One can deduce from the list below why any neighbor of Russia's would want to join the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. One can understand if not by NATO's name then by article 5 of its charter--any attack on a member state is to be considered an attack upon all member states--why the United States encouraging diverse countries to join NATO is not in its national interest. Should the United States have to fight a war against Russia in defense of the Caucuses? Given the frequency with which Russia invades her neighbors--once every four years or so over the last century by my calculations--America would have been in a perpetual war for a century had there been a NATO-like treaty between those nations and America. At least Hessians fought for foreigners because they had debts and crimes to repay? What would be our excuse?

When did the Russians ever make a move against NATO? The Treaty has stood the test of time as an effective deterrent to Russian expansion and domination. You say yourself that these types of invasions are inevitable. The real question should be: should we care if Russia runs roughshod over Eastern Europe (or into Western Europe for that matter) or Asia, etc.? There is no clear U.S. approach to dealing with this issue. I'm not advocating continuing our position as the world's policeman, but can someone please outline where we stand, what we're willing to defend, and WHY?

I'd take a WAG that the other NATO nations wouldn't be too excited about the prospects either.

Homer, can you explain to me how this invasion affects us in real terms? What impact does this have on the U.S.?

Homer,

This war guarantee w/ NATO is the sort of entangling alliance that can blow up into things like WWI. Not taking part in such things doesn't mean the US can't disapprove of Russian actions, use diplomacy, and pretty much any means it sees fit to respond. But your premise that NATO worked isn't even so clear cut.

NATO formed in 1949, when the USSR already had taken control of most of Eastern Europe. Seven years later came the Hungarian uprising and the USSR's brutal reaction. Is the fact that the USSR never took over another country further west in Europe really a result of NATO? I think more important factors were involved.

Russia, like China, has always wanted to be the big dog in its neighborhood. So be it. We are the big dog in ours and that is enough for me b/c that leads to my nation's security. Trying to be the big dog in east or far Asia only weakens my country.

why should i care about what russia does, they never called me HONKIE!

Consider that NATO was a good idea for its time. Post WWII, Russia was hungry and Europe was vulnerable and fragile. It's served it's original purpose by allowing for a somewhat stable Europe and curbed aggression. But, there's no such thing as being able to do it all and we and the other NATO nations are better off leaving things as the are.

The very structure of NATO means that we don't have to "do it all", but I'll answer your previous question with (annoyingly) more questions.

So, is it in the national interest to have a peaceful, secure Europe?

Is it in our interest to allow Russia to further dominate EU energy supplies? Do we really need them to keep Iran in check (they don't really help anyway, despite the State Department's instance that they do)? Should we be worried about the economic impact of Russia's future adventures (I may be thinking twice about any future investment in Ukraine at this point)? Should we worried about defining what it means to be "friends" of the U.S.?

We don't have any answers for these questions, but the Russians, including and especially the broader population, have no problem with this agressive return to form. Should that worry us? I really don't know. I suppose if we just want to remain on our own island -- maybe not.

But you should consider that the US and much of Europe have made significant investments in Eastern Europe, and the economic impact of a Ukraine invasion (for instance) would be much greater than this most recent attack on Georgia, and will not go unchallenged. Apply that idea to some of the other nations Russia may have its eye on, and you have a recipe for a serious conflict that we WILL be in, like it or not. To the extent that we can, we should stop it here and now to keep the peace.

Homer,

1) peaceful, secure Europe? This can be asked of any continent (excepting Antartica I suppose) and is primarily the concern of the continent asked of, not this country (and not my money and freedom). It is too abstract a notion to be treated as a realistic "interest" of the U.S. where interest means sacrifice our freedom and property to secure at all costs.

2) Allowing Russia to further dominate EU energy supplies? Here you partially reveal an imperialistic worldview (wait but only Russia can be imperialistic right?) with this use of the term "allow." It is not for the US to determine the energy sources of other continents, it is a notion that would even be strange to the Romans. Further, Russia doesn't exactly "dominate" Europe's energy supplies, it HAS them. As in, it is under its soil. So France has some sort of claim on what is under Russian soil? Rather, they negotiate treaties mutually beneficial to both where Russia increases its wealth providing energy to France, etc.

3) Russia's position regarding Iran is irrelevant, in fact Iran is largely irrelevant (not to its neighbors but to us).

4) Russia's future actions economic impact? What about China's? Or Japan's? Or Germany's? Most every country is capable of decisions that would have an impact on us. That is a very abstract fear.

5) Countries do not have "friends." The relations between sovereign nations are very loosely akin to friendship. We can strive for civility but a realist foreign policy is not so concerned with friendship (the notion can be blinding) but rather with strategic benefits and deficits (increase the former and reduce the latter). Likewise, I think "most favored nation" statuses and the like to be silly and dangerous. The most crucial element of avoiding any binding rhetoric or even most alliances is that it reduces our sovereign freedom of action to pursue our interests. N.B. This means I do believe in ALL options being open at ALL times, we have to be realistic about threats (and our resources and common good) b/c being too fearful (just as not fearing enough) actually makes us artificially restrict our freedom of action. That is, it weakens us.

Largely though I see I disagree with your reading of Russian history. Their "return to form" is just not as dangerous to us as you want to believe. Russia is still in the midst of the secession movements that the Soviet union allowed to mostly peacebably start happening from 1989 on, which means not even 20 years ago. That it has tried to influence the remaining territories closest to it and most directly impacting on its economic position just doesn't scare me as much as it is Russo-phobes. I don't condone any particular methods they have used, but I am also not terribly sympathetic towards say the Muslim nationalist Chechnyans, e.g., Certainly Russia's governance is going more traditionally "czarist" but the czars never threatened us, oddly they were almost always on the right sides of the wars we had an interest in.

But these developments don't occur in a vacuum and Russia was literally plundered by western oligarchs for most of the 90's and practically collapsed b/c of it. The turn to a more czarist/nationalist paternalism is not a shocker of a development given how horrendous things were for a decade or more previous.

I hope my country would really take a conservative and realistic approach to Russia and stop provoking it needlessly as well as use sounder strategies of tying it to the west. I mean, Europe's purchasing of their energy could really be a good thing if realist foreign policies prevail. Mutual benefit isn't to always be avoided, even with someone you dislike or are wary of. But anyway, Europe is plenty capable of handling itself, let's take the damn training wheels off. I mean exactly how many times stronger than the dollar does the Euro need to be before we recognize the fact that europe should be on its own (and I am not even impressed with the EU).

Lastly, no "islands" here, realism is not isolationist and the accusation is hackneyed.

I'll glady defer to wiser people than myself.

I'll also remove myself from this thread as the tone has gotten rather hostile (I apologize for any part I played in creating that).