There's another way to look at this: Putin is a rational, risk-averse actor who only engages in territory acquisition when he can encircle the target and guarantee a win in days during winter (because spring and fall are too muddy for vehicles). Crimea follows this pattern: Russia has a navy in the Black Sea and Sea of Azoz.
The New York Times map [1] of the build up prior to invasion is enlightening and encouraging for Finland and Poland, less so for the Baltic states.
And... the US and allies and also Russia because if Russia attacks them we're 100% going to war with Russia to defend those allies. There's 0 question of that. It goes back to my OP which is what happens after that starts. Putin knows he can't take on NATO 1-1, so why would he attack those countries? Well he has nuclear weapons and can launch tactical nuclear strikes on NATO airbases and dare the west to risk nuclear war over these countries.
The New York Times map [1] of the build up prior to invasion is enlightening and encouraging for Finland and Poland, less so for the Baltic states.
[1] https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2022/world/europe/ukrain...