Brive1987 wrote: ↑
Which is America’s best reason-based-approach? Does it require the dismemberment of Czechoslovakia into Herman and non German speaking lands? Again. I might be muddling detail here.
Not exactly sure what you're asking.
Team Joe's foreign policy 'experts' could fuck up a Polish wedding. Letting Dementia Joe announce that nothing would be done in response to a "minor incursion" pretty turned this hand into a Null Ouvert. But I believe they wanted Russia to invade Ukraine, and would be quite pleased if it fell. With the bonus splash damage of once again hanging Kamala out to dry.
Realpolitik dictates you acknowledge your foe's strengths, and deal accordingly. No matter that he's Bad Man Bald. It seems that Putin's 'stretch goal' was a union of Russia, Belarus, and Ukraine. The US and West should've told him get stuffed on that one, but counter with a reasonable compromise of no NATO membership for Ukraine, plus recognition of Russian annexation of Crimea, plus independence (read: Russian puppet states) in the Donbas. Then warn him if he invaded Ukraine after that, we'd Fuck Him Up and personally piss on his irradiated corpse. In so many words. Reagan did well vs. the Soviets cuz the Soviets (Andropov especially) truly believed Reagan was crazy enough to nuke them.
I still think the compromise deal is still worth pitching, but unfortunately all threats of escalation, real or feigned, have been ruined by the West's public proclamations of what they won't under any circumstances do. So Brinkmanship has been replaced with 'here I am, bent over, my sphincter relaxed -- take me, you scoundrel!'
Also, among all the emo, 'I stand with Ukraine' hashtag diplomacy, no one seems to be preparing for a scenario where, in a week or so, Ukraine is run by Putin's Quisling.