| ▲ | scoofy 3 hours ago | |
The point is you don't have to attack Kaliningrad. A siege trivially collapses the place. The place is wildly vulnerable on all sides despite the short distance to Belarus. This isn't a "the Kerch Bridge is outside of missle range" situation. Literally every way in and out of the enclave can be exploded on a daily basis, even without striking the enclave itself. So if the idea is to invade the Baltics, but "not allow an invasion of Kaliningrad, without nuclear retaliation"... well then we've going to have a nuclear war and everyone loses, simply because you can't retake the Baltics without Kaliningrad, and NATO isn't going to allow the Baltics to be lost. | ||
| ▲ | vasac an hour ago | parent [-] | |
> The point is you don't have to attack Kaliningrad. A siege trivially collapses the place. This is hilarious as naval blockade by itself is an act of war. | ||