[jaimefjorge]

Why then doesn't the US attack other countries that fit the description? It's another dangerous precedent.

Edit: I fully understand the deterrents. I'm making the case that attacking for the sake of 'liberty for all' is a farce.

[treetalker]

1. Компромат 2. Nukes

Edit: in case my comment doesn't make sense, the parent comment originally asked why the US doesn't try to topple Russia. Parent edited comment after my reply.

[vmg12]

It should if it can do it without triggering WW3.

edit: The person I'm responding to edited their comment, it was originally something along the lines of

"Why doesn't the US topple Russia's government then"

[K0balt]

It is, along with NATO. The invasion of Ukraine is being managed in a way that bleeds Russias economic and war fighting power without escalation of the conflict to other states.

Ukraine is being spoon-fed arms and support just enough to keep them able to attrit Russia without ending the conflict until Russia is exhausted. Once Putin stuck his foot in the bear trap, there is no way he can turn back and retain power/life. I’m sure he’d love to have backed out in the first few weeks while it was still possible at this point.

It’s great for the region and for NATO, but it trades Ukrainian blood for NATO interests. Obviously Zelenskyy knows the play by now, but he and the Ukrainian people are between a rock and a hard place. It’s tragic for them, but there is a little hope at least of having earned a seat at the table if they survive. My heart (and donations) goes out to the Ukrainian people.

[nullorempty]

> My heart (and donations) goes out to the Ukrainian people

your donations go straight into the pockets of the elites. You need to be an idiot to think you are helping by sending money, unless you are sending it to your relatives.