Comment by kgeist
5 days ago
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.
> Europe has 4 times the population of Russia
Multiple European governments are about to flip right. I’m not convinced a La Pen administration would send French troops to protect the Baltics or even Poland.
Lavrov says all kinds of things. Whatever he utters serves a purpose and has no logical relation to truth.
Don’t underestimate the capability of the EU to gridlock itself with decision paralysis. If we were decisive actors, we would have long stopped tolerating the hybrid attacks Russia is deploying against us today. Europe is anything but united now! We’re still purchasing oil from Russia. We can’t even agree on acting against the shadow fleet, or sanctioning all oligarchs, or applying second order sanctions.
A drone loaded with explosives targeting a German airport? We were merely lucky that it had a technical defect, or it may have been a disaster of epic proportions. Do you recall what the reaction to that was? I thought so.
Until we manage to gain some kind of unified agency, you better hope Russia cannot handle the logistics yet.
> 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.
If you're interested in the logic behind this war, you might be interested in learning from Anders Puck Nielsen, author of The Logic of War.
- https://youtu.be/z61ZuZ08jRA?si=_GChfuUptluluave&t=602
- https://youtu.be/NCEKsF9w8uQ?si=WkguFDu0vSdm1dbR&t=405
- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=opa3s2VuD0s
- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nQmxNTloGmw
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.
>they'd be gambling that NATO doesn't launch things into Russia
The official discourse in Russia is that NATO is already helping Ukraine launch things into Russia. So there's no gamble; for them, it's already a fact. Except, currently, it's just a proxy war where Ukraine has to jump through hoops to get military aid and targets approved, and it can only fire from Ukraine's territory. With a direct confrontation, there's no doubt that far more would be launched into Russia.
> 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.