How many nukes will it take to defeat the aggressor? Because aggressors don't stop till they are stopped by force

There has been absolutely no appetite for utilizing nuclear arms, except from the Kremlin which has made thinly veiled threats of doing so.

Nukes are bad, nobody wants to use them.

That's what people have thought. A small yield (.5-1kT) to destroy a Ukrainian army base would not warrant a full-scale nuclear response, but would show the world they are willing to cross that line in the sand. Are the US/EU ready for that?

Things are going to get "interesting".

Or until they run out of anything they can fight with, which is already happening with high-precision ammo and many other weapons.

2 nukes were enough for Japan. I bet for 4 to be sure.

It's not as black and white as you say it is. The Western press totally ignored the treatment of Russian speaking Ukrainians in the Donbass region.

International Law is USA hegemony.

This is, of course, silly trolling. If international law were a tool of US hegemony, then the US would not have been afraid to sign onto the ICC.

The reality is that both America and Russia have willingly violated international law in the past, and accountability—not to mention fairness for smaller independent countries like Ukraine—is hard to come by.

From the perspective of any independent nation in Europe, it’s clear the world is more dangerous than was hoped thanks to Russia’s aggression. You are obviously an American, but not everything is about your country.

I don't think you have any idea what international law is.

It's nothing like "law" within a nation. It's a super minimal set of basic principles that all or most countries agree upon. There isn't really a great enforcement mechanism (though symbolic rulings can be obtained in some forums such as the ICJ in the Hague), it's just built on top of good will and consensus. The only power the US has in international law is the power of suggestion.

> The Western press totally ignored the treatment of Russian speaking Ukrainians in the Donbass region

We hear this a lot, but I've read lots and lots of articles about occupied Donetsk in western media since 2014. Reporters on the ground interviewing people on both sides of things. What has been ignored? A substantial proportion of the population of that area fled into other parts of Ukraine in 2014, why are they ignored? They were forced from their home by the actions of Russia and their agitators - and they don't want to be part of Russia. And all the old folk had to cross back into Ukraine proper to collect their pensions.

Also a lot of people in Ukraine speak Russian, including the president so this whole "Russian speaking Ukrainians" is stupid. What Ukraine did was to try and contain a military operation being run in one of their regions by a neighbouring country.