I have a large map of the world mounted on my office wall, and I do fairly well on the geography quizzes.
The mistake we make with adding countries to NATO is that we are increasing our risk and could undermine the credibility of NATO if we fail to act. Georgia was part of Russia. It is not the same as France, Germany, Poland, or Turkey.
I agree that it increases the risk. Is it worth the risk to admit Georgia and Ukraine? In my opinion, yes. Moscow is a growing threat to the world again. This is not the time to act cowardly about confronting the threat. But it doesn't mean that we'll start nuking each other.
We defeated the Soviet Union with Stinger missiles and a good economy. No nuclear weapons were needed. We can defeat Russia with conventional means again, if it becomes necessary.
I miss Boris Yeltsin. Things were better when he was in charge. Russia needs another Yeltsin.
So how well do you think NATO can project conventional forces into Georgia? It was tough enough just to do it in Kosovo and Bosnia.
I agree that it increases the risk. Is it worth the risk to admit Georgia and Ukraine? In my opinion, yes.
We will agree to disagree. The risk is far greater than the reward. It feeds into Russian paranoia and is counterproductive.
This is not the time to act cowardly about confronting the threat. But it doesn't mean that we'll start nuking each other.
I prefer the word prudently vice cowardly. We don't have the conventional force to confront Russia militarily in Georgia or the Ukraine. We are much better off using other means to defeat their ambitions.
We defeated the Soviet Union with Stinger missiles and a good economy.
LOL. It took almost 50 years of the Cold War to defeat the Soviet Union and communism. Korea, Vietnam, the Cuban-missile crisis, Berlin airlift, Greneda, etc. were all part of it along with our assisting either overtly or covertly the Eastern Europeans and Afghans. We expended a huge amount of resources to provide a security umbrella for Europe and Japan. Many lives were lost. To dismiss all of this and attribute the defeat of the Soviet Union to stinger missiles and a good economy ignores history and the facts. The defeat of the Soviet Union started with the "Long Telegram" and ended with the fall of the Berlin Wall.
No nuclear weapons were needed
What planet are you living on/ If you don't think that the thousands of nuclear weapons in our arsenal had no effect on the fall of the Soviet Union, you have no understanding of deterrence and the containment policy.
We can defeat Russia with conventional means again, if it becomes necessary.
It depends on what you mean by defeat. And certainly the downfall of the Soviet Union was not caused by just "conventional means."