Medvedev is a washed out drunk but on this issue he’s right. This is exactly why I keep saying that the NATO is not real. The US has been at war in the Middle East for longer than I’ve been alive. Even that is getting harder and harder to sell to voters but that is the baseline. Adding active participation in a war in Europe to that universally disliked baseline is a political suicide for either party.
Instead of the fiction of NATO, there need to be serious, real, regional alliances. Europe hasn’t been preparing to defend itself because of the belief in the non-existent NATO. But America won’t be fighting in Europe because America will be Fighting in the Middle East. I hate it, too, but it’s reality. Let’s live in that reality already.
On a somewhat related note, if a day comes when Ukraine participates in any war to liberate Moldova, Georgia, Belarus, potentially the Baltics, etc, that’s the day on which my support for Ukraine ends. I’ve heard some rumblings in that direction and they are probably idle chatter but just to make it clear.
Clarissa's Blog 
The so-called “fiction” of NATO has kept its member nations free of invasion and at peace for almost a century now — by far one of the longest stretches of peace in that part of the world.
Not bad for what you consider a paper fantasy, eh?
Dreidel
LikeLiked by 1 person
Or maybe it’s simply that nobody cared to invade.
LikeLike
Really?
LikeLike
You really think the Soviet Union didn’t want its former captive nations back?
LikeLike
After Stalin’s death, there was zero interest or likelihood among the Soviet leadership for a war in Europe. Zero. Whoever told you differently lied.
LikeLike
?!
LikeLike
Well, why would the Soviets bother invading Europe when their true enemy was the US. Obviously they were planning to invade America.
LikeLike
I love your sense of humor almost as much as your always interesting links.
LikeLike
Yes, but it slowly became more useless as NATO members foolishly weakened their militaries. Then, to openly demonstrate their emasculation, at one point half a dozen of those nations actually publicly deliberately selected females as Ministers of Defence. Hell, what do you imagine opposing militaries concluded ;-D
LikeLike
Yes, nations like Israel and Great Britain really emasculated themselves when they elected women like Golda Meir and Margaret Thatcher as their leaders.
Dreidel
LikeLike
Neither Meir nor Thatcher were foolish enough to have chosen people with no military experience as Ministers of Defence. And I shouldn’t have to point out that their leaderships were subsequently challenged by military opponents.
The governments of Sweden *, Norway, Germany, Netherlands, Italy, and Finland have all trusted their defence policies with women. What is remarkable about this group is that they nearly all arrived at their positions without formal military backgrounds. But then afterall, defence doesn’t really matter, so neither merit nor experience should really matter. Right?
Hell, even Canada made Kim Campbell Minister of Defence, before the Conservatives made her Prime Minister hoping that feminism could stave off electoral collapse. That disgusting “AA” PM effort rightfully produced the most devastating defeat in Canadian federal history ;-D
*Defence Minister Enström had served in the Swedish military.
LikeLike