• In Moldova, the longstanding Transnistria issue and unresolved territorial tensions could provide Russia with a pretext for intervention.
• Georgia’s has a history of conflict, current disputes make it a plausible target.
• Armenia and Kazakhstan have strategic ties with Russia, rapid
No Scores Yet
Relative Brier Score
Questions Forecasted
4
Forecasts
0
Upvotes
Forecasting Activity
Forecasting Calendar
| Past Week | Past Month | Past Year | This Season | All Time | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Forecasts | 0 | 1 | 12 | 4 | 13 |
| Comments | 0 | 1 | 4 | 3 | 4 |
| Questions Forecasted | 0 | 1 | 9 | 4 | 9 |
| Upvotes on Comments By This User | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Definitions | |||||
New Prediction
New Prediction
Probability
Answer
35%
Moldova
10%
Armenia
40%
Georgia
10%
Kazakhstan
Why do you think you're right?
Files
Why might you be wrong?
• Strong international deterrence—through diplomatic pressure, economic sanctions, or security guarantees—may discourage any aggressive move by Russia.
• Russia could opt to consolidate its position in Ukraine rather than open additional military fronts, reducing the likelihood of further invasions.
• In the cases of Armenia and Kazakhstan, their relative stability and the potential high costs of military intervention may lead Russia to avoid actions that could jeopardize broader strategic interests.
Files
New Prediction
Probability
Answer
4%
Estonia
6%
Latvia
7%
Lithuania
Why do you think you're right?
all of them are NATO members and i don't believe ukraine-russia to end soon so it probably won't happen yet
Files
Why might you be wrong?
russian developments and in general global politics seem very unstable and therefore hard to predict right now
Files
New Prediction
Probability
Answer
1%
(0%)
Yes
99%
(0%)
No
Confirmed previous forecast
Files
New Prediction
This forecast expired on Mar 21, 2025 02:25PM
Probability
Answer
Forecast Window
15%
Yes
Dec 21, 2024 to Jun 21, 2026
85%
No
Dec 21, 2024 to Jun 21, 2026
Why do you think you're right?
Escalation Risk: Russia has used cyber tools for disruptive attacks in Ukraine and elsewhere; targeting NATO civilian infrastructure for greater damage could be viewed as an escalation option as the war in Ukraine drags on.
Infrastructure Vulnerabilities: Energy and transportation systems, especially those that are older or loosely coordinated, are vulnerable to sophisticated cyber operations that could produce kinetic effects (e.g., large power outages, damaged equipment).
Past Precedents: Attacks like the 2015-2016 Ukrainian power grid hacks and other confirmed Russian cyber operations suggest Russia has both capability and willingness to probe and disrupt critical infrastructure.
Files
Why might you be wrong?
Risk of NATO Retaliation: A confirmed Russian cyber attack causing physical damage on NATO territory risks triggering strong retaliation, possibly even a collective defense response—something Russia might want to avoid.
Technical Challenges: Causing physical damage (fires, explosions, etc.) via cyber operations is more complex than merely stealing data or causing service disruptions. Many systems have safety mechanisms or manual backups that limit catastrophic failures.
Intelligence & Preparedness: Increased NATO and allied intelligence-sharing and cybersecurity measures reduce the odds of a successful, high-impact kinetic cyber attack. Countries are more aware of Russian tactics and better at detecting and mitigating them.
Files
Why do you think you're right?
nation state actors would probably target infrastructure/plants/crops to hit food supply, private actors like terrorists would probably be more likely to target humans, but there seems to be no blueprint for bio terrorism.
it's too far out of the Overton window
Why might you be wrong?
someone might have done a lot of preparation for this and we're currently in the phase were the Overton window shifts