Complete victory for Ukraine would be a Pyrrhic victory for America (but it is extremely unlikely to happen)

Srdja Trifkovic in "Chronicles" on 1 March:

"It is ironic that even if the current team in Washington is successful, at a huge risk, in forcing Russia to withdraw to its pre-2014 borders, and even if Ukraine is subsequently admitted into NATO, America will be significantly less secure than it was before the Maidan coup, let alone before Putin’s intervention. The U.S. would then have to assume responsibility for supporting and defending a bankrupt state with arguably the most corrupt political establishment in Europe. The U.S. would become the ultimate guarantor, in perpetuity, of Ukraine’s borders, which were arbitrarily drawn by Lenin’s Bolsheviks in 1922 and expanded with a stroke of Nikita Khrushchev’s pen in 1954. Those borders would be certain to remain disputed by an embittered, revanchist Russia—just as Germany’s eastern borders were strenuously disputed after Versailles, and probably with similar long-term results.

"This would be a Pyrrhic victory for America and a permanent distraction from the only global challenge she faces, 5,000 miles southeast of Moscow."

I suppose he means China is the challenge, though Beijing is less than 5,000 miles away from Moscow, but I don't see why China is any threat to American interests either.

Remember Truman expected to take American troops out of Europe after the war and kept them there because Stalin foolishly took over Eastern Europe far too soon for his own good. He reminded the Anglo-Americans of Hitler whom they had defeated at the price of 70 million lives.

Remember too that Baldwin and Chamberlain wanted to avoid Great Britain getting dragged into defending the 1919 settlement in Eastern Europe, on the ground that no British interests were at stake.

Now everyone thinks 'the West' has interests every where. Especially neo-cons for whom it is always 1938.

Hitlers are cropping up all the time. Everyone takes new cold wars for granted and nobody fears a nuclear war.

Instead of new Baldwins we have Churchill wannabes, like Boris Johnson, Hilary Clinton and so many others.

Why in fact does Nato still exist, since the Soviet threat no longer does?

Because Nato is now about values, which in practice means Anglo-American hegemony throughout the Eurasian land-mass.

This inevitably invites a reaction.

Instead of trying to rerun a mythical past that never really happened that way and anyway was tragic, Nato governments should work for a ceasefire soon in Ukraine, which hardens into a settlement that lasts.

It will only be temporary, says Robert Kaplan. 

Perhaps. Let's see. Why should a ceasefire help Russia more than the Ukraine?