> Escalation today seems necessary to prevent nuclear war tomorrow. I'm sure that doing nothing would have led to Russia attempting to exert control over Moldo

> Escalation today seems necessary to prevent nuclear war tomorrow. I'm sure that doing nothing would have led to Russia attempting to exert control over Moldova and Poland next, at some point. I think everyone agrees on that. It's in the West's interest to make that as difficult as practical. And the other alternative, escalating more than we have, might not make a difference, because unless we destroy the Russian military nothing would really change, and trying to destroy the Russian military would cost us enormous amounts of blood and treasure. I may have misunderstood your prior "the best strategy is to close the door" remark. Are you saying that the West should be doing something more, like providing air cover to Ukraine? If we escalated too much I assume the Russian's would adjust. Perhaps they would escalate, justifying tactical nukes because the whole world is against them. Perhaps they would withdraw, bide their time, and try again some other day, based on their fears and capabilities. Perhaps it's better that we stick with what we are doing - letting the Russians fritter away their resources trying to attain something just out of their reach. I tend to think that we've been doing a good job of walking that line. We're helping Ukraine beat back Russia, trying to keep the conflict from significantly escalating, and weakening Russia in the process.