We armchair pundits love to criticize generals for preparing for the last war which is exactly what this article does. The quoted statement above is absolutely right, nuclear weapons change everything.
Moreover, the experience of warfare since the explosion of the bomb in 1945 quite independently demonstrates that the acquisition of territory often is it a greater liability than an asset. America has experienced problems of occupying indigestible populations in Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan. The Russians have learned, or should have learned, this lesson in Afghanistan.
Apart from petroleum products, the acquisition of raw materials is no longer the Sine qua non of a world power. Technology and finance trump copper or iron ore in a world in which trade is ubiquitous and shipping lanes are open. Oil remains an exception but the whole petroleum economy of the world is now being stood on its head.
If the author of this article wanted to compare the appeasement of Hitler leading up to the world war two he ought to compare the national interests of the Western powers in the second half of the 1930s and the national interest of the United States in this decade but he has not even made that attempt. The British had a centuries long policy of combining with the second strongest power on the continent to check greatest power. That was a time when land war was conventional and the acquisition occupation of land was the goal of the game. The British policy of appeasement departed from that centuries long successful policy.
Today, even non-nuclear war is not "conventional" in the same sense and, in any event, we live in the nuclear age. Intercontinental ballistic missiles tend to make the acquisition of small bits of turf irrelevant. The national interests of the United States in this decade do not make it a crucial matter of survival or even of the advancement of serious American interests to thwart Russia's aggression-and aggression it indisputably is-in and around Crimea.
The national interests of the United States lie in restoring its economy, developing its energy potential, preserving its military might, and advancing its technology lead. None of these things will be served by involvement in Crimea and every one of them will probably be set back by doing so.
