[pessimizer]

> I don't get this narrative - what escalation? What's there to be escalated?

It's find to support turning a border conflict into WWIII, but pretending like sending $40 billion of arms to Ukraine isn't an escalation is beyond the pale. Russia's yearly military budget is only $70 billion.

[ethanbond]

A failed incursion to a peaceful country's capital, failed assassination attempts of that country's leader - that's not a border dispute, it's just a war of aggression that has been extremely poorly executed.

[libertine]

>turning a border conflict into WWIII

I think you're either being naive or acting like one.

First you need to define what border are you talking about? Ukraine and Russia Border? Ukraine, Belarus, Russia border? Ukraine, Belarus, Poland, Russia border? EU and Russia border?

You can pick any of them and it'll be a right answer.

Second, this aggression of Russia destroyed many treaties, violated international laws, and acted on a basis of deceive - remember Russia was just doing military exercises closer to the Ukraine border and any claim of invasion was just a provocation from the west.

So let's not pretend that the invasion of Ukraine by Russia, the country that was supposed to secure Ukraine safety after they gave their nukes away, isn't an international conflict.

This is what we know so far, apparently international laws mean nothing to Russia, they act differently from their words, and they're willing to be aggressive - how can Russia be trusted at this point in time?

[mcv]

The only party that's escalating the war here is Russia. NATO is doing everything it can to not escalate it, but to contain it. If Russia had its way, the war would have spread over a far larger part of Ukraine, and Russia has made it clear that if they're successful, other countries will be next.

To contain this war, it's vital that Russia fails. But it's also vital that it doesn't turn into a large-scale NATO vs Russia war, because that increases the chance that it will turn nuclear. It's a tightrope, but supplying Ukraine with everything it needs to contain the Russian invasion is probably the best way to do it. If that doesn't work, expect direct NATO involvement.

[guerrilla]

Do you not agree that self-defense is always justified? It would seem matching a significant portion of Russia's budget would be necessary for that.

Are you also aware that today the US refused to give Ukraine long-range missiles that would be able to strike within Russia? And do you also know that the US has consistently refused to give Ukraine targeting information on Russia?