Ask HN: As non-nuke power, why fight a nuke power, esp if you have an easy out?
The easy out for Ukraine was to just go neutral, like Austria.

Then live happily ever after.

And, ps, your enemy has a trump card in the form of a massive nuclear weapon stash -- maybe the largest in the world -- you want to force him to play his trump card?

The US is the only country to have detonated nukes in a war situation -- there is already precedent -- the world did not end -- it might not end this time, too. Maybe. Nuclear weapon use is definitely on the table.

You, as Ukraine, do not have nukes -- but you fight a nuclear power anyways? Whut?

Instead, if you went neutral, you could lead the vanguard in establishing nuclear-free zones in Europe. You could still buy lots of guns and big trucks, like many of your American friends, in case you need your toxic masculinity to run a bit wild -- just no nukes or other big missile systems and such that could really damage Russia too quickly.

Nobody could blame you for acceding to 'the madman, Putin' -- Putin could have easily wiped Ukraine off the map, you _had_ to agree to neutrality -- this is the easiest out ever -- let everybody else worry about fighting proxy wars.

Of course, the US could turn Bambi into the greatest monster on earth, so there's that.

But if your enemy has THESUPERDUPERMEGADEATHGUN, wouldn't you rather just _not_ fight with them? Maybe you can just give the bully your lunchtime scooby-doo snack and live to fight another day?

Is there another explanation for Ukraine's/Zelenskyy's behavior here, other than the obvious, that is -- that the US forced him to do it?

(Else, he'd lose US support, and the next US-supported comedian/actor/dictator/whatever would come in.)

I'm also curious why Europe supported this.

Every intelligence service in the world knew that Russia would attack Ukraine if US/Nato/EU/Europe kept pushing Ukraine into Nato membership.

I'm not interested in hippie-dippie morality right and wrong stuff, here -- I'm talking pure realpolitik -- 'great power politics' -- whatever label you want to put on it.

What was Europe thinking?

It seems to me that the 75% chance outcome was a MASSIVE refugee crisis throughout Europe -- and about 8,000 other detrimental effects of this policy-which-would-inevitably-lead-to-war-and-disaster-soon.

Europe was _so_ intent on pleasing their master, the US, that they intentionally and recklessly followed _this_ path??

That legit seems crazy to me.

If there's not a moral reason for it, and there's not a realpolitik reason for it, then... what's left?

Insanity?

I think Zelenskyy chose himself over his country, but to me that's expected -- Putin did the same thing, Biden, Trump, most of Europe, etc. Politicians gonna pol.

But if you're say, the leader of France -- Macron -- why get behind Nato expansion for Ukraine? Ditto Germany.

Are you so subservient to US power that you have no ability to act in your own best interests?

It's just difficult to believe that is the actual situation we're in.

So, I don't agree on the actions that most direct/early players in this situation took, but they make sense -- they're logical.

The US -- gain near-absolute freedom to act lawlessly and unilaterly around the world with impunity

Russia -- try to establish yourself as a powerful nation once again, and don't let the US box you in

Zelenskyy -- stay in office

Europe -- ???