Increased industrialization meaning that nations could field an army undergoing massive attrition for years and years without suffering a crippling lack of production at home, and
Lack of understanding on the part of political leaders of how the face of war had changed
narrative. Every party believed or was sold that they could win this thing if they just kept climbing the escalation ladder.
I mean… not really. Surely, at the time, the “dangerous” narrative was anything against the war. To me, allowing a freer flow of ideas would have helped to resolve the war sooner, and deciding that certain narratives were dangerous and should be stayed away from (leading to difficulty in understanding what was happening) was a factor that made things worse, not better. No?
For a start I would not do X, Y and Z, this is the whole idea of realism, accept the world as is. Threats work, I'm sorry.
I am glad that you are not involved in the foreign policy of either Ukraine or any country I care about. There is realism, sure; the world is not always a comic book where being righteous is enough. Then, also, there is cowardice, and then beyond that there is saying that someone else who is rejecting cowardice is to be blamed (along with anyone who gives them assistance in standing up) for danger they find themselves in as a result.
Ukraine seems likely to be able to hold on to a significant chunk of their territory and self determination, after deciding to pay a heavy heavy price for it, in homes and cities and money and lives and anything else. You can take your condescending stuff about realism and whose decision that was, and what kind of lives under Russian rule they should be resigning themselves to instead, and shove it up your ass.