Withdrawing from a contest isn’t always cost free. Allies are always watching.

As the Romans knew, the secret to regaining influence over a teetering buffer state is: reputation, reputation, reputation.

The problem of targeting an enemy that avoids battles is not new. Consider, for example, the Roman Empire’s 1st-Century war against Tacfarinas in North Africa.

Mostly perhaps, but in the right circumstances they can pose a threat to international stability.

The ancients knew: to understand a tyranny, you have to understand the tyrant’s soul.

By all appearances, Russia aspires to create a failed state on its own border. If this is the case, this also means the confrontation is less amenable to a diplomatic resolution.

The modern Western penchant for trusting in the equal rationality of all is strategic folly. Aeschylus understood this well.

Putin’s Russia may be able to wreck the geopolitical status quo, but it doesn’t have the power to replace it.

In light of Russia’s recent moves, NATO would do well to rethink its defense-in-depth strategy in favor of a more forward-leaning posture.

The question for NATO leaders is not only how to shore up the deterrence that remains, but how to restore the deterrence that has been lost.