The West is definitely not standing by, they have issued unprecedented sanctions. Of course we're clearly not facing a rational actor, so there's no telling when intervention will be "enough". But sanctions are not necessarily worse or less impactful than the alternative being proposed here.
The question is: will sanctions stop Putin from conquering Ukraine? If not, then I don't think you can say we're doing anything to help them.
I'm not saying that Kasparov is necessarily correct in his thinking. The military option of the US/EU/NATO sending a joint communication telling Russia to lay down their arms or face war is incredibly dangerous. But openly considering it does seem necessary to me and it might be inevitable.
Is Putin an irrational actor? Right now, we're showing him that we won't attack him militarily no matter his actions.
But I don't agree that it should only be people that go to war that should discuss or decide whether we should go to war. If that were the case, it would be soldiers themselves that voted to take us to war.
> But I don't agree that it should only be people that go to war that should discuss or decide whether we should go to war.
If someone is pro war, they should see their convictions through.
But don't worry: you don't need convictions here on the internet. You can just impotently post, make all the insinuations you want, and then go back to Netflix. The internet is great because you don't have to actually do the hard work of following a belief through, and can instead adopt styles of posting while they're relevant.
I'm trying to respond seriously and you're being quite irritating.
Decisions to go to war aren't only taken by people that directly put their lives at risk. This has never been the case and it wouldn't be a good idea if it were the case. Also, I don't agree that your decision to impotently post on the internet is somehow more dignified than my own because it better aligns with your default behaviour (in-action, passivity towards violence, etc). Neither of us are doing hard work to follow our beliefs.
I simply disagree that "appeasement" or "detente" policies are necessarily better in the long-run. We don't know this and should seriously consider the possibility that they aren't, even if in this case, not going to war is still the best option (which should be our assumption by default).
