It's perfectly rational to believe that stance increases the chance of nuclear weapons being used in Ukraine. If there ever was a case for strategic ambiguity, this must fit IMHO.
It's not Macron threatening to use nukes in Ukraine. Putin is. And the less the world is willing to stand up to him (like Macron) the more likely he is to use them.
Don't you think that by "choosing to let them" in advance and communicating it openly - you increase the likelihood they'll do it? LE: Right now, not "in the future".
And then do it again, for the next conquest? And then other dictators like Iran, North Korea and China do it as well?
Would you be willing to give away Alaska? Getting it back is part of russian nationalist discourse. Obviously not of the mainstream one, but only 10 years ago subjugation of Ukraine wasn't a part of mainstream discourse either.
"Standing up" to Putin is not the only option. You could also try diplomacy, which is drastically missing in all Western political circles these days ..
Putin on the other hand could stop this war at any time. Maybe you should direct your "diplomacy" message at him instead of at the "Western political circles".
LE: Don't forget this war started in 2014 with Russia's invasion of Crimea. And Russia was also the one who broke the Minsk Agreements, in 2022.
The Minsk agreements could have been followed through by both parties, and those with the weight to do so (The West) could have leaned on Ukraine to make sure it followed up on its obligations instead of just .. you know .. pissing all over them ..
I doubt many in this thread arguing for nuclear war even know where Minsk is on the map, let alone understand the importance of the Minsk Accords having been non-complied with by both parties ..
You're wrong about this too. I live in Eastern Europe, I had Ukrainian refugees in my house and I have been warning Westerners like yourself about the Russian danger for almost 30 years or so.
