Potentially the single biggest threat to our well-being is the threat of war with nuclear-armed Russia, a threat that Barack Obama airily dismissed in a presidential debate with Mitt Romney four years ago, when the challenger named Russia as a foreign policy threat:

Then there was the cringe-worthy “reset button” photo op of Hillary and the Russian foreign minister, with his middle digit artfully extended toward Herself.

Well, it is all falling apart.  Russia has unilaterally scrapped its disarmament deal with the U.S.:

Russian President Vladimir Putin on Monday ordered a halt to an agreement with the United States on plutonium disposal, citing Washington’s “unfriendly actions”

The deal, signed in 2000, was meant to allow both nuclear powers to dispose of weapons-grade plutonium from their defense programs, a move seen as a key step in the disarmament process.

The two countries recommitted to the deal in 2010.

Humiliating as the wreckage of an Obama prioritized nuclear disarmament deal must be to Obama and Hillary, it is the least of our worries. Consider this from the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (via Sputnik News):

Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Joseph Dunford warned Congress that the implementation of a No Fly Zone, a centerpiece of Hillary’s foreign policy strategy, would result in World War III.

During testimony before the Senate Committee on Armed Services last week General Joseph Dunford rang the alarm over a policy shift that is gaining more traction within the halls of Washington following the collapse of the ceasefire brokered by the United States and Russia in Syria saying that it could result in a major international war which he was not prepared to advocate on behalf of.

Odd, isn’t it, that the media have not publicized the nation’s top military leader warning that Hillary’s policy would lead to war with Russia?

If Syria seems remote, how about the Baltic States?  Kris Osborne writes at Scout, a military site:

The current NATO force structure in Eastern Europe would be unable to withstand a Russian invasion into neighboring Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia, a new think tank study has concluded.

After conducting an exhaustive series of wargames wherein “red” (Russian) and “blue” (NATO) forces engaged in a wide range of war scenarios over the Baltic states, a Rand Corporation study called “Reinforcing Deterrence on NATO’s Eastern Flank” determined that a successful NATO defense of the region would require a much larger air-ground force than what is currently deployed.

In particular, the study calls for a NATO strategy similar to the Cold War era’s “AirLand Battle” doctrine from the 1980s.  During this time, the U.S. Army stationed at least several hundred thousand troops in Europe as a strategy to deter a potential Russian invasion. Officials with U.S. Army Europe tell Scout Warrior that there are currenty 30,000 U.S. Army soldiers in Europe. 

The Rand study maintains that, without a deterrent the size of at least seven brigades, fires and air support protecting Eastern Europe, that Russia cold overrun the Baltic states as quickly as in 60 hours.

Sixty hours: The nation is in deep peril.

Hat tip: Clarice Feldman, Stephen Green, Instapundit