It might be to destroy the bombers - I don't know enough to do more than ask the question about nuclear stability - my point is that dismissing factors, including via self-righteousness and denial, is a very dangerous and intentionally ignorant choice. All that matters for decision-making is the conquences of your actions. No matter whose fault it is, the outcomes are the same.

Ukraine does have to balance nuclear stability, and I expect they have - I can't say if they made the right choice, but it's a very serious question. On HN people can dismiss it in a thousand ways, but it's not a serious analysis.

I would guess that the primary things that should happen are,

NATO, especially the US, needs to make it clear that they will spend whatever it takes for however long it takes to win. If Russia believed that, they would leave Ukraine now. NATO and the US have order of magnitude more economic resources than Russia - Russia can't compete if NATO seriously invests.

And Ukranians need to defend their country. A large portion of their population refuses to fight. That undermines manpower, a critical issue; it raises questions in Russia's mind about Ukraine's motivation to win, which prolongs the war; and it must raise questions in international leaders' minds (though none talk about it, I would guess so they don't undermine support for Ukraine).

I don't know that either of those things will happen, and the status quo sadly continues.