[adventured]

> The EU/US joining would be what causes WWIII.

There's absolutely no reason to believe that is true.

Russia's military is weak, their economy is extremely weak, their manufacturing base is extremely weak, and their only defensive fall-back is nuclear weapons and masses of bodies to throw at an invading force (it would be very unwise for anybody to bother invading Russia, there's no point to that). The use of nuclear weapons doesn't equate to a world war.

Where would WW3 come from? Russia has very few allies and China isn't joining WW3 on their side (China would stay out of it unless attacked, they'd strategically position themselves to benefit from the damage to their peers).

Belarus is a joke (and that regime would be quickly broken in a conflict). Syria is destroyed. Iran is a non-threat. What else has Russia got on their side?

[graeme]

The nukes are WWIII. That’s why a direct war is a massive risk.

[pizza234]

> There's absolutely no reason to believe that is true.

WWIII, in a literal sense (that is, between world-wide alliances), won't happen, since certainly China/India have not reason to enter it.

On the other hand though, Russia vs. the West is not so far fetched. Keep in mind that Putimir announced:

> Russian president Vladimir Putin has ordered military command to put nuclear deterrence forces on high alert after aggressive statements by Nato countries, Reuters reports.

Whether this is a bluff or not, it shows a clearly deranged personality. I wouldn't be surprised if, as a matter of principle, he'd initiate a nuclear war rather than losing Ukraine. After all, invading Ukraine has been motivated entirely by principle.