Patrick Armstrong Went All In.

Most of what he wrote about "or else" is valid and I agree with it. 

Why now? Two possible answers, each of which may be true. US/NATO have been using “salami tactics” against Russia for years; Moscow has decided that a second Ukraine crisis in one year is one thin slice too many. Second: Moscow may judge that, in the USA’s precipitous decline, this will be the last chance that there will be sufficient central authority to form a genuine agreement; an agreement that will avoid a catastrophic war. (The so-called Thucydides Trap). Of course I don’t know what Putin & Co will do and we do have to factor in the existence of a new international player: Putin, Xi and Partners. Xi has just made it clear that Beijing supports Moscow’s “core interests”. It is likely that any “counter-threats” will be coordinated. The Tabaquis have responded as expected but maybe (let’s hope so) Washington is taking it more seriously.

Read the whole thing, it is worth it. I think even omitting "or else" clause is a factor in itself.  

Russia will never forget Belgrade. 

Rumor has it that some "forces" (wink, wink) are readying chemical weapons provocation in Donbas. Of course, Russia, who can wipe the US off the map (forget about Europe) is into "chemical weapons" so much that she is going to use them when she can wipe out VSU in few salvos of stand-off weapons. The lack of imagination in UK and US is stunning. How about gay bomb, oh..wait...