I am a Pole as well and also very uncomfortable. I also believe Nato should intervene in Ukraine. Otherwise, we just wait until it’s our turn.
If there's a choice between nukes raining down and between Putin ruling the world, I'll happily choose the latter. No matter the cost, there cannot be a nuclear war.
Poor Ukranians are the ones thinking they shouldn't have given up their nuclear warheads.
"Although appeasement, which is conventionally defined as the act of satisfying grievances by concessions with the aim of avoiding war, was once regarded as an effective and even honourable strategy of foreign policy, the term has since the Munich Conference symbolised cowardice, failure and weakness. Winston Churchill described appeasement as "one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last".
> But when Britain and France did go to war in 1939, they were still unable to save Poland from being conquered and occupied. Clearly, had they gone to war a year earlier, they would not have been able to save Czechoslovakia, either
Churchill is probably not someone we should ascribe too much wisdom to...
That, and nukes changed everything.
Nobody is giving up everything, what is given up at the moment is a strip of land in East Europe that could be claimed back via diplomatic arrangements as soon as Putin is gone.
We are watching Hitler raising, not Stalin dying here.
I don't hope for war over Ukraine. I hope for the end of oil purchases from Europe. Total economic sanctions.
No rational agent is going to use nukes. And no diplomacy and leniency towards tyranny will save us from the crazy ones.
At this point, neither intervention nor non-intervention is likely to prevent this. It's entirely likely that if Putin loses this assault, or faces an intractable insurgency, he could launch nukes out of a desperate attempt to save face. He's old — at this point, only the reputation he leaves behind is what matters to him, and it's clear that he wishes to be remembered as a fearful and powerful figure. What better way to do that than nuking someone?
Your attitude is the same entrapment that allows abusive spouses to hold their spouse in thrall. I've actually witnessed that backfire to its ultimate degree; in my hometown, a woman in an abusive relationship called her husband's bluff on his threats to kill her if she left, and he wasn't bluffing. Killed her in broad daylight at a local bank, and then killed himself.
The question you have to ask is whether you think her leaving him was the only thing that precipitated him killing her, or whether his killing her was because he realized she no longer loved him.
Everything in life is a gamble.
I do agree that if he's pushed against the wall he can nuke one Ukrainian city saying it was the hideout of the rebels or whatever, effectively sending a message that he's not afraid to use nuclear weapons, without directly attacking a NATO state. I can only assume that at that point whatever is left of Ukrainian government would voluntarily step down to prevent further destruction.
You're right that he's a madman, and any sort of logical strategy just doesn't apply here.