4 ms·
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
by rwyinuse 10mo ago
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 10mo ago> 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 10mo ago> logistically somewhat complicated to supply with heavy equipment from the Russian side Little green men. Crimea is an island.
- tokai 10mo agoEstonia has recently announced that they will implement a shoot-to-kill policy without warnings at the border.
- JumpCrisscross 10mo agoAbsolutely necessary. Unfortunate. Tragic. Avoidable. But given Moscow’s playbook, necessary.
- kevin_thibedeau 10mo agoAn island with a Russian naval base.
- jacquesm 10mo agoMuch good it did them.
- fatata123 10mo ago[dead]
- Padriac 10mo agoThere are 5 road bridges and 1 railway bridge in the vicinity of Narva.
- jacquesm 10mo agoNarva 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.
- scoofy 10mo agoI 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.
- jacquesm 10mo agoInvading Ukraine was also a pretty insane move, if insanity is a pre-requisite then that makes it more likely, not less...
- koonsolo 10mo agoNo it was not. Show me any military analyst that stated Ukraine could last longer than a few weeks or months after the invasion in 2022. And after the weak response from the West in 2014, I don't see how invading Ukraine was insane on Russia's part.