Indeed, and well argued.

But what if it’s worse than that?

…which is what I find myself asking “quietly” (in CDC/Pfizer jargon) the more I look at the sheer—and consistent—depravity of the “Biden” regime and its comprehensive set of perverse policy goals (foreign AND domestic), goals it plans to “spring” on a naive “audience” that the regime plans to distract, daze, confuse and confound.

(Which brings us to the “plausible deniability” racket…)

It is my understanding that Churchill and FDR made a deal with Stalin because he was their ally in WWII and had advanced from the east and already occupied those lands. Churchill and FDR did not want to fight a new hot war at that point to take them back. They were war-weary.

The Cold War began very quickly after that. Churchill made his “Iron Curtain” speech” speech in March of 1946:

Churchill knew that while the world looked forward to putting the horrors of war behind, events at the beginning of 1946 portended an even darker future ahead. In the wake of the Allied victory, the Soviet Union had begun shaping Eastern Europe in their image, bringing the governments of many nations into line with Moscow. On February 9, Premier Joseph Stalin gave a speech in which he declared that war between the East and West was inevitable. On February 22, the American Ambassador to Moscow, George F. Kennan, sent the famous “Long Telegram” warning of the Soviet Union’s perpetual hostility towards the West.

Then, on March 5, 1946, at Westminster College in Fulton, Churchill’s famous words “From Stettin in the Baltic, to Trieste in the Adriatic, an iron curtain has descended across the continent,” ushered in the Cold War and framed the geo-political landscape for the next 50 years. The former Prime Minister, with President Truman at his side, articulated the threat that the Soviet Union and communism posed to peace and stability in the post-war world.

I think your question has been answered many times already, but I’ll just say it a different way: Hitler thought most of the countries of Europe were a threat to him because they were against his expansionist plans.

A criminal being apprehended by the police thinks the police are a threat to him.

Both are correct. Those entities ARE threats to them. But not because those entities have aggressive designs on them. It’s because those entities are trying to STOP them from taking whatever they want, against the will of the people who occupy those things (in the case of countries) or own those things (in the case of goods being stolen).

Is that screaming, or a bullhorn in the ear?

Well, if you were listening in 2005, would you have guessed that meant he wanted to forcibly reconquer the union republics and satellites? Note, his remarks on the history and political situation in the Ukraine were absurd, which tells us there’s really no boundary to his objects other than physical impediments.

Russia could be an influential country without stomping on other countries. Been done. Note how they reacted to the reversal of fortune suffered by their ally Yanukovich in the Ukraine in 2014 – instead of biding their time, they took a series of actions which worked to alienate the Ukrainian public and cost the Russophile parties 60% of their electorate. Now look what they’re doing – closing down any avenue apart from straight coercion.

Please note, the Soviet Union had a sphere of influence only in Finland. Five other countries were subjugated and three were annexed and subject to Russian colonization.

Waal, you’ve a few weeks to learn.

Do you think it is a good idea that the United States is now legally obligated to go to nuclear war to defend Lithuania, Latvia, Slovenia, etc?

And who would be attempting to conquer any of these places?

Irrelevant to my question, but never mind.

What NATO does is provide a co-ordinated cartel of countries to conduct military operations. Since, in 73 years, it has hardly operated outside a restricted geographical sphere and since, for over 50 years, its principal member has steadily reduced the size of its deployments on the continent (indeed, anywhere in the world), it’s not the most threatening of such cartels. It is, however, an impediment to Russia’s objects.

1. I don’t understand why NATO still exists in its present form.

2. If the primary reason for adding a nation to NATO is to protect that nation from future Russian aggression, we should ask (or should’ve asked) whether going to war to protect that nation is something that makes ANY sense.

And can somebody…ANYBODY…please answer the simple question? Do you think it is a good idea that the United States is now legally obligated to go to nuclear war to defend Lithuania, Latvia, Slovenia, etc?

Mike