Yup. Hence why all the talk of ironclad security guarantees, though I don’t even know what they could be at this point to be trusted. NATO membership and bilateral agreements with US, UK, and France? But so long as no serious guarantees are on the table, the question remains moot.

Okay, Apple’s defence from the article is hilarious:

The EU says that antitrust regulation is intended to promote competition and give consumers more choices. Apple argues that it is having the opposite effect.

Fewer choices: When features are delayed or unavailable, EU users don’t get the same options as users in the rest of the world. They lose the choice to use Apple’s latest technologies, and their devices fall further behind.

You. You are doing that.

Less differentiation: By forcing Apple to build features and technologies for non-Apple products, the DMA is making the options available to European consumers more similar. For instance, the changes to app marketplaces are making iOS look more like Android — and that reduces choice.

More different options means less differentation!

Unfair competition: The DMA’s rules only apply to Apple, even though Samsung is the smartphone market leader in Europe, and Chinese companies are growing fast. Apple has led the way in building a unique, innovative ecosystem that others have copied — to the benefit of users everywhere. But instead of rewarding that innovation, the DMA singles Apple out while leaving our competitors free to continue as they always have.

Because Android devices I guess comply with DMA for now, let’s see again after Google starts cracking down on non-playstore apps harder.

According to Wikipedia, the planetary boundaries -concept has been around since 2009, with some renaming and one variable change (“chemical pollution” to “novel entities”. The original Nature (feature) paper that I dug up doesn’t describe the methodology, but that it hasn’t faced major criticism so far would suggest it’s pretty valid for the kind of tool that it is.

Notice that even the source has to admit that the hypothetical territory losses would be for “security guarantees and peace”. And since no ironclad security guarantees are in sight, the question is moot.

IMHO they “should” take a deal like that too. Even after WW2 for Poland itself, and definitely Finland IMHO, that lost territory but weren’t directly absorbed into the SU, I’d imagine the SU meddling in the decades after was the even more painful part.

It also isn’t necessarily the kind of “should” that implies loss of support otherwise, just that if I/they were in that situation, I/they’d take such a deal. I certainly think it should be up to the ukrainians themselves, and would continue to support them whichever choice they made, when it may come available.