Putin is the actual decision maker here, and he obviously has no problem killing thousands of people, including killing and mutilating kids. Maybe the average HN commenter would be more humane.
If Urkaine adopted that position - which they haven't - it's just playing victim. Victims have no responsibility because it's someone else's fault. That is, in fact, irrelevant to responsibility for your actions.
Putin (Russia) is to blame for the war, but that's irrelevant to this issue. Ukraine is still responsible for the consequences of its actions. Putin starting the war makes it legitimate for Ukraine to assassinate Putin, for example; but if killing Putin makes Ukraine less safe or causes other negative outcomes, Ukraine is responsible for choosing the best set of outcomes. Maybe Russia will use tactical nukes - is that what Ukraine wants? They need to assess the risks and make the best choice; blame is irrelevant.
How much territory would you be willing to cede to Russia if Putin threatened to nuke you if you didn't? Should everybody just roll over in the face of Russian threats?
Offensive use of nukes, even implicitly threatening offensive use of nukes, is a step too far for everybody.
None, but that is a false choice. Why are you offering false choices instead of finding solutions that don't escalate nuclear warfare?
The bandwagon to war, which is what you've joined, is the biggest mistake you can make. Almost no dynamic - maybe besides ethnic nationalism - kills more people and destroys more societies and nations.
It is not. This is what you're asking from Ukraine.
Unlike you, I want this war to end in a way that it doesn't pop up again in a few years. Russia has a long history of wars of aggression. In the past two decades, they took land from Georgia in 2008 and got away with it. Took Crimea and the Donbas in 2014 and got away with it. Do you really think Putin will stop if this invasion will also turn out to be successful?
Demanding Ukraine to surrender will only strengthen Putin and his belief that he can continue waging war. Rewarding him with more land will no more deter him from further aggression than it did with Hitler in 1938 and 1939.
This is the best opportunity to stop him and prevent WW3. Every expert recognizes this. It's only Putin's propaganda that tries to convince us that surrendering to him will somehow being peace. But if you listen to what Russian media and politicians are saying, you'll hear that they're already talking about Moldova, Lithuania, Estonia and even Poland. Putin has spoken about his desire for a Eurasian empire from Vladivostok to Lisbon. That might sound ridiculous, but he could get it if people keep surrendering land to him. The only way to stop him is to stop him.
You don't need to make up things about me, just stick to the issues.
> This is what you're asking from Ukraine.
No, life isn't as simple as you want it to be. You need to make decisions that accomplish and balance many complex problems. 'It's the other person's fault' may simplify things in your mind, but your failure to make a good decision will have the same outcome regardless.
That's very vague and general, and avoids specifics. I'm not the one making the decisions here, but Ukrainian leadership seems to know a lot better what they're doing than you or I. They are balancing complex problems and have been doing so quite successfully.
And the fact that Ukraine is so unwilling to condemn their future generations to Putin's oppression is a massive stroke of luck for other European countries who might otherwise be next in Putin's plans. Keeping the war confined to Ukraine and ensuring a Ukrainian win there, is by far the best option for European security. Strengthening Putin is the worst option, and giving him a victory here will do exactly that.
The consequences of letting someone get away with "Don't prevent my wars of conquest or I will nuke you" is the end of peace.
The consequences are no different than when we tried that in the 30s. Appeasement doesn't work. Bullies and madmen only respect force.
If "neener neener I'll nuke you" works for Putin to take literally all of Ukraine, why would they stop? Why wouldn't China take something? Why wouldn't India? Why wouldn't the US?
Weak parties are often more dangerous and unpredictable than strong parties. They are backed into a corner, with no way out. Lecturing them on what they should do accomplishes nothing, of course.
Why not find solutions that work?
> back down in fear.
It's not about fear - it's not about blame, or 'should', or anything but consequences, lives and property, blood and treasure. The destruction of a war with Russia would be immense.
Why don't you find solutions that protect Ukraine and prevent war with Russia?
It might be to destroy the bombers - I don't know enough to do more than ask the question about nuclear stability - my point is that dismissing factors, including via self-righteousness and denial, is a very dangerous and intentionally ignorant choice. All that matters for decision-making is the conquences of your actions. No matter whose fault it is, the outcomes are the same.
Ukraine does have to balance nuclear stability, and I expect they have - I can't say if they made the right choice, but it's a very serious question. On HN people can dismiss it in a thousand ways, but it's not a serious analysis.
I would guess that the primary things that should happen are,
NATO, especially the US, needs to make it clear that they will spend whatever it takes for however long it takes to win. If Russia believed that, they would leave Ukraine now. NATO and the US have order of magnitude more economic resources than Russia - Russia can't compete if NATO seriously invests.
And Ukranians need to defend their country. A large portion of their population refuses to fight. That undermines manpower, a critical issue; it raises questions in Russia's mind about Ukraine's motivation to win, which prolongs the war; and it must raise questions in international leaders' minds (though none talk about it, I would guess so they don't undermine support for Ukraine).
I don't know that either of those things will happen, and the status quo sadly continues.
I'm pleasantly surprised by your answer, to be honest.
For me, NATO needs to secure the left of the Dnipro river. This would free up manpower and material on Ukraines side, to fully focus on the front-lines. It would also send a clear message to Russia that we mean business.
Also, when Russian jets fly over NATO territory, they should be shot down, just like Turkey did.
I have the feeling the West is giving enough material for Ukraine to survive, but not enough to really push back.
Who's blaming anyone? I'm just talking about consequences. When it comes to nuclear game theory there is no morality, its a waste of time thinking about who is in the right and who is in the wrong. It's only important that nobody hit the button.
So you are in favor that Ukraine doesn't use offensive actions, lose the war, Russia takes Moldova next, maybe entire Georgia, and then tests NATO with the baltic states?
It's a bit naive to think you should avoid escalation now to risk an even higher risk in 20 years.
Russia can stop this war at any moment. It's fully their decision if they want to shoot nukes or not. None of the consequences of military operations of Ukraine should be placed in their shoes. And you claim you are not blaming Ukraine, but on the other hand you actually are.
Yes, at least I'm honest about my position. "Not taking any position" in this war takes the position of the aggressor. All the pro-Kremlin positions are also claiming they want "peace".
Blame Putin for being a vicious bully, not the kids he's brutalizing for provoking him by defending themself from the assault.