But they haven't. Yes it was obvious they had the ability and have demonstrated it. Used it presently in Ukraine. No. Communications becoming disrupted are pivotal to achieving victory and hindering an enemy's ability to successfully attack.

Striking Ukrainian command and power structures hasn't occurred. What are they in command of, where is their morale, once government is hit, what are they protecting, hindering their ability to wage war. Who listens. But it can become problematic, because it could draw other sides in to claim power. If he is even operating from there. Remarkably Parliament, and the presidential compounds haven't been hit, instead they continuously draw increasing aid, and visits?

They are two of the most fundamental ways to win almost any war. But haven't really occurred?

Striking outside the current conflict, often causes a larger conflict. If it hits Nato. Nato becomes more involved.

I am actually quite curious. Apart from it risks a larger conflict. Except it has already drawn other sides into it, too such degrees. I find it quite odd some of the achievable ways to win victory are still being debate, or haven't occurred, and contrary cause increasing opposition.

But they haven't. Yes it was obvious they had the ability and have demonstrated it. Used it presently in Ukraine. No. Communications becoming disrupted are pivotal to achieving victory and hindering an enemy's ability to successfully attack.

Striking Ukrainian command and power structures hasn't occurred. What are they in command of, where is their morale, once government is hit, what are they protecting, hindering their ability to wage war. Who listens. But it can become problematic, because it could draw other sides in to claim power. If he is even operating from there. Remarkably Parliament, and the presidential compounds haven't been hit, instead they continuously draw increasing aid, and visits?

They are two of the most fundamental ways to win almost any war. But haven't really occurred?

Striking outside the current conflict, often causes a larger conflict. If it hits Nato. Nato becomes more involved.

I am actually quite curious. Apart from it risks a larger conflict. Except it has already drawn other sides into it, too such degrees. I find it quite odd some of the achievable ways to win victory are still being debate, or haven't occurred and contrary cause increasing opposition.

But they haven't. Yes it was obvious they had the ability and have demonstrated it. Used it presently in Ukraine. No. Communications becoming disrupted are pivotal to achieving victory and hindering and enemy's ability to successfully attack.

Striking Ukrainian command and power structures hasn't occurred. What are they in command of, where is their morale, once government is hit, what are they protecting, hindering their ability to wage war. Who listens. But it can become problematic, because it could draw other sides in to claim power. If he is even operating from there. Remarkably Parliament, and the presidential compounds haven't been hit, instead they continuously draw increasing aid, and visits?

They are two of the most fundamental ways to win almost any war. But haven't really occurred?

Striking outside the current conflict, often causes a larger conflict. If it hits Nato. Nato becomes more involved.

I am actually quite curious. Apart from it risks a larger conflict. Except it has already drawn other sides into it, too such degrees. I find it quite odd some of the achievable ways to win victory are still being debate, or haven't occurred and contrary cause increasing opposition.

But they haven't. Yes it was obvious they had the ability and have demonstrated it. Used it presently in Ukraine. No. Communications becoming disrupted are pivotal to achieving victory and hindering and enemy's ability to successfully attack.

Striking Ukrainian command and power structures hasn't occurred. What are they in command of, where is their morale, once government is hit, what are they protecting, hindering their ability to wage war. Who listens. But it can become problematic, because it could draw other sides in to claim power. If he is even operating from there. Remarkably Parliament, and the presidential compounds haven't been hit, instead they continuously draw increasing aid, and visits?

They are two of the most fundamental ways to win almost any war. But haven't really occurred?

Striking outside the current conflict, often causes a larger conflict. If it hits Nato. Nato becomes more involved.

I am actually quite curious. Apart from it risks a larger conflict. Except it has drawn other sides into it.