Regional land grabs are a constant throughout history, including in America’s history. How did we end up with California again?
The fact that there was a war worth fighting 80 years ago doesn’t mean that the US needs to police every border in the world in perpetuity. Your own example proves it. Imperial Japan, alone, wouldn’t have been any of our business had it not attacked us directly. China and Korea could be speaking Japanese today and it would be fine for Americans.
The problem is not even a land grab per se (even though it does cause problems). The problem is that the grabbing party, having succeeded, does not stop, and develops an approach to international affairs that ends up being problematic in the long term. Germany in 1939 did not limit itself to acquiring Alsace and Lorraine, and even to grabbing most of Poland (along with its then-ally USSR), and even to grabbing most of France. Same for any historical empire. (The US in this regard is slightly different, e.g. it did not directly grab Texas, and bought large parts of California. Having grabbed the entire width of the continent, there remained little desire to grab the inhospitable south or north.)
Your logic may work with e.g. Taiwan: I don't think China would go on an expansionist rampage once it grabs Taiwan (or "returns", some would say). Should the US be just okay with that?
I don’t think we have any indication that Russia is more like Nazi Germany than say, Saddam Hussein’s Iraq or the US stealing territory from the Spanish. There are historical reasons why Russia would want to control Ukraine that don’t imply that they would want to keep expanding into Germany and France.
I think the notion that Russia seeks to take over the world is just Peddled by a bunch of Cold War holdovers who don’t have a job anymore. Whats shocking is that many people who should know better have bought into Dick Cheney-ism.
Germany and France, maybe not. But parts of Poland were also historically controlled by Russia, as was Finland, and the eastern Baltic coast, countries like Lithuania or Estonia. All these countries are NATO members.
I don't think that Russia is trying to take over the world, Genghis Khan-style. But I see a strong tendency in the current Russian regime to restore the area of control and influence that the USSR used to have, and it's not a small and inconsequential alteration of the world map.
Yes, because USA is a founding member of NATO, and, along with other NATO members, is obliged to protect any NATO members under attack with military force.
(As a homework, consider the consequences if the USA refused to follow on with this obligation.)
There are historical reasons why Russia would want to control Ukraine that don’t imply that they would want to keep expanding into Germany and France.
But they do imply they would want to start messing with Poland and the Baltics (and Russian leaders have stated as much openly).
I think the notion that Russia seeks to take over the world ...
No one is saying Russia seeks to "take over the whole world". But it is openly seeking to subjugate a country of 44 million people to whatever extent it can get away with, and has issued recent threats to other countries (see above) it has invaded previously, some multiple times.
Those countries weren’t part of nato when we signed the treaty. Whatever sense the original treaty made, countries have treated nato membership as a way to outsource their defense to the US, and the treaty makes no sense today.
The fact that there was a war worth fighting 80 years ago doesn’t mean that the US needs to police every border in the world in perpetuity. Your own example proves it. Imperial Japan, alone, wouldn’t have been any of our business had it not attacked us directly. China and Korea could be speaking Japanese today and it would be fine for Americans.