re: #125 Dr Lizardo

The “red line” is generally agreed to be if Putin goes after a NATO country. But I confess, I have doubts about that.

If he does, let’s say, one of the Baltic states, how long do you think it’ll be before we start hearing, “Oh, but it’s just Estonia (or Latvia or Lithuania), yeah they’re NATO….but……..”

Regardless of the effectiveness (or lack thereof) of the Russian Army, Putin knows all he has to do is keep shouting, “I have nukes! Give me what I want or else!!” and until someone stands up and says, “LOL no, then you can kiss Nizhny Novgorod goodbye” Putin is going to continue doing this - he knows that there’s a sizeable contingent of the “peace at any price” crowd.

Right now we’re already straddling a line of our own, arguing that “military aid” is separate from “military support.” That shipping weapons to non-NATO countries is separate from sending in NATO troops to fight alongside or on the behalf of those same countries. We’re flying drones in Ukrainian airspace and providing real-time intelligence to the Ukrainian Armed Forces. And we maintain that argument because it gives us a buffer, a paper-thin shield against getting involved in a direct war between NATO and Russia.

Here’s a big question to consider: What if the US signals openness to using nuclear weapons against Russia over Ukraine…and the rest of NATO says “FARK NO!” We’ve discussed in past days about “What US city are we prepared to sacrifice?,” but Article 5 means the US wouldn’t be alone in going toe-to-toe with the Russkies. Either we’d drag the whole of the world into a nuclear war or we’d shatter NATO over Ukraine.