My response got eaten somehow so I will retype it from faulty memory.

I hope you are right in your first half! I would prefer to bet against myself. I am not sure Ukraine is the lone rock on which US credibility can be dashed (for one, I think that the delay in aid in 2023 had already led to a downgrade in US ratings from allies, and if not they need to get better risk analysts), but I do see your point about events being more irretrievable than actions. But I also think that the range of discussions we are having now is evidence that something profound has shifted and that the Overton window of politics is different. For me, the Rubicon was / will be Merz -- the proposal and then if he can effectuate the shift. Other confirmatory evidence comes from the sudden popularity of the Gripen.

On the second half, I wholeheartedly agree. In essence, pieces need to start where they once would have begun and then try to lay out second-best strategies. That's a tall order, because we aren't trained to think in those terms (at least not as strenuously) and because the nature of the environment means that fully laying out arguments in public may be risky to the viability of those concerns.

I am also Team B, and I am deeply annoyed that de Gaulle turned out, in the long run, to be right. Score one against "security community" theory, I guess.