While it is true that Zelensky’s decision to defend Ukraine led to fighting that killed civilians, and had Ukraine instead surrendered those civilians would be alive today, is that the kind of diplomacy you want?
Put differently, the US has the largest army in the world - so if they invaded any country (or every country one at a time), should those countries just surrender? Is that better, because no civilians die?
Zelensky regime was threatening a neighboring country by joining a hostile alliance, its different that any country US attacked.
So yes, the civilians are supporting a bad decision they will only pay for it, and zelensky is loving the fact that more people are dying, he believe that this will increase his chance in joining NATO.
After he failed executing western agenda, now he want to play hero by using civilians as human shields, all the blame is on Zelensky.
While it is true that Zelensky’s decision to defend Ukraine led to fighting that killed civilians, and had Ukraine instead surrendered those civilians would be alive today, is that the kind of diplomacy you want?
Put differently, the US has the largest army in the world - so if they invaded any country (or every country one at a time), should those countries just surrender? Is that better, because no civilians die?
Zelensky regime was threatening a neighboring country by joining a hostile alliance, its different that any country US attacked. So yes, the civilians are supporting a bad decision they will only pay for it, and zelensky is loving the fact that more people are dying, he believe that this will increase his chance in joining NATO. After he failed executing western agenda, now he want to play hero by using civilians as human shields, all the blame is on Zelensky.
The part missing from my analogy is where all the US nationalists defend their invasion nonsensically, but it looks like you filled it in for me.