re: No, we should not send our military to Ukraine. But can we speak the truth?

quote:

---

My opinion is that I understand his reasoning as to why he's done what he's done.

---

Gonna be a lot of dead innocent civilians to punctuate his "reasoning"

Just sayin

What about UK, France, Germany, et al?

Are they, too, being punked?

quote:

---

What’s the chances Mexico invades the US?

---

At this point, 100%...just not with their military.

quote:

---

Speak the truth? Sure


Putin is punking Biden on the world stage which is not surprising considering what comes to mind when you think of the two

Putin- Strength and leadership

Biden- Pudding and Depends


What a sick joke this administration is

---

what's sick is the amount of supposed "pro-USA" "patriots" sucking Putin's dick and actively rooting for our country's failure

fair enough

quote:

---

How often has Russia been attacked in the last 60 years? When has the West professed any desire to annex any part of Russia? This has nothing to do with buffer zones.

---

What the frick are you talking about?

I would love to have someone like Putin in power here in America, as long as his views align with mine… that would be unfortunate if I wanted the opposite of someone like Putin.

quote:

---

What about UK, France, Germany, et al?

Are they, too, being punked?

---

Germany's hand's are tied because they are basically completely dependent on Russian natural gas. France is France and you know how they are. UK is going to do what they did in the 1930s and appease to avoid a major conflict.

quote:

---

Yeah just because there was a coup that led to a regime Putin doesn’t like, that doesn’t make the US “responsible” for him invading the place

---

Sure, if you completely ignore that the Ukraine oligarchs with a significant financial interest in EU trade agreements were the highest donors to the Clinton Foundation between 2009 and 2013 (while Hilary was Secretary of State). If you completely ignore that US policy on Ukraine changed under Clinton in 2012 to a policy of financial intervention and support for regime change. If you completely ignore that the US financially supported the antagonist of the 2014 coup. If you completely ignore that key operatives were placed into the Ukraine government following the coup (especially financial sectors) by the US government. If you completely ignore that US political family members were given political positions that resulted in million-dollar salaries by these same political operatives and donors.

As long as you completely ignore all of that, your line of thinking makes sense.

quote:

---

So again do you think there’s a possibility of a Nato invasion of Russia?

If not, then specifically why is a buffer zone needed?

The only thing I can think of is he’s afraid a more prosperous Eastern Europe is a threat to his control of Russia.

If there’s another reason please tell me

---

It isn't just about if there is a possibility of invasion. It is about regional control and influence. If in the future Russia is surrounded by NATO countries it's power in the region is lowered significantly. Sanctions by NATO allies hold much more weight in that scenario.