Intent is required to say GENOCIDE.
Otherwise, it is not genocide.
As I said, it's all about definitions. Actions of a person may be "intentional" or "unintentional". Ways of culture are always "unintentional", because culture or population doesn't have "intentions". Just some cultures are expanding by assimilation, and other - by replacement. Actually, there are just different proportions of assimilation and replacement (for no one is pure assimilator or replacer).
If that is true, than why all the talk from YOU about escalating? It everything is going YOUR way, then all you would WANT to do, is just slide on though to victory.
It is unwise to judge realistic analyses and preparations as a lust for war. There are no two sides to the nuclear debate: no one is "for" war; everyone is against it - some categorically so and others only to the degree that it does not result in an even less desirable alternative. It is immoral from almost any point of view to refuse to defend yourself and others from very grave and terrible threats, even as there are limits to the means that can be used in such defense.
We are against nuclear war. We are against even conventional wars or any other form of violence. But, there are alternatives much more worse than a nuclear war, and two of them (at least from our point of view) - is to leave twenty million of Russian people under control of anti-Russian regime, and to allow NATO militarise Eastern Europe and attack Russia.
In reality, You are being bled white. You are stuck in a meatgrinder.
In our reality our military losses are lesser than the death rate from traffic accidents.
What makes sense is to cut a deal and end it.
"Cut a deal" make sense only if two conditions are fulfilled - both sides can control "their" assets (which is definitely not true in the case of Trump and Zelenskiy, and almost certain isn't true in the case of Putin and, say, Odessa underground) and the final result of the deal isn't worse than the final result of "meatgrinder".
The diplomats can talk about different things, but it hardly will change a thing on the ground.
HAHAHAHAHA, "No more 10 min killed"? LOL.
In reality, that is not a sane alternative to even consider.
Previous times, bad deals with the West caused the much more significant losses.
It might be, and looks like it will be, the lesser evil. Sad, but true. And, "ten millions killed, Russian decisive victory" is just a one cartrige in six chambers.
Other five chances are: "America alleviated without forcing Russia to use nukes at all" (3/6), "America alleviated after first Russian nuckear attack against French and British nuclear bases". (1/6), "America accepted generous Russian peace proposals without retaliation, and lose Alaska and California, after losing significant part of nuclear arsenal after Russian limited counter-force strike" (1/6).
You know, it was realistic back in 1979, and its even more realistic now, with much more vulnerable American nuclear forces and with much more precise Russian missiles.
