| Yep, if Russia wants to expand its conflict against Europe, Narva in Estonia is most likely place for it. Over 90% of its population is ethnic Russian, and it's located right next to the Russian border. It's the perfect place to send some armed "separatists" to see how NATO responds. My bet is that it'll happen sometime between 2029-2035, after UK, France and Germany have had their general elections, where populist parties with more pro-Russian stances are likely to gain power. |
| |
| ▲ | Zanfa 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > Yep, if Russia wants to expand its conflict against Europe, Narva in Estonia is most likely place for it. Over 90% of its population is ethnic Russian, and it's located right next to the Russian border. It's the perfect place to send some armed "separatists" to see how NATO responds. Fortunately while close, the border runs along a fairly wide river with just a single bridge across, so logistically somewhat complicated to supply with heavy equipment from the Russian side. At least covertly. But definitely a scenario that needs to be considered. | | |
| ▲ | JumpCrisscross 44 minutes ago | parent [-] | | > logistically somewhat complicated to supply with heavy equipment from the Russian side Little green men. Crimea is an island. |
| |
| ▲ | jacquesm 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Narva is a bad spot, from there it would be a long trek South. Doing it just North of the Polish town of Suwalki would allow a pincer movement that cuts off 3 EU countries in one go from a land bridge. That's also why it is right now one of the heaviest militarized zones in Europe. Narva is much less interesting in that sense. | | |
| ▲ | TheOtherHobbes 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Svalbard is another possible obvious target. It has a Russian population, is quite some distance from the mainland, and is essentially undefended. It would be easy to set up a Russian military presence, and it would be hard to dislodge it from a distance without considerable effort and expense. | |
| ▲ | scoofy 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | I honestly don't know much about warfare, but that seems like a pretty insane move to me. First, it assumes the people of Belarus is willing to start a war with NATO and it's very grumpy neighbor to the south. There isn't a world in which the Suwałki gap it cut off without strikes and an invasion of Belarus. Lukashenko might want it, but given the last "election" there will likely be a 5th, 6th, and 7th column waiting for guns to be carried over the border from Poland and Ukraine. Second, while Kaliningrad might be defensible (though I doubt that), the Baltic Sea is not. Sweden, Denmark, and Germany will shut down any ships entering and leaving the Baltic. Ukraine and Turkey cut off the Black Sea, and the Russian fleet is left in Murmansk (which is likely immediately destroyed), and Vladivostok... which as a single port as mostly useless, and can be mostly cut off in the Sea of Japan. I just really don't see a way that Russia takes any NATO territory without the entire thing being a psyop against NATO not responding via far-right isolationists, and we're not there yet, or as an assist to help China take Taiwan, which likely means world war, and we're all fucked. | | |
| ▲ | voidfunc 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > I just really don't see a way that Russia takes any NATO territory without the entire thing being a psyop against NATO not responding via far-right isolationists, and we're not there yet, or as an assist to help China take Taiwan, which likely means world war, and we're all fucked. I mean that's really the setup. 1. Get America to move towards a more isolationist setup / unwilling to help Europe or Taiwan. This is already in motion politically and via social media operations. 2. Get America stuck in a conflict with Iran. This is ramping up. 3. China takes Taiwan. Probably in the next 2-5 years. 4. Russia takes the Baltics and starts to carve further into Europe. My further total crackpot theory on all of this is that most of this has been agreed upon by all the major powers involved. 1. Russia gets to claim over Europe in the future. 2. China gets Taiwan and control of Africa + APAC. 3. US gets control of North America and South America. This culminates in the annexation of Greenland once Russia takes Europe. This is the agreed upon transaction for America to back out of Russo-European affairs and China-Taiwan affairs. Canada and Mexico eventually are also merged into the US unwillingly but without any major allies left there isn't much to prevent it. | | |
| ▲ | padjo an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | In your mind what does a “Russian claim over Europe” mean. Do you really imagine a country with one third the population of the EU is going to dominate the EU + UK? | |
| ▲ | type0 an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | US annexing Greenland is just an excuse for US to leave NATO, Trump or Vance might do it if Putin attacks Europe, and he will when China attacks Taiwan. | |
| ▲ | maxerickson 40 minutes ago | parent | prev [-] | | The US somehow subjugating 180 million people is delusional. And tens of millions of current US citizens would probably side with Canada and Mexico. |
| |
| ▲ | mamonster 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | >First, it assumes the people of Belarus is willing to start a war with NATO I think there is a more than 50% chance that Belarus is reintegrated in some form into Russia within this century. It's very clear that there is no plan for sovereignty post-Lukashenko and all of the opposition(like in Russia) has been exiled(so powerless). This is probably the 2nd biggest miss of EU foreign policy in the 21st century after Ukraine, they basically put Lukashenko in the same basket as Putin even though up until 2020 he did everything he could to maintain his sovereignty and got hit with horrible sanctions. But IMO it's too late now. >Second, while Kaliningrad might be defensible (though I doubt that) Russian military doctrine is kind of nebulous, but the one thing it is extremely clear on is that Kaliningrad will be defended using nuclear weapons. Exactly because it's basically not defensible using conventional means. | | |
| ▲ | scoofy 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | The point is you don't have to attack Kaliningrad. A siege trivially collapses the place. The place is wildly vulnerable on all sides despite the short distance to Belarus. This isn't a "the Kerch Bridge is outside of missle range" situation. Literally every way in and out of the enclave can be exploded on a daily basis, even without striking the enclave itself. So if the idea is to invade the Baltics, but "not allow an invasion of Kaliningrad, without nuclear retaliation"... well then we've going to have a nuclear war and everyone loses, simply because you can't retake the Baltics without Kaliningrad, and NATO isn't going to allow the Baltics to be lost. | | |
| ▲ | vasac an hour ago | parent [-] | | > The point is you don't have to attack Kaliningrad. A siege trivially collapses the place. This is hilarious as naval blockade by itself is an act of war. |
|
| |
| ▲ | jacquesm 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Invading Ukraine was also a pretty insane move, if insanity is a pre-requisite then that makes it more likely, not less... |
|
|
|
