I actually grew up on both sides of the Iron Curtain, maybe that's why I struggle playing along with this Star Wars like narrative which insists it's "good guys vs bad guys".

No place is perfect and how "bad" a place ends up, always depending on how much an individual adapts to the given circumstances of said place. This holds true regardless of where you are, a democracy, a dictatorship or anything in-between.

Btw: If you want to talk about Crimea then we first need to start talking about Kiev [0]. Of course, that won't happen because then the whole "Russia as aggressor" narrative wouldn't fit as neatly.

[0] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2004/nov/26/ukraine.usa

There might not be "good guys vs bad guys" but there is certainly a "better vs worse" and it's quite plain to see which side of the Iron Curtain, even after its fall, fared better overall, culturally, intellectually, and economically.

That "better" is worth defending against the encroachment of the "worse".

how much would we all have to spend to reverse the re-annexation of crimea? clearly its not enough yet. or lets shoot for a resolution of the whole syria/iraq/israel/lebannon/etc thing. how much would that cost?

does that get paid to the US directly or do we all fund our own militaries that work...under US control? or based on our own ideas?

i'm just trying to figure out how this is supposed to work.

I don't think anyone is suggesting to chip in to reverse the annexation. The point is to have the military that could adequately protect against similar future encroachments.