So - let’s frame the scenario. Things are as they are today in 2026 and Russia goes with a coordinated attack against the Baltics, as it seems the most likely path. Romania and Poland are bigger prizes, but NATO members more coldly critical to NATO than the Baltics. But also - WAY too big and strong by themselves for Russia to take on right now. And Ukraine is in the way anwyays. The russian attack today is not a stray drone on a fringe border region, or handfuls of little green men - it’s a full combined arms assault, a new phase against even a single state. It can really ONLY be the Baltics.

**Would Germany and other NATO allies (at least the European ones) respond? In short - whether they would or not is less important than this: Russia is ACTING like they believe they would. **

Why say that? Because they haven’t done it yet. And even though it presents certain risks, the reasonably achievable reward might be worth it. Russia is pot committed to a reasonable return on this war at this point. Putin’s legacy and personal safety is tied to somehow getting a settlement he doesn’t deserve. But - that’s 2026 thinking - let’s go back to 2022 and role-play as a maniacal Russian leader looking to cement his legacy as The Great Restorer:

First - what is The Prize? Remember that the state of play today is not what it was at the start of the war. Let’s start with two scenarios starting in Feb 2022. Nukes are off the table, as they don’t really achieve what you want in a war of conquest - you don’t nuke what you claim is yours, and it’s not a worthwhile to take control of an irradiated ashtray. And China won’t let them - but that’s a topic for another day. You’re Putin on Feb 21, 2022. Here’s your options.

1. Invade Ukraine

PROs:

• It has always been the crown jewel colony of the Russian empire. The industrial, agricultural, spiritual turbocharger
• Large Russian speaking population you hope will welcome you.
• Ethnic population ‘close enough’ to real russians to offset a century of demographic necropsy
• Other former soviet republics forced to rethink pivoting allegiances to China or the West
• Non-NATO member, don’t have to worry about Art 5.
• You feel you are ready. You have invested years of FSB effort and billions in bribes into being a corrosive dickhead next door to keep Ukraine weak and occassionally compliant with puppets like Yanukovich.
• China’s support is assured in a likely quid pro quo for their own planned invasion of Taiwan. They have your back - To protect it now, and put a dagger in it later.

CONs:

• It’s really big and they might fight back
• Requires WAAAAY more of everything than the resources required to take than the Baltics. Missiles, navy, army, air force, logistics etc
• Requires much, MUCH larger occupation force. Mitigated in that probably expected a short, brutal campaign of extermination to cow the population into compliance, then use reconstitued domestic Berkut forces to keep order for a puppet regime
• Invetiably, but hopefully short term sanctions as the feckless pussies in the west just accept things as they are. This IS what they did in the earliest days, when it seemed like it would be a short affair. Sustained support didn’t come until it was clear that Ukraine wasn’t going to slip away into the pages of history like the Circassians (google it - it’s a thing)

2. Invade the Baltics

PROs:

• Baltic Sea access to resolve bottlenecks in St. Petersburg and Kaliningrad
• Only a couple hundred miles across. Probably can overwhelm any defences within 1-2 months tops with the 2022 version of your army
• Direct access from controlled borders
• When the shooting starts, NATO PROBABLY does not go to war against 2022 Russia over a Baltic state.
• If you win, you’ve destroyed Article 5 and permanently reduced NATO’s standing

CONs:

• NATO countries, theoretically under Article 5 protection
• NATO troops stationed there would most certainly suffer casulaties
• Biden is still president in 2022, ensuring a more robust response than Krasnov
• If you invade the Baltics, there are no more delusions about your imperial intentions - you’ve attacked the strongest alliance in history as the first stroke. Invading Ukraine later becomes theoretically harder without any element of surprise. Any future build up or troop movements would be carefully monitored and an invasion assumed likely. And it probably generates a more robust level of NATO support for Ukraine regardless of the outcome of Phase 1.
• China PROBABLY won’t offer the same level of support in the even of a brazen invasion against NATO countries than they will against Ukraine, which they will say is an issue of internal historic security as opposed to attacking even the fringes the world’s strongest alliance. China doesn’t want to even chance finding out that article 5 is stronger than they expect.

Summary: Ukraine is the bigger prize, with less baggage. The Baltics are the easier target with more entanglemens. Putin goes with Ukraine, expecting an easy collapse. We all know what has happened since.

But - it’s now 2026, and the question is - would Germany and NATO allies actually fight back, with meaningful force, if an attack occurred today?

Probably they would. And probably it would be a quick overwhelming snapback against solely Russian military targets given the state of Russian air defense today. Every military target in Kaliningrad would be hit, the Baltic and Arctic Fleets would probably be wiped out in a day. Your subs would be stranded at sea unable to resupply and would be hunted down and destroyed within 3-6 months. In a month NATO would probably be enforcing a no-fly zone over all of Ukraine.

A No-fly zone over Ukraine is the end of the war, for this reason: Russia’s overall strategy is as follows:

1. Pushing low functioning grunts into softly defended areas hoping organized Ukrainian defense will retreat because of logistic and resupply reasons. This isn’t a great strategy, as they’re getting droned into piles of oatmeal, either immediately, soon, or eventually.

2. Long range terror attacks from stand-off distance. Uses a lot of impossible to replace resources, but Ukraine can’t really stop it by themselves.

3. Keep doing 1 & 2 until Ukraine gives you something to make it stop. This isn’t a great strategy for an invader who wanted it all - but it IS what they’re reduced to today.

#1 only works if Ukraine runs out of land to temporarily concede and agrees to stop killing infilrtration/occupation forces at some point.

#2 has never ever worked as a strategy to overthrow an industrial society. Not in the Battle of Britain, not in Vietnam, Not even with the full allied strategic bombing campaigns in WW2 against Germany and Japan, you needed a large ground force invasion right to center of the capitol for the former, and atomic weapons for the latter.

Ukraine can handle #1 by itself - Russia’s tactics of pushing useless mouths forward to be droned will not achieve anything if Ukraine refuses to stop kiling them. Domestic drone production and deployment can bleed the Russian army white at this point.

As for #2 - a NATO no-fly zone would reduce Russia’s stand off terror attacks to zero effectiveness, and would inevitably lead to NATO hitting irreplaceable Russian aircraft, to which Russia can’t reasonably respond. Europe and more steps to escalate to, and Russia doesn’t. NATO EU countries could send in ground forces (but probably wouldn’t), and completely unrestrained volumes of air defense assets, since you are in open war against Russia at that point - no need to hold back domestic stockpiles like they are today. And they could unleash devastating economic penalties against russia. Remember - the EU is EVEN STILL buying LOTS of Russian energy, which would likely curtail in case of open conflict.

Thus - Neither #1 nor #2 by themsleves gets you anything justifying what you’ve lost in this historically stupid invasion. Attacking NATO directly at LEAST gets a more robust response that costs you Kaliningrad, the Atlantic Fleets, and most crucially, incurs a no-fly zone that ends the effectiveness of your air terror campaign. In effect - it ends the war and you’d end up with less in settlement than you have today.

In conclusion - whether NATO would retaliate or not is less important than the fact that Russia is acting like they think that they would. They’re probably right - 2026 NATO is probably ready to respond to the 2026 version of the Russian Army. The 2022 version of the EU probably would have folded for a diplomatic solution, even with a Biden presidency providing a stiffer backbone to Article 5. It might well have been a much better idea for Russia to invade the Baltics instead of Ukraine. As Ukrainians have said - we are lucky they are so stupid.

Thoughts? Let’s have a chin wag.