In the 80s we were worried about the bomb and US-USSR relations deteriorating into a nuclear war.
Now it turns out our worries about Russia were correct, with the exception of nukes. Nukes are to have, not to use. Russia must be stopped, because they've taken the place of Germany in the 1930s and 40s, and the only way to stop an imperialist is with force.
As much as the US wants to stop Russia's advances we (the world) also don't want a failed Russian country/military (not the people) selling off assets in a giant nuclear yard sale to nation states/terrorist organizations that might consider nukes as something to use.
We may not like dictators like the one in charge there and what they are doing but there is a level of diplomacy achieved that may disappear with a massive leadership change.
Much of the success of post WW2 led from things like the Bretton Woods conf: https://2001-2009.state.gov/r/pa/ho/time/wwii/98681.htm Of note, I believe the US shocked everyone at that (or another) conference when we didn't want any land. All of the other "winners" of wars for all of human history took some spoils. The US held that "belief that free trade not only promoted international prosperity, but also international peace". That is a large reason why US military bases exist across the globe - to promote free trade by protecting trade routes.
> don't want a failed Russian country/military (not the people) selling off assets in a giant nuclear yard sale to nation states/terrorist organizations
Again. It should be pointed out that anti-proliferation elements were kept quite busy after the fall of the Soviet Union, and nonetheless, massive troves of munitions made their way into "bad guys'" hands.
or maybe NATO should have stopped expanding aggressively after the breakup of USSR. We have a historic precedence: A set of alliances between imperial powers caused World War 1.
Comments
In the 80s we were worried about the bomb and US-USSR relations deteriorating into a nuclear war.
Now it turns out our worries about Russia were correct, with the exception of nukes. Nukes are to have, not to use. Russia must be stopped, because they've taken the place of Germany in the 1930s and 40s, and the only way to stop an imperialist is with force.
As much as the US wants to stop Russia's advances we (the world) also don't want a failed Russian country/military (not the people) selling off assets in a giant nuclear yard sale to nation states/terrorist organizations that might consider nukes as something to use.
We may not like dictators like the one in charge there and what they are doing but there is a level of diplomacy achieved that may disappear with a massive leadership change.
Much of the success of post WW2 led from things like the Bretton Woods conf: https://2001-2009.state.gov/r/pa/ho/time/wwii/98681.htm Of note, I believe the US shocked everyone at that (or another) conference when we didn't want any land. All of the other "winners" of wars for all of human history took some spoils. The US held that "belief that free trade not only promoted international prosperity, but also international peace". That is a large reason why US military bases exist across the globe - to promote free trade by protecting trade routes.
or maybe NATO should have stopped expanding aggressively after the breakup of USSR. We have a historic precedence: A set of alliances between imperial powers caused World War 1.