Ukraine's government can change that law if they want to, of course. And if things keep going as they have been, they will have to choose between doing that and losing even more territory.

Attempts at maximum escalation have not produced good results for the Ukrainian people. I would like fewer of them to die given the realistic options available.

Re: Scholz I think the higher-ups in Western Europe are aware that their "support for Ukraine" is more about trying to hurt Russia than help the Ukrainian people. I would expect more to jump ship as the possibility of anything other than a full rout starts to vanish. These countries aren't going to actually sacrifice anything they value in order to actually help common Ukrainian people. At the moment their "aid" is mostly weapons and ammunition whose main purpose is to prop up military contractors.

[–] ziggurat@lemmy.world 3 points 1 week ago (11 children)

Or NATO just allows them to destroy airfields Russia is launching rockets from.

So our choice is to give the purse to the thief that wants more land in the future, or slap the knife out of his hand

[–] geneva_convenience@lemmy.ml 0 points 1 week ago (3 children)

Endless escalation is impossible. Russia has nukes.

Even assuming Ukraine starts winning the conventional war against all odds, If the situation ever looks too dire Ukraine does not have the required MAD deterrence to prevent Russia from nuking them.

[–] Duke_Nukem_1990@feddit.org -3 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Russia has nukes.

At this point their nukes are likely in the same sorry state as their dictator: old, frail, failing

[–] geneva_convenience@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 week ago (1 children)

This fairy tale of Russia being flat broke and out of weapons wasted its credibility years ago. If it was true Ukraine would have won by now.

[–] Duke_Nukem_1990@feddit.org 0 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)