Ok, but let me be fair. I'll play the game.
You assume (perhaps correctly, but my point is about the logical flaw of stating hypothetical predictions without a mere caveat of the inherent uncertainty) that:
A) the Russians has intent (quite likely)
B) the Russians had ability (also likely)
C) the Russians would be successful (likely)
D) That in the absence of US might others would not seek to stiffen their own arm (unlikely)
E) that the above criteria and the inummerable criteria I do not have the time or capability to mention would all point at a solution you have deemed a certainty.
This goes back to one of my pet peeves. With multiple factors of varying probability it is not simple to make accurate predictions. The preceeding sentence is an understatement.
I just realized that an earlier post of mine might be misunderstood
Craven de Kere wrote:
Yes, if Europe does not want to abide the US trampling on other nations' sovereignty when it pleases Europe should increase military spending.
Another good reason is to deflate the overinflated egos of the people who live in the nation with the strongest military and who think this affords them a reason to act haughty.
I did not have any forum participants in mind when writing that. I'm speaking of (here's an exagerrated example) the 14 year old who talks down to a Frenchman saying "we saved your ass" without having had any boasting rights and without having been part of the "we".
It's a "shoe fits.." scenario.