Hi Michael,

I am old enough to have done "duck and cover" drills in grade school;. I remember being marched into the hall and told to sit on the floor with our backs against the lockers - as if that would have saved us from an A-bomb (yes, and I am old enough to have called them that as well).

I'm old enough to have joined the mass demonstrations in Stuttgart in 1983 to protest the Pershing IIs.

I also remember what a HUGE deal it was for the Soviets to agree to allow Germany to reuninte. Remember, the last time Germany was united the Soviets lost 25 million dead. Letting Germany reunite was a vey, very big deal for them.

Think about it. 25 million dead, fighting Germany.

Even bigger, of course, was the question of allowing that united/reconstituted Germany to join NATO.

I am sure that was a real sticking point. That is why Baker, Genscher, Mitterand, et. al. had to promise that NATO would not expand "one inch" past Berlin.

And yes, I agree that the Leopard 2 is superior to the old Soviet-era tanks. But it is the symbolism that matters here. I don't think any 20-year old Russian draftees will be going up against the Leopards. Those tanks are all going to get burned by artillery fire long before the Russian soldiers get anywhere near them.

I cannot agree with you on NATO. Yes, they started out as a defensive alliance, but when the USSR collapsed and Warsaw Pact disappeared, there was no reason to maintain NATO. Now they are just an excuse for the USA to maintain its bases in what would otherwise be "foreign" countries.

And the NATO allies are a ready made "coalition of the willing" for any military misadventure the USA wants to perpetrate. What they did in Serbia and Libya tells me they are not just a defensive alliance.

And what they are doing now in Asia and the Indo-Pacific to face off against China is, obviously, blatantly offensive.

I mean, I would HOPE we can agree that the South China Sea is a long, LONG way from the "North Atlantic". Right?