> you do seem to be exposed to the Ukrainian flavor of it though What makes you think so? > That said, you also can’t deny the involvement of the US Departmen

> you do seem to be exposed to the Ukrainian flavor of it though What makes you think so? > That said, you also can’t deny the involvement of the US Department of state in those events. Can you deny existence of life beyond our planet? Neither side can prove or disprove both statements. > That is why there are “tensions” when your neighbor begins discussions of entering NATO with a bit of USDS help. NATO means (eventually) foreign military bases and tactical nukes within 100km of Rostov-on-Don and Taganrog. This is fundamentally unacceptable to Russia, which they have been saying again and again to everyone who would listen years before things turned ugly. It’s not personal, it’s a question of national security for them. The US would have done the same or worse if Russia got Mexico to enter a military alliance with it. Yes. Sounds if any neighbor make any decision, which russia won't like it grantees that glorious russians soldiers will happily jump to fight US forces there. > NATO means (eventually) foreign military bases and tactical nukes within 100km of Rostov-on-Don and Taganrog. So now we have damn nukes in Crimea. Russia moved them closer to NATO countries. I guess they need entire Moldova to secure those missiles in Crimea. > The US would have done the same or worse if Russia got Mexico to enter a military alliance with it Cuba? It wasn't good for it, but not as bad as here.