>>87853156There was a concept from the cold war: The escalation ratchet. That is once conflict starts it tends to escalate in one direction. Each side faces almost certain consequences domestically for backing down once their country has been attacked. But each side imagines the possibility that the other side will back down if the stakes are high enough. So a rational series of decisions about costs and risks, winds up leading to an irrational outcome.
This is the likely scenario. Hillary declares a no-fly zone over Syria.
Syria and Russia issue a polite statement boiling down to they will not respect the US's declarations, and keep flying.
Hillary has two choices: A humiliating climb down on the no fly zone, or launching an attack to enforce it. Remember, this is a woman who said: "Strength and resolve are the only language Putin understands"
Now. Rotate the board. The US has launched some limited strikes, most likely initially against Syrian forces, but the US has probably killed a few of your advisors and personnel. Your options are: roll over for the Americans and accept the no fly zone, start targeting anything NATO in the skies and threatening to shoot it down, or just go all in and try and knock out US forces in the region in a first strike and hope you can climb down after.
Anything but utter surrender would have put Hillary in a situation where there was enormous pressure on her for a military response. It's very very easy to see how what Hillary proposed in Syria might have lead to the escalation ratchet.
Here's the other vital point: the only way Russia can defend itself against a fully mobilized NATO is through using nuclear weapons. War with Russia therefore means nuclear war, unless you think Russians are the sort to just surrender because the consequences of a fight are too terrible.
