We understand the United States may soon bless Ukrainian missile strikes within the Russian interior with Western-supplied missilery.

Thus the United States and its NATO understrappers would stomp across one of Russia's famous "red lines."

Mr. Putin:

Flight assignments for these missile systems can, in fact, only be entered by military personnel of NATO countries. Ukrainian military personnel cannot do this... It will mean direct participation of NATO.

We are not talking about allowing or not allowing the Ukrainian regime to strike Russia with these weapons. We are talking about deciding whether NATO countries are directly involved in the military conflict or not.

This will mean that NATO countries, the U.S. and European countries are at war with Russia. If this is so, then, bearing in mind the change in the very essence of this conflict, we will make appropriate decisions based on the threats that will be created for us.

Mr. Putin is correct. Our agents inform us that targeting data must derive from American and NATO satellite sources.

Only American and NATO personnel are authorized to receive it and transmit it.

Only they can type it into the missile.

Ukraine may technically launch the missile. That is, Ukraine may pull the trigger.

But the U.S. and NATO would load and point the pistol.

Thus the United States and its allies within the North Atlantic Treaty Organization would facilitate direct assaults upon Russian territory.

And so Vladimir bears his fangs.

"Oh, stop being such a worrywort," the warhawks intone.

"Putin is always warning about red lines. We cross them all the time by sending ever more powerful weapon systems to Ukraine, and he does nothing. What makes you think he'll do something this time?"

We would counsel these fellows that Putin never painted any "red lines." That is, he never said if you send these weapons to Ukraine, it means war.

These were merely imagined red lines Western analysts projected upon Mr. Putin.

Now it appears the poker-faced Russian has sketched one.

Should the United States and its mates march across it?

If they do march across it and Mr. Putin sits upon his hands, a great amount of egg will appear upon his face.

We hazard the fellow does not relish egg upon his face.

What if he punches back? Then what?

He may not launch a right cross to the jaw. He may instead poke a left jab to the nose.

That is, he may not launch direct retaliation but indirect retaliation.

He may, for example, hand advanced missilery to friends hostile to the United States and its allies.

To Iran and North Korea to name two.

And if Iran hands them off to Yemen's Houthi rebels, so-called? And if they shoot them off at vessels of the United States Navy? And if they wreck one?

"Tough darts," says Mr. Putin. "You asked for it."

Would the United States then doff its cap to the autocrat... and walk away... honors even?

It is not likely. Up the escalation ladder events would go.

"Love is like war," said Baltimore's sage, Henry Louis Mencken "easy to begin but very hard to stop."

Below, we republish a debate between a mainstream spokesman who denounces Vladimir Putin in the most vicious terms and Advocatus Diaboli, the devil's advocate, who speaks on Mr. Putin's behalf.

Who won the debate? Read on, then you decide.

Is Putin Hitler?

By Brian Maher

Mainstream Spokesman: Putin's invasion of Ukraine is a severe breach of international law and a crime against humanity. He is a ruthless thug.

Advocatus Diaboli: It is true the fellow is a ruthless thug and plenty more. I can assure you the Boss has space set aside for him once he pays his debt to nature. He has a reservation, so to speak.

Yet I would caution you Americans about invoking international law. Your observance of international law so-called can be rather... selective.

Under which international law did your United States invade Panama in 1989 or Iraq in 2003? Under which international law did you oust Libya's Muammar Gaddafi in 2011?

Or, for the matter of that, under which international law do American soldiers presently occupy the sovereign nation of Syria?

Russian troops are also there, it is true. But they were invited in by the Syrian government. Where was your invitation?

Mainstream Spokesman: That's ridiculous. These were evil regimes that killed their own people and threatened their neighbors. They were the bad guys. We liberate oppressed peoples. We're the good guys.

Advocatus Diaboli: Let us assume arguendo that you are the good guys. And compared with the Saddam Husseins of your world, I'll grant that you are the good guys. But it strikes me as rather hypocritical that you cite international law only when it suits you.

I'd rather you simply admit that you are willing to overlook international law when freedom and democracy and the rest of it are on the line. Your commitment to freedom and democracy doesn't seem very strong to me, but at least it would sound better.

And do you realize that under international law, you become a co-belligerent in the war by arming Ukraine. I have to say, the "madman" Putin has shown great restraint by not retaliating.

And did you see the Seymour Hersh piece detailing how the United States blew up Russia's energy pipeline to Germany? That's an act of war, buster. And still Putin does nothing.

Mainstream Spokesman: Oh, please. Don't compare our attempts to spread freedom and democracy to Putin's brutal invasion of Ukraine. Putin hates democracy, as all dictators do. As the world's leading democracy, we must support democratic values. The Ukrainians want democracy. They also want to join NATO and the EU. And Russia is one of the most corrupt nations on Earth.

Advocatus Diaboli: I see what you mean. But let me address your points, beginning with the last. It is true, Russia is one of the most corrupt nations on Earth and the most corrupt in Europe.

But do you know which is the second-most corrupt nation in Europe? You guessed it, jack Ukraine.

And I would remind you that this Ukrainian democracy of yours isn't especially democratic.

Did you know that its President Zelenskyy, now so bravely defying Russian authoritarianism, arrested the leader of his opposition party, banned three television networks and outlawed churches that are canonically linked to Russia?He also canceled elections this year. Heck, even during the Civil War your Abe Lincoln allowed for elections.

Is this your idea of democracy? That strikes me as rather Putin-esque, to be frank.

Mainstream Spokesman: Don't get cute with me. You can't compare Zelenskyy to Putin. What Zelenskyy did was entirely appropriate. This is wartime and sometimes you have to take drastic actions that you never would in peacetime. You cite Lincoln. Lincoln grossly violated the Constitution during the Civil War out of necessity, for example. He was fighting a war, for heaven's sake. So is Zelenskyy.

Advocatus Diaboli: I see. So you must subvert democracy in order to defend democracy.

Mainstream Spokesman: Sometimes, yes. That's just reality. Get over it.

Advocatus Diaboli: You say Putin is Hitler. If he's allowed to gobble Ukraine, in no time flat he'll be gobbling Poland, the Baltic nations and so on. If you give him his one inch in Ukraine, he'll take his mile everywhere else. Do I have that right?

Mainstream Spokesman: That's exactly correct.

Advocatus Diaboli: Mmmm. That sounds a lot like that famous domino theory that got you into Vietnam. How did that work out for you? But I'll let that go. Let me ask you this: Are you willing to fight for Ukrainian freedom and democracy?

Mainstream Spokesman: We will do everything we can to help Ukraine defeat the Soviet sorry the Russian invasion. But we don't want to intervene militarily because it could start a war with Russia, which could potentially go nuclear. See, I'm not saying we should intervene militarily. We're just giving Ukraine the weapons it needs to defeat this unconscionable act of Russian invasion.

Advocatus Diaboli: That sounds reasonable to me. But don't forget, you've essentially made yourself a belligerent in this war by arming Ukraine.

You wish to bring Ukraine into NATO. But recall Article 5 of the NATO Charter. It says an attack on one constitutes an attack on all. All members must rush to the defense of the besieged.

Let's assume Putin gets bored one day and next invades, say, Poland, a NATO member. Why he would want Poland I have no idea, but whatever. That would mean NATO the United States, essentially must defend Poland.

And then you might have your dreaded nuclear war. Does this make sense?

Let me ask you this: If you're not willing to directly fight for Ukraine's independence today, why would you be willing to fight for Poland's independence tomorrow and risk nuclear war with Russia?

Mainstream Spokesman: It's called deterrence. Collective defense is meant to deter aggression. That was the idea behind Woodrow Wilson's proposed League of Nations. Bringing Russia's neighbors into NATO deters Russia because they don't want to risk a larger war with us.

Advocatus Diaboli: There appears to be some sound logic in your argument. But are you willing to tie your security and perhaps your very survival to the decisions of unpredictable people thousands of miles away? You become a sort of hostage to fortune.

Your Founding Fathers warned against becoming involved in so-called entangling alliances. What is NATO but an entangling alliance?

And what if your lovely deterrence fails?

You did not think Russia would invade Ukraine. Yet it did.

Why should anyone think you can predict future events? Have you thought this through?

Mainstream Spokesman: Yes, absolutely. The world is a safer place with an expanded NATO, including Ukraine. It would show other aggressors that they can't just invade their neighbors. We need to take a stand now.

Advocatus Diaboli: I see you mentioned Wilson. He entered World War I to make the world safe for democracy. Look at the results. What he really made the world safe for were fascism and communism.

You know where the path of good intentions leads to, right? Well, I'll tell you. To my neck of the woods, old boy. Old Woodrow can personally attest to that. The Boss particularly enjoys chasing him around with a pitchfork. When he connects, Wilson yelps like you wouldn't believe. I rather enjoy watching it, I must admit.

Mainstream Spokesman: The League of Nations was a good idea. It was just that Wilson couldn't get enough support for it. It might have stopped Hitler if it had real teeth, as we must now stop Putin.

Advocatus Diaboli: Have you considered the possibility that your own policies are at least partly responsible for Putin's actions?

Mainstream Spokesman: Here we go another Putin apologist. You and Trump should get together.

Advocatus Diaboli: Believe me, one day we will. But nevermind that. Just hear me out...

Putin had warned for years that Ukraine was his line in the sand, his "red line." He would not accept Ukraine within NATO, menacing at his doorstep. Look at a map. Parts of Ukraine are actually east of Moscow. In reality, no Russian leader would, even a "liberal" one. But you people just kept poking the bear.

And you spent eight years or so arming Ukraine and training its forces. That was in direct violation of the Minsk agreements. Germany's Angela Merkel has since admitted that NATO deliberately violated the agreements.

Then you turn around and say Putin's attack was unprovoked. What hypocrites you people are!

Meanwhile, Victoria Nuland, some former understrapper in your State Department, actually bragged about engineering a coup against Ukraine's pro-Russian president in 2014 (incidentally, the Boss is keeping a dossier on her, believe it when I tell you).

And she's practically bragged about blowing up Russia's pipeline! Did you hear her?

To you people, Ukraine is a sort of pet project. To Russia it is a strategic imperative. How would you like it if Russia was arming Mexico and invited it into a formal alliance? Well, now that Putin has pounced, you clutch your pearls and take to the fainting couch.

HELLO! He warned you this would happen. But you didn't listen.

Mainstream Spokesman: Why should we listen to an anti-democratic dictator? Who cares what he wants? We don't base our foreign policy on what Vladimir Putin wants.

Advocatus Diaboli: Well, maybe you should take his security concerns into consideration. He does, after all, have nuclear weapons and may be prepared to wield them. Is a democratic, NATO-joined Ukraine more important to you than avoiding nuclear war?

Look at what your Pat Buchanan said over 20 years ago:

By moving NATO onto Russia’s front porch, we have scheduled a 21st-century confrontation.

But it is not just the "isolationist" Pat Buchanan who warned about NATO expansion. Shall I name some names?

No, you say? But I insist. Take, for example, the famous statesman Henry Kissinger:

To Russia, Ukraine can never be just a foreign country... Ukraine should not join NATO.

(Incidentally, the Boss was ecstatic when he finally got his hands on the old coot.)

Or a certain Jack F. Matlock Jr. former United States ambassador to the Soviet Union. This fellow argued that NATO expansion was:

The most profound strategic blunder, [encouraging] a chain of events that could produce the most serious security threat… since the Soviet Union collapsed.

Or radical Noam Chomsky hardly a Putin apologist:

The idea that Ukraine might join a Western military alliance would be quite unacceptable to any Russian leader [and Ukraine’s desire to join NATO] is not protecting Ukraine, it is threatening Ukraine with major war.

Or the late Russian scholar Stephen Cohen:

If we move NATO forces... toward Russia’s borders… it’s obviously going to militarize the situation [and] Russia will not back off. This is existential.

Or CIA Director Bill Burns:

Ukrainian entry into NATO is the brightest of all red lines for [Russia] and I have yet to find anyone who views Ukraine in NATO as anything other than a direct challenge to Russian interests.

Or former defense secretary Robert Gates:

Moving so quickly [to expand NATO] was a mistake… Trying to bring Georgia and Ukraine into NATO was truly overreaching [and] an especially monumental provocation.

Or Sir Roderic Lyne, former British ambassador to Russia:

[Pushing] Ukraine into NATO [is] stupid on every level... if you want to start a war with Russia, that’s the best way of doing it.

Mainstream Spokesman: Enough! Stop! You've made your point, even though I disagree. I stand firm in my resolution that Putin must be stopped and that Ukrainian freedom and democracy must be defended.

Advocatus Diaboli: Even if it means war with Russia?

Mainstream Spokesman:[Silence.]

Advocatus Diaboli: Well, it's been fun. I hate to run, but the Boss is calling for me. But hey, I'll be seeing you.

No, I really mean it I'll be seeing you.