has to import 2/3rds of the oil they use. Guess where that comes from. Russia.
They've shut down the Khyber pass, used to move humanitarian aid, not military supplies. I fail to see it having a huge effect on the military campaign.
Its actually used to resupply the NATO forces. When it shut down NATO was scrambling for a route, and Russia gave them one. Future routes planned go through Iran.