No.

Russia can obliterate every European HQ with conventional weapons.

Oreshnik alone could decapitate the EU in under 30 minutes.

I am increasingly skeptical as to whether the nukes would actually work if tried, given some of the failures of the start of the Russian campaign, and I suspect they also have that concern. If you're brandishing a gun to threaten people and it goes "click" rather than "bang", suddenly your situation collapses.

Which means there's an intermediate step: carrying out an above ground nuclear test. This obviously violates the Test Ban Treaty, but is a lower step than just blowing away Kyiv.

Everything could lead to nukes with Russia. There is no "this far and no closer or I will use nukes". They will or won't use them at their own discretion.

Ukraine has long decided that they will not be deterred by the threat of nuclear bombs. They seem to be determined to win back the territory that they have lost or at least put themselves into a better bargaining position.

It is not an existential threat. Ukraine simply does not have the manpower to overtake a country that is many multiples larger and more populous than them.

And territorial expansion and conquest of neighboring countries is Russia's MO, not Ukraine's.

If I and everyone I love have to die in WW3 just to know that Putin/his Vatnik allies also died horribly fiery deaths, it will have been worth it.

He admires autocrats and aspires to be one, in addition to aligning the US with Russian interests. You think he will get on the Ukraine/NATO bandwagon?

Which conflict has the US won in the last 25 years? Strike that: 50 years?

There's a strong case that they didn't even defeat the nazis, that was done by the Soviets.

This was one of the rare cases it would have been easier and more in character if the US had just done the right thing. But no.

First Biden's timidity and dithering over arms, which looks ridiculous today and led to so much needless difficulty and suffering for Ukraine. And then Trump, quite clearly favouring Putin and (obscenely) shaking down Ukraine at its most vulnerable point with the 'mineral deal'.

It's hard to imagine any earlier US administration not backing Ukraine to the hilt - pouring in advanced arms, strangling Russia with much harder sanctions, maybe even patrolling the skies of western Ukraine. The chance to take down the worst sort of nationalist tyrant, and one of the world's nastiest troublemakers? And one of the USA's longest standing enemy countries to boot? What President before these last two wouldn't have jumped at it?

> And a number of NATO members need to rapidly become nuclear capable

I don't think we should cheer the end of non-proliferation in the long run.

> It crosses both sides of the aisle, and Americans have decided this is ay okay.

What gives you this impression?

On the other hand, it is extremely Russian to not surrender no matter how badly it is going and regardless of the cost in human life. Leningrad, Stalingrad, even burning Moscow to keep it from Napoleon. For nationalist purposes, it doesn't matter if the objective is worthless or unachievable.

Like so many other situations, we have to wait for him to die.

According to Peter Zeihan, it's not so much that Russia needs more _land_ but that its current land is difficult to defend militarily given the facts of its geography. I'm not necessarily defending Zeihan's view, but simply claiming that there is some analysis which suggests there's a strategic benefit for Russia here. (or perhaps there would have been back when they thought the war would be easy) And let's also not forget the importance of Crimea with regard to Black Sea shipping. It's also the case the the "Kievan Rus" has quite a bit of historical and cultural importance to some in Russia.

Now to be clear I'm completely opposed to the war in Ukraine, and I'm quite happy to see Russia getting pushed back. My hope would be that Ukraine takes back all of its remaining territory. But, I think there are at least some justifications that could have made sense for someone who thought the war would be easy, and who did not care about the human cost either side would bear.