> And... bad for him! He should be let doing his destabilising as much as he wants, as long as he is wasting his armies, and it is 2:1 for NATO. You say that.

> And... bad for him! He should be let doing his destabilising as much as he wants, as long as he is wasting his armies, and it is 2:1 for NATO. You say that. A couple of years ago I would have agreed. Now I see several major NATO partners unwilling to intervene in such a situation. I am sorry for my Moldovan friends, but in most likelihood nobody will budge for Moldova. Particularly as we've seen how American support can be fickle these days, and such an operation would last longer than a term of an US president. So yeah, not much confidence here. > As I said before, the truth of few centuries of military history is unequivocal: it is a very good thing to trip your opponent into a big war for a small gain, while your main force can stay back, and preserve its power. That's fine and dandy when you have a convenient 2000 km-wide moat and all this is quite abstract. If there is a thing we really don't want in Europe it's a war, regardless of the size and who ends up winning it. Also, another truth you can learn from History is that there is no easy war.