Not only have you avoided answering the parent's question, you have also avoided answering any of the alternative questions that you posed. Would you care to?
I can only share my personal preferences. If the choice is between living and not living, I would choose to live — unless it entails living in constant physical pain. If the choice is between living in a country taken by an aggressor and not living, I would choose to live. If the choice is between living somewhere in the world when another part of the world has been taken by an aggressor and not living, I would definitely choose to live. Therefore, while I don't quite know what I would do in the scenario outlined in the question above (run? hide? appease?), I know what I wouldn't do — I wouldn't agitate for a nuclear war. With a possible exception that there is an absolute certainty that the invader, when he comes, will kill or physically torture me, because then it's all the same.
The problem with this approach is, that while you complain about or criticize made decisions, you are not offering alternatives. So as long as we do not see a better alternative, what are we supposed to do? Complaining is very OK and an important part of debate, but without providing a better way to act, I do not see how one can expect complains to change anything.
Doing "nothing" is also an alternative, but here it comes into play, what kind of person dictates the aggressor's forces and what is known about them. If, merely hypothetically speaking, of course, the wanted to establish an empire under their rule, without regard for what others within that future empire want, what makes you think, that it will stop with that one country the aggressor is invading currently? Especially when history has proven, that further escalation is on the menu a few years later.
I think the "doing nothing" or an appeasement strategy is quickly reduced to absurdity, if we look at the past and think about what would happen in the future. In fact, some people have warned about what is happening right now, at least since 2014.
We have the choice to condition the dictator further, by giving in to every future demand, because he will learn he only needs to threaten with nuclear weapons (and he _will_ find a "reason" to be insulted, or simply make one himself, with lets say some false flag operations for example), or say no to that. We have made the mistake, of allowing this to go on for far too many years already, so that he felt too sure, that it would work this time as well. Good, that we put a stop to that. Maybe, if we had done so earlier, we would not be in this situation right now.
Nothing, other that the fact that while there are countries with which the would-be emperor has territorial disputes, he has not expressed any ambitions reaching beyond those. It is a common sentiment expressed in the Western European countries that if the the aggressor is not stopped now, he will continue westwards indefinitely, engulfing more and more countries, Genghis-like; when there is no real reason to think that he would. History is a good teacher about the past, but is powerless to predict the future.
No matter. I am dismayed by how eagerly people shift their attention from the threat to their very physical existence to questions of politics or history which seem petty in comparison. However repulsive the Muscovite tyrant might be; however dark or immoral; are we really considering collective suicide among the possible answers?
The generality of your statement "History is a good teacher about the past, but is powerless to predict the future." is highly questionable. Those who do not learn from history are bound to make the same mistakes, as is commonly said.
If anything, then the dictator is missing his history classes or did not learn properly. Otherwise he might not have acted the way he does. History could have told him a thing or two about the chances of his failing invasion or what he navigated himself into.
We are about to see another winter war, of which I can recall at least 3 failed attempts in history in similar settings: Napoleon, Nazi Germany and Soviet-Finnish War. Probably there are many more examples throughout history. Better to learn a lesson from that, than repeating things.
> [...] when there is no real reason to think that he would.
Are you serious? Like, watch a documentary or 2 about what happened in other nations, Georgia and Moldova for example, before Ukraine. Or read up on the dictator's self-declared goals and "Russian World". Compare to Nazi Germany a little and you will see the similarities. Saying, that there is no real reason to think he would not stop is ignoring so much history.
I've been wondering the same. History at school is very rarely taught as a serious academic discipline — rather, its job it seems, much like the job of the English (or any other) literature, it to shape a general cultural identity in a student. I am almost sure that among professional historians there is a common belief that it is not history's job to provide people with lessons that they can apply to solve current or future problems — I seem to remember Niall Ferguson complain precisely of that attitude among the historians at Oxford, which was largely why he, as a rebellion, started the applied history project.
> Those who do not learn from history are bound to make the same mistakes, as is commonly said.
It is also commonly said (and attributed to von Bismark) that what we learn from history is that no one learns from history.
> If anything, then the dictator is missing his history classes or did not learn properly. Otherwise he might not have acted the way he does. History could have told him a thing or two about the chances of his failing invasion or what he navigated himself into.
The dictator had plenty of other historical examples to draw upon. He could have remembered how the nascent state of Ukraine, which emerged after the fragmentation of the Russian Empire, was retaken by force by the Soviet Russia – also, by the way, engaged in a winter campaign (there is an interesting novel by Mikhail Bulgakov — The White Guard — depicting those events). Or he could have remembered the recent events of 2014, when Russia effortlessly and bloodlessly took Crimea. History, as has so frequently been said, is a whore and a harlot.
> Are you serious? Like, watch a documentary or 2 about what happened in other nations, Georgia and Moldova for example, before Ukraine. Or read up on the dictator's self-declared goals and "Russian World". Compare to Nazi Germany a little and you will see the similarities. Saying, that there is no real reason to think he would not stop is ignoring so much history.
I did say in my previous comment that there are countries with which Russia might conceivably have territorial quarrels. Those are the countries of the former Soviet Union, and those are the countries that you named. I have not heard any noises from Russia that would suggest that it is coveting Germany, France, the UK, or even Poland. If you have read anything different in the dictator's self-declared goals, then I would happily be educated.
> Compare to Nazi Germany a little
I understand the appeal of that comparison; I truly do; but surely you must see that the comparison is purely rhetorical, made due to the universal hatred of — and universal familiarity with the story of — the Nazi Germany. Why not compare with the Soviet Union (which was largely feared) or with the Russian Empire (which was less so)?