"Our mistake was not to humiliate Russia but to underrate Russia's revanchist, revisionist, disruptive potential. If the only real Western achievement of the past quarter-century is now under threat, that’s because we have failed to ensure that NATO continues to do in Europe what it was always meant to do: Deter. Deterrence is not an aggressive policy; it is a defensive policy. But in order to work, deterrence has to be real. It requires investment, consolidation, and support from all of the West, and especially the United States. I’m happy to blame American triumphalism for many things, but in Europe I wish there had been more of it."
which means that part of that necessary public investment IMF and the others are talking about will have to go to defense and if that investment is big enough we will never have to use it again .... in Europe while maybe it would be easier to impress warmongers around the world to stop using war as a way of diplomacy or internal politics.
If the NATO wants to have a meaning for Eastern Europe it will have to be a strong NATO, if the military alliance with the US is to have a meaning for Eastern Europe it will be one that rebuilds its military capabilities, assumes its responsabilities and takes action whenever this seem to be needed in Europe.