So, you see no difference between invading and defending.
If RF will kill millions of Ukrainian with conventional weapons, like they did in 1932-1934, or capture and destroy another major city, like Grozny, it's OK for you. If Ukraine will do the same for RF in return, then it's war crime for you, because victim of conventional weapon ≠ victim of nuclear weapon. Right?
> Thankfully this scenario is highly unlikely.
Two nuclear nations are at war since 2014. Where you live?
Using a nuclear weapon against another country with nuclear weapons is likely to result in the destruction of most of Europe at least. All military planners involved know this and nobody wants it, which is why this scenario is very unlikely.
Ok, so Europe should put more effort into taming RF and protect Ukraine. As I see, Germany, at least, doing the opposite, so it looks like EU ignores this scenario.
Europe, Russia and the US should all de-escalate enough to avoid a devastating nuclear war, yes.
To be fair, the only one even considering using nuclear weapons seems to be you, here on HN. No military or political planners are considering it because nobody wants to see Europe devastated in a nuclear war, and everyone understands this, which is why -- if there is war, hopefully not! -- it won't be nuclear.
If you think about it, YOU, an Ukrainian, don't really want Ukraine to attack Russia with nukes. Why? Because then you'd be dead, plain and simple.
If RF will kill millions of Ukrainian with conventional weapons, like they did in 1932-1934, or capture and destroy another major city, like Grozny, it's OK for you. If Ukraine will do the same for RF in return, then it's war crime for you, because victim of conventional weapon ≠ victim of nuclear weapon. Right?
> Thankfully this scenario is highly unlikely.
Two nuclear nations are at war since 2014. Where you live?