World War 3?

I'm quoting my post in the other thread and paraphrasing an old post by @CalBear but it's true.

To be clear, NATO is NOT deliberately going to war over Crimea, or any other part of Ukraine. The only way that might happen is with Russian nuclear first-use against Ukraine. Even in that scenario, there is a high chance of both sides backing down rather than taking things to the next level, depending on who exactly is calling the shots in D.C. and Moscow.

A NATO-Russia conflict on anything more than a border skirmish level would be the most destructive conflict of the 21st Century. We're talking about Russian troops and soldiers from NATO countries, with both sides equipped with 4th and 5th generation fighters, strategic bombers, cruise missiles, third generation MBTs like the T-90S, M1A2-SEP, Challenger-2 etc, APCs & IFVs such as the BMP-2, Warrior, M2A3, Howitzers like the M109, MLRS, and toys like thermobaric weapons, clashing not just in Ukraine but in the Baltic States and the Baltic Approaches, Belarus/Poland (depending on the course of the war), the Atlantic, the Black Sea & the Med and possibly in the Pacific. And the fighting wouldn't just be contained to the front lines. In any serious conflict Russia would strike NATO harbours & airfields in the UK, Low Countries, Germany etc and NATO would be hitting Russian road and railway nodes on Russian soil.

You're looking at 100,000 + dead on NATO's side, with countless Russian casualties. Civilian casualties would be higher than anyone would like to think about. That's assuming the nuclear genie remains in the bottle.

However, Moscow was definitively prepared to utilize Russia's nuclear arsenal if NATO attempted to interfere in the annexation of Crimea. Should NATO have decided to act more strongly, with advisors and weapons being sent to Ukraine, ships in the Black Sea, CAPs on behalf of the Ukrainian Air Force, amongst other measures, things have a very small, but very real, potential to spiral out of control after a series of miscalculations or mishaps. The only way a war happens if both sides react strongly to provocations by the other, and this leading to a shooting war; NATO deliberately going to war with Russia is not realistic; blundering into conflict is far more likely.
 
Doubt it, though I do wonder about his election prospects in such a scenario. Obviously in this "New Cold War" world, with a destabilized Europe, the Middle East on fire, and a resurgent Russia launching the first European land war in decades someone experienced in foreign policy is going to have even greater appeal than OTL. However, without Russia fighting ISIS in Syria and as a clear aggressor in Ukraine, I could see Trump eschewing his OTL conciliatory rhetoric toward Russia in favor for more hardline policies (dropping INF and reintroducing nukes to Europe, arming Ukraine etc.) while playing up the argument that the Obama administration's "weakness" against Russia emboldened Putin to attack Ukraine.

Clinton's connection to Obama's foreign policy is going to hurt her worse than OTL. Both she and Trump can take hardline positions when it comes to nuclearizing western friendly countries neighboring Russia, but Trump's brashness and cleaner foreign policy record is going to give him the advantage there. There's also the matter of how long this conflict goes. If it's a fast, limited war with limited goals, as @Snowstalker said Putin is known for liking, then we could see the election issue centering more around what approach the US should take at the negotiating table as opposed to what, if any military action is needed.

I also don't see this affecting Russia's intervention in Syria all that much. That whole affair was partly done in order to shift attention away from Ukraine. That's going to be more necessary now, although Russia may seek to have the Iranians and Hezbollah take a more active, on the ground role and stick with limited airstrikes to assist SAA advances.
 
2015 is a better bet; there was multiple reports out that Ukrainian militias were targeting Russophone villages.
Ukrainian militias openly doing ethnic cleansing.
Where and when? I'm genuinely interested, since I live in Ukraine, have followed the war's events closely (including by reading Russian reports), have met both our soldiers and refugees from the war zone, but I have never heard of anything like that. Quite a few war crimes have been committed by the Ukrainian side, but ethnic cleansing? How can it even be done, given that most Ukrainians are Russophone or bilingual, ethnicity is not stated in one's ID, and it is very hard to tell a Russian from a Ukrainian?
 
I don't challenge your claim, but I'm honestly intrigued about modern day Russia and specially about Putin.

Why do you think Russia is satisfied with the current "order" of things? (Regarding the former Soviet Union republics)
1. Extrapolating from Russian foreign policy since 2000. Look at how the invasion of Georgia was handled; rather than conquest or forcing Georgia to recognize South Ossetia/Abkhazia, Russia simply solidified the existence of the two breakaway republics. Rather than decisive intervention on behalf of Donetsk/Luhansk, Russia has been backing them just enough for it to settle into a frozen conflict that occasionally flares up into skirmishes.
2. Putin has an understanding that Russia's strategic position is far weaker than it was under the Soviet Union. There is almost zero possibility of Russia winning a conventional war against an organized NATO over Ukraine or the Baltic States, so he treads lightly.
 
MARIUPOL

That was the next Russian goal - and they tried for it

Any greater Russian action against Ukraine has this as the foremost aim
 
Top