Remix.run Logo
▲ MisterMunchkin 9 hours 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.

▲TrackerFF 7 hours ago | parent | next [-]

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.

▲rovek an hour ago | parent [-]

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.

▲jwr 8 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

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.

▲red75prime 5 hours ago | parent [-]

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.

▲akmarinov 8 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

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.

▲kgeist 8 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

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

▲9dev 8 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> 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.

▲yakshaving_jgt 8 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> why would it start by attacking random EU countries instead of Ukraine itself?

Because it would force NATO to divert resources away from Ukraine.

▲kgeist 8 hours ago | parent | next [-]

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.

▲yakshaving_jgt 7 hours ago | parent [-]

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

▲athrowaway3z 8 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

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.

▲kgeist 7 hours ago | parent [-]

>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.

▲azan_ 8 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> 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.

▲fierycatnet 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Finally a lucid comment.

▲fierycatnet 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

They're not planning an attack on Eastern Europe. They are desperate to wrap up their Ukraine fiasco.

▲ttul 8 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

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...

▲nosrepa 5 hours ago | parent [-]

Man do I feel gross knowing that there's people betting on this.

▲DrProtic 8 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> their refineries have been blown up and their diesel will only last 6 months.

They literally just struck a deal with the US to export diesel, and Trump has been pressuring Ukraine (most recently by disabling Starlink) into not attacking refineries in Russia. Like, situation is the opposite of what you're saying.

EDIT: To be clearer in case you need it.

As they agreed to export means they definitely have for more than 6 months (and I believe 6 months claim is naive at best.).

And as US is pressuring Ukraine to not attack refineries means they'll be safe.

▲mig39 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

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.

▲panzagl 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

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.

▲bigyabai 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> 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.

▲CamperBob2 3 hours ago | parent [-]

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.

▲testing22321 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Russia are getting the diesel to sell the Trump from Iran.

There’s tons of photos or Iranian tankers in convoy in Russia.