rich1.0Mike Dilger ☑️ (npub1ac…9p35c)https://yabu.me/npub1acg6thl5psv62405rljzkj8spesceyfz2c32udakc2ak0dmvfeyse9p35cnjumphttps://yabu.meFor Ukraine to come out of this war OK, it needs to take some kind of action or actions that cause Russia to stop attacking it and stop capturing it's land. Maybe that action is a negotiated agreement. Maybe that action is some kind of well designed military strikes. But whatever actions are taken, they must not cause Russia to feel that it is under an existential threat. Attacks that disable Russia's ability to defend itself against other worldwide nuclear powers, like against its first-strike radar (as was done), or its nuclear bombers (as was done), may cause Russia to take the severe action of disabling Ukraine for good. Attacking Ukraine with nuclear weapons probably would not cause NATO powers to strike Russia with nuclear weapons, because that would be well known as the MAD ending. Russia doesn't want to hit Ukraine with nukes. But it becomes their best strategic choice as soon as Ukraine effectively disables their ability to retaliate against a nuclear attack. Was this attack on the bombers such a thing? Probably not. But it's definitely encroaching on that territory. If Russia nuked Ukraine in retaliation for the attack on their bombers, I'm not sure there is any way Ukraine or NATO could effectively respond. And that makes it strategically viable for Russia to do it, whereas yesterday it wasn't. And that is why I mentioned earlier that Ukraine making it's last moves was strategically "questionable". Daring them is dumb. You will think you are winning until the day you lose catastrophically. Like double-or-nothing on the roulette table.