How does more attacking weapons mean less deaths? It kills and provokes more retaliation. This war must end without leading to ww3 and nuclear strikes.
It allows to free the people currently in occupation. No “retaliation” with rockets brings so much suffering and death as the actual occupation. And it kills the attackers mostly, they can just leave and stay alive. The defenders have no such option, so it’s better to be in tanks than in Mitsubishi L200s, to stay alive.
If Russia starts to loose it may launch nukes, which means that not only Ukraine ends but probably the whole world after the return strikes. Is it a better alternative?
Russia knows that. We only see part of the war, there are constant discussions about lines and responses. Allowing a return to this kind of conquest invites many more flattened cities and countries being used as cannon fodder. It's not really Russians fighting much, it's other members of their 'federation'. We let them flatten cities and hospitals in Chechnya and Syria. Letting them do it without even the nominal invitation of a nation's government. We've been trying many alternatives since they started this in 2008, and we still are.
Why do you call "disgrace" the attempt not to escalate this war further? How many more people have to die?
Because tanks for Ukraine means less people dying, not more.
How does more attacking weapons mean less deaths? It kills and provokes more retaliation. This war must end without leading to ww3 and nuclear strikes.
It allows to free the people currently in occupation. No “retaliation” with rockets brings so much suffering and death as the actual occupation. And it kills the attackers mostly, they can just leave and stay alive. The defenders have no such option, so it’s better to be in tanks than in Mitsubishi L200s, to stay alive.
if Russia stops fighting, the war ends. If Ukraine stops fighting, Ukraine ends and the next war starts.
If Russia starts to loose it may launch nukes, which means that not only Ukraine ends but probably the whole world after the return strikes. Is it a better alternative?
Neville Chamberlain has entered the chat.
Russia knows that. We only see part of the war, there are constant discussions about lines and responses. Allowing a return to this kind of conquest invites many more flattened cities and countries being used as cannon fodder. It's not really Russians fighting much, it's other members of their 'federation'. We let them flatten cities and hospitals in Chechnya and Syria. Letting them do it without even the nominal invitation of a nation's government. We've been trying many alternatives since they started this in 2008, and we still are.
What's the alternative?