It's not about eliminating the entire Russian arsenal but merely foiling what people believe can be some sort of a very small Russian tactical nuclear strike (maybe even with a prior warning about the target to be nuked, like let's say an isolated strategic bridge or an air base, if the Russians want to not look the worst doing it), instead of reacting to it with a NATO air campaign in Ukraine post fact. A conventional pinpoint attack based on precise intelligence, assuming there's such.

Think about like how Israelis only demolished the Iraqi and Syrian reactors with the F-16 raids or assassinated several key Iranian scientists over the decades (one recently, with a remote controlled gun), instead of going all in and destroying everything and killing everyone related to the programs at once.

But what he does really mean is for NATO to speak to Russia in the clear terms, not still diplomatically as in before February 24 when the merely vague warnings didn't work. And there's a good chance that actual direct threats of doing what they did would have been enough for Putin to stand down and thus defused the initial crisis. The "Zapad-21 exercises" would have finally ended, Russian troops would went back to their bases as they were officially supposed to (long overdue), and that would have been all of it if they just plainly said what's in the cards and also managed to showed they're not bluffing (because they/we really weren't bluffing and were serious about it), properly talking like you should speak to an elderly former Leningrad gangster without pretending they deal with some kind of a politician.

That's like with Saddam and Kuwait in 1990. The Americans didn't comprehend how Saddam was too isolated and "too stupid" (that's a quote from the later Congress hearings) to correctly understand their diplomatically wrapped warnings, with none of his terrified underlings daring to tell him. Putin's similarly both isolated and stupid, even if he doesn't have people from his meetings hauled out and shot outside right away like Saddam did.

It's not about eliminating the entire Russian arsenal but merely foiling what people believe can be some sort of a very small Russian tactical nuclear strike (maybe even with a prior warning about the target to be nuked, like let's say an isolated strategic bridge or an air base, if the Russians want to not look the worst doing it), instead of reacting to it with a NATO air campaign in Ukraine post fact. A conventional pinpoint attack based on precise intelligence, assuming there's such.

Think about like how Israelis only demolished the Iraqi and Syrian reactors with the F-16 raids or assassinated several key Iranian scientists over the decades (one recently, with a remote controlled gun), instead of going all in and destroying everything and killing everyone related to the programs at once.

But what he does really mean is for NATO to speak to Russia in the clear terms, not still diplomatically as in before February 24 when the merely vague warnings didn't work. And there's a good chance that actual direct threats of doing what they did would have been enough for Putin to stand down and thus defused the initial crisis. The "Zapad-21 exercises" would have finally ended, Russian troops would went back to their bases as they were officially supposed to (long overdue), and that would have been all of it if they just plainly said what's in the cards and also managed to showed they're not bluffing (because they/we really weren't bluffing and were serious about it), properly talking like you should speak to an elderly former Leningrad gangster without pretending it's some kind of a politician.

That's like with Saddam and Kuwait in 1990. The Americans didn't comprehend how Saddam was too isolated and "too stupid" (that's a quote from the later Congress hearings) to correctly understand their diplomatically wrapped warnings, with none of his terrified underlings daring to tell him. Putin's similarly both isolated and stupid, even if he doesn't have people from his meetings hauled out and shot outside right away like Saddam did.

It's not about eliminating the entire Russian arsenal but merely foiling what people believe can be some sort of a very small Russian tactical nuclear strike (maybe even with a prior warning about the target to be nuked, like let's say an isolated strategic bridge or an air base, if the Russians want to not look the worst doing it), instead of reacting to it with a NATO air campaign in Ukraine post fact. A conventional pinpoint attack based on precise intelligence, assuming there's such.

Think about like how Israelis only demolished the Iraqi and Syrian reactors with the F-16 raids or assassinated several key Iranian scientists over the decades (one recently, with a remote controlled gun), instead of going all in and destroying everything and killing everyone related to the programs at once.

But what he does really mean is for NATO to speak to Russia in the clear terms, not still diplomatically as in before February 24 when the merely vague warnings didn't work. And there's a good chance that actual direct threats of doing what they did would have been enough for Putin to stand down and thus defused the initial crisis. The "Zapad-21 exercises" would have finally ended, Russian troops would went back to their bases as they were officially supposed to (long overdue), and that would have been all of it if they just plainly said what's in the cards and also managed to showed they're not bluffing (because they/we really weren't bluffing and were serious about it), properly talking like you should do to an elderly former Leningrad gangster.

That's like with Saddam and Kuwait in 1990. The Americans didn't comprehend how Saddam was too isolated and "too stupid" (that's a quote from the later Congress hearings) to correctly understand their diplomatically wrapped warnings, with none of his terrified underlings daring to tell him. Putin's similarly both isolated and stupid, even if he doesn't have people from his meetings hauled out and shot outside right away like Saddam did.

It's not about eliminating the entire Russian arsenal but merely foiling what people believe can be some sort of a very small Russian tactical nuclear strike (maybe even with a prior warning about the target to be nuked, like let's say an isolated strategic bridge or an air base, if the Russians want to not look the worst doing it), instead of reacting to it with a NATO air campaign in Ukraine post fact. A conventional pinpoint attack based on precise intelligence, assuming there's such.

Think about like how Israelis only demolished the Iraqi and Syrian reactors with the F-16 raids or assassinated several key Iranian scientists over the decades (one recently, with a remote controlled gun), instead of going all in and destroying everything and killing everyone related to the programs at once.

But what he does really mean is for NATO to speak to Russia in the clear terms, not still diplomatically as in before February 24 when the merely vague warnings didn't work. And there's a good chance that actual direct threats of doing what they did would have been enough for Putin to stand down and thus defused the initial crisis. The "Zapad-21 exercises" would have finally ended, Russian troops would went back to their bases as they were officially supposed to (long overdue), and that would have been all of it if they just plainly said what's in the cards and also managed to showed they're not bluffing (because they/we really weren't bluffing and were serious about it), properly talking like you should do with to an elderly former Leningrad gangster.

That's like with Saddam and Kuwait in 1990. The Americans didn't comprehend how Saddam was too isolated and "too stupid" (that's a quote from the later Congress hearings) to correctly understand their diplomatically wrapped warnings, with none of his terrified underlings daring to tell him. Putin's similarly both isolated and stupid, even if he doesn't have people from his meetings hauled out and shot outside right away like Saddam did.

It's not about eliminating the entire Russian arsenal but merely foiling what people believe can be some sort of a very small Russian tactical nuclear strike (maybe even with a prior warning about the target to be nuked, like let's say an isolated strategic bridge or an air base, if the Russians want to not look the worst doing it), instead of reacting to it with a NATO air campaign in Ukraine post fact. A conventional pinpoint attack based on precise intelligence, assuming there's such.

Think about like how Israelis only demolished the Iraqi and Syrian reactors with the F-16 raids or assassinated several key Iranian scientists over the decades (one recently, with a remote controlled gun), instead of going all in and destroying everything and killing everyone related to the programs at once.

But what he does really mean is for NATO to speak to Russia in the clear terms, not still diplomatically as in before February 24 when the merely vague warnings didn't work. And there's a good chance that actual direct threats of doing what they did would have been enough for Putin to stand down and thus defused the initial crisis. The "Zapad-21 exercises" would have finally ended, Russian troops would went back to their bases as they were officially supposed to (long overdue), and that would have been all of it if they just plainly said what's in the cards and also managed to showed they're not bluffing (because they/we really weren't bluffing and were serious about it), properly talking like you do with to an elderly former Leningrad gangster.

That's like with Saddam and Kuwait in 1990. The Americans didn't comprehend how Saddam was too isolated and "too stupid" (that's a quote from the later Congress hearings) to correctly understand their diplomatically wrapped warnings, with none of his terrified underlings daring to tell him. Putin's similarly both isolated and stupid, even if he doesn't have people from his meetings hauled out and shot outside right away like Saddam did.

It's not about eliminating the entire Russian arsenal but merely foiling what people believe can be some sort of a very small Russian tactical nuclear strike (maybe even with a prior warning about the target to be nuked, like let's say an isolated strategic bridge or an air base, if the Russians want to not look the worst doing it), instead of reacting to it with a NATO air campaign in Ukraine post fact. A conventional pinpoint attack based on precise intelligence, assuming there's such.

Think about like how Israelis only demolished the Iraqi and Syrian reactors with the F-16 raids or assassinated several key Iranian scientists over the decades (one recently, with a remote controlled gun), instead of going all in and destroying everything and killing everyone related to the programs at once.

But what he does really mean is for NATO to speak to Russia in the clear terms, not still diplomatically as in before February 24 when the merely vague warnings didn't work. And there's a good chance that actual direct threats of doing what they did would have been enough for Putin to stand down and thus defused the initial crisis. The "Zapad-21 exercises" would have finally ended, Russian troops would went back to their bases as they were officially supposed to (long overdue), and that would have been all of it if they just plainly said what's in the cards and also managed to showed they're not bluffing (because they/we really weren't bluffing and were serious about it, properly talking like to a Leningrad gangster).

That's like with Saddam and Kuwait in 1990. The Americans didn't comprehend how Saddam was too isolated and "too stupid" (that's a quote from the later Congress hearings) to correctly understand their diplomatically wrapped warnings, with none of his terrified underlings daring to tell him. Putin's similarly both isolated and stupid, even if he doesn't have people from his meetings hauled out and shot outside right away like Saddam did.

It's not about eliminating the entire Russian arsenal but merely foiling what people believe can be some sort of a very small Russian tactical nuclear strike (maybe even with a prior warning about the target to be nuked, like let's say an isolated strategic bridge or an air base, if the Russians want to not look the worst doing it), instead of reacting to it with a NATO air campaign in Ukraine post fact. A conventional pinpoint attack based on precise intelligence, assuming there's such.

Think about like how Israelis only demolished the Iraqi and Syrian reactors with the F-16 raids or assassinated several key Iranian scientists over the decades (one recently, with a remote controlled gun), instead of going all in and destroying everything and killing everyone related to the programs at once.

But what he does really mean is for NATO to speak to Russia in the clear terms, not still diplomatically as in before February 24 when the merely vague warnings didn't work. And there's a good chance that actual direct threats of doing what they did would have been enough for Putin to stand down and thus defused the initial crisis. The "Zapad-21 exercises" would have finally ended, Russian troops would went back to their bases as they were officially supposed to (long overdue), and that would have been all of it if just plainly said what's in the cards and also managed to showed they're not bluffing (because they/we really weren't bluffing and were serious about it).

That's like with Saddam and Kuwait in 1990. The Americans didn't comprehend how Saddam was too isolated and "too stupid" (that's a quote from the later Congress hearings) to correctly understand their diplomatically wrapped warnings, with none of his terrified underlings daring to tell him. Putin's similarly both isolated and stupid, even if he doesn't have people from his meetings hauled out and shot outside right away like Saddam did.

It's not about eliminating the entire Russian arsenal but merely foiling what people believe can be some sort of a very small Russian tactical nuclear strike (maybe even with a prior warning about the target to be nuked, like let's say an isolated strategic bridge or an air base, if the Russians want to not look the worst doing it), instead of reacting to it with a NATO air campaign in Ukraine post fact. A conventional pinpoint attack based on precise intelligence, assuming there's such.

Think about like how Israelis only demolished the Iraqi and Syrian reactors with the F-16 raids or assassinated several key Iranian scientists over the decades (one recently, with a remote controlled gun), instead of going all in and destroying everything and killing everyone related to the programs at once.

But what he does really mean is for NATO to speak to Russia in the clear terms, not still diplomatically as in before February 24 when only vague warnings didn't work. And there's a good chance actual direct threats of doing what they did would have been enough for Putin to stand down and thus defused the initial crisis. The "Zapad-21 exercises" would have finally ended, Russian troops would went back to their bases as they were officially supposed to (long overdue), and that would have been all of it if just plainly said what's in the cards and also managed to showed they're not bluffing (because they/we really weren't bluffing and were serious about it).

That's like with Saddam and Kuwait in 1990. The Americans didn't comprehend how Saddam was too isolated and "too stupid" (that's a quote from the later Congress hearings) to correctly understand their diplomatically wrapped warnings, with none of his terrified underlings daring to tell him. Putin's similarly both isolated and stupid, even if he doesn't have people from his meetings hauled out and shot outside right away like Saddam did.

It's not about eliminating the entire Russian arsenal but merely foiling what people believe can be some sort of a very small Russian tactical nuclear strike (maybe even with a prior warning about the target to be nuked, like let's say an isolated strategic bridge or an air base, if the Russians want to not look the worst doing it), instead of reacting to it with a NATO air campaign in Ukraine post fact. A conventional pinpoint attack based on precise intelligence, assuming there's such.

Think about like how Israelis only demolished the Iraqi and Syrian reactors with the F-16 raids or assassinated several key Iranian scientists over the decades (one recently, with a remote controlled gun), instead of going all in and destroying everything and killing everyone related to the programs at once.

But what he does really mean is for NATO to speak to Russia in the clear terms, not still diplomatically as in before February 24 when only vague warnings didn't work. And there's a good chance actual direct threats of doing what they did would have been enough for Putin to stand down and thus defused the initial crisis. The "Zapad-21 exercises" would have finally ended, Russian troops would went back to their bases as they were officially supposed to (long overdue), and that would have been all of it if just plainly said what's in the cards and also managed to showed they're not bluffing (because they/we really weren't bluffing and were serious about it).

That's like with Saddam and Kuwait in 1990. The Americans didn't comprehend how Saddam was too isolated and "too stupid" (that's a quote from the later Congress hearings) to correctly understand their diplomatically wrapped warnings, with none of his terrified underlings daring to tell him. Putin is similarly both isolated and stupid, even if he doesn't have people from his meetings hauled out and shot outside right away like Saddam did.

It's not about eliminating the entire Russian arsenal but merely foiling what people believe can be some sort of a very small Russian tactical nuclear strike (maybe even with a prior warning about the target to be nuked, like let's say an isolated strategic bridge or an air base, if the Russians want to not look the worst doing it), instead of reacting to it with a NATO air campaign in Ukraine post fact. A conventional pinpoint attack based on precise intelligence, assuming there's such.

Think about like how Israelis only demolished the Iraqi and Syrian reactors with the F-16 raids or assassinated several key Iranian scientists over the decades (one recently, with a remote controlled gun), instead of going all in and destroying everything and killing everyone related to the programs at once.

But what he does really mean is for NATO to speak to Russia in the clear terms, not still diplomatically as in before February 24 when only vague warnings didn't work. And there's a good chance actual direct threats of doing what they did would have been enough for Putin to stand down and thus defused the initial crisis. The "Zapad-21 exercises" would have finally ended, Russian troops would went back to their bases as they were officially supposed to (long overdue), and that would have been all of it if just plainly said what's in the cards and also managed to showed they're not bluffing (because they/we really weren't bluffing and were serious about it).

That's like with Saddam and Kuwait in 1990. The Americans didn't comprehend how Saddam was too isolated and "too stupid" (that's a quote from the later Congress hearings) to correctly understand their diplomatically wrapped warnings, with none of his terrified underlings daring to tell him. Putin is similarly both isolated and stupid, even if he doesn't has people from his meetings hauled out and shot outside right away as Saddam did.

It's not about eliminating the entire Russian arsenal but merely foiling what people believe can be some sort of a very small Russian tactical nuclear strike (maybe even with a prior warning about the target to be nuked, like let's say an isolated strategic bridge or an air base, if the Russians want to not look the worst doing it), instead of reacting to it with a NATO air campaign in Ukraine post fact. A conventional pinpoint attack based on precise intelligence, assuming there's such.

Think about like how Israelis only demolished the Iraqi and Syrian reactors with the F-16 raids or assassinated several key Iranian scientists over the decades (one recently, with a remote controlled gun), instead of going all in and destroying everything and killing everyone related to the programs at once.

But what he does really mean is for NATO to speak to Russia in the clear terms, not still diplomatically as in before February 24 when only vague warnings didn't work. And there's a good chance actual direct threats of doing what they did would have been enough for Putin to stand down and thus defused the initial crisis. The "Zapad-21 exercises" would have finally ended, Russian troops would went back to their bases as they were officially supposed to (long overdue), and that would have been all of it if just plainly said what's in the cards and also managed to showed they're not bluffing (because they/we really weren't bluffing and were serious about it).

That's like with Saddam and Kuwait in 1990. The Americans didn't comprehend how Saddam was too isolated and "too stupid" (that's a quote from the later Congress hearings) to correctly understand their diplomatically wrapped warnings, with none of his terrified underlings daring to tell him. Putin is similarly both isolated and stupid, even if he doesn't has people from his meetings hauled out and shot outisde right away as Saddam did.

It's not about eliminating the entire Russian arsenal but merely foiling what people believe can be some sort of a very small Russian tactical nuclear strike (maybe even with a prior warning about the target to be nuked, like let's say an isolated strategic bridge or an air base, if the Russians want to not look the worst doing it), instead of reacting to it with a NATO air campaign in Ukraine post fact. A conventional pinpoint attack based on precise intelligence, assuming there's such.

Think about like how Israelis only demolished the Iraqi and Syrian reactors with the F-16 raids or assassinated several key Iranian scientists over the decades (one recently, with a remote controlled gun), instead of going all in and destroying everything and killing everyone related to the programs at once.

But what he does really mean is for NATO to speak to Russia in the clear terms, not still diplomatically as in before February 24 when only vague warnings didn't work. And there's a good chance actual direct threats of doing what they did would have been enough for Putin to stand down and thus defused the initial crisis. The "Zapad-21 exercises" would have finally ended, Russian troops would went back to their bases as they were officially supposed to (long overdue), and that would have been all of it if just plainly said what's in the cards and also managed to showed they're not bluffing (because they/we really weren't bluffing and were serious about it).

That's like with Saddam and Kuwait in 1990. The Americans didn't comprehend how Saddam was too isolated and "too stupid" (that's a quote from the later Congress hearings) to correctly understand their diplomatically wrapped warnings, with none of his terrified underlings daring to tell him.

It's not about eliminating the entire Russian arsenal but merely foiling what people believe can be some sort of a very small Russian tactical nuclear strike (maybe even with a prior warning about the target to be nuked, like let's say an isolated strategic bridge or an air base, if the Russians want to not look the worst doing it), instead of reacting to it with a NATO air campaign in Ukraine post fact. A conventional pinpoint attack based on precise intelligence, assuming there's such.

Think about like how Israelis only demolished the Iraqi and Syrian reactors with the F-16 raids or assassinated several key Iranian scientists over the decades (one recently, with a remote controlled gun), instead of going all in and destroying everything and killing everyone related to the programs at once.

But what he does really mean is for NATO to speak to Russia in the clear terms, not still vaguely and diplomatically as in before February 24 when only vague warnings didn't work. And there's a good chance actual direct threats of doing what they did would have been enough for Putin to stand down and thus defused the initial crisis. The "Zapad-21 exercises" would have finally ended, Russian troops would went back to their bases as they were officially supposed to (long overdue), and that would have been all of it if just plainly said what's in the cards and also managed to showed they're not bluffing (because they/we really weren't bluffing and were serious about it).

That's like with Saddam and Kuwait in 1990. The Americans didn't comprehend how Saddam was too isolated and "too stupid" (that's a quote from the later Congress hearings) to correctly understand their diplomatically wrapped warnings, with none of his terrified underlings daring to tell him.

It's not about eliminating the entire Russian arsenal but merely foiling what people believe can be some sort of a very small Russian tactical nuclear strike (maybe even with a prior warning about the target to be nuked, like let's say an isolated strategic bridge or an air base, if they want to not look the worst doing it), instead of reacting to it with a NATO air campaign in Ukraine post fact. A conventional pinpoint attack based on precise intelligence, assuming there's such.

Think about like how Israelis only demolished the Iraqi and Syrian reactors with the F-16 raids or assassinated several key Iranian scientists over the decades (one recently, with a remote controlled gun), instead of going all in and destroying everything and killing everyone related to the programs at once.

But what he does really mean is for NATO to speak to Russia in the clear terms, not still vaguely and diplomatically as in before February 24 when only vague warnings didn't work. And there's a good chance actual direct threats of doing what they did would have been enough for Putin to stand down and thus defused the initial crisis. The "Zapad-21 exercises" would have finally ended, Russian troops would went back to their bases as they were officially supposed to (long overdue), and that would have been all of it if just plainly said what's in the cards and also managed to showed they're not bluffing (because they/we really weren't bluffing and were serious about it).

That's like with Saddam and Kuwait in 1990. The Americans didn't comprehend how Saddam was too isolated and "too stupid" (that's a quote from the later Congress hearings) to correctly understand their diplomatically wrapped warnings, with none of his terrified underlings daring to tell him.

It's not about eliminating the entire Russian arsenal but merely foiling what people believe can be some sort of a very small Russian tactical nuclear strike (maybe even with a prior warning about the target to be nuked, like let's say an isolated strategic bridge, if they want to not look the worst doing it), instead of reacting to it with a NATO air campaign in Ukraine post fact. A conventional pinpoint attack based on precise intelligence, assuming there's such.

Think about like how Israelis only demolished the Iraqi and Syrian reactors with the F-16 raids or assassinated several key Iranian scientists over the decades (one recently, with a remote controlled gun), instead of going all in and destroying everything and killing everyone related to the programs at once.

But what he does really mean is for NATO to speak to Russia in the clear terms, not still vaguely and diplomatically as in before February 24 when only vague warnings didn't work. And there's a good chance actual direct threats of doing what they did would have been enough for Putin to stand down and thus defused the initial crisis. The "Zapad-21 exercises" would have finally ended, Russian troops would went back to their bases as they were officially supposed to (long overdue), and that would have been all of it if just plainly said what's in the cards and also managed to showed they're not bluffing (because they/we really weren't bluffing and were serious about it).

That's like with Saddam and Kuwait in 1990. The Americans didn't comprehend how Saddam was too isolated and "too stupid" (that's a quote from the later Congress hearings) to correctly understand their diplomatically wrapped warnings, with none of his terrified underlings daring to tell him.

It's not about eliminating the entire Russian arsenal but merely foiling what people believe can be some sort of a very small Russian tactical nuclear strike (maybe even with a prior warning about the target, if they want to not look the worst doing it), instead of reacting to it with a NATO air campaign in Ukraine post fact. A conventional pinpoint attack based on precise intelligence, assuming there's such.

Think about like how Israelis only demolished the Iraqi and Syrian reactors with the F-16 raids or assassinated several key Iranian scientists over the decades (one recently, with a remote controlled gun), instead of going all in and destroying everything and killing everyone related to the programs at once.

But what he does really mean is for NATO to speak to Russia in the clear terms, not still vaguely and diplomatically as in before February 24 when only vague warnings didn't work. And there's a good chance actual direct threats of doing what they did would have been enough for Putin to stand down and thus defused the initial crisis. The "Zapad-21 exercises" would have finally ended, Russian troops would went back to their bases as they were officially supposed to (long overdue), and that would have been all of it if just plainly said what's in the cards and also managed to showed they're not bluffing (because they/we really weren't bluffing and were serious about it).

That's like with Saddam and Kuwait in 1990. The Americans didn't comprehend how Saddam was too isolated and "too stupid" (that's a quote from the later Congress hearings) to correctly understand their diplomatically wrapped warnings, with none of his terrified underlings daring to tell him.

It's not about eliminating the entire Russian arsenal but merely foiling what people believe can be some sort of a very small Russian tactical nuclear strike, instead of reacting to it with a NATO air campaign in Ukraine post fact. A conventional pinpoint attack based on precise intelligence, assuming there's such.

Think about like how Israelis only demolished the Iraqi and Syrian reactors with the F-16 raids or assassinated several key Iranian scientists over the decades (one recently, with a remote controlled gun), instead of going all in and destroying everything and killing everyone related to the programs at once.

But what he does really mean is for NATO to speak to Russia in the clear terms, not still vaguely and diplomatically as in before February 24 when only vague warnings didn't work. And there's a good chance actual direct threats of doing what they did would have been enough for Putin to stand down and thus defused the initial crisis. The "Zapad-21 exercises" would have finally ended, Russian troops would went back to their bases as they were officially supposed to (long overdue), and that would have been all of it if just plainly said what's in the cards and also managed to showed they're not bluffing (because they/we really weren't bluffing and were serious about it).

That's like with Saddam and Kuwait in 1990. The Americans didn't comprehend how Saddam was too isolated and "too stupid" (that's a quote from the later Congress hearings) to correctly understand their diplomatically wrapped warnings, with none of his terrified underlings daring to tell him.

It's not about eliminating the entire Russian arsenal but merely foiling what people believe can besome sort of a very small Russian tactical nuclear strike, instead of reacting to it with a NATO air campaign in Ukraine post fact. A conventional pinpoint attack based on precise intelligence, assuming there's such.

Think about like how Israelis only demolished the Iraqi and Syrian reactors with the F-16 raids or assassinated several key Iranian scientists over the decades (one recently, with a remote controlled gun), instead of going all in and destroying everything and killing everyone related to the programs at once.

But what he does really mean is for NATO to speak to Russia in the clear terms, not still vaguely and diplomatically as in before February 24 when only vague warnings didn't work. And there's a good chance actual direct threats of doing what they did would have been enough for Putin to stand down and thus defused the initial crisis. The "Zapad-21 exercises" would have finally ended, Russian troops would went back to their bases as they were officially supposed to (long overdue), and that would have been all of it if just plainly said what's in the cards and also managed to showed they're not bluffing (because they/we really weren't bluffing and were serious about it).

That's like with Saddam and Kuwait in 1990. The Americans didn't comprehend how Saddam was too isolated and "too stupid" (that's a quote from the later Congress hearings) to correctly understand their diplomatically wrapped warnings, with none of his terrified underlings daring to tell him.

It's not about eliminating the entire Russian arsenal but merely foiling what people believe can besome sort of a very small Russian tactical nuclear strike, instead of reacting to it with a NATO air campaign in Ukraine post fact. A conventional pinpoint attack based on precise intelligence, assuming there's such.

Think about like how Israelis only demolished the Iraqi and Syrian reactors with the F-16 raids or assassinated several key Iranian scientists over the decades (one recently, with a remote controlled gun), instead of going all in and destroying everything and killing everyone related to the programs at once.

But what he does really mean is for NATO to speak to Russia in the clear terms, not still vaguely and diplomatically as in before February 24 when only vague warnings didn't work. And there's a good chance actual direct threats of doing what they did would have been enough for Putin to stand down and thus defused the initial crisis. The "Zapad-21 manoeuvres" would have finally ended, Russian troops would went back to their bases as they were officially supposed to, and that would have been all of it if just plainly said what's in the cards and also managed to showed they're not bluffing (because they/we really weren't bluffing and were serious about it).

That's like with Saddam and Kuwait in 1990. The Americans didn't comprehend how Saddam was too isolated and "too stupid" (that's a quote from the later Congress hearings) to correctly understand their diplomatically wrapped warnings, with none of his terrified underlings daring to tell him.

It's not about eliminating the entire Russian arsenal but merely foiling what people believe can besome sort of a very small Russian tactical nuclear strike, instead of reacting to it with a NATO air campaign in Ukraine post fact. A conventional pinpoint attack based on precise intelligence, assuming there's such.

Think about like how Israelis only demolished the Iraqi and Syrian reactors with the F-16 raids or assassinated several key Iranian scientists over the decades (one recently, with a remote controlled gun), instead of going all in and destroying everything and killing everyone related to the programs at once.

But what he does really mean is for NATO to speak to Russia in the clear terms, not still vaguely and diplomatically as in before February 24 when only vague warnings didn't work. And there's a good chance actual direct threats of doing what they did would have been enough for Putin to stand down and thus defused the initial crisis. The "Zapad-21 manoeuvres" would have finally ended, Russian troops would went back to their bases as they were officially supposed to, and that would have been all of it if just a simple deferrence worked if they plainly said what's in the cards and showed they're not bluffing (because they/we really weren't).

That's like with Saddam and Kuwait in 1990. The Americans didn't comprehend how Saddam was too isolated and "too stupid" (that's a quote from the later Congress hearings) to correctly understand their diplomatically wrapped warnings, with none of his terrified underlings daring to tell him.

It's not about eliminating the entire Russian arsenal but merely foiling what people believe can besome sort of a very small Russian tactical nuclear strike, instead of reacting to it with a NATO air campaign in Ukraine post fact. A conventional pinpoint attack based on precise intelligence, assuming there's such.

Think about like how Israelis only demolished the Iraqi and Syrian reactors with the F-16 raids or assassinated several key Iranian scientists over the decades (one recently, with a remote controlled gun), instead of going all in and destroying everything and killing everyone related to the programs at once.

But what he does really mean is for NATO to speak to Russia in the clear terms, not still vaguely and diplomatically as in before February 24 when only vague warnings didn't work. And there's a good chance actual direct threats of doing what they did would have been enough for Putin to stand down and thus defused the initial crisis.

That's like with Saddam and Kuwait in 1990. The Americans didn't comprehend how Saddam was too isolated and "too stupid" (that's a quote from the later Congress hearings) to correctly understand their diplomatically wrapped warnings, with none of his terrified underlings daring to tell him.

It's not about eliminating the entire Russian arsenal but merely foiling what people believe can besome sort of a very small Russian tactical nuclear strike, instead of reacting to it with a NATO air campaign in Ukraine post fact. A pinpoint attack based on precise intelligence, assuming there's such.

Think about like how Israelis only demolished the Iraqi and Syrian reactors with the F-16 raids or assassinated several key Iranian scientists over the decades (one recently, with a remote controlled gun), instead of going all in and destroying everything and killing everyone related to the programs at once.

But what he does really mean is for NATO to speak to Russia in the clear terms, not still vaguely and diplomatically as in before February 24 when only vague warnings didn't work. And there's a good chance actual direct threats of doing what they did would have been enough for Putin to stand down and thus defused the initial crisis.

That's like with Saddam and Kuwait in 1990. The Americans didn't comprehend how Saddam was too isolated and "too stupid" (that's a quote from the later Congress hearings) to correctly understand their diplomatically wrapped warnings, with none of his terrified underlings daring to tell him.

It's not about eliminating the entire Russian arsenal but merely foiling what people believe can besome sort of a very small Russian tactical nuclear strike (instead of reacting to it with an air campaign post fact). A pinpoint attack based on precise intelligence, if there's such.

Think about like how Israelis only demolished the Iraqi and Syrian reactors with the F-16 raids or assassinated several key Iranian scientists over the decades (one recently, with a remote controlled gun), instead of going all in and destroying everything and killing everyone related to the programs at once.

But what he does really mean is for NATO to speak to Russia in the clear terms, not still vaguely and diplomatically as in before February 24 when only vague warnings didn't work. And there's a good chance actual direct threats of doing what they did would have been enough for Putin to stand down and thus defused the initial crisis.

That's like with Saddam and Kuwait in 1990. The Americans didn't comprehend how Saddam was too isolated and "too stupid" (that's a quote from the later Congress hearings) to correctly understand their diplomatically wrapped warnings, with none of his terrified underlings daring to tell him.

It's not about eliminating the Russian arsenal but foiling what people believe can be a very small tactical strike. A pinpoint attack based on precise intelligence, if there's such.

Think about like how Israelis only demolished the Iraqi and Syrian reactors with the F-16 raids or assassinated several key Iranian scientists over the decades (one recently, with a remote controlled gun), instead of going all in and destroying everything and killing everyone related to the programs at once.

But what he does really mean is for NATO to speak to Russia in the clear terms, not still vaguely and diplomatically as in before February 24 when only vague warnings didn't work. And there's a good chance actual direct threats of doing what they did would have been enough for Putin to stand down and thus defused the initial crisis.

That's like with Saddam and Kuwait in 1990. The Americans didn't comprehend how Saddam was too isolated and "too stupid" (that's a quote from the later Congress hearings) to correctly understand their diplomatically wrapped warnings, with none of his terrified underlings daring to tell him.

It's not about eliminating the Russian arsenal but foiling what people believe can be a very small tactical strike. A pinpoint attack based on precise intelligence, if there's such.

Think about like how Israelis only demolished the Iraqi and Syrian reactors with the F-16 raids or assassinated several key Iranian scientists over the decades (one recently, with a remote controlled gun), instead of going all in and destroying everything and killing everyone related to the programs at once.

But what he really mean for NATO to speak to Russia in the clear terms, not still vaguely and diplomatically as in before February 24 when only vague warnings didn't work. And there's a good chance actual direct threats of doing what they did would have been enough for Putin to stand down and thus defused the initial crisis.

That's like with Saddam and Kuwait in 1990. The Americans didn't comprehend how Saddam was too isolated and "too stupid" (that's a quote from the later Congress hearings) to correctly understand their diplomatically wrapped warnings, with none of his terrified underlings daring to tell him.

It's not about eliminating the Russian arsenal but foiling what people believe can be a very small tactical strike. A pinpoint attack based on precise intelligence, if there's such.

Think about like how Israelis only demolished the Iraqi and Syrian reactors with the F-16 raids or assassinated several key Iranian scientists over the decades (one recently, with a remote controlled gun), instead of going all in and destroying everything and killing everyone related to the programs at once.

But what he really mean for NATO to speak to Russia in the clear terms, not still vaguely and diplomatically as in before February 24 when only vague warnings didn't work. And there's a good chance actual direct threats of doing what they did would have been enough for Putin to stand down and thus defused the initial crisis.

That's like with Saddam and Kuwait in 1990. The Americans didn't comprehend how Saddam was too isolated and "too stupid" (that's a quote from the later Congress hearings) to correctly understand their diplomatically wrapped warnings.

It's not about eliminating the Russian arsenal but foiling what people believe can be a very small tactical strike. A pinpoint attack based on precise intelligence, if there's such.

Think about like how Israelis only demolished the Iraqi and Syrian reactors with the F-16 raids or assassinated several key Iranian scientists over the decades (one recently, with a remote controlled gun), instead of going all in and destroying everything and killing everyone related to the programs at once.

But what he really mean for NATO to speak to Russia in the clear terms, not still vaguely and diplomatically as in before February 24 when only vague warnings didn't work. And there's a good chance actual direct threats of doing what they did would have been enough for Putin to stand down and thus defused the initial crisis.

That's like with Saddam and Kuwait in 1990. The Americans didn't understand how Saddam was too isolated and "too stupid" (that's a quote from the later Congress hearings) to understand their diplomatically wrapped warnings.

It's not about eliminating the Russian arsenal but foiling what people believe can be a very small tactical strike. A pinpoint attack based on precise intelligence, if there's such.

Think about like how Israelis only demolished the Iraqi and Syrian reactors with the F-16 raids or assassinated several key Iranian scientists over the decades (once recently, with a robot gun), instead of going all in and destroying everything and killing everyone related to the programs at once.

But what he really mean for NATO to speak to Russia in the clear terms, not still vaguely and diplomatically as in before February 24 when only vague warnings didn't work. And there's a good chance actual direct threats of doing what they did would have been enough for Putin to stand down and thus defused the initial crisis.

That's like with Saddam and Kuwait in 1990. The Americans didn't understand how Saddam was too isolated and "too stupid" (that's a quote from the later Congress hearings) to understand their diplomatically wrapped warnings.

It's not about eliminating the Russian arsenal but foiling what people believe can be a very small tactical strike. A pinpoint attack based on precise intelligence, if there's such.

Think about like how Israelis only demolished the Iraqi and Syrian reactors with the F-16 raids or assassinated several key Iranian scientists over the decades (once recently, with a gun robot), instead of going all in and destroying everything and killing everyone related to the programs at once.

But what he really mean for NATO to speak to Russia in the clear terms, not still vaguely and diplomatically as in before February 24 when only vague warnings didn't work. And there's a good chance actual direct threats of doing what they did would have been enough for Putin to stand down and thus defused the initial crisis.

That's like with Saddam and Kuwait in 1990. The Americans didn't understand how Saddam was too isolated and "too stupid" (that's a quote from the later Congress hearings) to understand their diplomatically wrapped warnings.

It's not about eliminating the Russian arsenal but foiling what people believe can be a very small tactical strike. A pinpoint attack based on precise intelligence, if there's such.

Think about like how Israelis only demolished the Iraqi and Syrian reactors with the F-16 raids or assassinated several key Iranian scientists, instead of going all in and destroying everything and killing everyone related to the programs.

But what he really means is for NATO to speak to Russia in the clear terms, not still vaguely and diplomatically as in before February 24 when only vague warnings didn't work. And there's a good chance actual direct threats of doing what they did would have been enough for Putin to stand down and thus defused the initial crisis.

That's like with Saddam and Kuwait in 1990. The Americans didn't understand how Saddam was too isolated and "too stupid" (that's a quote from the later Congress hearings) to understand their diplomatically wrapped warnings.

It's not about eliminating the Russian arsenal but foiling what people believe can be a very small tactical strike. A pinpoint attack based on precise intelligence, if there's such.

Think about like how Israelis only demolished the Iraqi and Syrian reactors with the F-16 raids or assassinated several key Iranian scientists, instead of going all in and destroying and killing everything and everyone related to the programs.

But what he really means is for NATO to speak to Russia in the clear terms, not still vaguely and diplomatically as in before February 24 when only vague warnings didn't work. And there's a good chance actual direct threats of doing what they did would have been enough for Putin to stand down and thus defused the initial crisis.

That's like with Saddam and Kuwait in 1990. The Americans didn't understand how Saddam was too isolated and "too stupid" (that's a quote from the later Congress hearings) to understand their diplomatically wrapped warnings.