And so, due to the coward leaders of the west, Ukraine now feels forced to just surrender large parts of its territory to nazis.

This, of course, worked incredibly well in the 1930s and prevented another world war from happening, as handing over Sudetenland to Hitler satisfied his desire for lebensraum. We all lived happily ever after.

@thomholwerda the difference to 1930 is, Ukraine might acquire nuclear weapons before the next step happens.

@thomholwerda #taurusforukraine Taurus is a much better strategic weapon than any tactical nuke - and without radioactive fallout. Flying invisibly and autonomously less than 50 meters above ground until it delivers 500kg of the finest explosives at the target in russian mainland. That is why #nichtmeinkanzler is so scared and can't find his balls to ship 100 taurus to #ukraine. What I see reminds me of Chamberlain, Hitler, Stalin and all other shortsighted peaceniks. #SlavaUkraini

@xstian @thomholwerda I'm not convinced. Technically, you may be right, but only nuclear weapons have the ability to make a lot of people scared, and that ability is their true strategic value.

@ptesarik @xstian @thomholwerda Also "better strategic weapon than tactical nuke" is kind of strange statement :-). Strategic nukes are better strategic weapons than tactical nukes, too...

@pavel No, it is not, because you can use Taurus with a similar effect as a strategic nuke launched from a submarine - undetectable and precise. The threshold for using it is much lower than for actual nukes, because you don't have to deal with radioactive fallout afterwards. That is why I call it a better "strategic weapon", although I know that in terms of yield or kilotonnes it is nevertheless a tactical weapon.

@xstian You don't know what the difference between strategic nuke and tactical nuke is, do you?