>Russia is a gigantic country with vast resources that isn’t bordered by Europe

Maybe you should look at the map before writing such nonsense.

1. Russia does have borders both with EU and NATO. Norway, Finland, Baltic states, Poland.

2. Russia is geographically in Europe too. Most of its population and the capital are in Europe.

Among European countries it does have the largest territory, population and nuclear arsenal, but it is not even the biggest economy. Ex-superpower is not a now-superpower. Mindset-wise it has a lot in common with other EU members.

Obviously Russia borders Europe. How do you do a land invasion of Europe without bordering Europe?

But Russia isn’t Germany whose borders are completely dominated by Europe.

Putin obviously thinks Russia should still be a superpower. People get that mentality when they see the past and think they deserve it again. Holy shit people love the “glory days.”

There are conflicts that have been going on for millennia like in the Middle East and they fight today because their ancestors fought.

People have a hard on for the past.

You’ll teach someone command line Git starting out and they love it and they will never bother with a GUI because they value their experience more than practicality.

Russia is a still a superpower in many ways, certainly in nukes. It's a shame though they feel the need to grab territory which seems a bit nineteenth century. I put it down to Putin reading too many old history books instead of Pinker and Gladwell. The US manages to be a superpower without feeling the need to invade Canada because they have a similar culture and try to have democracy there rather than being ruled from Washington.

The US just carries out its wars overseas - not on its next-door neighbors. Whenever the stock price of the Big-3 War Companies drop, the senators and congressmen are encouraged to find an excuse for bombings.

This is what Putin is always trying to convince the world about, but when you look closer, it is no longer true - but it was once. Now the USA is not only not starting any wars, but is also getting out of old conflicts, such as Iraq and Afghanistan. They realized these were stupid wars, in the case of Iraq started on false premises, impossible to win, even without a feasible strategy for wining and a definition of victory. These two wars should have never happened and most people in the West were against them. It is mostly Bush and Blair to blame for them and for their consequences, including the atrocities of ISIS.

Apart for these, which Bush considered a retaliation for 9/11, the USA is very careful not to start any conflicts and not to get involved - see Syria for example.

For the case of Syria, it is damned if you do and damned if you don't. Red lines were crossed (chemical weapons) and it was only when ISIS emerged that there were boots on the ground.

Plus they're trying to unseat Assad because he is blocking the development of the Qatar turkey pipeline project that would see Europe able to route around Russia for natural gas.

Now due to Russia's actions Germany has signed on with Qatar on a million dollar deal to get the pipeline done. I am sure this will result in more pressure on Syria.

Very convenient forgetting the invasion and destruction of Libya - a state that had free education & healthcare along with free household electricity. This was carried out under Obama, btw. You should personally ask native Libyan's what they think of the invasion - not the U.S. state department.

I suppose you will say the U.S became the "good guys" only under the Trump administration ? I suppose all the targeting and intelligence advice and weapons given to the Saudi's for bombing Yemen weddings were for "freedom" and thus completely justified ?

My positions/opinions are not based from Putin - but from middle-east citizens who have faced the brunt of American warfare. But the general tendency of war-loving American neocons/neo-liberals who wish to deliver "freedom" by War is to always blame Putin Propaganda when a citizen not of the NATO sphere holds a position opposed to their own. The U.S. are the real masters of propaganda- the Russians are a laughable footnote.

Shall I remind you that it was the Libyan government who made the first shots and it were the native Libyans who started the civil war?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libyan_civil_war_(2011)

In every country ruled by some dictator there are beneficiaries who will complain afterwards that the bloodshed was caused by some foreign intervention. They feed from his hands, receive generous giveaways while others suffer. Did you talk to those people to get your opinion?

Yes, I have I talked to more than a dozen Libyans from the lower middle class. I am reasonably certain you haven't talked to any if you hold those opinions.

The some beneficiaries is a joke. You check your own sources - under Gaddafi, per capita income in the country rose to more than US$11,000 - the 5th highest in Africa. Universal free healthcare did exist and was not limited to "some beneficiaries" as you claim. Now, most Libyans suffer extreme poverty and deprivation. A nation that was utterly decimated - all thanks to NATO under the Obama administration.

The funny thing is that Gadaffi was willing to step down from power and hold elections under international observers. The U.S. rejected that. That would mean not having a war and hawks like Victoria Nuland wanted the Libyan government destroyed - not merely brought under democratic leadership. They were aware that if real elections were held and monitored with observers - Gadaffi would likely win and NATO legitimacy for the War would be lost.

You misread that sentence.