None of your points expresses support. It is one option, if you are attacked, you just surrender and probably save a lot of lives. At least immediately, there can of course be other bad things happening down the road. I do not think that I would consider this the best option most of the time, but it is a valid option and maybe even a good one if you value lives over everything else or if the situation is extremely in favor of the aggressor. But even then does suggesting to surrender not imply your support for the initial aggression.
> It is one option, if you are attacked, you just surrender and probably save a lot of lives.
This take is profoundly disingenuous. Russia is targeting civilians and razing Ukrainian cities and settlements, conducting forced deportations, burying civilians in mass graves, all while Russia's talking heads repeatedly claim Ukraine does not have the right to exist.
And here you are, claiming that not offering ay resistance to Russia's assault on Ukraine would magically save people's lives.
I obviously do not know, but do you know that Russia would have done those things if Ukraine had just handed the country over on day one? And just to be clear, I am not suggesting that is what they should have done, I am just suggesting that the death toll and destruction could be lower than what we have now. And again, it could, I am not even saying it would, maybe there would have been an uprising of the population or whatever and the situation would have turned out even worse.
My point is purely that surrendering is a possible course of action which might provide some benefits over other options and that making such a suggestion does not imply that you are supporting the aggressor even if this would give the aggressor what they wanted.
