While surrendering in the first week is an uncomfortable option, I think they'd have been better off exploring that as an option even before nuclear weapons come into the picture. Russia in 2024 is bad but not the USSR. Ukraine'd be putting a brave face on to describe what just happened to them as mere buggery and they don't appear to have achieved much. There is a serious argument that their choice to fight was a mistake.
What Ukrainians choose to do about their situation is up to them. If you think you have constructive advice to offer them -- as someone not facing that situation, yourself -- you're welcome to speak with them directly and see what this effort brings you.
Obviously it was bad advice.
"Victoria Nuland on Russia-NATO relations, peace negotiations with Ukraine, and the U.S. elections"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HiS2dg_atfc&t=3192s&ab_chann...
Without articulating what this advice supposedly was, or why it was bad (or even if it was bad).
More to the point: if you think anyone has time to fish through 72 minutes of some interview about anything political on a summer weekend to sift out whatever insinuation it is that you're attempting to posit here -- then your worldview is quite dark and austere, indeed.
In retrospect, the attempt to win the war instead of negotiating was a catastrophic mistake that many people paid for and are paying with their lives.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peace_negotiations_in_the_Russ...
They can decide for themselves whether to bend over and let Putin have his merry way with them is such a fine idea as you seem to think is, or not
Boris didn't make them do anything. That's just a myth, which presumes they are hapless fools with no agency.
Russian propaganda is always "Russia is the victim".
No, Russia made themselves their event.
So what you're saying is, if a country has nuclear weapons they can do whatever they want to you and you'll just take it in the ass, is that it?
Im glad that a lot of people choose to stand up and fight.