Absolutely not. Not even the US military itself (hypothetically speaking) could launch a seaborne invasion of the US and hope for any chance of decisive success - hell, it wouldn't be likely that the US military could even occupy half the US, and the odds doesn't increase all that much even if such a hypothetical force was backed up by NATO.
But sure... let's pretend third-world countries is that great a threat to the US so that some can pretend US militarism is justified in any way whatsoever - Im sure those refugees invading from the south will be producing the T-90 tanks they were hiding in their ragged backpacks any day now.
Calling them Russia backed when command and control and materiel is coming from Russian military was rather limp dick way to hedge which is the whole point I was making here.
It was an limited scope invasion but we needed second one to confirm for sure?
Obviously we didn't have all the fact back then, but US EU and NATO reaction was strategic geological blunder. But let's be real this Europe problem first... Russia taking over Ukraine is not a risk to US lol
And at the heart of it all is Germany led by Putin lover mutti Merkel
Bad decisions have consequences. Instead of simping and larping regime propaganda maybe we should start learning from mistakes.
For PR purposes? They entirely reorganized the Ukrainian military from the generals to the privates, moving it from a soviet style army to a NATO style army. The entire reason Russia invaded was Ukraine was starting to win against the Russian backed separatists and would only get stronger in the next decade. You're being ridiculous.