Yes, it is all insane and the scary part is that Putin, showing suicidal tendencies more regularly now, has access to 000's of tactical (short-range) nukes capable of disastrous, if not outright catastrophic, devastation of NATO cities and ports. The likelihood he uses them is probably around 10-15% right now. With every bad day he has, the number grows. My hope is that the heavy-breathers in the Kremlin are coup-plotting as I write this. But as far as this side of the Atlantic, I want to see signs that we are prepping for more than more rounds of Biden's barks. I stand with Jim Geraghty (National Review):
"Clearly warn Russia that any aggression against a NATO ally would be met with an overwhelming response — conventional forces, cyberattacks, covert action, saboteurs, exposure of compromising information on Putin’s associates, you name it. We should emphasize that our response would not be 'carefully measured” or “proportional,' lest that make some Russian military chiefs think they could withstand the blow. We go full speed, broad-gauge.
"We should make it clear that our response would be wildly disproportional and inflict pain on the Russian government in ways it can’t even imagine. Instead of worrying about whether we’re provoking the Kremlin, we need to make the Kremlin fear the consequences of provoking us.
"And considering Russia’s fairly low threshold for using tactical battlefield nukes, maybe we should be sending our own signals that we might respond to the use of tactical nuclear weapons with our own non-conventional response. We must make it clear to Putin that the use of nuclear weapons will not 'escalate to de-escalate,' it will only escalate to escalate."
Of course I prefer a good, old, Ceausescu-vintage coup d'etat. Complete with Vlad's corpse, the result of a struggle, or by his own hand. Either way, game over. Back to climate change, the pronoun/culture wars and listening to John Kerry.
"Clearly warn Russia that any aggression against a NATO ally would be met with an overwhelming response — conventional forces, cyberattacks, covert action, saboteurs, exposure of compromising information on Putin’s associates, you name it. We should emphasize that our response would not be 'carefully measured” or “proportional,' lest that make some Russian military chiefs think they could withstand the blow. We go full speed, broad-gauge.
"We should make it clear that our response would be wildly disproportional and inflict pain on the Russian government in ways it can’t even imagine. Instead of worrying about whether we’re provoking the Kremlin, we need to make the Kremlin fear the consequences of provoking us.
"And considering Russia’s fairly low threshold for using tactical battlefield nukes, maybe we should be sending our own signals that we might respond to the use of tactical nuclear weapons with our own non-conventional response. We must make it clear to Putin that the use of nuclear weapons will not 'escalate to de-escalate,' it will only escalate to escalate."
Of course I prefer a good, old, Ceausescu-vintage coup d'etat. Complete with Vlad's corpse, the result of a struggle, or by his own hand. Either way, game over. Back to climate change, the pronoun/culture wars and listening to John Kerry.
Life is too short to waste on crap football.