Russia invades Ukraine

[hwhatting]

So, is Russia going to attack Moldova now?

In order to do that succesfully, he'd need the corridor Torco mentions. Of course, he can stir trouble or lob missiles at Moldova, but strategically it doesn't make sense - it would only be a diversion.

[Raphael]

And Putin has talked about how we're shortly before World War 3 again. Is it it this time?

[hwhatting]

And Putin has talked about how we're shortly before World War 3 again. Is it it this time?

My father would have said "Yes, it is. Will you stop fretting about that now?" He could be mean like that.
As this is one of the ways I've decided not to be like my father, here's what I think. Nobody can be 100% sure that Putin doesn't do what he says, but on past form, his sabre-rattling against the West, warning to use nukes, warning of taking the war to the West, have only been for show and an attempt to diminish the West's support for Ukraine. I don't see any reason to think it's different this time, and on past form, to take anything he says at face value. Honestly, I would be more likely to be scared if he'd say that he is in love with the the EU and NATO and would never think of attacking any of them - that might mean he's preparing something...

[WeepingElf]

And Putin has talked about how we're shortly before World War 3 again. Is it it this time?

My father would have said "Yes, it is. Will you stop fretting about that now?" He could be mean like that.
As this is one of the ways I've decided not to be like my father, here's what I think. Nobody can be 100% sure that Putin doesn't do what he says, but on past form, his sabre-rattling against the West, warning to use nukes, warning of taking the war to the West, have only been for show and an attempt to diminish the West's support for Ukraine. I don't see any reason to think it's different this time, and on past form, to take anything he says at face value. Honestly, I would be more likely to be scared if he'd say that he is in love with the the EU and NATO and would never think of attacking any of them - that might mean he's preparing something...

I concur with you. Nobody can say for sure that Putin will not unleash World War III, but his behaviour up to this point seems to indicate that he probably won't. He is too coldly rational to do that. He knows that even without help from the United States, the European Union plus the United Kingdom would be too big an enemy for Russia. He has enough trouble in Ukraine - he expected to manage a quick coup d'état but ended up in a quagmire.

And Raphael has a tradition of Eddyfying about World War III in this thread

[Ares Land]

The media being a little...overenthusiastic at times, I don't blame anyone for worrying.

Myself, I don't think WWIII is particularly likely. It looks more like Putin likes to periodically remind NATO that the MAD doctrine is still in full effect.

[malloc]

Call me a doomer, but I keep hearing rumors that Russia is planning to attack the rest of Europe, perhaps starting with Poland. Assuming that does happen, how much chance does Europe have of defeating them? It seems a foregone conclusion that the US will not contribute any help, which is probably why Putin is interested in attacking now, so Europe would be totally on their own.

[zompist]

Call me a doomer, but I keep hearing rumors that Russia is planning to attack the rest of Europe, perhaps starting with Poland. Assuming that does happen, how much chance does Europe have of defeating them? It seems a foregone conclusion that the US will not contribute any help, which is probably why Putin is interested in attacking now, so Europe would be totally on their own.

Where are you hearing these rumors, bathroom stalls?

What chance does the EU have, with three times Russia's population, nearly 10 times its GDP, and two nuclear powers? Gosh, it's a tossup!

[KamareKitsune]

It's pure posturing to spook Europe into withdrawing support for Ukraine. Putin's been doing this for a while now, but he isn't stupid enough to actually follow through. Because it's a scare tactic. Ditto his nuclear threats. He never intends to actually use a nuke, he just wants to spook Europe.

[Raphael]

Now there's been an incident at an Air Force base in Britain.

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cqrm99mm9l84o

Looks grim.

[Richard W]

Call me a doomer, but I keep hearing rumors that Russia is planning to attack the rest of Europe, perhaps starting with Poland. Assuming that does happen, how much chance does Europe have of defeating them? It seems a foregone conclusion that the US will not contribute any help, which is probably why Putin is interested in attacking now, so Europe would be totally on their own.

Where are you hearing these rumors, bathroom stalls?

The government has warned us in the UK to keep stocks of tinned food, water and candles in case of disruptions. The main threats are weather and cyber attacks, but our town may be at specific risk because it occasionally makes cruise missiles of a brand used by the Ukraine. Other warnings from the UK military suggest that we have a couple of years before war with Russia breaks out.

A Russian drive to the Baltic has been a very credible threat for 10 years; it's not for nothing that Polish defence spending has shot up. There is a general assessment that Russia is severely probing our collective will to self-defence, and with Putin's position under threat one has to worry that he will take a gamble at some point.

The USA sees Europe as part of Russia's sphere of influence - that in itself is worrying.

[alice]

Some thoughts; correct me if I'm wrong here.

It is extremely unlikely that Putin would invade the Baltics, unless he has assurances from the USA that they won't participate. And the USA would renounce its obligations (i.e. leave NATO) either openly, in which case there'd be a lot of diplomatic annoyance and pushback, or covertly, in which case there'd be even more diplomatic annoyance and pushback. And in what circumstances would the USA realistically leave NATO? I doubt even Trump would risk it.

[Travis B.]

Also, Putin has only little over two years to start a war with the EU, because there is a very good chance the Democrats could win in 2028, and they'd certainly scrap practically all the policies and positions Trump has adopted or implied as soon as January 20th comes around, which means that the US would immediately go in full support of NATO and Ukraine if this turns out to be the case.

[Ahzoh]

scrap practically all the policies and positions

I don't trust that they will. Maybe some but not most or all.

[Travis B.]

scrap practically all the policies and positions

I don't trust that they will. Maybe some but not most or all.

So you're one of those "but but they're all the same?!" people?

Okay, there's some positions I expect they'll keep, such as support for capitalism or Israel, but as for any of the new positions enacted by Trump since he's come to office, I expect they'll rapidly undo them.

Edit: Do you seriously expect the Democrats to keep things such the War with Iran, mass deportation, broad and steep tariffs, Trump's foreign policy beyond just his war, the ongoing attempts to undermine representative democracy (beyond simple retaliatory gerrymandering), the attempts to strip people of health coverage, Trump's renaming of geographic bodies, and so on?

[zompist]

Okay, there's some positions I expect they'll keep, such as support for [...] Israel [...]

I don't think that's a slam dunk any more. The latest polls I can find (July 2026) show that Democrats think the US is "too supportive" of Israel by 58%. 62% think the US is "not supportive enough" of Palestinians. I don't think Biden-style no-strings-attached aid is going to fly.

Maybe more interesting: Republicans thinking the US is "not suppportive enough" have declined from 39% to 15% since January 2024. But that may simply mean that they approve of the GOP's support.

Basically Netanyahu has cratered the previously bipartisan US support for his wars.

[Travis B.]

Okay, there's some positions I expect they'll keep, such as support for [...] Israel [...]

I don't think that's a slam dunk any more. The latest polls I can find (July 2026) show that Democrats think the US is "too supportive" of Israel by 58%. 62% think the US is "not supportive enough" of Palestinians. I don't think Biden-style no-strings-attached aid is going to fly.

Maybe more interesting: Republicans thinking the US is "not suppportive enough" have declined from 39% to 15% since January 2024. But that may simply mean that they approve of the GOP's support.

Basically Netanyahu has cratered the previously bipartisan US support for his wars.

I don't expect the Democrats to, next time around, simply drop support for Israel altogether ─ there is still too much support in certain parts of the Democratic party for Israel for that ─ but I do expect them to keep Israel on a much shorter leash than before, and to not give the Israeli gov't a blank check to do as it sees fit.

[Richard W]

It is extremely unlikely that Putin would invade the Baltics, unless he has assurances from the USA that they won't participate.

He did enough sabre-rattling for Sweden (particularly noteworthy) and Finland to abandon their neutrality and join NATO. I don't think their joining has weakened NATO.

[malloc]

Do you think that Europe could win a war against Russia? While obviously European countries all have their own armies, it has been eighty years since their last major war. They will have to face millions of battle-hardened fanatics with nothing but basic training and their grandfather's fading memories of fighting the previous world war.

[Ahzoh]

scrap practically all the policies and positions

I don't trust that they will. Maybe some but not most or all.

So you're one of those "but but they're all the same?!" people?

Okay, there's some positions I expect they'll keep, such as support for capitalism or Israel, but as for any of the new positions enacted by Trump since he's come to office, I expect they'll rapidly undo them.

Edit: Do you seriously expect the Democrats to keep things such the War with Iran, mass deportation, broad and steep tariffs, Trump's foreign policy beyond just his war, the ongoing attempts to undermine representative democracy (beyond simple retaliatory gerrymandering), the attempts to strip people of health coverage, Trump's renaming of geographic bodies, and so on?

The democrats are always still objectively better. Though because of this fact, they have little to no incentive to improve or actually beholden themselves to the people. Which is why the only way to fix that is to root out the shitty dems at the lower levels when its democrats competing with each other.

Dems have currently mostly resigned themselves to spineless weak opposition at best (because of people like Schumer) and controlled opposition at worst (because of trojans like Fetterman). Many times they've been handed easy wins and one way or the other always find ways to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

No, I don't think they're going to continue the war with Iran because oil is way too important to fuck around with. And I definitely think they're gonna fix all the food/health related stuff that RFK jr fucked up.

But reverting the naming of geographic features and buildings will be low on their list of priorities. They're probably not going to be too concerned with surveilance state stuff.

They'll hopefully put a brake on the ICE stuff but they're not gonna abolish or defund ICE and they're probably not going to actually hold anyone to account.

[zompist]

Do you think that Europe could win a war against Russia? While obviously European countries all have their own armies, it has been eighty years since their last major war. They will have to face millions of battle-hardened fanatics with nothing but basic training and their grandfather's fading memories of fighting the previous world war.

Let me ask you this: do you think Ukraine could win a war against Russia? Rather than 3x the population of Russia, it's 1/3. It had little military experience and a large number of Russian speakers.

Yet it's winning.