I really think those two sentences are non-sequitur. I think the general's statement is true to a degree - our inability to deter Russian action surely embolden

I really think those two sentences are non-sequitur. I think the general's statement is true to a degree - our inability to deter Russian action surely emboldens China, but at the same time, the situation in the Pacific is not quite the same. But regardless of the truth (or usefulness of his statement), I am almost certain that he would not extend that to NATO's naval response. Firstly, since NATO straight up said that it's not going to engage Russia in Ukraine, it's not clear what NATO naval forces in the Black Sea would do other than increase the risk of escalation. Second, as the article points out, NATO has to deal with Turkey - a situation that the US does not quite have in the western Pacific (though exactly how supportive South Korea and Japan would be in the case of a Taiwan invasion is a bit of an unknown). Also, there is nothing that NATO can do to stop Russian Naval deployments into the Black Sea. Asking Turkey to close the straits would a) almost certainly be refused, b) be an incredibly bad look for the side that performs freedom of navigation missions into the south china sea and c) cause a shit load of kerfuffle as the split between Turkey and the rest of NATO gets forced to the surface in an awkward manner. Finally, we can look at the US Navy's current deployment of major assets - https://news.usni.org/2022/02/24/usni-news-fleet-and-marine-tracker-feb-24-2022 https://news.usni.org/2022/02/24/usni-news-fleet-and-marine-... There's a carrier strike group deployed in the Mediterranean, and one in the western Pacific. There's a forward deployed carrier in Japan. As the article notes, there's also an French and Italian carrier group deployed into the Mediterranean. There is plenty of "real" naval strength nearby.