The Budapest memorandum of which you speak provides no obligation for the US to provide any security assurances, but provudes justification of action is taken. It is in no way legally binding the US to provide any sort of military obligation to Ukraine.

You stated the US has no obligation to help Ukraine, which is proven wrong with said agreement stating we would offer protection. You never stated anything about "legal obligations," nor did I argue we have a legal obligation but I suppose it's easier to move the goalposts than admit to being proven wrong.

And your whole argument for increasing us military intervention is containing Russia yet you admit they could not in any way do that with their current military capacity.

What I stated was that they're struggling with Ukraine and could not win a war against NATO currently. I also stated that if they were to capture Ukraine they would have a whole nation of conscripts to do their bidding. They would be more powerful combined and would likely continue their attempts to conquer their neighboring sovereign nations and build influence if not stopped.

You even admit as much later in your comment contradicting yourself when you say Russia isn’t going to stop with Ukraine if we allow them to do as they please. They could just as easily attack the US next whether we get involved or not, so what will you say as Russian bombs fall on your home because we decided to let them expand their power unchecked?

I meant Russia attacking the US is just as likely as Russia launching nuclear weapons. You seem to think once they've conquered Ukraine that'll be the end of things which is laughably absurd. Why would they stop with Ukraine if the rest of the world just allows it to happen unchecked?

It's incredibly nieve to think Russia wouldn't declare war on the US if that committed military assets in direct active warfare against theirs.

Who said they wouldn't? This is a strawman argument. I stated that they wouldn't drop nukes.

It is rooted in historical factuality. Russia has a nuclear arsenal that they are willing to use. Not against Ukraine because they're not too stupid to provoke a nuclear exchange like that but a hot war with NATO would leave them little option but to use the nukes because as we've both acknowledged, they lack the capacity for a wide scale conventional war in Europe.

What historical factuality? The only country to ever use a nuke is the US at the end of WWII. Please enlighten us on how you've determined Russia is willing to use nukes when they've never in history used them.

Even if it is FUD, do you really want to roll the dice on wether on not this could trigger a nuclear event? I don't want to get anywhere close to that.

As I tried to allude to in my previous comment, what guarantee is there that allowing Russia to conquer Europe unchecked won't also lead to nuclear conflict? You seem willing to roll the dice with that, so why not here too? Why not stamp out their aggression just as it's getting started rather than waiting until they have nations full of cannon fodder to throw at the rest of the world in addition to their nuclear arsenal?