That is a very valid opinion you have there Web and ties in with a lot of what I've said on the subject.
Even ignoring population demographics, coal deposits, surviving industry etc, Nato holding the Baltic coastline is a MASSIVE advantage over the Pact, both for continuing war efforts (if any) and peace, well, I can't exactly say negotiations given there's no governments left to do it.
To me, holding the Baltic coastline is the key to long term security. The sea in 2000 is an almost unassailable transportation route given the virtually non-existant aviation assets in the world, not to mention almost total lack of effective naval forces (lets face it, a freighter with a 20mm AA gun could probably fight off the best either side has to play with except on a bad day).
Given this, it's no surprise the gamble was taken, nor that the Pact practically battered itself to pieces to prevent it happening.
Spring 2000 both sides still had significant offensive capability, by autumn this was completely gone - on both sides of the fence.
__________________
If it moves, shoot it, if not push it, if it still doesn't move, use explosives.
Nothing happens in isolation - it's called "the butterfly effect"
Mors ante pudorem
|