Russia is not threatening Nato.
There are talks that Russia might use tactical nukes in Ukraine. I don't know how likely that is and that would indeed be a bad precedent, but are you going to declare war on Russia over that? That does not seem sensible.
I don't know what game the US are playing, and have been playing for years now (and I suspect it is partly anti-China) but it is dangerous, as dangerous as Russia's game.
Many leaders in Europe have a fairly recent historic example of where appeasement leads.
If the west believes Russia will not destroy every living thing on earth including themselves and will instead back down, its rational to escalate.
> I don't know what game the US are playing, and have been playing for years now (and I suspect it is partly anti-China) but it is dangerous, as dangerous as Russia's game.
This is a very silly statement. They're playing geopolitics, as they always have been. Refusing to play geopolitics simply means you're losing at geopolitics.
There is obviously no way out of that, except not going there.
Things happen and you need to make a response. Choosing not to decide is still making a choice and the effects of every action or inaction are meaningful.
> Putin is 70, a few more years and you could get a more rational and even democratic stooge instead of him.
Lunacy to bank on that
> But now America is risking a nuclear disaster for the whole world by messing with the most powerful dictator of the 21st century.
That's a nonsense sense of causality.
So you can see that when China was making shirts only, China was US' best friend. And now we get here.
