We are standing by as a bully dominates another country, its culture and people. It's understandable why we'd do this, as they are a nuclear power. But what signal does it send Moscow and the world and where will it end? That we won't fight even when a country that is our friend is razed? Does he even believe that we'll defend ourselves if he decides to conquer Europe? Perhaps we will lay down our arms in order to avoid nuclear war.
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.
Out of curiosity have you volunteered to fight in Ukraine? They're taking volunteers.
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.
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.
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).
What signal do all these wars send, i wonder. Why dont we see a hysteria in the news about them? Questions, questions.. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ongoing_armed_conflict...
If a country has nukes, the dictator can stay in power and do whatever he wants. North Korea knows this and so doesn't Iran. SO some method that really works need to be found and employed. Starving the dictators Country does nothing since all he needs to do is keep his military happy. Happy military, happy life for the dictator.
Attacking Ukraine, without crossing the red line, doesn't mean that Putin doesn't respect the red line. We just don't know.