Just my opinion but Putin illustrates the shortcomings of Ron Paul’s foreign policy. Reagan’s approach gives longer term stability though it it’s far more costly.
Reagan’s policy was correct for the short-term special case of the Cold War. As a permanent policy, it will destroy us as Eisenhower warned.
I find Rand’s statement to be too aggressive toward Russia.
What does it matter how much money you saved if you lose a war and are conquered?