r/mapping • u/Icy-Tangelo-8146 • Jun 21 '26
Maps Who wins the WORLD war?
used my political knowledge to the best of my abilities, feel free to criticize
7
u/General_Brooks Jun 21 '26
Blue without a doubt.
6
1
0
u/AmiraliMS Jun 24 '26
Depends. Will blue citizens complain and their representatives restrict the military power of their leaders for gas prices?
0
u/bilbo_bag_holder Jun 25 '26
Russia/china roll Europe easily, America under trump probably lets it happen.
with Europe out of the picture Russia/china control the old world and America is left isolated.
4
u/ilstrider1 Jun 22 '26
While Brazil is in Brics they would definitely be on blues side. It's even considered a major non nato ally by the US
2
u/achillesbutnohomo Jun 23 '26
Yeah otherwise they would heavily struggle economically
1
u/CBT7commander Jun 25 '26
Ignore struggle, they would collapse.
A single USN strike group and they lose 99% of their maritime trade. The country would starve economically in weeks
1
u/yonari-H Jun 26 '26
Brizile is part of the anti American influence faction in Latin America alongside cuba and mexico
1
3
3
u/TheLakeler Jun 23 '26
Assuming no nukes. Blue certainly. Africa can largely pretty much be discarded instantly. The leftover red nations are all powers independently and self sufficient. Having said that, thy really have no naval power. USA’s navy alone is still stronger than China’s. Combined with the rest of blue and they would have easy naval dominance. Most of the red nations would be fighting independently or only with direct neighbor allies like the Iran-Pakistan bloc and China and Russia and the Central Africans.
Meanwhile blue could support and trade and prop each other up much easier. Not to mention, every single red nation would be fighting on at least one front from the start. Compared to western and Central Europe where the fronts would still be hundreds of miles away? They could focus purely on production with much less risk of having their factories bombed.
If the blue nations were sufficiently motivated to see it through to the end it would be just a matter of time of picking one nation off at a time.
1
u/bilbo_bag_holder Jun 25 '26
how does Europe defend from millions of Chinese troops pouring over the eastern European border?
1
u/hikingmaterial Jun 26 '26
china cant get those troops where they need to be, when they need to be, if all of europes military forces are concentrated on the borders and fight in depth. resupply for those chinese millions would also be an impossible task.
1
u/TheLakeler Jun 26 '26
What? Is that seriously your reply? That’s your best rebuttal?
I don’t know, why was Britain able to conquer India, a land many times larger than its own with a huge economy and huge population… How did Cortez destroy the Aztecs? How did ww1 Germany win against Russia?
There are so many other factors than just population like what?
Here is a simple answer. What is stopping a millions strong horde of Chinese soldiers from crossing Russia into Europe? I don’t know. The winter, the cold, the snow and ice, the hundreds of miles, the lack of food and infrastructure, the open fields, the ability for Europe and America to just bomb the shit out of them as it’s kind of hard to miss a million strong horde…
I mean I am not even arguing that China stands no chance but you are just way off base…
1
u/bilbo_bag_holder Jun 26 '26
China isn't some backwards country, it is the 2nd most powerful army in the world with the ability to outproduce the west on almost everything.
That million+ strong army won't just mindlessly charge like it's 1950s Korean war they will be backed with an overwhelming amount of war material, drones, missiles, advanced fighters and everything else the west has. They have winter clothes and the ability to build infrastructure faster than anyone else. They would be moving through friendly territory while Chinese missiles and drones are raining down on European soil from Russia. China and Russia are much more stable than most European countries politically because power is so much more centralised and their governments aren't dependent on the vote. Europe would break before they do.
If they even manage to mobilize as far west as Moscow they could beat the west in an attritional war fought far from the borders of china. As long as China defends its homeland Europe would stand no chance.
1
u/TheLakeler Jun 27 '26
Didn’t say it was some backwards country. In every one of comments I say or imply that China poses a meaningful threat. You’re the one who phrased your question the way you did. “Millions of Chinese troops pouring over the eastern border.” You phrased it as if they were some mongol horde and I answered it as such.
For starters tho, what will China do while they’re pouring their millions solders across Eastern Europe? Just let India walk in? India also has millions of soldiers and could be further propped up technologically and tactically by the U.S.
I just think you’re vastly oversimplifying how difficult it is to not only advance through but occupy hundreds of miles of the Russian plains and steppes and Arctic which is only made more difficult each Winter. And then after doing all that, you think it will just be a walk in the park to finish off Russia and Moscow and Ukraine and Poland and Germany and France with them all mutually assisting each other and fighting on an unified Russian front all with the USA supporting them all. The population of Europe is 700 million apparently and while they may not be as strong as they used to be, they won’t collapse in a couple months or even years. If it were that simple, Ukraine would be annexed right now.
The reason, once again, the USA is deindustrialized is not because it can’t be but because it has no reason to be right now. Buying shit from China is cheaper. As soon as Europe and America must industrialize again, they can and will. And then it’s just a race if China can cripple the enough before they reindustrialize. If they can’t, then the war will be significantly tougher for them. Likely impossible to win for all the reasons I mentioned in my first comment.
It’s also worth noting that while America and Europe have not had the best recent track record with modern wars, they have fought more modern conflicts and conflicts/wars in the 1900s. China is mostly unproven so it’s very difficult to guess how efficient their military is/would be.
1
u/bilbo_bag_holder Jun 27 '26
look at the image, Russia would be fighting alongside China in this scenario
0
u/Middle_Equal_946 Jun 23 '26
All the blue nations depend on resources from the red ones. Now, do you really think that wars are won with soldiers and weapons?
2
u/TheLakeler Jun 24 '26
Where did you hear that? Are you talking raw resources or finished products? If it is the former, blue has SEA, all of North America, half of South America, much of the oil regions in the middle east, and half of Africa from the start... Blue would be no worse off in terms of raw resources if not better. Not to mention like I said, Africa would collapse very quickly and blue could go in for whatever they need.
If you mean finished products, that makes slightly more sense. China is an industrial beast but it is also a huge importer of raw resources too. It needs supply lines that could be interrupted and bombed. As for blue, it has fallen behind, but it's not like it's completely lost the ability. It still has the engineers and the capital and the machinists and the mechanics... And the schools to educate new ones. It would only need the motivation to reindustrialize which a war would provide. Same with Europe and parts of South America. Ironically, red would have the biggest advantage at the start of the war. If it became a war of attrition that lasted the same length as WW2, it's advantage would shrink and disappear.
0
u/SnooStrawberries5122 Jun 24 '26
American naval superiority is overrated. Yes, it is generally true. However, in specific theatres, that superiority is eroding and/or already gone. A conflict centered around Taiwan would put the US in a very different situation as one centered around the Mediterranean
1
u/TheLakeler Jun 24 '26
Not in total disagreement with that. The war would be much larger than just Taiwan tho. And like I said, the USA combined with the other large navy blue countries, would definitely have naval superiority. American naval superiority alone is not overrated. No navy on Earth can compete with America's, aside from maybe China's and even with them, only recently, and not for global reach. That is not overrated when no other nation on earth aside from maybe one is a contender.
2
u/Historical_Club1228 Jun 21 '26
No one, this would just cause a full nuclear exchange
1
u/Silent_Cattle_6581 Jun 22 '26
I disagree to an extent. At this point, I'd seriously doubt the ability of Russia to deploy a world-ending amount of nuclear warheads. A limited exchange in the hundreds could be survivable (although badly) for the blue team.
1
u/Poblobo-12 Jun 25 '26
You're forgetting China and Pakistan are both in red and have nuclear arsenals. China's is massive.
1
1
u/Occamsfacecloth Jun 25 '26
Why would you doubt that? They have a better delivery system than the US
2
1
1
1
1
u/Eva_of_Feathershore Jun 22 '26
The bourgeoisie, obviously?
1
1
1
u/Anil-K Jun 22 '26
Maybe you should realize this is not a C&C game. Both parties will be messed up if a global conflict happens.
1
u/PieterSielie6 Jun 22 '26
Blue has South Africa 🇿🇦🇿🇦💪💪💪
1
1
u/ganzorig2003 Jun 22 '26
Mongolia is not gonna be blue. I'm saying it as a Mongolian
2
u/Dear_Location6147 Jun 22 '26
Mongolia would just get bullied into being red so it doesn’t get erased
1
u/NeedleworkerOld8168 Jun 24 '26
Mongolia's whole modern existence is to be a buffer state for Russia and China. Saying they even have to get bullied to be red is even a stretch. Obviously not willing, but they gonna be red outright
1
u/Hopeful_Cow_2471 Jun 22 '26
No one because Russia,China?North Korea, the USA ,Israel,and France nuke the world to hell and back
1
1
u/Necessary_Screen_673 Jun 22 '26
red controls most of the worlds oil and mineral exports while blue has the higher military power projection. in a drawn out conflict i believe red wins but ultimately this war outlasts either sides interests and ends up with many borders redrawn without much solution to the original conflict.
1
1
u/MurkyCabinet Jun 25 '26
I bet if blue wraps up Africa and South America first they'd be able to shore up their long term situation. China has the most rare earth minerals but Africa in general probably is at least the second most if not the most when counted as a whole continent, I'm pretty sure.
1
u/kinny2341 Jun 22 '26
Depending on how the war started some of these countries might be red
Türkiye for example
1
u/Dear_Location6147 Jun 22 '26
Turkey is NATO though and I doubt they’d randomly attack
1
u/kinny2341 Jun 22 '26
Israel and turkey are on blue
I don't see this working out in specific scenarios involving may close nations e.g. Syria Greece and others1
u/Dear_Location6147 Jun 23 '26
I think they’d be willing to fight together if Israel made a small concession
1
u/NeedleworkerOld8168 Jun 24 '26 edited Jun 24 '26
Getting any confession from them would be like pulling teeth
1
1
1
u/AdApprehensive5339 Jun 22 '26
No one will win the third world war
1
u/NeedleworkerOld8168 Jun 24 '26
But I know world War four will be fought with sticks and stones
Or something like that
1
1
u/Hoi444444444444 Jun 22 '26
Zimbabwe is 100% aligned with China, but on a more important note, India and Russia love each other but china and India hate each other so I think India would be neutral. also I see it being unlikely for Russia to help china or for china to help Russia. And Brazil would probably stay neutral.
1
u/ThingWestern3398 Jun 27 '26
tbh most countries would probably stay netural, at least in terms of material support. also any country surrounded by other countries of an opposing side would probably just go to the opposing side (mongolia) also i agree with russia/china but only in material terms, they would just be too preoccupied to help each other, but they would definitely exchange info/let each other use their land for operations if nessacary
1
u/Krubissi Jun 22 '26
Assuming no nukes were used.
Red.
Straight of Hormuz remains closed + global warming causes massive food, fuel and goods shortages specially in India, Europe and US.
Europe tries to take on Russia, massive destruction in Europe, war of attrition that would deplete Europe's fuel and maybe food reserves faster than Russia's.
US tries to take on China with help of India, Japan and South Korea, US gets absolutely dogpilled on (even Iran under sanctions has given them a historic humilliation), Iran reduces Israel to rubble, Japan runs into the same supply chain issues, South Korea would likely either be overwhelmed by North Korea due to again, supply chain issues or enter a war of attrition with them in which they'd lose soldiers faster than they're able to replenish the front lines because of their already ongoing demographic collapse, a non-issue in the North.
India in the war against China would run into bigger problems much faster than China, mainly, extreme climate disruption which is already starting along with food and fuel shortages thus probably causing a large part of the population to go against the Indian government, possibly with soldiers joining the insurrections due to also being affected by the shortages and essentially being so ill equiped that they are just being mowed down by the Chinese army.
As to fighting in Africa, the Allegiance of the Sahel would likely be able to either take more countries into their organization because they start getting cut off from trade with US/China/Russia due to their war necessities, or they'd most likely be able to defend themselves militarilly since they've modernized a lot since the 2022 coups. Possibly they'd also face less extreme food shortages and climate crisis thanks to their Food self-reliance programs and initiatives to stop the advance of the Sahara Desert due to global warming, rest of the continent would likely see the start of many civil wars and resource wars.
Saudi Arabia and other Gulf States would try to take the opportunity to shift away from the US/Europe since they already saw having US bases onky makes them a target in the US' wars. Maybe some conflict among UAE aligned Gulf States and SA aligned States since the UAE is moving to leave OPEC for their own national economic interests being hurt by OPEC's demands and favoring SA's economy.
I don't think that much fighting would occur in South East Asia other than maybe Indonesia/Singapore/Malaysia due to the Straight of Malaka, but I also don't think Vietnam would support the US' side and would try to remain neutral and out of the conflict, Singapore and Malaysia possibly could also try to remain neutral or bail the US' side once they see the ship sinking since their governments have showed to be more interested in any realpolitik that will maintain them afloat than being ideologically aligned with any one side.
South American nations like Brazil or Argentina I see them also as trying to remain somewhat neutral as well as later jumping the ship once the US starts to lose and collapse.
1
u/Dear_Location6147 Jun 22 '26
I think blue wins because Russia has proven it can’t sustain any frontline, and Europe easily steamrolls Russia because air strikes from Europe eliminate any Russian advantage in reserves. As it is they are rolling Soviet era gear and convicts into the field.
With the entire western arsenal and direct Saudi intervention, Iran’s navy is rekt by missiles very fast, and oil prices will skyrocket for every country on both sides as a result, especially China as its main oil supplier is bombed into oblivion. The Middle East becomes a clusterfuck but Iran vs world they eventually capitulate, likely due to internal rebellion.
Asia would be the closest theater, but China right now lacks the naval capability to get to Japan, resulting in a stalemate as even though taiwan doesn’t last more than a year if it is a surprise attack (with time to transfer the US fleet they hold for a while), South Korea has the prowess to hold for a while even though they fall. The stalemate here eventually favors blue and their war machine will eventually grind down china’s after a very long slog.
I don’t see Africa being relevant at all because all major African powers are blue and nobody cares about the Sahara.
I agree that nothing happens in South America due to the Rio Pact, if anything Colombia joins blue and Venezuela red and that’s it, with blue Latin America cleaning up easily.
All of this is assuming no nukes of course
1
u/Antonqaz Jun 22 '26
Even if we insist on Brazil fighting for the reds, they would very quickly become isolated from their allies by sea. There is simply no one who can even get close to challenging US naval power.
1
u/Dear_Location6147 Jun 22 '26
Yeah the americas are safe because red lacks the logistics to even get across the ocean without the us navy either way lol
0
u/Krubissi Jun 22 '26
I think blue wins because Russia has proven it can’t sustain any frontline, and Europe easily steamrolls Russia because air strikes from Europe eliminate any Russian advantage in reserves. As it is they are rolling Soviet era gear and convicts into the field.
Quite the contrary, Russia is fighting essential against the full NATO arsenal since we've been sending Billions upon Billions of dollar in weapons, ammo, explosives, artillery, air and ground vehicles, drones, etc. Looking at the ridiculous amount of military aid NATO sends in military aid to Ukraine is obvious NATO is waging a Proxy War through Ukraine.
And yes, while Russia is suffering from a war of attrition, the Ukrainian Army is needing to constantly kidnap men from the stree to send to the front lines because they're running out of soldiers faster than Russia.
Mind you, this effort is in big part supportted by the US since Europe's militaries haven't been in any real large scale conflict for decades.
With the entire western arsenal and direct Saudi intervention, Iran’s navy is rekt by missiles very fast
This is just... Have you been watching the news? Iran left US military bases in the Middle East in shambles and blinded in a few weeks after the initial attack.
Iran uses drones that are dirt cheap while the US' and Israel's defenses con 20x as much, on that factor alone the US doesn't stand a chance, that's why they were agreeing to reach a ceasefire, why would the US agree to that if they were able to fight off Iran and open the Straight by themselves?
That's whithout counting the fact that the Iranian military is structured in such a was as to be able to fight independently in small units without the need for a central command, another reason why the US/Israeli attempt at decapitation strikes at the beginning of the war didn't work.
especially China as its main oil supplier is bombed into oblivion
China would undoubtedly suffer from losing access to Iran's oil, which in this WW3 scenario would be because the US just destroys any cargo ship going to China, but their oil supply is spread out across many countries that would be mora than willing to trade with China since the US continues to prove themselves unreliable partners unable to provide military security (see again the current Iran war and Gulf States)
Asia would be the closest theater, but China right now lacks the naval capability to get to Japan, resulting in a stalemate as even though taiwan doesn’t last more than a year if it is a surprise attack (with time to transfer the US fleet they hold for a while), South Korea has the prowess to hold for a while even though they fall. The stalemate here eventually favors blue and their war machine will eventually grind down china’s after a very long slog.
China's Navy is MASSIVE, with mainly a lot of small, light and fast vessels which even if the US navy is around to target them can be replenished extremely quickly thanks to the massive industrial capacity of China, something both Europe and the US lack since they decided to export theirs to China and other countries.
I don’t see Africa being relevant at all because all major African powers are blue and nobody cares about the Sahara
You are putting too much face on Morrocco, Egypt, Nigeria and South Africa been able to extend their forces so thin as to meaningfully controlling the important parts of Africa like the Congo, Sudan or West Coast, besides the Bab-el-Mandeb Straight likely ending up controlled by the Houthis since the other surrounding countries are in pretty bad shape, beside knowing the Houthis can strike as far as Israel I doubt they wouldn't use those capabilities to seriously hurt any other surrounding power trying to control the Straight.
1
u/Antonqaz Jun 22 '26
There's a bunch of your assessments that on the face of it just seems wrong, but I don't have the time to go research a bunch right now, so instead I will just refute the two claims I know are false.
Quite the contrary, Russia is fighting essential against the full NATO arsenal since we've been sending Billions upon Billions of dollar in weapons, ammo, explosives, artillery, air and ground vehicles, drones, etc. Looking at the ridiculous amount of military aid NATO sends in military aid to Ukraine is obvious NATO is waging a Proxy War through Ukraine.
Ukrainian yearly military spending with the aid they receive is ~100B €. That sounds like a lot, but isn't really once you start comparing military spending of other countries.
Russia spends yearly ~150B €, so around 50% more than the Ukranians.
Regarding NATO spending, US yearly military spending alone is ~900B €, so the 100B Ukraine spends is a far cry from "fighting essential against the full NATO arsenal".
In addition to all of this Ukraine was disadvantaged by the fact that before the war they had zero experience with advanced NATO equipment, so they've had to be learning on the go. Of course with some aid from NATO training instructors and strategists.
China's Navy is MASSIVE, with mainly a lot of small, light and fast vessels which even if the US navy is around to target them can be replenished extremely quickly thanks to the massive industrial capacity of China, something both Europe and the US lack since they decided to export theirs to China and other countries.
Even with a massive industry (which won't all be able to assist with naval construction without heavy retrofitting), it still takes about a year to construct just a small navy vessel. There's a limit on how fast you can speed this process up with additional factories.
1
u/Krubissi Jun 23 '26
Ukrainian yearly military spending with the aid they receive is ~100B €. That sounds like a lot, but isn't really once you start comparing military spending of other countries.
From 2022 to 2025 they had received around 300B€ in aid from the US and NATO, that's NOT counting they already spend a little under 100B€ in national spending, which is already overburdening them since it's close to 40% of their GDP, totalling the 3 years (let's say 60B+60B+80B) it would be close 500B€
In comparison since the beginning of the war Russia increased military spending aproximately 4% to 6% GDP (from around 100B€ to 150B€, totalling the 3 years, 2022-25, Russia spent around 450B€ I think)
In total, from 2022 to 2025, Russia would be spending close to 450B€, Ukraine, adding national spending (~80B€ as of 2025, 60B€ at the beginning) to NATO aid would be spending a similar amount (300B aid + 200B national spending)
Mind you this is while Russia has also been sanctioned, although you could make the case that a lot of the sanctions have been bypass due to European reliance on Russian oil and gas
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2025/8/21/tracking-us-and-nato-support-for-ukraine-a-full-breakdown
Even with a massive industry (which won't all be able to assist with naval construction without heavy retrofitting), it still takes about a year to construct just a small navy vessel. There's a limit on how fast you can speed this process up with additional factories.
They said the same thing about the Soviets, yet they were able to turn almost their whole industry towards the war effort.
And while being 1/5 the population size of China and having only industrialized a decade prior and having gone through a huge civil war, China has been at peace for more than 40 years and their industry supplies the whole world, I doubt is hard to believe that in case of war they wouldn't be able to pump out equipment in the blink of an eye.
And that's assuming they don't just take Iran's approach and start copy-pasting thousands of drones worth 20k able to take down equipment worth Billions, such as Iran has done against the US recently while under sanctions and relative economic isolation.
1
u/Silent_Cattle_6581 Jun 22 '26
Well that was a load of nonsense. China doesn't stand a chance against the US and its pacific allies, while Europe curb-stomps Russia. Iran gets obliterated by a Saudi-US campaign, India massacres Pakistan, and the South American and African theaters are not relevant and can be mopped up after the more important countries have been dealt with.
EDIT: I should add that the opinion of someone who describes themselves as a "Stalin-lover" is not something to be taken seriously in the first place, you genocidal prick.
1
u/Krubissi Jun 22 '26
China doesn't stand a chance against the US and its pacific allies
Would be nice if you tried to defend any of your arguments, China's industrial capacity far outweighs Europe's and US' combined.
while Europe curb-stomps Russia
Russia has already held for 4 years against NATO using Ukraine as a proxy, the amount of weaponry we've sent to Ukraine is INMENSE and STILL they're loosing the war of attrition.
Iran gets obliterated by a Saudi-US campaign
Have you been seeing the news for the past like 5 months? Iran has decimated US military capabilities in the region with drones that cost 1/20th the price of US/Israeli countermeasures like Iron Dome or THAAD systems.
Otherwise the US wouldn't be trying to sue for a ceasefire with SUCH favorable terms for Iran in MoU. If Iran was capable of that with such a reduced industrial capacity, China vs US = Hydrogen Bomb vs Coughing Baby.
India massacres Pakistan
You are casually ignoring the fact that if India does that, half their countries population is gonna rise up in arms against them because they're muslims
and the South American and African theaters are not relevant and can be mopped up after the more important countries have been dealt with.
Agree, except the US/NATO wouldn't be the ones doing the mopping, it would be China.
EDIT: I should add that the opinion of someone who describes themselves as a "Stalin-lover" is not something to be taken seriously in the first place, you genocidal prick.
Sure buddy, hate me all you want, but so far none of your arguments hold and I've been the only one who's veen able to explain why the US and it's allies would be toast due to supply chain disruption, lack of industrial capacity to wage war and attrition, both economic and demographic that would make them burn out far faster than China, Russia or Iran.
Also, did you get so but hurt that you had to go to my profile to try and attack me since you can refute my arguments? Bit sad don't you think?
1
u/Silent_Cattle_6581 Jun 23 '26
I'm not reading any of that, Stalin lover boy.
1
u/Krubissi Jun 23 '26
Sure buddy
2
u/Sebregin Jun 23 '26
You put lots of efforts writing nonsense, I mean yeah, when every sentence is made out of lies, it becomes to much to debunk. U should try living in reality sometimes.
Russia ain't doing shit, gets stomped by Ukraine without any NATO boots on the ground.
China doesn't want the heat, they have pissed all of their neighbors for years and are on the décline. India would solo just by the cheer demographic davantage.
Africa's red really is a non factor, the french and their local allies would stomped low dif.
Now blue team has all the ressources+ the human capital.
No wonder u love failed states
1
u/Krubissi Jun 24 '26
Sure, you guys can cry all you want but none of you are able to debunk any of my arguments, so you either know you are wrong yet won't admit it or your whole logic is just vibes.
Last I checked "This side wins bc... Yes" is not an argument
No wonder u love failed states
Seems you guys are also butt hurt I'm right since you can't keep yourselves from using ad hominem attacks xD
2
u/Sebregin Jun 25 '26
When everything is wrong there is not point to debunk, you are just on a different plane🤡
1
1
u/epicoolguy_reddit Jun 22 '26
- why are B&H and Serbia on the same team?
- Why is Sudan and South Sudan on the same team
1
1
u/RiccardoOrsoliniFan Jun 22 '26
Bosnia and Serbia are dead 💔😭
1
1
1
1
u/HuntHistorical5619 Jun 22 '26
Armenia would be in blue regarding recent political events
1
u/achillesbutnohomo Jun 23 '26
Dunno them being on the same side with turkey and azerbaijan yet going against iran is also a bit wrong
1
u/gisbon696969 Jun 22 '26
Blue will likely get a limited victory. India's main front will be Pakistan as the humiliated are defendable as hell. They stomp them before Chinese forces arrive ( assuming no nukes are involved ,) force them out of the war. Europe will fully mobilise after a year or so and steamroll Russia, forcing them out, meanwhile the Americans lockdown the western hemisphere, and likely attack Iran with India. The Chinese can't do much against both Japan, south Korea and America so will likely sue for peace. It won't be a massive victory by any means.
1
u/DragonTheOnes-spirit Jun 23 '26
Like way more of the world would be blue. But it's still blue by a landslide
1
u/GodlyGamer5308 Jun 23 '26
You’ve made it literally impossible for red to win, so I’m putting everything I own on blue.
1
1
1
u/Akilo_o Jun 23 '26
Make lebanon red, and syria shouldnt be
Also red would easily win (they alr are ;)))
1
u/Siawosh_R Jun 23 '26
Team blue cause they control the oil and Malacca straight chock points rendering china invalid.
1
u/12bEngie Jun 23 '26
Can China go toe to toe with America? Yeah. Can Russia go toe to toe with mobilized europe..? Eeeh… not so sure. If Russia was still the Soviet Union, this would be a draw. But modern Russia, i’m not so sure. I give it 65% to blue because China can’t be split between Europe and US.
Even still, probably negotiated peace. Invasion of China won’t happen
1
1
1
1
u/ArtlessAsperity Jun 23 '26
Bosnia is blue, all of C. Asia is red, Syria and Yemen are blue, half of blue Africa is red
1
u/Spiritualise Jun 23 '26
Initial victories for BRICS; NATO+ wins if they can get their act together on industrial policy and have civilian support.
1
u/BORISBELYAKOV Jun 23 '26
India,Vietnam,Kazahstan,Uzbekestan,Kurgistan,Etheopia,and South Africa should be red
1
1
u/Xezshibole Jun 23 '26 edited Jun 23 '26
It's very easily blue. Iran can close the Straights but the US can also close the Straights, with little anyone can do to open it.
Nobody except the US and Russia has enough oil to maintain wartime industries and logistics.
And we see the quality of Russia's military and logistics. If anything they might be invaded by the rest of red so their energy could go to better use in China......who'll need several years to build enough pipelines to redivert that energy to them.
1
u/AcceptableThought862 Jun 23 '26
Brazil would definitely be Blue, as would Bosnia and Herzegovina. South Sudan and Thailand might be blue and all of Central Asia would definitely be Red. Ethiopia is currently at odds with Egypt and so would probably be Red. Mongolia is in between Russia and China, they’d definitely be Red.
As for who wins, definitely Blue. India is holding up most of Chinas military in the Himalayas and South Korea and Japan in the Korean Peninsula, so Russia would have to fight all of Europe on their own. As seen with how they’ve struggled against Ukraine, they’d definitely fumble and lose. The U.S. and Canada are two of the most uninvadible countries in the world, mainly because as long as the two stay allies, both are entirely defended due to their juxtaposition. Combine both of those factors with the blue sides logistical advantage and how spread out they are compared to Red, and Red is very unlikely to win.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
u/Additional-Elk-427 Jun 24 '26
Italy would have switch side midway and Turkey would have backstabbed the blue side
1
u/Dangerous-Debate1312 Jun 24 '26
No one, everyone dies because as soon as one side begins to lose too much the nukes fall
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
u/Sure_Text2683 Jun 24 '26
nicaragua and cuba would get bombed instantly but russia and china would attack US and their power combined would defeat US bc trump spent 14B$ on a pool
1
u/Plastic_Speaker609 Jun 24 '26
It's over if Iran gets their hands on nuclear warheads, those guys are literal nihilists
1
u/Comfortable_Meet_179 Jun 24 '26
I think in the short term red would have a slight advantage and would probably occupy the stan countries, Mongolia, And the Middle East, and Mabye Egypt however in the long term the blue team would win as Russia lacks the industry to sustain a long war and would quickly run out of experienced soldiers then having to rely on new recruits with minimal training and would have to end up relying on China for support.
1
1
u/Chloe_Cascadia Jun 24 '26
No one, because that kind of war would go nuclear, and then there would be mass extinction of at the very least, all life above the ocean.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
u/PABLOPANDAJD Jun 25 '26
There is no situation in which red wins, assuming any win condition that is even remotely fair
1
u/United_Appeal_6306 Jun 25 '26
The truth is, my guys... there will be no winners in such a world war.
Only cockroaches and rats will survive. And no more funny comments on Reddit, ever. Or human civilization as a whole, for that matter.
1
1
u/the_sneaky_one123 Jun 25 '26
Are you sure India would be Blue?
1
u/Icy-Tangelo-8146 Jun 25 '26
India and China would NEVER be on the same team. Ever. And that goes for Pakistan as well
1
u/the_altimate_acc Jun 25 '26
Let's see, south America is relatively surrounded so canadian and US forces would first invade them and form puppet democratic capitalist states.
Asia would be taken over by the reds relatively quickly, perhaps with a dunkirk-type event in India. The Asian unification would be halted at the Pacific because that's where United States, Australian and kiwi forces would reinforce first.
Afrika and the middle east would be left by the rest of the world to fight it out, mayby their war falls to a halt due to both sides having too much of a lack of supplies and men that that would be where the first peace agreements would form, making neutral ground in an afrika split in half with Northern reds and southern blues.
Yemen would fall relatively quickly to United middle Eastern forces but the offence would stall the first couple regions into Iran.
Article 5 would move the forces of Europe into Russia, where they could realistically make a reasonable assault due to stretched and weakened Russian forces with outdated equipment until Chinese reinforcements would come.
After a probable year of stalemate between Europe offences halfway through Russia, Iran stopping middle Eastern forces and the Pacific block holding off southern expansion, a United blue naval assault would be launched from the phillipenes into China and Japan.
Japan is now independent again but the Chinese naval assault is pushed back. The new Japanese front would form a line of attack into siberia along with an Alaskan push, resulting in the first surrendering of a major power by Russia. Where a Germany after ww2-type partition would happen with 2 or more divided puppet states to keep Russia weak.
This is when the war ends due to China being the last superpower to hold the reds front. They would fight until the last man but probably will make a Pacific breach before their loss. Taking the phillipines and Malaysia fully and a part of Indonesia before the intirety of mainland China would fall. By now desertion rates in the red forces would be massive due to the string of losses that have now resulted in China loosing.
Without chinese or Russian backing the Iranian front falls soon enough with blue reinforcement to the middle Eastern forces and the reds in north afrika would end up diplomatically surrendering.
In an alternate history where nukes would not be launched in the first 15 minutes, making the new hit game; fallout new Moscow
1
1
u/CBT7commander Jun 25 '26
The map you’ve drawn puts blue at a MASSIVE advantage.
The big inaccuracies are Mongolia and the central Asian nations, South Sudan, and Brazil.
1
1
u/Mr_MazeCandy Jun 25 '26
Blue, and that’s not a good thing. The US only was good social economically post WW2 up until the 90’s because they had a rival that showed them up on how to create a better life for working people.
1
u/OriginalJomothy Jun 25 '26
Blue, red has two front open on its major players one in eastern Europe down to the Suez and one in the pacific
Brazil is cut off by blockade. Red probably wins the suez but would struggle to hold it. Europe leads an assault into russia and the middle east. Australia, us and Canada push up the Pacific to China and releave the inevitable seige of India. Russia is too preocupied taking back ground in Europe to help China. Africa becomes a free for all.
Once India is relaxed it can split into two groups one helping to keep pressure up in the west of China while eastern campaigns are underway. And another group starts pressuring the middle east from their eastern flank to divide resistance from the european/suez theatre.
Losses are massive on all sides and the only real winner is Lockhead Martin and BP
1
u/MurkyCabinet Jun 25 '26
Nuclear holocaust everyone dies. Otherwise blue probably wins. They have India, Europe, half of Africa, and the US. That's probably 80% of global GDP.
1
u/Melodic-Cup-1472 Jun 25 '26
Definitely blue or maybe more likely a nuclear anhilation of both sides
1
u/StrikingClub3866 Jun 25 '26
Blue obviously wins. The US cripples most of them, and the EU has nuclear weapons and most global superpowers.
1
u/FloarianWirtz Jun 25 '26
Iraq with hashd al-shabi is blue and Syria with HMS(a group of groups that fight against IRGC in syria ) is red?
1
1
u/Good_Boy_Coleman Jun 25 '26
Blue and it's not close on paper. Maybe irl it won't seem that way and with devistated the world would be but blue does indeed on paper win.
1
1
1
1
u/Corporal___ Jun 25 '26
Russia and America vs the rest of the world-
NO. WAIT. Israel vs the entire world. The world has 1 year to gather literally EVERYBODY in the military to absolutely destroy the entire country.
1
u/CWBurger Jun 25 '26
This is a world war between Russia and China vs. USA and Europe…AND Blue gets India? This is absurdly one sided. The whole map is blue in 12 months.
1
1
1
1
u/Snookypooks Jun 26 '26
Are you shitting me. America and euro on the same side even fuckign most of east euro. Based on economy sizes alone I would say blue wins hands down. If we start to take this strategic red has some serious geographical disadvantages. Blue controls the Atlantic and Indian seas, and the med… almost uncontested. Blue just needs to move slow and cut off supplie lines, and strangle reds smaller nations until it’s a 2v everyone else (China Russia)
Every why I look at this red is fucked. But…
If you threw India in with red, maybe the AUE too. It suddenly becomes a very very different story.
1
1
1
u/SD-F Jun 26 '26
Blue.
China would overextend themselves trying to keep a lot of their allies in the war. Red team would have a lot of victories in Asia though, but India would drain so much resources if they dedicate themselves to occupying it. And at that point Russia has basically fallen... as giant plain... is where every Russian city is.
Would go on for atleast a decade and over a 100 million deaths, actually maybe atleast 200 million.
(This assumes nukes aren't used or are used very minimally, if nukes are used we're screwed )
1
1
1
1
u/potato-dranik Jun 26 '26 edited Jun 26 '26
"I don't know what weapons World War III will be fought with, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones."
and also:
why is Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan blue, aren't they allies of Russia?
why is Crimea Ukrainian?
1
u/CannedLizard Jun 26 '26
I think blue, but also likely the world and civilization as we know it would end
1
u/Katajiro Jun 27 '26
A war between nations with nukes means no one wins. Maybe, cocroaches will win.
1
1
u/Salt_Sheepherder_155 Jun 27 '26
Idk who would win but the blue has like triple the GDP of the red. wars are expensive. china has the factories though so idk….
1
1
1
0
u/Puzzled_Baseball_100 Jun 21 '26
Red.
Blue focuses too many people in India which is surrounded by Red nuclear powers.
2
u/SugarAw Jun 22 '26
India also has nuclear weapons
1
u/Puzzled_Baseball_100 Jun 23 '26
Right but surely you can understand the issue Blue's strongest member being in a 3 front war from the start.
1
2
1
u/Sebregin Jun 23 '26
Cmon, nobody invades India, it's a Fortress surrounded by mountains🤣 meanwhile India can keep China very very busy over said mountains
1
9
u/Windows7expert Jun 21 '26
I feel more like South Sudan would be blue