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 1 points 2 months ago (2 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

[–] TheOubliette@lemmy.ml 6 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Russia has far more military capacity than Ukraine. Every escalation runs the risk of Russia adopting NATO's scorched earth tactics. Russia clearly sees value in the slow grind approach, which they explain as a de facto demilitarization of Ukraine, but if they ever stop seeing value in that...

Don't forget what NATO member countries do to their military targets and what the outcomes are. Every population center in North Korea bombed out. Agent orange, napalm, mass bombing campaigns in Laos and Vietnam. Reckless and depraved mass killings in Algeria. Two invasions of Iraq and interceding sanctions that killed millions of children, with a heavy focus on the destruction of civilian infrastructure.

Hoping for escalation can only mean hoping fot mass death for Ukrainians. This is not a movie or an idle fantasy where we get to play pretend about knocking a knife out if the bad guys hands. This is the real world with actual troop deployments and bombing campaigns and industrial bases and drones that pick people off while they sleep and a country that still functions but can be made to not with about a week of bombings.

[+] mojofrododojo@lemmy.world -3 points 2 months ago (1 children)

[removed by mod]

[–] TheOubliette@lemmy.ml 3 points 2 months ago (1 children)

How many people died in Iraq between 1989 and 2007 as a result of NATO member war and sanctions?

PS the primary targeting of civilians in Ukraine is done by far right cadres against Donbas civilians.

[+] mojofrododojo@lemmy.world -3 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

[removed by mod]

[–] TheOubliette@lemmy.ml 4 points 2 months ago (1 children)

And how many people in Iran and Kuwait died from Saddam's bullshit?

I'll wait for you to answer my question first. You seem to be forgetting what we are talking about. Take as much time as you need.

You'd be much more effective with these arguments if you weren't defending war criminals.

Please try to engage in good faith and not put words in my mouth.

Cute fantasy.

It sounds like you are unfamiliar with the civil war in Ukraine from 2014 and on. 4X longer and constant shelling. Union halls burned down with people locked inside.

Allow me to retort, but WITH FACTS, because you have NONE to support your laughable assertions: [a list of articles you just Googled]

Feel free to state your point and what meaning you would like to share from your list of links. Take as much time as you need to formulate your thesis or counterargument.

How fucking evil do you have to be to bomb a children's hospital?

Yes, bombing civilian infrastructure is horrific. The NATO countries I mentioned systematically target it. Rather than one hospital, imagine it was 80% of them. No clean water. Medical personnel routinely targeted. No imports of medicine, limited food. Disruption and control over electricity. Israel is doing this right now in Gaza. You can see with your own eyes what the difference is.

How evil are the countries that do this on a much larger scale and systematically?

And you say Ukraine is targeting civilians

Of course, that is what the shelling of Donbas has been for a decade. UA has continued to bombard civilian areas of the city of Donetsk this whole time.

It's a petty, evil, deliberate distortion of the truth.

Have you no shame? not an ounce?

I have listed basic fact. Please allow yourself to process this information that is new to you rather than lashing out and making things up.

[–] geneva_convenience@lemmy.ml 1 points 2 months ago (1 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 2 months 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 2 months 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 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

This fairy tale of Russia being flat broke and out of weapons

Uh hu and where did I make that claim? Straw man much? :]

Edit: looks like a well equiped force tho lmao https://sopuli.xyz/post/16837255