What would WW3 look like?

[boatgeek]

Or are you claiming Russia has destroyed its own army? Please support your claims with acceptable evidence from an independent source, if you can.

OK, so let's start with tanks. There's some different estimates of how many tanks Russia had at the start of the invasion. The consensus seems to be that Russia had about 3000 tanks reasonably available for combat. Nine months in (aka November), around 1100 had been lost (see Guardian article here). As of the most recent update, Oryx has used open source intelligence (OSINT, aka geolocated photos and videos) to identify 1900 tanks destroyed, damaged, abandoned, or captured. So a minimum of 60% of Russia's prewar tank fleet is gone, including 800 in the last 3 months. I say that's a minimum because OSINT can't capture every piece of equipment destroyed.

On a subjective level, it can't be a good thing for Russia that they're shipping T-55s (designed in 1946) to combat in Ukraine. because they can't build modern tanks fast enough to cover their losses.

It's difficult to find troop loss information from independent sources, but it's clear from news reports that they are losing vast numbers of troops trying to take Bakhmut. The Beeb says 20K-30K killed or injured in this small area of the front. Russia has been trying to take Bakhmut since last May, and still hasn't managed it. They've taken a relatively insignificant amount of territory that's of little strategic value.

Why do I say that this is Russia destroying its own army? Because their tactics seem almost guaranteed to cause massive losses on their own side. Speaking of Bakhmut, the primary tactic in recent weeks was to send groups of 8 infantry into the firefight with no armor. If they got shot, Russian artillery would pound the positions that Ukraine shot from. Then they'd repeat with another 8 soldiers. It's a guaranteed approach to kill lots of people. Further south in Vulhedar, Russia has repeatedly run tanks into minefields littered with burned out hulks. Shockingly, many of those new tanks running in also get blown up. But this also goes back to the early days of the war. After the initial assaults on Kyiv stalled, Russia was running multi-kilometer convoys down roads when they had no control past the shoulder. Shocking nobody, the convoys got picked off by Ukrainian soldiers a couple of yards into the trees on either side. Throughout the war, Russia has chosen tactics that guarantee large losses on their side.

 

[jderimig]

OK, so let's start with tanks. There's some different estimates of how many tanks Russia had at the start of the invasion. The consensus seems to be that Russia had about 3000 tanks reasonably available for combat. Nine months in (aka November), around 1100 had been lost (see Guardian article here). As of the most recent update, Oryx has used open source intelligence (OSINT, aka geolocated photos and videos) to identify 1900 tanks destroyed, damaged, abandoned, or captured. So a minimum of 60% of Russia's prewar tank fleet is gone, including 800 in the last 3 months. I say that's a minimum because OSINT can't capture every piece of equipment destroyed.

On a subjective level, it can't be a good thing for Russia that they're shipping T-55s (designed in 1946) to combat in Ukraine. because they can't build modern tanks fast enough to cover their losses.

It's difficult to find troop loss information from independent sources, but it's clear from news reports that they are losing vast numbers of troops trying to take Bakhmut. The Beeb says 20K-30K killed or injured in this small area of the front. Russia has been trying to take Bakhmut since last May, and still hasn't managed it. They've taken a relatively insignificant amount of territory that's of little strategic value.

Why do I say that this is Russia destroying its own army? Because their tactics seem almost guaranteed to cause massive losses on their own side. Speaking of Bakhmut, the primary tactic in recent weeks was to send groups of 8 infantry into the firefight with no armor. If they got shot, Russian artillery would pound the positions that Ukraine shot from. Then they'd repeat with another 8 soldiers. It's a guaranteed approach to kill lots of people. Further south in Vulhedar, Russia has repeatedly run tanks into minefields littered with burned out hulks. Shockingly, many of those new tanks running in also get blown up. But this also goes back to the early days of the war. After the initial assaults on Kyiv stalled, Russia was running multi-kilometer convoys down roads when they had no control past the shoulder. Shocking nobody, the convoys got picked off by Ukrainian soldiers a couple of yards into the trees on either side. Throughout the war, Russia has chosen tactics that guarantee large losses on their side.

Your analysis is sound.

 

[ThirstyBarbarian]

OK, so let's start with tanks. There's some different estimates of how many tanks Russia had at the start of the invasion. The consensus seems to be that Russia had about 3000 tanks reasonably available for combat. Nine months in (aka November), around 1100 had been lost (see Guardian article here). As of the most recent update, Oryx has used open source intelligence (OSINT, aka geolocated photos and videos) to identify 1900 tanks destroyed, damaged, abandoned, or captured. So a minimum of 60% of Russia's prewar tank fleet is gone, including 800 in the last 3 months. I say that's a minimum because OSINT can't capture every piece of equipment destroyed.

On a subjective level, it can't be a good thing for Russia that they're shipping T-55s (designed in 1946) to combat in Ukraine. because they can't build modern tanks fast enough to cover their losses.

It's difficult to find troop loss information from independent sources, but it's clear from news reports that they are losing vast numbers of troops trying to take Bakhmut. The Beeb says 20K-30K killed or injured in this small area of the front. Russia has been trying to take Bakhmut since last May, and still hasn't managed it. They've taken a relatively insignificant amount of territory that's of little strategic value.

Why do I say that this is Russia destroying its own army? Because their tactics seem almost guaranteed to cause massive losses on their own side. Speaking of Bakhmut, the primary tactic in recent weeks was to send groups of 8 infantry into the firefight with no armor. If they got shot, Russian artillery would pound the positions that Ukraine shot from. Then they'd repeat with another 8 soldiers. It's a guaranteed approach to kill lots of people. Further south in Vulhedar, Russia has repeatedly run tanks into minefields littered with burned out hulks. Shockingly, many of those new tanks running in also get blown up. But this also goes back to the early days of the war. After the initial assaults on Kyiv stalled, Russia was running multi-kilometer convoys down roads when they had no control past the shoulder. Shocking nobody, the convoys got picked off by Ukrainian soldiers a couple of yards into the trees on either side. Throughout the war, Russia has chosen tactics that guarantee large losses on their side.

Agreed. Russia has destroyed most of its war-fighting capability. As you pointed out, they’ve lost most of their operational tanks, and they are replacing them with tanks designed 70-80 years ago thst were obsolete 50 years ago and we’re parked in a field to rust 40 years ago. The bottom of the barrel.

And the number of soldiers killed and wounded is huge, and they are being replaced with convicts and mobilized conscripts who are often old or sick. Also the bottom of the barrel.

And then there is the lack of ammunition and other supplies. Plus the fact they’ve lost some major ships of the Black Sea fleet, and now the rest of the fleet is hiding. And the fact that they cannot learn from mistakes and keep sending their forces into the same ambushes over and over again.

This military started off in much worse shape than expected, and now it is total garbage.

 

[boatgeek]

And the fact that they cannot learn from mistakes and keep sending their forces into the same ambushes over and over again.

Does it still count as an ambush when the defenders are still in exactly the same positions as the last four assaults? I think of ambushes as having an element of surprise, so I'm not sure.

 

[ThirstyBarbarian]

Does it still count as an ambush when the defenders are still in exactly the same positions as the last four assaults? I think of ambushes as having an element of surprise, so I'm not sure.

There’s still an element of surprise for everyone involved.
The Ukrainians are surprised to see the Russians still fall for the same ambush. WTF?
The Russians are surprised that the Ukrainians got them yet again. Doh!
And we are all surprised at how absurd the whole situation is.

 

[Blast it Tom!]

There’s still an element of surprise for everyone involved.
The Ukrainians are surprised to see the Russians still fall for the same ambush. WTF?
The Russians are surprised that the Ukrainians got them yet again. Doh!
And we are all surprised at how absurd the whole situation is.

Sorry... couldn't resist!

 

[PhilC]

There’s still an element of surprise for everyone involved.
The Ukrainians are surprised to see the Russians still fall for the same ambush. WTF?
The Russians are surprised that the Ukrainians got them yet again. Doh!
And we are all surprised at how absurd the whole situation is.

blackadder battle plan - Google Search

 

[Dotini]

An interesting if not entirely reassuring development....

 

[boatgeek]

Negotiations have been ruled out because Zelensky has made the precondition of a complete withdrawal from all occupied territories including Crimea. There were negotiations early in the war taking place in Istanbul, but Boris Johnson, out of office and in disgrace, went to Zelensky and "persuaded" him out of these and other negotiations.

Don't forget that you still owe us an unbiased source for this statement. Otherwise, we'll be forced to assume you either (a) made it up out of whole cloth or (b) can only find a source in obvious Russian propaganda. For someone who wants everyone else to read broadly and skeptically, I sure wish you did.

 

[ThirstyBarbarian]

Don't forget that you still owe us an unbiased source for this statement. Otherwise, we'll be forced to assume you either (a) made it up out of whole cloth or (b) can only find a source in obvious Russian propaganda. For someone who wants everyone else to read broadly and skeptically, I sure wish you did.

I’m going with Option A — made it up.

 

[Dotini]

Don't forget that you still owe us an unbiased source for this statement. Otherwise, we'll be forced to assume you either (a) made it up out of whole cloth or (b) can only find a source in obvious Russian propaganda. For someone who wants everyone else to read broadly and skeptically, I sure wish you did.

You guys are amazingly uniformed on a topic you profess to know everything, and from which I'm banned from posting. Why don't you get the Admins to fix that, and I would post more in the proper thread for this kind of news? You really need all the help you can get.

The below is from Politico:

"Ukraine’s president has hinted at the possibility of peace talks with Russia, a shift from his earlier refusal to negotiate with President Vladimir Putin that came on the eve of crucial elections in the United States.

Volodymyr Zelenskyy urged the international community late Monday to “force Russia into real peace talks” and listed his usual conditions for

dialogue: the return of all of Ukraine’s occupied lands, compensation for damage caused by the war and the prosecution

of war crimes."

Zelenskyy: Talks with Russia possible on Ukraine’s terms

Zelenskyy urged the international community late Monday to “force Russia into real peace talks.”

www.politico.com

This takes care of Zelensky's preconditions. The rest you can research for yourself, or I'll treat you to it when I'm back in the correct thread.

 

[cwbullet]

I found out something today. North Korea has several satellites orbiting above the US that have never transmitted a signal. Either they are a complete failure, or they are not spy satellites. They could be an EMP-type weapons.

I hate to paranoid, but that would be scary.

 

[Steve Shannon]

I found out something today. North Korea has several satellites orbiting above the US that have never transmitted a signal. Either they are a complete failure, or they are not spy satellites. They could be an EMP-type weapons.

I hate to paranoid, but that would be scary.

In order to remain above the US they must be geostationary. If they’re geostationary they’re a long way off, roughly 22,000 miles away from the earth.
Now if they just pass by the US from time to time they could be in a low orbit.

 

[boatgeek]

You guys are amazingly uniformed on a topic you profess to know everything, and from which I'm banned from posting. Why don't you get the Admins to fix that, and I would post more in the proper thread for this kind of news? You really need all the help you can get.

The below is from Politico:

"Ukraine’s president has hinted at the possibility of peace talks with Russia, a shift from his earlier refusal to negotiate with President Vladimir Putin that came on the eve of crucial elections in the United States.

Volodymyr Zelenskyy urged the international community late Monday to “force Russia into real peace talks” and listed his usual conditions for

dialogue: the return of all of Ukraine’s occupied lands, compensation for damage caused by the war and the prosecution

of war crimes."

Zelenskyy: Talks with Russia possible on Ukraine’s terms

Zelenskyy urged the international community late Monday to “force Russia into real peace talks.”

www.politico.com

This takes care of Zelensky's preconditions. The rest you can research for yourself, or I'll treat you to it when I'm back in the correct thread.

I think we're all pretty clear that Zelenskyy has set terms for peace talks that are not acceptable to Russia. Russia's entering offer when they did have some peace talks near the beginning of the war were also not acceptable to Ukraine. I don't think that either of those are in dispute.

The claim that is extraordinary and requires evidence is that Boris Johnson convinced Zelenskyy to adopt that hard line. That is a very different matter than Zelenskyy coming to that hard line on his own after seeing the destruction that Russia has wrought and the unacceptable peace terms offered. So can you back up the notion that Boris Johnson was behind Zelenskyy's change of heart? You might also consider whether Ukrainian public opinion, Ukraine's success against the Russian forces attempting to capture Kyiv, and the horrific treatment of Ukraine's civilians in Bucha and elsewhere were factors.

And I'll even pre-emptively follow your ask by posting a source that backs up my claims, even if you read it all the way to the end. You should try it sometime.

No, the West Didn’t Halt Ukraine’s Peace Talks With Russia | Novara Media

In a recent article for Novara Media, Oliver Eagleton argued that the UK halted early peace negotiations between Ukraine and Russia. Volodymyr Artiukh and Taras Fedirko say he’s mistaken – and that diplomacy alone couldn’t have stopped the war anyway.

novaramedia.com

 

[PhilC]

They simply can't afford it and don't really want to, but are being driven hard by the UK a

The UK doesn’t need to drive any eastern European nations, particularly those bordering Russia & Belarus. Russian expansionism is an existential threat to them so its more a case of their welcoming the commitment of allies to their security.
For background, the cost of UK forces deployed into eastern Europe is borne by the UK defence budget, not the host country. We generally deploy to existing operational or mothballed bases so the cost to the host nation is minimised.

Boris Johnson, out of office and in disgrace

He’s out of office but still sits in Parliament with reduced support from his own party. He’s not currently in disgrace as the various enquiries into his actions have yet to conclude, particularly claims that he misled Parliament. Innocent until proven guilty.

 

[Dotini]

Boris Johnson Pressured Zelenskyy to Ditch Peace Talks With Russia: Ukrainian Paper

"The British government has become an obstacle to peace in Ukraine," said the Stop the War Coalition. "The conflict there is developing into a proxy war between Russia and NATO and it is the Ukrainian people who will suffer the consequences."

www.commondreams.org

Diplomacy Watch: Did Boris Johnson help stop a peace deal in Ukraine? - Responsible Statecraft

A recent piece in Foreign Affairs revealed that Kyiv and Moscow may have had a tentative deal to end the war all the way back in April.

responsiblestatecraft.org

Opinion | In the Ukraine War, Victory Is the Only Option

Any compromise would be unjust, and Vladimir Putin would be sure to violate an agreement anyway.

www.wsj.com

"Clearly BoJo did all he could to dissuade Zelensky from negotiations. But what was in Zelensky's heart? I don't know, but probably he never had any intention of negotiations, including honoring those already signed up to such as the Minsk accords. IMHO, in this war, negotiations has zero chance until one side or the other is militarily defeated in a significant battle.

From AP:
The longest battle of the war is raging in the eastern city of Bakhmut, where Ukrainian and Russian forces have been locked in a grinding conflict for seven months.

Some Western military analysts have questioned why Ukraine is willing to suffer so many losses to defend the territory, arguing that the city is not of strategic significance. Zelenskyy argued otherwise, saying any loss in the war will give Russia an opening. He predicted that if Russia defeats Ukraine in Bakhmut, Putin would set out to “sell” a victory to the international community.

“If he will feel some blood, smell that we are weak, he will push, push, push,” Zelenskyy said, adding that the pressure would come not only from the international community but also from within his own country.

“Our society will feel tired,” he said. “Our society will push me to have compromise with them.”"

Takeaways from AP's interview with Ukraine's Zelenskyy

A team of journalists from The Associated Press spent two days traveling by train with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy. He visited the southeastern city of Zaporizhzhia, which still faces regular shelling from Russian forces, and northern towns in the Sumy region that were liberated one...

apnews.com

Comment:
Even should Bakhmut fall and the line begin to crumble, I doubt Zelensky could ever bring himself to negotiate, but would rather be a martyr.

 

[boatgeek]

Boris Johnson Pressured Zelenskyy to Ditch Peace Talks With Russia: Ukrainian Paper

"The British government has become an obstacle to peace in Ukraine," said the Stop the War Coalition. "The conflict there is developing into a proxy war between Russia and NATO and it is the Ukrainian people who will suffer the consequences."

www.commondreams.org

Diplomacy Watch: Did Boris Johnson help stop a peace deal in Ukraine? - Responsible Statecraft

A recent piece in Foreign Affairs revealed that Kyiv and Moscow may have had a tentative deal to end the war all the way back in April.

responsiblestatecraft.org

Opinion | In the Ukraine War, Victory Is the Only Option

Any compromise would be unjust, and Vladimir Putin would be sure to violate an agreement anyway.

www.wsj.com

"Clearly BoJo did all he could to dissuade Zelensky from negotiations. But what was in Zelensky's heart? I don't know, but probably he never had any intention of negotiations, including honoring those already signed up to such as the Minsk accords. IMHO, in this war, negotiations has zero chance until one side or the other is militarily defeated in a significant battle.

You do realize that Zelenskyy was elected in 2019, and that the Minsk agreements had already largely collapsed by then? Any notion of whether Putin ever planned to abide by the Minsk agreements either? Not to mention that the entire thesis of all of those articles was rebutted by the one I shared, which went back to original journalist sources. Note that I do agree with you on the last point though. I just don't think that it's going to be Ukraine suffering a significant defeat.

From AP:
The longest battle of the war is raging in the eastern city of Bakhmut, where Ukrainian and Russian forces have been locked in a grinding conflict for seven months.

And you've been saying that Bakhmut would fall in the next week for most of that 7 months.

Some Western military analysts have questioned why Ukraine is willing to suffer so many losses to defend the territory, arguing that the city is not of strategic significance. Zelenskyy argued otherwise, saying any loss in the war will give Russia an opening. He predicted that if Russia defeats Ukraine in Bakhmut, Putin would set out to “sell” a victory to the international community.

“If he will feel some blood, smell that we are weak, he will push, push, push,” Zelenskyy said, adding that the pressure would come not only from the international community but also from within his own country.

“Our society will feel tired,” he said. “Our society will push me to have compromise with them.”"

Takeaways from AP's interview with Ukraine's Zelenskyy

A team of journalists from The Associated Press spent two days traveling by train with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy. He visited the southeastern city of Zaporizhzhia, which still faces regular shelling from Russian forces, and northern towns in the Sumy region that were liberated one...

apnews.com

Comment:
Even should Bakhmut fall and the line begin to crumble, I doubt Zelensky could ever bring himself to negotiate, but would rather be a martyr.

Hang on a minute! You mean that losing a city, even a relatively strategically unimportant one, might cause morale problems in a war? And might cause allies to consider their aid packages? Holy Mother of God, what a revelation! Nobody else would ever have thought of that!

Should Bakhmut fall and the line begin to crumble? This is from the same guy who last said that Bakhmut was going to fall [checks PMs] 2 days from February 26? Mmmmmkay. Back in reality, Wagnerites are advancing a block or two a day in the center of the city under horrendous losses. In the meantime, the regular Russian army outside the city has stopped and in a few places been driven back.

 

[ThirstyBarbarian]

Interesting thing about Bakhmut, the Russians have been trying to take it for MONTHS, and they haven’t done it. In January and February, they started really pushing harder in a new offensive, and they got close, but now they’ve stalled again. I don’t think Russia can do it. They haven’t been able to take it frontally, and they haven’t been able to flank and encircle it. The Ukrainians have a firmer grip on it now than a few weeks ago, and the Russians and the Wagner mercenaries are getting weaker, not stronger. Zelensky may be right about the symbolic importance of Bakhmut outweighing the strategic importance, and if Ukraine can roll the Russian forces back from their main thrust, maybe the entire Russian effort will collapse.

 

[Dotini]

It's great that you all are discussing the Ukraine war in the WW3 thread. IMHO that's going to be the flashpoint for WW3.

My understanding is that Bakhmut is currently covered in snow, that all the roads in and out are reduced to near-impassable mud, and that Russian artillery is zeroed in on these roads. Yes, the city is a proper fortress of tunnels, trenches, pillboxes and concealed firing positions, under construction for many years. It is essential to holding the center of the line and is tremendously important to morale, symbolically essential. US generals have advised that the 5(?) elite(?) brigades defending there would be better employed in a counteroffensive. But Zelensky, probably quite rightfully, insists on holding the fortress at all costs. (IMHO, the US has way too many generals).

I have a question: How many men are in a Ukrainian brigade?

 

[Peartree]

I saw a report on YouTube this morning that said that Russia, as we all know, has been desperately throwing troops into a meat grinder in an attempt to cut off supplies to Bhakmut because they were under the impression that the defenders were nearly out of ammunition. BUT, one of the Ukrainian POW's let the cat out of the bag this week that Ukraine has had tunnels all along and have been resupplying the defenders underground as well as above ground. Their intention was deliberately to lure the Russians into costly attacks on the roads/above ground supply lines so that they could weaken as much of Wagner group as possible (as well as kill troops and destroy equipment) prior to the upcoming spring offensive. Russia also seemed surprised that Bhakmut now has armor units on defense (but I didn't think that was especially "new" news).

 

[boatgeek]

It's great that you all are discussing the Ukraine war in the WW3 thread. IMHO that's going to be the flashpoint for WW3.

My understanding is that Bakhmut is currently covered in snow, that all the roads in and out are reduced to near-impassable mud, and that Russian artillery is zeroed in on these roads.

Except for the snow, the conditions have been more or less the same for a month or so. In that time Zelenskyy has visited Bakhmut once or twice, so Ukraine clearly has some mobility and security in and out.

Yes, the city is a proper fortress of tunnels, trenches, pillboxes and concealed firing positions, under construction for many years. It is essential to holding the center of the line and is tremendously important to morale, symbolically essential. US generals have advised that the 5(?) elite(?) brigades defending there would be better employed in a counteroffensive. But Zelensky, probably quite rightfully, insists on holding the fortress at all costs. (IMHO, the US has way too many generals).

It's not important to holding the line. There are a line of hills a few miles behind Bakhmut that are likely better defensive positions than the city proper. The problem is that there are a few towns/villages in between. And given that the Russian MO is to literally level any town they come to, Ukraine would prefer not to retreat to save those towns from being leveled. I honestly don't know whether it's a good idea to hold or not. There's lots of opinions, some of them informed.

I have a question: How many men are in a Ukrainian brigade?

 

[rcktnut]

Does it still count as an ambush when the defenders are still in exactly the same positions as the last four assaults? I think of ambushes as having an element of surprise, so I'm not sure.

Here's a sloooow moving ambush, looks like not much of a surprise.

 

[PhilC]

Lets look where Boris Johnson was politically when he went to Ukraine on his first visit. He’s a populist, and at that time a lot of scandals were emerging so he needed an uncontroversial and positive story. There was a groundswell of support for Ukraine in the UK. It was a no-brainer. Go to Ukraine, photo op with Zelensky, make lots of bullish quotes and change the narrative in our domestic press. Its a typical Johnson ploy.
I think his support for Ukraine was genuine but since that visit he regularly overplayed the Ukraine card to distract from his increasing domestic problems.
Do I believe that he persuaded Zelensky? Not at all. Zelensky’s famous quip that he needed a gun not a taxi pre-dates Johnson’s visit. I think the Ukrainian regime had already decided to stand and fight and regain all their lost territory. These are my opinions. No citations are offered.

 

[Dotini]

Bakhmut is reported covered in heavy snow, restricting operations of drones and some other units. The Wagnerians are now said to be concentrating all their forces in the most heavy fighting yet in central districts of the city. Losses are said to be nearly catastrophic on all sides. It could go either way.

 

[shockie]

A bright flash and then you'd be vaporized.

 

[ThirstyBarbarian]

It's great that you all are discussing the Ukraine war in the WW3 thread. IMHO that's going to be the flashpoint for WW3.

I think it’s not “great” that we’ve gotten off topic in this thread and are discussing topics that belong in the Ukraine war thread. Discussions about how the Ukraine war could lead to WWIII make sense here, but updates on the ebb and flow of the Ukraine war and the progress of specific battles belong in the other thread.

 

[Steve Shannon]

I think it’s not “great” that we’ve gotten off topic in this thread and are discussing topics that belong in the Ukraine war thread. Discussions about how the Ukraine war could lead to WWIII make sense here, but updates on the ebb and flow of the Ukraine war and the progress of specific battles belong in the other thread.

Thank you. I really was more interested in what a global war would look like rather than providing a place for Dotini to take refuge.

 

[ThirstyBarbarian]

Thank you. I really was more interested in what a global war would look like rather than providing a place for Dotini to take refuge.

Dotini needs to apply for refugee status through the proper channels.

 

[jderimig]

Apparently TRF and Putin have similar free opinion expression policies.

 

[Lord Rory Gin]

WW3 may very well start out as an economic war. As the US and the west have basically cut Russia off financially, they may have backed them into a corner. Beware the wounded bear! And his ally, China. And the BRIC countries together. Next step would be to eliminate the US $ as the reserve currency and create satellites or spheres of different reserve currencies for trading of goods, especially of oil. Add in an American banking crisis and overspending on the "climate crisis" and you have a receipe for economic warfare to break out. Electronically of course, with the various countries participating trying to sabotage each other's infrastructure, utilities, manufacturing, supply chains, etc. Then its possible somebody crosses the line, lets say a tactical nuke goes off in the Ukraine or China says "I want Taiwan NOW!" taking advantage of America being distracted...