The only sane justification anyone can make is that we have progressed, but the tragedy for the rest continues.
US and EU war economies need an enemy and for long time, it was something abstract like drugs, terror etc. Now, they have something concrete in Russia and I see the rest as propaganda set to grow the outrage and anger to start another long war so that money can be minted.
No, it doesn't. It says that different rules apply when you're fighting a nuclear power. There is no military option here. None. That's the point. When there are no military options your only options are a proxy war (GGs for Ukraine) or a diplomatic solution.
> I would rather fight for certain values
You're not fighting for anything, most likely. It's pretty easy to sit in perfect safety thousands of miles from a war and tell other people they should fight for certain values.
But you've actually made my point. You're more interested in the principle (being right) than the outcome (winning).
> If someone comes to your house and takes it by force you should let him because it's the path to least violence right?
Does that person have 6000 nuclear weapons?
Russia being a nuclear power, "winning" probably means the house is destroyed and the land its own is littered with weapons and mines for years to come and I can't possibly afford to rebuild it.
> I did offer to go to Ukraine ...
Noble.
> ... but they are not taking untrained civilians.
Ok, I get it now. You simply have no conception of the realities of war and the aftermath. Got it.
Ukrainians have every right to kill the Russian invaders. The West has every right to put sanctions on Russia and support the Ukrainian resistance.
no one doubts that the west has every right to do that but i fail to see how it helps to stop casualties