jrl

Putting it at 20%. This isn't impossible, particularly if Russia's battlefield advances are stymied by a new influx of US weaponry.

Factors I can think of:

• It's a relatively short timeframe.
• The Russians have tended towards hitting civilian targets more during the winter (i.e. mud => hard to advance => hit civilian targets instead).
• Kyiv has air defense, and it has been pretty good at shooting down incoming. This outcome would most likely result from a mass bombardment where some drones or missiles get through. Again, we've seen this more in the winter.
• Ukraine has been hitting the factories where Iranian-designed drones are being assembled. Maybe less inventory?
• Russia probably can't produce huge volumes of missiles, particularly the hypersonics, and may tend to stockpile them for specific demonstrative attacks.

All goes to say that this isn't impossible, but would likely be triggered by something else, particularly heavy battlefield losses.

I think that something that qualifies as an invasion is probably low risk. However, note that there's a history of small incursions (particularly into Lithuania - see the kidnapping of the Lithuanian border officer a few years ago). I'd also expect them to continue their ongoing harassment of the Baltic states.

An invasion of any of these countries would obviously bring in NATO. It isn't clear to me whether the broader threat of NATO would factor into Russia's decision-making (I think Putin is increasingly isolated and paranoid, and his strategic outlook is consequently flawed).

What would probably make him pause is Poland (obviously also a NATO member, but more importantly right next door, closely allied with the Baltics, heavily armed, and very, very focused on Russia).

So they did. And all it did was wound some poor little Bedouin kid in the Negev.

I truly don't get it. They had to have known that virtually all of their missiles would be shot down. Is Khamenei losing a step?

Zeroing out based on time.