There is no logical military stance for this so there is no explanation.

Even IF Russia gets pushed back beyond the border, they'll just spend the next 50 years lobbing missiles at Ukraine, thus ensuring that Ukraine is never accepted into NATO because there's still an active conflict.

It's also more cost effective to use a missile on the jets that fire the missiles rather than the missiles themselves but doesn't seem nobody cares about that either, it is way more expensive to only be shooting down the missiles.

Wars cannot be won through defence only, the best defence is a good offence, kill the archer than the arrow.

Biden/Scholz/Macron/Keir don't understand basic military knowledge or don't care.

The problem is that journalists also never ask the needed questions in interviews or just swallow answers which are often about something different and instead of saying "you still didn't give an answer to the question" they just accept it in interviews. Politicians often answer to question with a lot of words which in the end didn't really answer the initial question and I almost never see journalist simply not accepting that answer and insisting to get something which really is a true answer (good or not).

But I guess journalists also fear that they will never be able to talk to that politician again if they would really push them in an interview but this shit is exactly the reason why politicians talk crap the whole day and nobody does something against it. 

Just fucking ask "Mr Scholz, how is Ukraine supposed to win the war just with defending against incoming missiles but without destroying the machines which shoot them" and as long as he doesn't answer this properly then ask him again and let him look stupid when he will just end the interview lol. 

I definitely agree with you two however I also wish that a workable middle ground could be achieved so that ukraine would have use of these weapons to a greater degree. Perhaps a EU panel consisting of several nations could be set up to ensure that commonly accepted military ethics were being followed. 

Not like the West will do anything. Everything Russia can do, I'm now accepting they will do, aside from using nukes. Why wouldn't you? Honestly...If you were an evil scumbag like Putin, why wouldn't you bomb this dam after the pathetic cowardice display of the West?

Ukraine already been following our rules for over 2 years, how much more can they prove themselves to us? Ukraine has more rules on it against an invading force far bigger than it, far more powerful than it, than Israel has against a force far smaller than them, far less powerful, it don't make sense.

According to Germany, the UK already authorises each Storm Shadow strike that Ukraine makes...

Some quotes from the article and my thoughts below.

◾️"We must take into account - simply and scarily: there are no people on that side. Not one person. Our missiles don't kill people. There's not one person there. Un-humans are there."

◾️"If we don't accept that as a given, if we don't forbid ourselves to consider them humans, to feel sorry for them, save them - we will weaken ourselves."

◾️"So - simple and scary, but we must not justify ourselves for the strike on the children's hospital. We must say: do you want this to stop? Give up. Capitulate. And then, maybe, we will spare you."

◾️"Maybe it's time we agreed that there's no civilian population on that side of the Dnipro? And turn their cities into 'Gaza' - with a simple and clear goal to save our children from death."

My thoughts:

The only thing Russia understands and accepts is power. When it senses weakness, it becomes stronger and believes it can get away with anything. As I said before, the strike on the children's hospital was a deliberate and thought-out war crime. It was a message: Russia is stronger than NATO. Putin is convinced of that, and this week has reinforced his conviction.

Ukrainian Armed Forces are standing between global order and global collapse. Putin believes he is unstoppable. Can the West prove him wrong?

"I do not accept the premise of 'escalation' because there is only one part that is responsible for everything that is going on in Ukraine, and that's Russia. They could end this war today, they could end it immediately. And Ukraine has the right to protect itself, but it also has the obligation to protect itself. And the same goes for the rest of Europe. We have to protect our continent, our values, and all our people. Therefore, we have to not only to defend Ukraine, but also to defeat the Russians." - Prime Minister of Denmark Mette Frederiksen.

Again, I totally agree with that, but this is the real world where things don't always make sense. You sometimes have to defer to consensus and the strongest parties-,the United States in this case. However, something like the solution I presented would be some amount of progress when all the elegant speeches in the world haven't helped to this point, have they? It's like the guy that thinks the Ukranians need the top of the line tanks and planes, when really they just need something that is decent. It's sort of the sane case here if you get the analogy I'm trying to make.  

Did Biden or Scholz ever say that they want Ukraine to win this war? I don't think they did.

They've always framed it as "Russia must not win this war" and that's exactly the strategy they are following. Give Ukraine enough to keep them in the game, but don't give them enough to win.