Comment by MisterMunchkin
5 days ago
I am getting a bit concerned that Russia is actually planning an attack on Eastern Europe.
It’s just like red storm rising, their refineries have been blown up and their diesel will only last 6 months. They need to move now or they’ll have to accept peace and economic prosperity.
Russia needs a huge mobilization.
Mobilization turned out to be extremely unpopular, so they can't just do that without some exceptional cause.
That cause would be NATO attacking Russia. So they're engaging heavily in hybrid warfare, doing stuff like that in Europe. They're tying to provoke some small retaliation from NATO countries.
If that happens, they'll declare that the barbarians are at the gate, and they need a huge mobilization of troops.
But they have no interest in actually fighting against NATO. It would end disastrously for Russia, any way you slice it. Kaliningrad would be completely cut off and surrounded, their Arctic and Baltic sea routes would be hostile.
As a bonus, a potential real war with Russia would increase far-right isolationist popularity in Europe.
Personally I think this is all a play to mobilize a ton of soldiers, send them to Ukraine, and expand their occupied areas before a peace deal comes to the table.
I follow most of what you're saying, but not so much the increase in the popularity of far-right ideology. Surely Russia explicitly positioning themselves as a common enemy of Europe (rather than the current cold war status) would galvanise Europe? Most of the far-right personalities across Europe are very soft on Russia, to say the least.
On the other hand imagine how popular would a real nationalist far right party be that would say "fight Russia"
1 reply →
Yes it’s complicated. Nationalists aren’t necessarily right or far right. Until a few decades ago, the left were anti-migration and anti-globalisation due to the downward pressure on wages and working conditions. In this current political zeitgeist, the left have abandoned the working class and the right is happy to take their votes.
In a war with Russia, I imagine parties aligned with European strength would fare better. Parties which have previously suggested using kid gloves with Russia will fare worse. I think this implies that some right and left wing parties will not do well.
Lavrov had said it would be a short war if Europe attacks, suggesting they will use nuclear weapons immediately. Russia knows it cannot win a conventional war with Europe.
They don't need a war with Europe for conscription, just to declare war on Ukraine instead of a Special Military Operation. There is pressure on Putin to do this to finish the war quickly, but he is resisting.
Lavrov is a known liar: you can tell by the fact that he's moving his lips. That's kind of his job, really: lying.
No, there won't be an open attack, at least not yet. There will be more of those "hybrid" incursions. Russians will be gradually increasing the intensity of those operations, so that it becomes the new normal. There will never be a clear "well now they are attacking" boundary to point to.
Meanwhile, the EU is still buying fossil fuels from Russia, thus paying for all this. It boggles the mind.
Long-term contracts. Also logistics is a harsh mistress. If you have no LNG terminals, your options of buying natural gas from the US are limited.
Fuck those contracts if one side of it is engaged in active war against another nation.
2 replies →
Technically the EU is buying from India which buys from Russia. Alas prices are still high in India, since the benefit is mainly going to a few billionaires. Our billionaires are even more richer than Chinese ones while our people are poorer.
No, the EU is also buying directly.
Last I checked, >1.2bn € per month, countries leading: Hungary, Slovakia, France, Bulgaria, Spain.
Interestingly enough 4 ships in the past week were sunk in Bulgaria’s territorial waters by drones.
The Bulgarian PM has refused to name Russia responsible.
It does seem like they’re “testing the waters”, so to speak.
Attacking a NATO country would mean total war for Russia. Currently there are no signs that Russia is ready for total war, or willing to have one. Russia has been fighting a war of attrition in Ukraine for 4 years, without a moving frontline, exactly because it wants to win by slow attrition.
Total war (all money going to the war, millions of mobilized workers, etc.) would result in an economic collapse, which Russia is trying to avoid. Aside from "inconveniences" like Yandex AI not working after a data center hit, Russia's everyday life is largely unaffected by the war (at least compared to Ukraine's) - exactly because it is avoiding total war.
If Russia were desperate enough to finally go all in and have full mobilization (millions of conscripts, all industry working around the clock building nothing but drones and missiles, etc.), why would it start by attacking random EU countries instead of Ukraine itself? So I think it's very unlikely that anything is going to happen to Europe other than sabotage here and there. Remember that Putin is a KGB agent, and they're more about targeted tactical operations than strategic chess play.
The whole "special military operation" thing was itself just a way to quickly coerce Zelensky into signing an agreement by threatening force, without total war, but it fell apart, so they had to go this war-of-attrition route
> Attacking a NATO country would mean total war for Russia.
Is that so? I wouldn't trust the USA to commit to its NATO responsibilities anymore. The rest of NATO, torn as it is, could just as well find all kinds of reasons why this particular attack isn't a "real" attack, just to avoid the confrontation.
I wouldn't bet on that scenario happening, but as Russia, I wouldn't dismiss it outright either.
Europe has 4 times the population of Russia. The only successful attacks in the past 20 years have been against politically divided countries, like Syria, Venezuela and Ukraine (civil war since 2014). Iran is united, and so is Europe.
Lavrov has indicated he knows Russia would lose a conventional war against Europe by saying that an attack by Europe would start a quick (i.e. nuclear) war.
I agree that the US would stay out, especially if it is nuclear.
2 replies →
> why would it start by attacking random EU countries instead of Ukraine itself?
Because it would force NATO to divert resources away from Ukraine.
How would a direct war with NATO on several fronts help Russia win in Ukraine? Russia isn't ready for it in the slightest. As I said, if they wanted to go all in (full mobilization instead of partial, martial law, converting all industry to military production, etc.), it would be more logical to focus first on that 1 country they want to defeat, rather than immediately triggering Article 5 and fighting 32 countries at once. It just doesn't make any sense, and judging by the Kremlin's decisions over the last 4 years, I don't think they're that stupid.
1 reply →
this goes both ways; they'd be gambling that NATO doesn't launch things into Russia. From the accounts I've seen they did strip down the rest of the border forts to supply Ukraine.
Also, most of NATO's existing resources are currently not doing much but standing around. You can question how useful NATO's 'pre-drone' material is, and how much hasn't already been sent to Ukraine, but it's not nothing.
1 reply →
> why would it start by attacking random EU countries instead of Ukraine itself?
Because if russian troops appear in EU countries, EU might be more willing to accept Ukraine losing larger territories in peace deals. That's why EU has to - once attacked - hit russia so strongly, that they will retreat on our conditions.
Finally a lucid comment.
They're not planning an attack on Eastern Europe. They are desperate to wrap up their Ukraine fiasco.
My even biggest concern is the US will support Russia in a hybrid war as they are currently doing in Ukraine, from disabling Starlink, convenient trade obligations/restrictions, to grounding F-35s.
At least one betting market has the odds at around 25% [1] of a direct military conflict with a NATO country by year's end. It will be interesting to see how things change after November's midterm elections. For what it's worth, Metaculus forecasters show a spike of likelihood at the end of September, 2027, with about 20% of forecasters saying that's when a military clash will happen. I'm not sure what's driving that spike in the forecast.
[1] https://polymarket.com/event/nato-x-russia-military-clash-in... [2] https://www.metaculus.com/questions/41238/when-will-russia-a...
Man do I feel gross knowing that there's people betting on this.
There are people making billions.
1 reply →
But isn't it somewhat realistic ? Once the Democrats take power in the House, they will ramp up the supply of US military aid and possibly force Trump to impose a so-called "no-fly" zone in Ukraine. There are war-hawks on both sides to push for this and they did push for this several times before. That will mean NATO & USAF involvement to enforce air superiority and bombing of Russian missile/drone sites and hence direct military clashes with Russia. It will likely snowball from there.
I am convinced that if a attack is to happen, it will be right after the midterms. The US will be paralyzed by invocation of the Insurrection Act (or similar coup-y acts) so, unable to react.
Europe lacks diesel, so that is not a motive for war.
Russia started exporting diesel to the US with Trump's new deal, indicating Russia has a surplus.
Russia is exporting less than a day's worth of diesel per month. They don't have a surplus, they're trying to get US to stop Ukrainian attacks on their refineries, since they cannot do that on their own.
[flagged]
In the comment you're replying to, "their diesel will only last 6 months" is a reference to Red Storm Rising. I don't think the commentator literally meant diesel. But whatever's happening inside Russia is forcing their hand. Either they act now, or their window shuts.
Far be it from me to suggest that Trump has announced a deal that would be physically impossible to execute just to try to swing the upcoming midterm elections by a couple points, but my guess is the next we hear of the deal is when he's telling us it was ruined by Democrats somehow.
> And as US is pressuring Ukraine to not attack refineries means they'll be safe.
Refineries are not moving targets. TERCOM, INS and commercial GPS are all accurate alternatives to Starlink for attacking those positions if needed.
Fact is, the US lacks the hard power to deter strikes on Russian oil. They have the soft power they can abuse, but punishing Ukraine will push them towards more drastic reprisals. Russian oil infrastructure is built up around Moscow, and it's very vulnerable while air defenses are being moved to the frontlines. America simply doesn't control the escalation ladder.
Refineries are not moving targets. TERCOM, INS and commercial GPS are all accurate alternatives to Starlink for attacking those positions if needed.
They need Starlink in order to attack other targets. Threatening Starlink is a way to coerce Ukraine into doing Trump's (and thus Putin's) bidding.
Russia are getting the diesel to sell the Trump from Iran.
There’s tons of photos or Iranian tankers in convoy in Russia.
Russia is only winning in Ukraine because Ukraine has been in a civil war since 2014. They can take oblasts in the East of Ukraine but have no hope of taking Western Ukraine. Attacking a united Europe is unfeasible. I suspect the war drums in Europe are more to support unpopular leaders like Macron and Mertz.