...
I see people using the terms carpet shelling/bombing, and encouraging escalations in Ukraine, but i'm pretty sure they don't know what those terms really mean. Just find it ironic how everyone wants to see Ukraine take on Russia, and they're even willing to sacrifice their...weapons for it. This is what US did in just 11 days (18–29 December 1972). Those that call for escalations are they really expecting Putin just to fold and not do the same thing US did? Or did Geneva convention change since 1972? Does Russia have much else to loose? What are the odds people put on Putin just folding? Sure double daring Putin with Ukraine seems like a great idea, i'm sure Ukraine will turn out just fine.
...
How does a reasonable, unbiased and feasible solution looks like for you on this war of agression:
NATO intervenes, Putin feels free to use non-convetional arsenal and attack NATO bases. Possible results:
a - Putin gets very scared, he sees that he may loose power and withdraws the army.
b - Putin goes harder, he cannot afford to loose fase. Nato and Russian troops engage and by some miracle, Putin does not use any WMD.
c - Limited nuclear response (tactical or limited strategic) Ukraine radioactive for the next few decades as other bits of Europe and cities in Russia.
d - It scalates, first nuke fire, then second, then.... well...end of story and history.
NATO supports Ukraine with as much conventional means as to stop the ability of Putin to continue the war effectively.
a - Putin decides to keep the conquered land. He will be facing stiff opposition even funded by the West, the region may be on an undeclared war for decades.
b - Putin decides to reach a peace agreement that includes returning part of the conquered land. This looks like something that could be sustainable for both parties.
c - Putin completely withdraws in exchange for removing sanctions.
d - Putin puts all he is got and war escalates, we found ourselves on the first scenario.
e - Ukraine is not able to hold. A peace is achieve at the cost of massive loss of territory and a puppet government without military power.
On the second scenario, the chances of a massive catastrophe are much lower. And that is the better option, even for Ukraine that stands a chance of keeping large parts of the territory and have a very weakened neighbour that may not have the economics to wage further wars.
Now, consider that on the first scenario there is a chance of global or regional full nuclear destruction. Is that how a solution looks to anyone? Even if there is a 10% of that happening. It does not work for Ukraine either as they would likely be the first ones being nuked in all likelihood.