Kaliningrad and the Nuclear Warning: Would a NATO Blockade Be Lawful Under International Law?
Introduction
Kaliningrad returned to the center of NATO–Russia tensions on 30 September 2026. A Russian diplomatic note sent to NATO and reviewed by Reuters stated that Russia would be prepared to use its entire arsenal, including nuclear weapons, if NATO states attempted to isolate the exclave from the rest of Russia. On 1 October, Vladimir Putin addressed the issue directly. He said that a direct attack on Russian territory, including Kaliningrad, would place the use of all weapons available to Russia on the agenda. Putin did not repeat the note’s explicit reference to nuclear weapons in that formulation, although he endorsed the substance of the earlier warning. NATO responded that its exercises and activities did not threaten Russian territory and rejected Russia’s nuclear rhetoric (Reuters, 2026a; Reuters, 2026b; Associated Press, 2026).
The legal characterization of any attempt to isolate Kaliningrad would depend on the measures actually employed. A naval blockade of Russian ports or coasts enforced by NATO armed forces would engage Article 2(4) of the UN Charter. Article 3(c) of General Assembly Resolution 3314 identifies the blockade of a state’s ports or coasts by another state’s armed forces among the acts constituting aggression for the purposes of the Definition of Aggression. That classification does not automatically determine whether every blockade satisfies the separate threshold of an “armed attack” under Article 51. The International Court of Justice has distinguished the most grave forms of the use of force, which constitute armed attacks, from less grave forms (United Nations, 1945, arts 2(4), 51; United Nations General Assembly, 1974, art. 3(c); ICJ, 1986, para. 191).
Without Security Council authorization or a lawful basis in self-defense, a forcible blockade of Kaliningrad would lack a recognized legal basis under the Charter. Chapter VII provides a separate framework for Security Council enforcement action. Article 42 expressly includes blockade among the operations that may be undertaken where measures not involving armed force would be inadequate or have proved inadequate. Kaliningrad’s strategic importance, Russian military deployments there, or concern about a possible future conflict would not independently create a right for NATO states to use force (United Nations, 1945, arts 39–42).
Economic sanctions, customs controls, restrictions on civilian transit, border measures, and similar forms of pressure require separate analysis. Depending on their form and legal basis, they may engage European Union law, transit arrangements, international economic law, or other applicable obligations. Such measures do not, merely because they restrict access to an exclave, become the military blockade contemplated by Resolution 3314 or amount to an armed attack under Article 51.
If Russia carried out a qualifying armed attack against a NATO member, Article 51 could permit individual or collective self-defense. The customary requirements of necessity and proportionality would continue to govern the defensive response. Collective self-defense also requires a request from the state that regards itself as the victim of the armed attack (ICJ, 1986, para. 199). Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty provides the alliance framework for assisting an attacked member, but expressly links that assistance to the right of individual or collective self-defense recognized by Article 51. It does not create an independent exception to the Charter’s rules on force (North Atlantic Treaty, 1949, art. 5; ICJ, 1986).
The nuclear dimension raises an additional question. In its 1996 Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons Advisory Opinion, the International Court of Justice held that the legality of a threatened use of force depends on the legality of the force contemplated. If the envisaged use would be unlawful, the stated readiness to employ it would also violate Article 2(4). Even where self-defense is available, necessity and proportionality remain applicable, and any use of force must also comply with the law governing armed conflict (ICJ, 1996, paras 41–42, 47).
1. Kaliningrad: Exclave, Territory, and Military Position
Kaliningrad is a Russian exclave on the Baltic Sea, separated from mainland Russia and bordered by Lithuania to the north and east and Poland to the south (Presidential Library, 2026). Both neighboring states are members of NATO: Poland joined the Alliance in 1999 and Lithuania in 2004 (NATO, n.d.; NATO, 2004). This geography makes access to the oblast unusually sensitive because communication with mainland Russia depends on maritime and air routes or transit across neighboring states.
The territory’s present status emerged from the settlement following the Second World War. Before 1945, Königsberg was the principal city of the German province of East Prussia. At the Potsdam Conference, the Allied powers agreed in principle to the Soviet proposal concerning the ultimate transfer of Königsberg and the adjacent area to the Soviet Union. The arrangement remained expressly subject to the final determination of territorial questions at a later peace settlement, and the United States and United Kingdom undertook to support the proposal at that settlement (Potsdam Conference, 1945).
Soviet administration followed. On 7 April 1946, the Königsberg region was constituted as an oblast within the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic. On 4 July 1946, the city was renamed Kaliningrad and the oblast received the same name (Presidential Library, 2026). These measures incorporated the territory administratively into the Russian component of the Soviet Union.
The 1990 Treaty on the Final Settlement with Respect to Germany did not itself transfer Kaliningrad to the Soviet Union. Its significance lies in the final settlement of Germany’s borders. Article 1 defined the external borders of united Germany as definitive and recorded Germany’s undertaking that it had no territorial claims against other states and would assert none in the future. The treaty entered into force on 15 March 1991 (Treaty on the Final Settlement with Respect to Germany, 1990).
Following the dissolution of the Soviet Union, Kaliningrad continued as part of the Russian Federation. It is now a constituent subject of the Federation, physically separated from the rest of the country by other states (Presidential Library, 2026). The disappearance of the Soviet territorial framework transformed that separation into a practical issue of international transit and access.
EU sanctions measures illustrate the consequences. European Commission guidance governing transit between Kaliningrad and the rest of Russia distinguishes road and rail transport and prohibits the transit of sanctioned military and dual-use goods (European Commission, 2022). Such arrangements create legal questions concerning movement and access without changing the territorial status of the oblast.
Russian military forces and facilities are also present in Kaliningrad, and the region retains substantial strategic importance. Lithuania’s 2026 National Threat Assessment describes continuing Russian military activity and the use of electronic-warfare capabilities in the oblast; Lithuanian defense authorities have also documented repeated Russian military flights between mainland Russia and Kaliningrad (VSD and AOTD, 2026; Lithuanian Ministry of National Defence, 2026). No fixed troop figure is necessary to establish that military role. The presence of Russian forces does not remove Kaliningrad from the protection of the general prohibition on interstate force in Article 2(4) of the UN Charter (United Nations, 1945).
2. What a NATO Blockade of Kaliningrad Would Mean
The phrase “Kaliningrad blockade” can refer to measures with very different legal consequences. An armed naval operation preventing vessels from entering or leaving Russian ports is not equivalent to economic sanctions, customs controls, closure of a land border, restrictions on civil aviation, or limits on rail traffic through Lithuania.
That distinction reflects the prevailing interpretation of “force” in Article 2(4) of the UN Charter. The prohibition is generally understood to concern armed or military force rather than economic or political coercion, although non-military measures may still be regulated by other rules of international law (Svicevic, 2024). Transit restrictions and sanctions can consequently raise questions under EU law, treaty obligations, sanctions regimes, or trade law without automatically becoming uses of force under Article 2(4).
Kaliningrad provides a concrete example. European Commission guidance regulates transit through Union territory between the oblast and mainland Russia, distinguishing road and rail transport and prohibiting the transit of certain sanctioned goods, including military and dual-use items (European Commission, 2022). These restrictions can materially affect access to the exclave, but they are not for that reason an armed blockade.
A naval operation enforced by warships or other armed forces would fall into a different category. Its purpose would be to deny maritime access to Russian territory through military coercion. General Assembly Resolution 3314 reflects this distinction by referring specifically to the blockade of a state’s ports or coasts by the armed forces of another state (United Nations General Assembly, 1974).
The expression “NATO blockade” also requires institutional precision. NATO relies on forces provided by its member states for Alliance operations, while national governments decide whether to contribute those forces to particular missions (NATO, 2025). A blockade conducted under NATO auspices would consequently involve forces supplied by participating states. Those states would still require a lawful international basis for using force against Russia under the UN Charter.
3. Article 2(4), Blockade, and the Definition of Aggression
Article 2(4) of the UN Charter requires members to refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations (United Nations, 1945). The International Court of Justice has also recognized the prohibition on the use of force as a rule of customary international law independent of the Charter as a treaty (Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua, 1986).
A “use of force,” an “armed attack,” and an “act of aggression” are related but distinct legal concepts. Article 2(4) establishes the general prohibition. Article 51 addresses the right of self-defense if an armed attack occurs, and the ICJ has distinguished armed attacks from less grave forms of unlawful force (Nicaragua, 1986). Article 39, meanwhile, authorizes the Security Council to determine the existence of a threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression (United Nations, 1945).
General Assembly Resolution 3314 is especially relevant to blockade. Article 3(c) identifies the blockade of the ports or coasts of one state by the armed forces of another as an act falling within the Definition of Aggression. Article 2 qualifies that list by allowing the Security Council to consider the surrounding circumstances, including whether the conduct is of sufficient gravity (United Nations General Assembly, 1974).
Resolution 3314 is not a treaty and does not establish an autonomous prohibition replacing Article 2(4). The General Assembly recommended that the Security Council take the Definition into account as guidance when determining whether an act of aggression exists. The ICJ later treated Article 3(g) as reflecting customary international law in Nicaragua, but that does not establish that every provision of Resolution 3314 has customary status. The customary-law status of the Definition as a whole remains disputed (Wilmshurst, 2008).
For Kaliningrad, the distinction has direct consequences. A military operation preventing vessels from reaching Russian ports corresponds closely to the conduct described in Article 3(c), whereas sanctions or restrictions on rail transit through Lithuania do not, without more, constitute that armed act. A peacetime maritime blockade initiated without Security Council authority or a valid basis in self-defense would consequently face the prohibition on interstate force in Article 2(4) (United Nations, 1945; United Nations General Assembly, 1974).
4. When Could a Blockade Be Lawful?
The legality of a blockade depends on the authority for resorting to force, not simply on the label attached to the operation. For the Kaliningrad scenario, the relevant Charter bases are enforcement action under Chapter VII and self-defense under Article 51. Neither gives states a general power to employ military force whenever another state is regarded as dangerous.
Military capability, strategic geography, hostile rhetoric, or political tension do not by themselves create an exception to Article 2(4). The Charter regulates when interstate force may be used, while the ICJ has consistently treated self-defense as subject to defined legal conditions rather than a general claim of security necessity (Nicaragua, 1986; Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo, 2005).
Chapter VII enforcement and self-defense rest on different legal foundations. The former operates through decisions of the Security Council. Article 51, by contrast, expressly preserves the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs. Claims that force may also be used before an attack has occurred raise the separate and contested question of anticipatory self-defense.
4.1 Security Council Authorization
Article 39 empowers the Security Council to determine the existence of a threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression and to decide what measures should follow. Article 41 concerns measures not involving armed force. If the Council considers those measures inadequate, Article 42 permits action by air, sea, or land forces and expressly identifies blockade as one possible form of enforcement action (United Nations, 1945).
A blockade implemented pursuant to a valid Chapter VII decision would thus have a legal basis distinct from unilateral action by NATO member states. Article 48 provides that measures required to carry out Security Council decisions may be implemented by all UN members or by some of them, as the Council determines (United Nations, 1945).
Participating states would remain bound by the terms of the relevant Security Council decision. The scope, targets, conditions, and duration of the mandate would determine what military measures had actually been authorized. A general claim that an operation contributes to international security could not substitute for such authority.
4.2 Self-Defense After an Armed Attack
Article 51 preserves the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs. In Nicaragua, the ICJ held that self-defense under customary international law is subject to necessity and proportionality and treated an armed attack as a necessary condition for the exercise of that right in the circumstances before the Court (Nicaragua, 1986).
Collective self-defense imposes an additional condition. The Court found no customary rule permitting a state to exercise collective self-defense without a request from the state claiming to have suffered the armed attack. It also considered whether the purported victim states themselves regarded the relevant conduct as armed attacks (Nicaragua, 1986). Those requirements would be directly relevant if NATO members sought to justify a blockade as assistance to an attacked ally.
The occurrence of an armed attack would not make every measure against Kaliningrad lawful. A blockade would still have to be necessary for the defensive purpose and proportionate to the attack. Its relationship to the attack, its scale and effects, and the availability of less extensive defensive measures would bear on that assessment.
Oil Platforms illustrates the limits of an asserted self-defense justification. The ICJ was not satisfied that the incidents relied upon by the United States established the necessary armed attack by Iran. It also concluded that the attacks on the Iranian oil platforms did not satisfy the requirements governing necessity and proportionality (Oil Platforms, 2003). An asserted right of self-defense does not, by itself, validate the particular target or form of force chosen.
A blockade imposed before an armed attack occurs would raise the disputed doctrine of anticipatory self-defense. Article 51 expressly refers to an armed attack having occurred, while some states maintain that customary international law permits defensive force where an attack is genuinely imminent. The United Kingdom has publicly adopted that position, but the scope and legal basis of anticipatory self-defense remain unsettled in international law (UK Attorney General, 2017; O’Meara, 2022).
Imminence cannot be reduced to generalized apprehension about another state. Military deployments, exercises, threatening statements, or broader strategic hostility may form part of the factual context, but they do not by themselves establish an imminent armed attack. Any claim to anticipatory self-defense would have to satisfy the demanding requirements attached to that doctrine, including the necessity of using force before the anticipated attack occurs (O’Meara, 2022).
5. NATO Article 5 and the Limits of Collective Defense
Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty does not establish an independent entitlement to use military force outside the UN Charter. Its text expressly connects collective defense with “the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51” of the Charter. An armed attack falling within Article 5 may trigger the allies’ treaty obligations, but it does not create a separate exception to Article 2(4) (North Atlantic Treaty, 1949).
Article 5 also leaves the form of assistance to each ally. A party must take the action it considers necessary to assist the attacked state, and that action may include armed force. The treaty does not require every member to adopt the same military response or to participate in every operation undertaken in collective defense (North Atlantic Treaty, 1949).
This distinction is important in relation to Kaliningrad. A qualifying Russian armed attack against a NATO ally could engage Article 5 and provide the context for collective self-defense under Article 51. It would not establish, without further analysis, that a blockade of Kaliningrad was necessary or proportionate to that attack. Those requirements attach to the particular defensive action rather than to the existence of the alliance obligation alone.
Article 4 operates at a different stage. It provides for consultation whenever a member considers that the territorial integrity, political independence, or security of a party is threatened (North Atlantic Treaty, 1949). Consultation over a perceived threat to Poland, Lithuania, or another ally does not establish that an armed attack has occurred. Political concern, alliance consultation, military preparedness, and a legal entitlement to use interstate force remain distinct.
6. Putin’s Nuclear Warning as a Threat of Force
The Russian communication of 30 September and Putin’s statement the following day did not describe the same factual trigger. The diplomatic note reviewed by Reuters expressly stated that Russia could use its entire arsenal, including nuclear weapons, if NATO states attempted to isolate Kaliningrad. Putin subsequently referred to a direct attack on Russian territory, specifically mentioning Kaliningrad, and said that such an attack would place the use of all weapons available to Russia on the agenda. Associated Press reported that Putin said the earlier warning had been written correctly, while also noting that he did not expressly state in his direct-attack formulation that nuclear weapons would be used (Reuters, 2026a; Reuters, 2026b; Associated Press, 2026).
That difference is legally significant. Article 2(4) governs both the threat and the use of force. In the Nuclear Weapons Advisory Opinion, the ICJ stated that a declared readiness to use force is unlawful where the envisaged use would itself be contrary to the Charter. The legality of the threat cannot be separated from the circumstances in which the threatened force would be employed (ICJ, 1996, para. 47).
Measures described politically as the “isolation” of Kaliningrad would not necessarily amount to an armed attack. Sanctions, customs restrictions, civilian transit controls, or other non-forcible measures may raise substantial legal questions under other bodies of law, but Article 51 is triggered by an armed attack. Serious economic or political consequences do not, without the required use of force and gravity, establish that condition (United Nations, 1945, art. 51; ICJ, 1986, paras 191, 195).
A direct armed attack on Russian territory would present a different legal situation. If the conditions of Article 51 were satisfied, Russia could invoke individual self-defense. That entitlement would not validate every possible response. The International Court of Justice has repeatedly treated necessity and proportionality as requirements of lawful self-defense. In Oil Platforms, the Court examined those criteria separately when assessing the United States’ reliance on self-defense and rejected the proposition that an alleged armed attack alone was sufficient to justify the force employed (ICJ, 2003, paras 73–77).
The use or threat of nuclear weapons remains subject to those constraints. The ICJ stated in 1996 that necessity and proportionality apply to self-defense whatever means of force are employed. It further held that proportionality under the law of self-defense does not dispense with the requirements of international humanitarian law governing the conduct of hostilities (ICJ, 1996, paras 41–42).
The Court did not establish a general exception permitting nuclear weapons whenever a state invokes self-defense. It concluded that, given the state of international law and the factual material before it, it could not determine definitively whether the threat or use of nuclear weapons would be lawful or unlawful in an extreme circumstance of self-defense in which the very survival of a state would be at stake. The opinion left that narrow question unresolved rather than creating an affirmative entitlement to nuclear use in such circumstances (ICJ, 1996).
Nor does the present factual record establish that NATO has decided to attack or militarily blockade Kaliningrad. NATO’s response to the Russian communication stated that its exercises and activities posed no threat to Russian territory. Associated Press separately reported NATO spokesperson Allison Hart’s statement that NATO was not targeting Kaliningrad. NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte likewise described the alliance as defensive and called on Russia to stop making nuclear threats (Reuters, 2026a; Associated Press, 2026).
7. The Law of Blockade Once Armed Conflict Exists
The legality of resorting to a blockade and the legality of conducting one are separate questions. The first belongs to the jus ad bellum and concerns whether force may lawfully be used at all. Once an international armed conflict exists, naval operations are also governed by international humanitarian law and the law of armed conflict at sea. Compliance with the latter rules cannot supply a retrospective legal basis for an otherwise unlawful resort to force.
No single modern treaty comprehensively codifies naval blockade. The 1994 San Remo Manual on International Law Applicable to Armed Conflicts at Sea was prepared by international lawyers and naval experts as a contemporary restatement of the law governing armed conflict at sea. It is not a treaty. Although much of the Manual was intended to reflect existing law, some provisions were acknowledged as involving progressive development (San Remo Manual, 1994).
The Manual requires a blockade to be declared and notified to belligerent and neutral states and specifies that the declaration should identify matters such as its commencement, duration, location, and extent. A blockade must also be effective as a matter of fact (San Remo Manual, 1994, paras. 93–95). These requirements distinguish an operative naval blockade from a political declaration that an adversary is to be isolated.
Neutral rights impose further limits. A blockade may not bar access to the ports and coasts of neutral states and must be applied impartially to the vessels of all states (San Remo Manual, 1994, paras. 99–100). In a Baltic conflict involving Kaliningrad, the position of states not participating in the hostilities could consequently affect the lawful execution of the blockade.
Civilian consequences are equally important. The San Remo Manual prohibits a blockade whose sole purpose is starving civilians or denying them objects essential for survival. It also prohibits a blockade when the expected harm to civilians would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated and addresses the passage of essential supplies for inadequately provided civilian populations (San Remo Manual, 1994, paras. 102–104).
Additional Protocol I reinforces the protection of civilians for states bound by the treaty. Article 54 prohibits starvation of civilians as a method of warfare and protects objects indispensable to their survival, while Article 70 regulates humanitarian relief for inadequately supplied civilian populations (Additional Protocol I, 1977). The Protocol’s rules concerning attacks at sea apply to effects on civilians and civilian objects on land as specified in Article 49(3); they do not constitute a comprehensive treaty code of naval blockade.
Not every possible participant in a NATO operation is a party to Additional Protocol I, so treaty obligations under the Protocol cannot simply be attributed to all NATO members. Separate customary rules remain relevant. The ICRC’s customary-law study identifies prohibitions on starvation of civilians, attacks against objects indispensable to survival, and arbitrary obstruction of humanitarian relief as rules of customary international humanitarian law (ICRC, 2005).
Kaliningrad is an inhabited region as well as a military area. Even if a blockade had a valid basis under Article 51 or Chapter VII, its effects on civilians, essential supplies, humanitarian relief, and civilian objects would require separate legal scrutiny. A lawful basis for resorting to force would not settle the legality of the blockade’s implementation.
8. Applying the Rules to the Kaliningrad Scenarios
The clearest case is a military blockade initiated by NATO member states in peacetime, where no qualifying armed attack has occurred, and no Security Council authority exists. An operation using armed forces to prevent maritime access to Russian ports would engage Article 2(4) and closely resemble the blockade identified in Article 3(c) of the Definition of Aggression. Strategic concern about Kaliningrad would not itself supply an exception to the prohibition on force (United Nations, 1945; United Nations General Assembly, 1974).
The position changes if Russia first carries out an armed attack against a NATO ally and the attacked state requests collective assistance. Article 51 could then provide a legal basis for collective self-defense, while Article 5 would govern the alliance obligation among NATO members. That would establish a possible entitlement to use defensive force, not an automatic entitlement to blockade Kaliningrad.
The blockade itself would still have to satisfy necessity and proportionality. Its connection to the armed attack, its military purpose, its scale, its effects, and the availability of less extensive defensive measures would all bear on that assessment (Nicaragua, 1986; Oil Platforms, 2003).
If the jus ad bellum requirements were satisfied and an international armed conflict existed, the execution of the blockade would remain subject to the law of armed conflict at sea and applicable international humanitarian law. The San Remo rules concerning effectiveness, neutrality, civilian harm, and essential supplies would remain relevant, while treaty rules such as Additional Protocol I would bind states according to their treaty obligations and customary IHL would operate independently where applicable.
A Security Council-authorized blockade would rest on another legal foundation. Article 42 expressly includes blockade among the enforcement measures available under Chapter VII (United Nations, 1945). States implementing such a decision would have to remain within the terms of the Council’s mandate and comply with the international law governing the conduct of the operation.
Sanctions, railway restrictions, border controls, and naval blockade consequently cannot be treated as interchangeable forms of “isolation.” Their legal consequences depend on the means employed and the authority relied upon. In the Kaliningrad context, identifying the measure precisely is a prerequisite to determining which rules govern it.
Also read
Conclusion
A NATO naval blockade directed against Kaliningrad’s ports or coast could not be justified merely by the exclave’s strategic importance, its military infrastructure, or concern about Russian intentions. In the absence of Security Council authorization or a lawful basis in self-defense, such a forcible operation would engage Article 2(4) of the UN Charter and correspond to the form of blockade listed in Article 3(c) of General Assembly Resolution 3314 (United Nations, 1945; United Nations General Assembly, 1974).
That conclusion does not place every restriction affecting Kaliningrad within the law of military blockade. Sanctions, customs controls, border restrictions, and limits on civilian transit must be assessed according to their actual character and the legal regimes governing them. Nor does Resolution 3314’s treatment of blockade as an act of aggression eliminate the separate Article 51 inquiry. The ICJ’s jurisprudence distinguishes armed attacks from less grave forms of unlawful force, making the nature and gravity of the particular operation legally significant (ICJ, 1986, para. 191).
The Russian statements of 30 September and 1 October also require separate treatment. The diplomatic note reported by Reuters expressly referred to nuclear weapons in connection with an attempt to isolate Kaliningrad. Putin’s later statement addressed a direct attack and referred to all weapons available to Russia, without repeating that explicit nuclear formulation. International law consequently cannot assess the two scenarios as though they presented the same predicate for the use of force (Reuters, 2026a; Reuters, 2026b; Associated Press, 2026).
Even where an armed attack gives rise to a right of self-defense, that right does not confer an unrestricted entitlement to threaten or use nuclear weapons. Necessity and proportionality continue to govern defensive force, while international humanitarian law remains applicable to the conduct of hostilities. The ICJ’s inability in 1996 to reach a definitive conclusion in the exceptional circumstance involving the survival of a state left a narrow legal question unresolved. It did not displace the Charter rules governing force or the humanitarian rules applicable in armed conflict (ICJ, 1996, paras 41–42, 47).
References
Additional Protocol I (1977) Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and Relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol I), adopted at Geneva, 8 June 1977, entered into force 7 December 1978, 1125 UNTS 3. Available at: https://treaties.un.org/Pages/showDetails.aspx?objid=08000002800f3586 (Accessed: 30 September 2026).
European Commission (2022) ‘Transport of goods in transit through the Union between the Kaliningrad Oblast and Russia’ [online]. Available at: https://finance.ec.europa.eu/publications/transport-goods-transit-through-union-between-kaliningrad-oblast-and-russia_en (Accessed: 30 September 2026).
Henckaerts, J.-M. and Doswald-Beck, L. (2005) Customary International Humanitarian Law. Volume I: Rules. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Available at: https://www.icrc.org/en/doc/assets/files/other/customary-international-humanitarian-law-i-icrc-eng.pdf (Accessed: 30 September 2026).
International Court of Justice (1986) Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States of America), Merits, Judgment, 27 June, I.C.J. Reports 1986, p. 14. Available at: https://www.icj-cij.org/node/103143 (Accessed: 30 September 2026).
International Court of Justice (1996) Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, Advisory Opinion, 8 July, I.C.J. Reports 1996, p. 226. Available at: https://www.icj-cij.org/node/103787 (Accessed: 30 September 2026).
International Court of Justice (2003) Oil Platforms (Islamic Republic of Iran v. United States of America), Judgment, 6 November, I.C.J. Reports 2003, p. 161. Available at: https://www.icj-cij.org/node/103215 (Accessed: 30 September 2026).
International Court of Justice (2005) Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo (Democratic Republic of the Congo v. Uganda), Judgment, 19 December, I.C.J. Reports 2005, p. 168. Available at: https://www.icj-cij.org/node/103161 (Accessed: 30 September 2026).
Lithuanian Ministry of National Defence (2026) ‘Data on interceptions of aircraft completed near the Baltic States’ borders on June 1–7, 2026’ [online], 8 June. Available at: https://kam.lt/en/data-on-interceptions-of-aircraft-completed-near-the-baltic-states-borders-on-june-1-7-2026/ (Accessed: 30 September 2026).
NATO (2004) ‘Seven new members join NATO’ [online], 29 March. Available at: https://www.nato.int/en/news-and-events/articles/news/2004/03/29/seven-new-members-join-nato (Accessed: 30 September 2026).
NATO (2025) ‘Troop contributions’ [online], updated 3 April 2025. Available at: https://www.nato.int/en/what-we-do/operations-and-missions/troop-contributions (Accessed: 30 September 2026).
NATO (n.d.) ‘NATO member countries’ [online], updated 11 March 2024. Available at: https://www.nato.int/en/about-us/organization/nato-member-countries (Accessed: 30 September 2026).
North Atlantic Treaty (1949) signed at Washington, DC, 4 April 1949, entered into force 24 August 1949, 34 UNTS 243. Available at: https://treaties.un.org/pages/showDetails.aspx?objid=080000028016226c (Accessed: 30 September 2026).
O’Meara, C. (2022) ‘Reconceptualising the right of self-defence against “imminent” armed attacks’, Journal on the Use of Force and International Law, 9(2), pp. 278–323. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/20531702.2022.2097618 (Accessed: 30 September 2026).
Potsdam Conference (1945) ‘Protocol of the Proceedings of the Berlin Conference’, 1 August, in Foreign Relations of the United States, Diplomatic Papers, The Conference of Berlin (The Potsdam Conference), 1945, Vol. II, No. 1383. Available at: https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1945Berlinv02/d1383 (Accessed: 30 September 2026).
Presidential Library (2026) ‘Президентская библиотека к 80-летию Калининградской области’ [Presidential Library marks the 80th anniversary of Kaliningrad Oblast] [online], 7 April. Available at: https://www.prlib.ru/news/2097327 (Accessed: 30 September 2026).
Reuters (2026) ‘Russia sends nuclear warning to NATO as tensions rise in the Baltic’ [online], 30 September. Available at: https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense/russia-issues-nuclear-warning-nato-tensions-rise-baltic-2026-09-30/ (Accessed: 30 September 2026).
San Remo Manual on International Law Applicable to Armed Conflicts at Sea (1994) adopted at Livorno, 12 June 1994; reprinted in International Review of the Red Cross (1995), 35(309), pp. 595–637. Available at: https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/ihl-treaties/san-remo-manual-1994 (Accessed: 30 September 2026).
State Security Department of the Republic of Lithuania (VSD) and Defence Intelligence and Security Service under the Ministry of National Defence of the Republic of Lithuania (AOTD) (2026) National Threat Assessment 2026. Vilnius: VSD and AOTD. Available at: https://www.vsd.lt/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/2026-GR-ENG-El.pdf (Accessed: 30 September 2026).
Svicevic, M. (2024) ‘Use of force’, in González Hauck, S., Kunz, R. and Milas, M. (eds.) Public International Law: A Multi-Perspective Approach. Abingdon: Routledge, pp. 401–420.
Treaty on the Final Settlement with Respect to Germany (1990) signed at Moscow, 12 September 1990, entered into force 15 March 1991, 1696 UNTS 115. Available at: https://treaties.un.org/Pages/showDetails.aspx?clang=_en&objid=08000002800b8042 (Accessed: 30 September 2026).
UK Attorney General (2017) ‘Attorney General’s speech at the International Institute for Strategic Studies’ [online], 11 January. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/attorney-generals-speech-at-the-international-institute-for-strategic-studies (Accessed: 30 September 2026).
United Nations (1945) Charter of the United Nations, signed at San Francisco, 26 June 1945, entered into force 24 October 1945, 1 UNTS XVI. Available at: https://treaties.un.org/pages/ViewDetails.aspx?chapter=1&clang=_en&mtdsg_no=I-1&src=IND (Accessed: 30 September 2026).
United Nations General Assembly (1974) Definition of Aggression, Resolution 3314 (XXIX), A/RES/3314(XXIX), 14 December 1974. Available at: https://legal.un.org/avl/ha/da/da.html (Accessed: 30 September 2026).
Wilmshurst, E. (2008) ‘Definition of Aggression: General Assembly resolution 3314 (XXIX) of 14 December 1974 – Introductory Note’, United Nations Audiovisual Library of International Law [online]. Available at: https://legal.un.org/avl/ha/da/da.html (Accessed: 30 September 2026).
Associated Press (2026) ‘Putin says Russia will use “all weapons” in its arsenal if any of its territory is attacked’, 1 October [online]. Available at: https://apnews.com/article/aff3356bf202ba72507f02fd1fafcede (Accessed: 2 October 2026).
Charter of the United Nations (1945) signed 26 June 1945, entered into force 24 October 1945, 1 UNTS XVI.
International Court of Justice (1986) Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States of America), Merits, Judgment, 27 June 1986, I.C.J. Reports 1986, p. 14.
International Court of Justice (1996) Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, Advisory Opinion, 8 July 1996, I.C.J. Reports 1996, p. 226.
International Court of Justice (2003) Oil Platforms (Islamic Republic of Iran v. United States of America), Judgment, 6 November 2003, I.C.J. Reports 2003, p. 161.
North Atlantic Treaty (1949) signed at Washington, D.C., 4 April 1949, entered into force 24 August 1949, 34 UNTS 243.
Reuters (2026a) ‘Russia sends nuclear warning to NATO as tensions rise in the Baltic’, 30 September [online]. Available at: https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense/russia-issues-nuclear-warning-nato-tensions-rise-baltic-2026-09-30/ (Accessed: 2 October 2026).
Reuters (2026b) ‘Putin says the world is living through a dangerous moment, warns West not to escalate’, 1 October [online]. Available at: https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/putin-says-world-is-living-through-dangerous-moment-warns-west-not-escalate-2026-10-01/ (Accessed: 2 October 2026).
United Nations General Assembly (1974) Definition of Aggression, UNGA Resolution 3314 (XXIX), UN Doc A/RES/3314(XXIX), 14 December 1974.