[AndyJackson]

Or this stunning bit "Like the apartment bombings, the Dubrovka and Beslan incidents sought to achieve unfettered political control over Russia. The theater attack legitimized a renewed assault on the Chechens and was instrumental in quelling dissent from Russians tired of war and international pressure to approve a Chechen constitution for self-governance."

Is the author [of the book or this review] one of the author's of Arab Spring? Is he advocating we continue to side with the [freedom-loving democratically inspired] terrorists in Syria and Chechnya?

Russia has lots of issues. The fall in oil prices has not helped them, but we need to stop, as Buchanan said, slapping their hand away and driving our tanks up to their front porch. They have made clear that if we don't back off they will resort to [tactical] nukes in theater. After we loose an aircraft carrier or an air base with planes in some god-foresaken place in the middle east are we going to launch a global nuclear strike. I don't think so? Our alternative is to seek UN letter of condemnation.

Or we could not get ourselves into those situations in the first place - which is what the smart strategist does. We don't have vital interests in these places. Access to the Black Sea and freedom of shipping into the Med and the rest of the world is a vital Russian interest. Freedom from assault by islamic terrorists is a vital Russian interest.

We need to stop playing "Civil War" where you still get milk and cookies if you lose.

[Scott from the Left Coast]

We have no legitimate national interest in fomenting conflict with Russia over Syria or Ukraine. Ukraine (and Belarus) is and always will be within the Russian sphere of influence and is critical, strategically, to the defense of their nation. In Syria, their efforts could be stabilizing if they were joined, diplomatically or logistically, by the West in destroying the radical elements and ending the conflict.