It has nothing to do with innocent Ukrainians - but if we start to deliver heavy weaponry to any people who got innocently attacked and slaughtered by a larger

It has nothing to do with innocent Ukrainians - but if we start to deliver heavy weaponry to any people who got innocently attacked and slaughtered by a larger aggressor, we would be at war with the United States within the week. We cannot claim to act out of a moral imperative for Ukraine and against Russia if we do not supply the same level of support for, say, the Kurds to defend against Turkey. This is why I have compassion with Ukrainians, but think we need to stay out of this as much as possible. If you don't treat similar situations similarly, the only option on how to act is in your own interest. > - This is an unprovoked invasion of a country that unilaterally disarmed under the promise that Russia wouldn't invade them. Even if that was in any way relevant to the current situation: How long do you think such a promise should be good for, and should it still be good for countries that have had a less than stellar track record when it came to international relations afterwards? > - Russia is testing NATO's tolerance for invasion and conquest, which is also something China will be closely watching as they consider annexation of Taiwan and likely many other countries. Note how both Russia and China do not need to test tolerances, as both of them are capable nuclear powers with primary and secondary strike capabilities. As Biden is unlikely to sacrifice New York for Kiev, or San Francisco for Taipeh, this is a moot point. > - Many civilians who have nothing to do with global politics are being killed, again for absolutely no reason. Russia's entire pretext for this invasion was the warming relationship between Ukraine and NATO. A warming relationship that was started by a clear US intelligence operation with Euromaidan and likely still is heavily supported by money right out of Langley. Maybe Europeans, the designated battlefield in an US/Russia war, should not fan that fire any more. > Russia has been waging a cyber war on NATO countries, especially the US, for years. And still, whenever we look at proof for this, we see explanations like 'the code has some cyrillic script in it', which is easily fakeable. I've yet to see definite proof of successful Russian hacking that goes beyond 'script-kiddie' levels. On the other hand, we do know of not one, but several US units that openly plan and execute hacking attacks (Stuxnet, anyone?) > They are openly hostile to NATO countries. They were friendly enough delivering gas while we were still paying them. > None of the rest of your comment suggests this at all. If you have compassion for them and so do most European voters, why shouldn't Europe act on that compassion? Compassion also can mean not speaking in support of a war that eventually will be lost, heavy weapons or not, but will still kill hundreds each day. So why do European countries still send weapons? Because that's the perfect opportunity to get rid of the old trash and buy some shiny new toys (and the US hopes they're going to buy American).