>Comparing Russia to Hitler is kinda ridiculous. Russia has shown how dysfunctional their military is.

German military was very weak up until around 1941, they needed time to ramp up production. What they had in 1937-1940 was strategy and tactics that haven't been seen to date and caught attacked countries off-guard.

Had France and England actually respect the treaties they had with Poland, there would be no World War II.

Had Ukraine not receive help from its allies, it would be already done - they'd run out of ammunition, artillery shells, medical equipment, etc.

Don't let the fact that most of the war content posted on Reddit is "russians being dumb" fool you - if they were overall half as incompetent as these videos show, Zelensky would've received the victory parade of his army marching through the Red Square months ago.

>It's fantasy to think he's a threat to a nuclear armed Europe.

HE IS the "nuclear armed Europe" too, mate. At least on paper, russia still has the nuclear arsenal to rival that of the US, France and Britain combined.

We can ASSUME that it's no longer the case (judging by how badly maintained their regular military is), but can we bet the lives of half the planet on it? I don't think that's a bet any sane politician who knows anything about the history of dictators is willing to make.

>Hence why its no more important to most nations than countless other regional conflicts are.

Russia getting their grubby little idiot hands on Ukraine has extremely huge strategical and economical consequences.

Ukraine's fields produce food that can feed a fifth of the planet. Natural gas and oil reserves have been found that rival those of Russia. Then there's all the geopolitical stuff on top of that. I highly recommend watching THIS video. It's pretty long but will let you understand why NATO can't let russia have this - even if we ignore all the warcrimes stuff.

>Were just racist because we think of Europeans are facing strife its exceptional. (...) Change Ukraine to rojava and magically we don't care

That's actually true, but the reasons for NATO's help are entirely not humanitarian, but rather strategic. It's a military operation through and through, it's just that only Ukraine is doing the actual fighting.

>Were back to you saying things that presuppose things I don't say.

OK, in that case explain what did you mean by this sentence:

>there are emergencies in America that need funding

Because apparently I don't understand it, in the context of this discussion.

>That it was just as true 20 years ago and 40 years ago and 60 years ago when the modern political situation was less dire. America has always been this way and its consistent if uneven across multiple generations.

Exactly my point. Meaning - UA-aid existing or not doesn't change anything.

>It's dishonest to suggest its all free and never going to be replaced. The tanks aren't even the bulk of the support.

I never suggested either of these.

>Hence why the moral idea of helping Ukraine is superficial

Like I said, it's not a moral or humanitarian sentiment that's pushing NATO countries to help. It's 100% entirely strategic. What's going on right now is a "weird world war" where everyone's involved but only two countries are doing the fighting.