Sweden joining means they have lost the Baltic Sea as the only entrance is now controlled by two NATO countries. Finland Joining has helped lock down the Baltic sea but most importantly is a staging ground for cutting logistics to the largest military complex on the Kola peninsula.

This war is not just about Russias energy politics, it's also very much about their need for more maritime access. THis map shows where Russia has their ports, and now 4 important ports are pretty much neutralised. Kaliningrad, St Peterburg, and the Krimean Naval Complex are all locked in by NATO countries which means a naval blocade of Russia is very very easy and would completely render their navy's impotent. THe fourth one is on the Kola peninsula and this is why Finland is important as a staging ground to attack the railways to make the Murmansk complex isolated and within medium range missile range from Nelim and Kirkenes.

https://www.google.com/maps/d/viewer?mid=1h5ZK8Z4Ft06VV4ifg6...

THis leaves Petrapavlovsk-Kamchatskiyiv (North of Japan) and Valdivodstock (Next to North Korea) the only Free Water ports that are not affected by NATO.

Real Life lore has a gret video on this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=si9Phc9ArpU

Interesting. You seem to know your stuff and have thought this through.

So, I was hoping to solicit your opinion on where you think Kaliningrad will be in a couple of years? (Say 5)

It probably won't be called "Koningsberg", but would you say it's probable it will become independent? Part of Lithuania, Poland? Or will it remain firmly Russian and (economically) isolated?

Curious to hear your thoughts.

Many [though not enough] people in K̶a̶l̶i̶n̶i̶n̶g̶r̶a̶d̶ Królewiec consider themselves more European than russian. The optimistic view is that sooner or later they'll get their way. Perhaps with putler's death they might.

Thank you.

That rhymes with the sentiment I gauged (anecdotally) from (West) Ukrainians, Belarusians and even some folk in St Petersburg.

>a naval blocade of Russia is very very easy and would completely render their navy's impotent.

I think that may be okay in theory but is a bit of an over simplification for any real life scenario that deals with the wildcard dictator of Russia. Nothing is very very easy.

NATO is a defensive pact, if there was a NATO naval blockade there would already be war with NATO which almost certainly means escalation to nuclear war. that's my take anyway.

Nope. Nuclear war is just bluff from Russia.

Just think about it. They won't even have decided which country or city to hit.

While the only one in Russia that matters is Moscow.

Or putin's castles, but that's no city.

The most significant change is that any attack on Sweden would require other NATO countries to come to Sweden's defence, and vice versa.

It means that Sweden would also take part in more joint training exercises, share more intelligence, etc. with other NATO members.

Surprised I had to scroll down to see this. Collective defense means expanded nuclear umbrella from the nuke powers in NATO. TFCMA/WP/Russian doctrine has always allowed a free hand for local commanders to use tactical weapons - a very tempting option to deal with Sweden[1] in the event of a Baltic/Kaliningrad land grab. Admission to NATO is a barrier to that, since the West doesn't exactly believe in small bites when it comes to nuclear weapons. Tactical nuclear weapon usage against member states would very likely have a strategic response.

[1] And Finland, which is also coming over.

You mean the USA will launch nuclear missiles on Moscow in case Russia launches a missile on Stockholm?

NATO or not, I have my doubts here. Does anyone believe any sane US president would risk a destruction of the USA to revenge / protect Sweden?

Failing to respond would invite salami-slicing tactics.

Likely not on Moscow, but on some city similar in size to Stockholm.

It's of course unclear what would happen, but I don't think Russian strategy can rely on US not responding.

What city? Striking any city on Russian soil will provoke a full on retaliation of the USA.

Equivalent retaliation would be targeting a city of some of the Russian allies, but it's not possible since Russia doesn't have allies ;)

So long as the Russian decision makers believe they will be hit with nukes if they use nukes themselves, it doesn't matter precisely which target — the point of MAD is a deterrent that prevents the nukes getting used in the first place.

If the decision makers think "we can use as many nukes as we want because we have a huge stockpile and can level anyone who even tries to respond in kind", we're already on borrowed time.

Strategic reaction doesn’t necessarily mean a capital atomic strike. It can be a range of responses that have been off the table during the Ukraine war so far. Switching the entire economic output to a wartime posture for example, is just as strategic.

I think it is in Russian elites’ and Putin’s self interest to continue the status quo and grind down the West in Ukraine, plunder it, and leave the long-term consequences to Russia in someone else’s hands. I’m doubtful they’ll actually use atomics unless the walls are violently closing in. Even China backed way off when Putin loosely waved around nuclear rhetoric in the opening months of the war, and asked in nervous diplomatic speak, “chill, broseph”.

To be precise Article 5 requires the countries to consider an attack on Sweden to be an attack on them, and they shall respond as they see fit.

In an actual attack, they may see fit to do nothing - it will come down to the circumstances.

In other words, if Russia attacks Sweden and the US decides to ignore it, there's not much NATO can do but kick the US out.

If you look at the Baltic Sea before and after the invasion of Ukraine, that was largely a neutral space (before) that has since turned into a NATO one -- excluding only the Russian exclave of Kaliningrad.

I would argue this makes any further move by Russia in that space quite problematic.

Sweden and Finland have been in the EU for almost 30 years. Sweden joining NATO does not really change the geopolitics of the Baltic.

The EU is not a military alliance, NATO is. There is a substantial difference between countries being in the EU only and being in NATO (either only or along with the EU.)

EU is technically a military alliance (article 42). Just not as strong as NATO.

Of course it does. Sweden and Finland being members of the EU had absolutely 0 bearing on the US getting involved in a war with Russia. Do you honestly think Russia would've tried to invade Ukraine if they were NATO members?

Given that we (Sweden) have been the preferred partner with Norway for NATO winter training exercises since the 1980s and our entire military strategy was based on "Nato will protect us if Putin invades" you are not wrong.

What changed was USA having people like Trump and the Republican party talk about not protecting NATO countries anymore. It made us realize that we can't continue to count on US help as the premise is based on the US having absolute control of the nuclear weapons, but loading them on NATO ally dual capable airplanes to launch the nukes.

If Europe is not convinced that the US will not share the nukes as agreed, then Europe has to actually rearm and might even casue a nuclear proliferation with France and UK restarting their nuclear programs.

so yeah it changes and not changes the geopolitics.

France and Germany rearming… what a great idea!

This is why Sholtz and Marcon are having a bit of a public disagreement. Germany really do not want to send soldiers to Ukraine. For a whole lot of internal very German reasons their military is not in a good position for armed conflict.

I recommend this video on French defence strategy https://youtu.be/n5eUh3_eo9E?si=k19OmbQiGVdw2LXB

And this one on Germany's very cumbersome procurement tgat is part of why Germany is not keen on rearmament (apart from the obvious: they know what they did) https://youtu.be/8jDUVtUA7rg?si=Du6Rrq2TolbIIaw5

that said Macron is at the moment the only European leader outside of the Baltics that is keen on sending people to Ukraine.

This is what we have to deal with. People believing that when our enemies are arming themselves, it is somehow problematic to respond? This attitude is fading in Europe (thankfully) but I still see this far too often.

Considering the invasion of Ukraine for the second time in 10 years, and the official threats of using nuclear weapons, rearming doesn't sound as bad as before.

There were actually three distinct invasions - Crimea in early 2014, Donbas in summer/autumn 2014 (after the rebels started losing), and finally 2022.

> and the official threats of using nuclear weapons

"Why are we shocked? Of course if a country has a weapon it also conceives a situation where it would use it. If a country would never under no circumstance use a weapon it would not have the weapon at all. Every country who has a weapon also conceives a scenario when to use it. Even if they don't issue reminders"

-- My own translation from an interview to Alessandro Barbero

To decomission a weapon is to weaken the army. Rulers must be very careful about taking power from the army, as army officials are wary of being stripped of power. A ruler must be in the good grace of the army.

For that reason, it is difficult to get rid of inherited weapons. A plausible justification is required.

With Putin, however, Russia is strenghtening an army. It is correct in this case, I think, to verbally remind your enemies of the threat they represent. E.g.Trump, in the US, has a strong discourse position to pull the US from conflict, because his supporters want "To make America great again", the world be damned.

I'm not aware of russia doing nuclear rearmament. Do you have any source in that sense?

EU is economical/societal effort (or war prevention), NATO is military (and doesn't prevent members from fighting, ie Greece vs Turkey). Ever heard of actual EU army? Doesn't exist out there in the world, maybe on paper.

> Ever heard of actual EU army?

Well, there's Eurocorps for the last few decades, but that's not an army, just a corps-level HQ unit under which component-state forces can be slotted.

OTOH, that's not a particularly poor model for a fairly loose multi-state federation.

On the other other hand, its not actually an EU force, its a force of a particular group of EU states that is made available to both the EU and NATO, and has conducted operations on behalf of each.

The treaty of Lisbon has a mutual defence clause.

Membership of NATO also guarantees help from US and other non-EU NATO members of course.

The super strategic island Gotland, for one.

NATO doesn't have "revenue". It has a little to run offices and stuff but it is tiny. The big gain from NATO's perspective is another member and its military capacity, and the terrority. Which is a huge thing, just look at a map.

An anecdote about the maps: When Swedish diplomats were meeting with members of congress before the vote to convince them to admit Sweden they just brought a map. Literally just "here is a map of the baltic sea, this is why you should let us in". And it worked.