And NATO had been sending arms and advisors into Ukraine. And what good did that do for Ukrainians who by and large are sick of this conflict?

These arms are probably what will give them their country back in the end. Nobody is under any illusion that the Ukrainian army can defeat Russia in a conventional war. But Russia is signing up for possibly decades of guerilla and insurgencies and is going to bleed dry like the USSR did in Afghanistan.

You know of what Ukrainians are even sicker than this conflict? Russian imperialism. Each instance of sabre rattling brings them closer to the West.

Ukraine is not owned by Russia. If Ukraine invites NATO troops in, that is their right to do so. Ukraine does not want to be part of Russia, which is why Putin just had to launch an attack against the whole of the nation. Kharkiv is Russian-speaking majority and right next to the border, why didn't it voluntarily join Russia 5, 10, 20 years ago? It didn't want to is the correct answer.

Remember how the Russian government was recently talking about how what goes on inside of their borders is only their business? That they may move their troops anywhere they like inside of their borders (the obvious lie by Putin & Co that was obvious at the time)? Yeah, that's the same principle.

Imagine Mexico for any reason would invite Russian army. What answer do expect from US in such case?

And you don't have to imagine, just remember Cuban missile crisis (in response to US deploying missiles in Turkey, Italy)

> Imagine Mexico for any reason would invite Russian army.

I've heard this "analogy" brought up several times in the last couple days, but I just don't find it persuasive or similar, or really actually matter.

If Mexico decided to invite the Russian army in for whatever reason, that is their choice as a sovereign nation. I (as an American) would be super worried about that, but I would also think that the US should probably be asking itself why Mexico had chosen to do this instead of allying itself with the US.

And that's really the heart of this for me: despite Ukraine's history with Russia, they seem to feel that joining NATO is better for their security and safety. Russia should take a hard look at themselves and ask why that's the case, and maybe adjust their behavior so they'd be considered a more trustworthy partner.

But of course that would never happen; instead we have a dictator who believes Russia has some natural right to Ukraine's lands, and will take it by force if necessary. If the US were behaving that way toward Mexico, I absolutely wouldn't blame them for looking for outside help. It would be irresponsible for them not to.

Ukraine is not getting nuclear weapons on its territory. If that were really the issue, Putin would have invaded the Baltic states and Poland. You know, where the weapons actually are.

You are suggesting to attack NATO countries. Do you want WW3?

In which way does what I want matter? I merely point out Putin's hypocrisy, consisting in attacking a country that gave up voluntarily its nuclear weapons and that would not be getting American weapons at all if it weren't for its aggressive neighbour. If Putin were really frightened by NATO, he would not be destabilising Ukraine, he would be undermining Poland.

Ah, yes. It's a pity the Ukrainians did not pick the right side back in 2014 before they ousted Yanukovych.