Don't what? We are just tooling around in the Baltic. The only difference really is that we are in a better position to respond if we want to.
I don't disagree with any of what you said. I just think properly developing and positioning ourselves without blustering is a better approach than false bluster.
Those that were debating her were saying how tough they would talk. That most certainly is not going to work with Putin. Her approach for that specific issue IMO has a much better chance of being effective.
The Russian people are actually divided on Putin even though his approval is up, but the problem with putting ships in the Baltic is that st Petersburg sits in the Baltic. St Petersburg is a more important city to Russia than Moscow and it is very dear to the Russian people in a historical and cultural sense. By doing that will undoubtably unite the Russian and other Slavic people. You aren't just talking about Russia you are also talking about the Bulgarians, Moldavians, Belorussians, and Serbians. So you are talking about the Balkans united against the Anglos, Aryans, and Muslims in that event. Also consider that Putin, if he takes our threat legit, would almost undoubtably send an overwhelming force into Kyrgyzstan with an overwhelming force to take our transit hub to Afghanistan and centcom out at manis. So a force of action without a formidable foothold and the force necessary to challenge them is ill advised. Trump claiming a diplomatic solution is a better option, but he didn't offer a good explanation on how and what he would accomplish.
I would be all for her point if we had the numbers but we just don't and neither does Britain. This scenario has a real potential to be a ww3 scenario with Iran and Assad being undoubtably involved. You can probably throw reagen and bush's run ins with Russia as a bases to support Carly's views but they had 5 to 6 years to develop adequate speed bump and military forces to challenge them.