ADVERTISEMENT

Bob Woodward says Trump & Putin have talked 7 times on the phone since 2021

If I'm not mistaken, Russia's first incursion post the fall of the Soviet Union was Georgia in 2008. There had been a lot of NATO expansion up to that point after the fall.
Yeah, from all the Eastern European and Baltic countries that got gobbled up as either part of the Soviet Empire or one of its forced satellites. Those people spent a half century under the great rule of the Russians and when the Soviet Union came unglued they got a real taste of the West and they decided to permanently bail. Who can blame them?
 
That expansion had not happened in Ukraine. The Russians are dicks. On top of being dicks, they offer nothing of real value to those other countries to overlook the fact that they have a centuries old history of being dicks to their neighbors. I get their POV of feeling a little hemmed in, but that is all because of how they act. Attacking Ukraine does nothing but affirm the feelings of their neighbors that it is a necessity to have a big power on their side because their neighbors are dicks. Attacking the one country on their border they haven't dominated (Belarus) or isn't in NATO is a demonstration to everyone else that all the countries in the former Warsaw Pact or Soviet Union who turned West were 100% correct in that decision.

In short, **** Russia.

That being said, we also have a duty to decide how far we want to stretch our umbrella and do a cost/benefit analysis on where we are willing to existentially threaten our homeland in an effort to provide comfort and protection to others. I think that is a reasonable question to ask about Ukraine.
I agree with this, but wouldn’t we always have to decide how far we’d stretch the umbrella?

For instance, what if Putin did a Hitler and invaded a NATO member, then another, while threatening nuclear war if we get involved? Are we willing to call his bluff? Even if he’s not bluffing? Would we engage in a nuclear exchange to save Europe? We’ve always said we would.

This is where I think Trump is vs. our policy since NATO’s inception. I think he looks at it as “Russia, you can have your empire and we’ll have ours so long as you don’t invade the USA.” I think that even includes allowing them to overrun Europe. In fairness, they couldn’t overrun the Indiana National Guard with conventional forces, but my scenario includes the use/threat of tactical nukes on the battlefield and ICBM’s against us.
 
Growing up, we were always told that Wright Patterson Air Force Base was a top target for a nuclear strike. I have no idea where it might actually rank in terms of targets, but it used to scare the crap out of me as a kid.

There was a brief stretch where I thought I'd end up in some sort of Red Dawn type scenario. Nevermind the fact that I should have been thinking much, much worse apocalyptical stuff.
You may get your chance.
 
I agree with this, but wouldn’t we always have to decide how far we’d stretch the umbrella?

For instance, what if Putin did a Hitler and invaded a NATO member, then another, while threatening nuclear war if we get involved? Are we willing to call his bluff? Even if he’s not bluffing? Would we engage in a nuclear exchange to save Europe? We’ve always said we would.

This is where I think Trump is vs. our policy since NATO’s inception. I think he looks at it as “Russia, you can have your empire and we’ll have ours so long as you don’t invade the USA.” I think that even includes allowing them to overrun Europe. In fairness, they couldn’t overrun the Indiana National Guard with conventional forces, but my scenario includes the use/threat of tactical nukes on the battlefield and ICBM’s against us.
I feel we did draw our line with the countries already in NATO. They got battered in Ukraine, I think they would gladly take an off ramp now.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BradStevens
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT