Exactly what are those strategic national interests? To take the side of Turkey in its millennial fight with the Kurds? To use the mutual defense clause of the NATO treaty to back Turkey in its aggressive acts? [Defense treaties don't work that way].
Your problem is that like Rumsfeld and Cheney you see the world through cold war eyes. Putin's moral character is not the issue. The issue is our vital interests vs their vital interests - as you state. Islamic terrorism is a threat to both of our vital interests, but we have Obama trying to sort the world into good terrorists vs bad terrorists. It just doesn't work that way.
Article 5 of the NATO charter was invoked once. After 9/11 NATO declared that an attack against the US was an attack against all. Hence the involvement of NATO in Afghanistan.
Your problem is that like Rumsfeld and Cheney you see the world through cold war eyes. Putin's moral character is not the issue. The issue is our vital interests vs their vital interests - as you state.
Putin, the former KGB agent, is taking us back to the Cold War thru his actions whether it is buzzing our carriers or sending bombers close to our airspace off Alaska and California or invading and seizing a part of a sovereign nation. These theeaten our national interests as well as our allies. How do you think Poland and the Baltic States feel about Putin and Russian aggression? Putin is a dictator. His moral character is an issue.
The issue is our vital interests vs their vital interests - as you state. Islamic terrorism is a threat to both of our vital interests, but we have Obama trying to sort the world into good terrorists vs bad terrorists. It just doesn't work that way.
Putin is in Syria to prop up Assad, not fight ISIS. He is allied with Iran. Putin is not the defender of Western Civilization. He is a corrupt dictator and punk who needs to learn the limits of his aggression. Turkey gave him a needed lesson.