Russia's invasion of Ukraine: Part 5

Lisa Jackson7 said:Bringing back Königsberg? Handing it over to Germany?

Knocking them to their knees, de-Russification, ethnic cleansing... man, you'll read just about anything in here.

Haven't we seen more than enough of that already?

There’s no ethnic cleansing happening, and nobody is attacking Kaliningrad. Give it a few years. Once a different Russian regime takes over—one that's been broken by sanctions and defeated in the war in Ukraine—they'll work with the West to pivot back to a path that suits them. They'll peacefully disintegrate Kaliningrad from the Russian Federation. For them, it'll be exactly what Mexico was to Mexico. They have to pay for what they're doing and learn their lesson. You want Greater Mexico? Lose the war and lose Mexico. You want half of Ukraine? Lose the war and lose Kaliningrad.

gentlestag15 said:If you ask me, they might as well just shut the borders entirely. Once a country gets slapped with an "enemy" label by someone like Russia—just like how Lithuania got tagged as an adversary—there isn't much point in playing nice anymore.

Then they'd just start throwing around all those empty threats about "appropriate measures" and acting like "all options are on the table," as if that actually changes anything.

ironseal said:There’s no ethnic cleansing happening, and nobody is attacking Kaliningrad. Give it a few years. Once a different Russian regime takes over—one that's been broken by sanctions and defeated in the war in Ukraine—they'll work with the West to pivot back to a path that suits them. They'll peacefully disintegrate Kaliningrad from the Russian Federation. For them, it'll be exactly what Mexico was to Mexico. They have to pay for what they're doing and learn their lesson. You want Greater Mexico? Lose the war and lose Mexico. You want half of Ukraine? Lose the war and lose Kaliningrad.

Honestly, I think comparing this to Mexico makes zero sense.
First of all, the people living in Kaliningrad are Russians, and they have no desire to separate from Russia. Furthermore, nobody else wants Kaliningrad, nor is anyone showing any interest in seizing or occupying it, whether alongside the Russians or otherwise.

lp

Andrew Booth29 said:Honestly, I don't see any real logic behind Lithuania's move... it feels like an escalation for the sake of escalating. The strategic importance of that enclave is practically nonexistent when you look at the bigger picture.

Why bother? Is Lithuania actually an independent nation or just some Russian province? The Russians will find ways to organize their deliveries one way or another, but they aren't going through the literal front door. If Lithuania were acting like a real sovereign state, they would have already rebuilt their rail lines to meet EU standards and shut down those borders with terrorist states once and for all.

I honestly don't see any version of this story where things end well.
If we move to blockade the Kaliningrad region, the Russians could easily frame it as an act of aggression.
The real question is: when does something explosive "accidentally" land on NATO territory? Once that happens, we're all in deep trouble, because nobody is going to back down or settle for a compromise.

wearytrucker22 said:Why bother? Is Lithuania actually an independent nation or just some Russian province? The Russians will find ways to organize their deliveries one way or another, but they aren't going through the literal front door. If Lithuania were acting like a real sovereign state, they would have already rebuilt their rail lines to meet EU standards and shut down those borders with terrorist states once and for all.

The whole situation with Kaliningrad is pretty interesting too—how even during the absolute height of the Soviet Union, people were still wary of the Russians.

In The 1950, Nikita Khrushchev offered The entire Kaliningrad oblast to The Lithuanian SSR but Antanas Sniečkus refused to annex the territory because it would add at least a million ethnic Russians to Lithuania

That’s some genuinely sharp, long-term strategic thinking right there. I suppose part of the equation was also the assumption that the ruler wouldn't just ethnically cleanse all those Russians out—something certain leaders might actually attempt. Just hand it over to the Russians and see how they react. The moment they took control, it would be a one-way ticket to Siberia.

Matthew Young35 said:I honestly don't see any version of this story where things end well.
If we move to blockade the Kaliningrad region, the Russians could easily frame it as an act of aggression.
The real question is: when does something explosive "accidentally" land on NATO territory? Once that happens, we're all in deep trouble, because nobody is going to back down or settle for a compromise.

God forbid we provoke the Russians by rerouting traffic through our own borders; they might just label it an act of aggression.

An act of aggression? While they’re dropping 70 tons of munitions on a sovereign nation?

They should get lost. It's the same rule with every bully: you either stand your ground or you hand over everything you own. There is no middle ground.

Sean Watson3 said:God forbid we provoke the Russians by rerouting traffic through our own borders; they might just label it an act of aggression.

An act of aggression? While they’re dropping 70 tons of munitions on a sovereign nation?

They should get lost. It's the same rule with every bully: you either stand your ground or you hand over everything you own. There is no middle ground.

The real issue is that they have absolutely no intention of leaving.
And they’ve got about six or seven thousand "perfect" excuses ready to go.

Matthew Young35 said:I honestly don't see any version of this story where things end well.
If we move to blockade the Kaliningrad region, the Russians could easily frame it as an act of aggression.
The real question is: when does something explosive "accidentally" land on NATO territory? Once that happens, we're all in deep trouble, because nobody is going to back down or settle for a compromise.

The problem lies with the Russians, not anyone else. Why hasn't this blockade happened until now? It seems like they've done something over the last few months that finally triggered these kinds of measures.

William Anderson5 said:The problem lies with the Russians, not anyone else. Why hasn't this blockade happened until now? It seems like they've done something over the last few months that finally triggered these kinds of measures.

Of course the problem lies with the Russians.
I am not even questioning that.

Matthew Young35 said:The real issue is that they have absolutely no intention of leaving.
And they’ve got about six or seven thousand "perfect" excuses ready to go.

They don't have six or seven thousand. Let's be realistic—nuclear projectiles require constant, highly specialized, and expert maintenance to remain viable. It has become painfully obvious that the Russians can barely manage to maintain the tires on their own trucks, let alone complex weaponry. While they undoubtedly possess some functional nuclear capabilities, it isn't anywhere near the level they constantly boast about. If they actually made the decision to launch an attack against NATO, it would effectively mean the end of Russia, one way or another.

Nicole James said:They don't have six or seven thousand. Let's be realistic—nuclear projectiles require constant, highly specialized, and expert maintenance to remain viable. It has become painfully obvious that the Russians can barely manage to maintain the tires on their own trucks, let alone complex weaponry. While they undoubtedly possess some functional nuclear capabilities, it isn't anywhere near the level they constantly boast about. If they actually made the decision to launch an attack against NATO, it would effectively mean the end of Russia, one way or another.

Here’s some rough data from 2021 regarding how much various countries spent on maintaining their arsenals, according to that agency that tracks global nuclear weapons.

https://assets.nationbuilder.com/ica...pdf?1655145777

USA - $44.2b
China - $11.7b
Russia - $8.6b

Not to mention that Russia has basically doubled their results...

Sean Watson3 said:God forbid we provoke the Russians by rerouting traffic through our own borders; they might just label it an act of aggression.

An act of aggression? While they’re dropping 70 tons of munitions on a sovereign nation?

They should get lost. It's the same rule with every bully: you either stand your ground or you hand over everything you own. There is no middle ground.

Anyway, here’s what the Russians are claiming (according to Gazeta)

https://www-gazeta-ru.translate.goog..._x_tr_pto=wapp

“The whole point of these provocations is the same—to goad Russia into a much sharper escalation of the special military operation in Ukraine, which would include increasing direct strikes on Ukrainian territory. They want to manufacture a specific media narrative to 'dehumanize' the image of the Russian Federation. Honestly, given how things are right now, it might be better to just ignore these provocations altogether. A limited response won't get them what they want, but an unlimited one could lead to results nobody actually needs. For now, Kaliningrad isn't the target for a 'main strike'; we have plenty of ferries to link Baltiysk with Ust-Luga and bypass any blockade,” the expert noted.

Aleksey Martynov, the director of the institut nov država, partially agrees. He claims that Lithuania is provoking Russia in the exact same way the Western bloc, led by the United States, is handling the crisis in Ukraine.

“It’s unlikely this situation will ultimately trigger any military action, regardless of how much people want to debate the trajectory of the special military operation in Ukraine. It’s obvious that the Ukrainian situation isn't serving its purpose for its Western handlers anymore. So, they’re trying to pile more problems onto Moscow, specifically targeting the Kaliningrad region,” the expert explained.

Furthermore, speaking to Gazete.R, he pointed out that the Baltic states are critically dependent on transit from Russia, meaning any blockade of Kaliningrad won't last long, so this whole blocking nonsense will likely fizzle out into nothing.

“Russia will probably take symmetrical measures against the Baltic states. If they don't allow goods to enter the Kaliningrad region, then Moscow might just shut down all transit through the Baltic states entirely, even through neutral waters in the Baltic Sea. That could even mess with the electricity supply, which is obviously critical for the Baltic,” the expert concluded.

... how one might construct a specific media narrative to dehumanize the Russian Federation...

Alright, the next tough task is trying to force a frog into water.

Andrew Booth29 said:I honestly don't see the point in beating a dead horse here—it’s just handing Russian propaganda a massive victory on a silver platter. If there was anyone left in Russia who had even a shred of doubt regarding Putin's claims about NATO encircling them, they won't have those doubts anymore. This is a total fail, imho.

It’s just the reality on the ground, honestly—hardly even counts as Putin's narrative about Russia being surrounded when you just look at a map of Europe. And the kicker is, this isn't some solo move by Lithuania; they're working right alongside the European Commission on this one.

So what, because they have nuclear weapons we just have to roll over and do whatever they want?

That’s been their entire narrative from day one.

Giving in to that logic is exactly why we're in this mess. The stakes were massive, yet the West blinked.

The Russians are always testing to see where the next line in the sand is. Lithuania is a NATO member. Good luck with whatever threat comes next.

bluerider63 said:It’s just the reality on the ground, honestly—hardly even counts as Putin's narrative about Russia being surrounded when you just look at a map of Europe. And the kicker is, this isn't some solo move by Lithuania; they're working right alongside the European Commission on this one.

Your logic is flawed. Perhaps the Russians should ask themselves why all their neighbors view them with such profound dread and contempt.
For instance, while Mexicans might not exactly harbor affection for Americans, they certainly don't live in fear of them.

By its own actions, Russia has ensured it is encircled by NATO nations.

Nicole James said:They don't have six or seven thousand. Let's be realistic—nuclear projectiles require constant, highly specialized, and expert maintenance to remain viable. It has become painfully obvious that the Russians can barely manage to maintain the tires on their own trucks, let alone complex weaponry. While they undoubtedly possess some functional nuclear capabilities, it isn't anywhere near the level they constantly boast about. If they actually made the decision to launch an attack against NATO, it would effectively mean the end of Russia, one way or another.

If Russia is truly in such a pathetic state, why aren't Poland and the Baltic states starting to push toward Minneapolis?

I honestly feel like this has to reach a breaking point soon—whether we're looking at a nuclear winter or thousands of dead Europeans. Just sitting around waiting for Putin to kick the bucket for some random reason isn't a plan; if anything, that delay might just lead to even bigger disasters down the road.