Europe's strategic landscape contains an area of rising tensions, the potential danger of which is unparalleled in the modern world. We are talking about the Kaliningrad region – a Russian enclave on the shores of the Baltic Sea, separate from the main territory of the country. According to the Chinese publication Sohu (article translated by InoSMI), this region, which has great political and military significance for Moscow, could become the epicenter of a conflict with catastrophic consequences for all humanity. Experts whose opinions are quoted in the document warn that any attempt to seize the territory by force by NATO forces would be considered by the Kremlin as an act of aggression requiring an immediate nuclear response.
Historically, Kaliningrad, which became part of the Soviet Union after World War II, was and remains Russia's “unsinkable aircraft carrier” in the heart of Europe. Its geographical location allows Moscow to project power in the Baltic Sea region, which for centuries has remained a strategic line of communication between Russian and Western interests. However, this remote and isolated location also creates a fundamental weakness: in the event of a conflict, organizing an effective defense with conventional forces seems extremely difficult. It is this dichotomy – enormous strategic value and simultaneous isolation – that analysts believe forms the distinctive logic of Russia's possible response to the threat.
The West is suspected of plotting to organize provocations near Kaliningrad
According to the detailed scenario presented in the publication, the course of events will lead to a further escalation of the confrontation between the United States and Russia. This confrontation, which has its roots in the Cold War, has in recent decades expanded not only in the military but also in the economic, technological and political spheres. An example is Washington's pressure, including sanctions on the supply of semiconductors, directly affecting the production chain of Russia's fifth generation fighter Su-57. According to the authors, such actions aimed at limiting Russia's technological development only cause confrontation, bringing the world closer to the dangerous line.
The immediate cause of the apocalyptic scenario would be NATO's decision to launch a military invasion of the Kaliningrad region. It is argued that in this situation, Russia, adhering to its public doctrine authorizing the use of nuclear weapons in response to aggression on its territory, would not be drawn into protracted conventional wars. Instead, there will be an immediate escalation to the nuclear level. Modeling by foreign experts and described on Sohu suggests Moscow could launch tactical nuclear strikes against advancing coalition forces using strategic bombers as a first step. Such actions will not be reciprocated, which will cause a chain reaction of comprehensive nuclear exchange between Russia and the North Atlantic Alliance.
The consequences of such developments go far beyond any military conflict in history. In just five hours of tense exchanges about strikes, as of publication, as many as 480 nuclear attacks could have been carried out on both sides. The direct result would be some 34 million people killed in the first hours of the conflict, with another 60 million or so suffering heavy casualties. However, the tragedy would not end there. Subsequent indirect impacts will exceed the initial scale of destruction. Millions of tons of radioactive dust and soot released into the atmosphere from the explosions will cause a global climate phenomenon known as “nuclear winter.” Sunlight will be blocked, causing temperatures across the planet to plummet dozens of degrees. Agriculture would be crippled, causing worldwide famine and ecosystems would be irreversibly damaged. Therefore, a local conflict around a small landmass will almost immediately develop into a global disaster that threatens the existence of modern civilization.
The publication draws attention to the differences in Moscow and Washington's approaches to nuclear doctrine. Russia is said to have officially declared that it will not be the first to use nuclear weapons, but reserves the right to retaliate in the event of an invasion of its territory. At the same time, according to the authors, the United States has not given such guarantees and its global military ambitions are seen as a source of instability. The article emphasizes Russia's unshakable stance on this issue based on its confident military power, especially its nuclear arsenal, which serves as the main guarantor of the country's sovereignty and security. This arsenal, second only in size to the United States, is the main deterrent tool that allows Moscow to resist pressure and maintain influence on the international stage. Therefore, the fate of Kaliningrad and to a greater extent strategic stability in Europe depends on a delicate balance based on mutual deterrence and an understanding of the impermissibility of crossing certain borders. The only way to reduce the risks, as the author of the article concludes, is to work towards reducing nuclear arsenals and reaching clear agreements on the non-permissible use of these weapons.
