Since I posted this, have read it, and don't think it is a complete account of the matter at hand (should one take the author's cautionary self assumed role), h

Since I posted this, have read it, and don't think it is a complete account of the matter at hand (should one take the author's cautionary self assumed role), here is my understanding and 2c on this: The background of this "crisis" is not sufficiently explicitly communicated to the public at large. I am not talking about Ukraine vs Russia here. I am talking about ex-USSR and the West, and China and who knows who else silently. The Russians issued an ultimatum in December 2021, along with treaty proposals for a reset of the security order in Europe and US, addressed to US and NATO. EU was not addressed. The terms of the treaty proposals are a revisionist renegotiation of USSR dissolution and an demand for fulfillment of verbal assurances by the West with USSR. It seems fair to say that Russians knew perfectly well that the West would not accept the terms. US attempted to talk down the terms by offering to start relevant arms negotiations. Russia then proceeded with its "military-technical" response as promised. Meanwhile back with China, the two other major nuclear great powers published a manifesto of their vision for a new world order. The Russian and Chinese argument (which has been made repeatedly for a long time by officials, organs, propaganda sock puppets, useful idiots, etc.) is that US acts the way it does because it believes no one can tell or make it to stop. And it's officials talk down to them (if you recall the meeting in Alaska) from a presumption of a position of power. As to what their vision is, well, google it. It is not secret. This "crisis" then is settling the question of 'is a new world order required'? The mechanism to run the test is Russia acting as if no one can make it or tell it to stop. In other words, Russia is acting as if it has escalation dominance. It has already placed notice that it could interpret non-Ukrainian action to date as an act of war. The puzzle is why now. That's the background dynamics (only) as I understand it. The article is addressing NFZ, arguing that it would lead to WWIII. It side-steps the larger issue discussed above. But nevertheless it does raise a valid point regarding the informational content of public discourse on this matter. Considering the potential import, this needs to be addressed, and corrected. If indeed the situation is that we're on a runaway train here, then we should publicly start preparing for total war, and sure, have the NFZ as well. This would be agreeing with "we're already in WWIII". But tweeting support is rather short sighted. Or, we decide that we're not up to total war and WW III, in which case we should read the Russian and Chinese proposal and see if we can live with it. If we can not live with it and/or we believe they'll lose in a war that we will survive, then there is that option. These are the choices, as far as I can tell. The possibilities add the additional that the Russians et al are really bluffing and things like NFZ or hoping for a quagmire (which ignores who has escalation dominance) will ultimately convince them to back down. And yes, the sanctions too. And yes, squeezing the Chinese, peeling apart alliances, regime changes, are other mid to long term tools. But again, the other side understands about time and stuff. So that's my take on all this.