Well, I don't know how badly Obama has damaged our military. But yes, we should be ready to stand agaisnt Putin's aggression in the Ukraine at least. Despite our shortcomings, we still stand as a sentinel for freedom in the world. And despite the likes of Pat Buchanan, who I generally admire and respect, but not when it comes to foreign policy, it is also in America's best interest to do so. You either stop an aggressor against a free and sovereign country over there, or you are battling the same guy right here as we would have had we not entered WWII when we did.
Does it need to be "total war?" No becasue Russia is still a lot of show of hardware but economically very weak and would almost certainly back down if confronted with greater force. But Putin as tested the lukewarm Obama waters and found them favorable to his purposes. Reagan called their bluff and won. It's the same bluff now. We should stand up to them regardless but we are stronger than they are. As for as NATO, they were not nor ever have been, a means of aggression. NATO is a defensive block against the likes of USSR and Russia. Nothing wrong with that.
Yes, total war. Only a fool would commit to war with a major power on the wishful supposition that the conflict will be limited in its duration, severity or geography. Once a nation is attacked on its own doorstep, its survival is at stake and it is therefore justified to use every weapon or tactic at its disposal in order to defend itself.
Ukraine is a distant and isolated target for the West, but it is right in Russia's backyard. Overland access from Poland is long and subject to disruption from Belarus. Seaborne access to the Black Sea is worse; the Bosporus and Dardanelles choke points that favored NATO's defense against the Soviets are now a Russian defensive advantage against a NATO invasion. American ships ferrying military supplies would be legitimate military targets, and American ports, bridges and cities would be no more "off limits" than their Russian counterparts that we would attack. The Russian people lead a more primitive life than we Americans enjoy, and can endure much greater hardships that Americans are willing to stomach. And if things turn badly against Russia in a conventional war with its enemies at its gates, Moscow's doomsday nuclear option is still equal or better than ours. All is fair when survival is in the balance.
Crimea is absolutely vital to the strategic defense of Russia, therefore Moscow rationally must go to war to keep it. On the other hand, Crimea is not at all vital to the defense of the United States or Western Europe, and is not worth going to war to capture. To whom is the Black Sea most valuable, and which side is willing to die for it? All noble sentiments and rhetoric aside, that is the equation.
There can be no safe assumptions in an offensive war on Russia's doorstep. So before you commit to war, you'd better be certain that you're willing to see it through to the end, win or lose.
Yup.