I think the article is not too bad, however it seems too far hysterical and far reaching to me. First, there's fundamental difference between the energy (oil) embargo and any other type of embargo. In 1940s Japan related heavily on oil to the extent that: "[...] leading the Imperial Japanese Navy to estimate that it had less than two years of bunker oil remaining [...]" Events leading to the attack on Pearl Harbor - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
So, to draw a proper analogy, if Russia would stop exporting gas to Europe (as the article suggests) that would be Russian declaration of war against Europe (which I think would never happen). So, the present US and European's sanctions are way too far from being a declaration of war.


Second, the proposed plan to dismember Ukraine as a way to please Russia and Germany seems to be too stretched out. As the latest events had shown, Russia is ok if the sovereign Ukraine stays neutral. (And by the latest events I mean the Agreement on the Settlement of Crisis in Ukraine dated 21 February, 2014.) Unfortunately, as the opposition who have subsequently gained power demonstrated their determination not to respect the agreements and, subsequently, exceed their authority, Russia was forced into alternative ways to ensure their security.


Third, the article provides pitches scattered all over which make it look less realistic and more biased, like a demand to remove the missile base from Europe since, allegedly, Russian territory is fully covered by the nuclear-submarines'-carried Tridents anyways, so why the waste? That assumes that the military guys are stupid and that is not the case. The basics that the article's author is to be aware of is that the keyword in nuclear strategy is *diversification* and *proliferation*. The principal states that it is possible to destroy each and every component of the nuclear warhead delivery system, but it is never possible to destroy all of the components, hence rendering the assault useless. And so on.