[INTPenis]

It would be very hard to pull off tho. Seeing as our neighbors would supply intel and equipment, while they have to cross the baltic sea in plain view. I mean they can barely take southern Ukraine.

[red-iron-pine]

The only thing that really matters about Kaliningrad is the (very probable) nukes that are there.

[INTPenis]

Yeah but then it's game over. I used to worry about nukes, especially with all the suicidal people in the world, but then I realized that it's not worth worrying about because there's no way out. Anyone launches a nuke and it's game over, MAD.

[tpmx]

It's not game over for the world if e.g. Russia nukes some remote part of Sweden/Gotland with a low yield bomb tomorrow.

[philistine]

Realistically, if Russia were to use nuclear weapons, they would completely lose Indian and Chinese support, the last two nuclear powers currently playing nice with them. So long as something debilitating is the consequence of nuclear weapons, Russia will abstain.

[INTPenis]

So which propaganda should we believe? The Gotland story that all pro-NATO people use today, or the MAD story from the cold war?

[tpmx]

Perhaps not the one that the Russians and Swedish extreme leftists are peddling.

[bee_rider]

Of course, I was just kidding, the buildup would be easily spotted and it would be an, uh, unpleasant environment their boats I think.

[tpmx]

It would be trivial to send an Iskander missile to Gotland to derail the NATO application.

[mongol]

You are unfortunately right. But most people don't realize that.