[ansel12]

You keep misreading my posts and I don’t know why, earlier you agreed with me that ISIS wasn’t invading the US when I had said nothing of the sort, now I said that Russia doesn’t need to be conquering these countries to serve as “buffers” or protection, and you misread that.

As far as what all this is about, it is conquering territory and building empire.

Personally I’m still with the free world and don’t understand you pro-Russia/anti-NATO/anti-free world people.

[jjsheridan5]

Personally I’m still with the free world and don’t understand you pro-Russia/anti-NATO/anti-free world people.

I am in no way "pro-Russia", and certain not "anti-free world". As far as NATO, I have genuine questions about how useful it really is, since I don't think there is any real political will backing it up. But in general, no, I am not anti-NATO. What I am against, is getting involved in what, at this point, is a very messy situation, but a localized one. I believe that if we were to enter into a position where we are substantively assisting Ukraine, it would have to be only if we are willing to go all the way. For long-time allies, that would be the case. But not for any and every country. In addition, I think that if we do get involved (short of a full commitment), we may find ourselves doing far more harm than good, because unintended consequences will happen.

As far as the "protection" question is concerned, I may have misunderstood. I agree that Russia is quite paranoid, and doesn't want a pro-western country on their border. But I still maintain that, at this point in time, given what we know, it is not an invasion. And I think people jumping to conclusions about the plane that was shot down, are very irresponsible.