[Raellus]

I see this as more likely:

The Soviets offer to evac Western personnel from W. Berlin- civilian and military. They also announce that anyone who elects to stay behind is taking his/her life into their own hands, as the Soviets cannot/will not acknowledge responsibility for their well-being. They also offer to provide basic humanitarian supplies (food, water, medical) to those who elect to remain, but they make it clear that the "roads" to Berlin are closed.

Y'all make some good points about just how dire the straits the Soviets are in and I agree that the Soviets don't want the rest of NATO to join in on the fun at the frontier. I just don't see the Soviets allowing Western traffic through an active war-zone during a full-blown shooting war. I'm hard pressed to come up with another example of "neutrals" being allowed safe passage through an active war-zone during a modern war. Was the Suez canal open during the 6-Day War or Yom Kippur wars? Look what happened to that Malayan airliner over Ukraine a couple of years ago- and that was through a designated "safe" air corridor over a "low intensity" conflict zone!

And who are we kidding? With the West actively supporting the Chinese in their war against the USSR, there are no neutrals, really. The Soviets would already be pissed about that and I'm sure there would already have been incidents where Western-flagged merchantmen on their way to China had been sunk by Red Fleet commerce raiders. Tension would already be incredibly high. I just don't see a riled up, backed-into-a-corner Stavka/Politburo being OK with U.S./British/French aircraft flying across the contested frontier and landing in Berlin. What if "relief" flights actually include reinforcements? That paranoia would be there.

And would the West be willing to push an aggressively pro-W. Germany agenda in Europe? It's brinksmanship all around. If the West insists on supplying W. Berlin, it's provocative. If the Soviets declare a land/air blockade, it's provocative. The Soviets have an incentive to de-escalate but we also know that the rest of NATO is extremely reluctant to go to war on behalf of W. Germany. I mean, some of NATO quits over this. Is the U.S., as the helmsman of NATO, going to push an action that could lead to an escalation? I guess it all depends on whether the gov't. is hawkish or not. From canon, it's hard to tell. But canon seems to suggest that the Soviet gov't. is quite hawkish. Does that change between '95 and forced reunification?

And, as a fait accompli, we know from canon that the Soviets were willing to use nukes, and use them first, on both fronts. Therefore, I don't think it's outlandish that the Soviets draw that proverbial line in the sand. You shall not pass! (into W. Berlin).