• CptEnder@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    16
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 month ago

    There’s no way they actually occupy it long-term. They only deployed a couple battalions worth of troops. But it does send a strong message.

    • bradorsomething@ttrpg.network
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      18
      ·
      edit-2
      1 month ago

      Honestly as second fronts go… if the opportunity presented, the clear plan would be to take the rail hub at Kursk and block in the city while rolling SE. It would create a long logistics problem for the invasion, and cause invasion troops to need to reroute NW or face attack on an open flank.

      • mnemonicmonkeys@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 month ago

        They could also destroy as much oil & rail infrastructure as they can while they’re there. Plus, this might divert Russian attention in the South like in 2022. In that case, Ukraine could do another push for Zaporizhia or Mariupol and cut off Russian supplies to Crimea and Kherson

    • plactagonic
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      15
      ·
      1 month ago

      And serves as plausible reason that it gets “accidentally” destroyed in a retreat.

      • Natanael@slrpnk.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        15
        ·
        1 month ago

        They would definitely have good reasons to hide endless mines that could destroy it from a distance