That's not the way it came across, but sure. Either way, my point about you not reading the future remains.
> Their limit is demonstrably in the wrong place isn’t it?
You can't demonstrate something about the future, except to wait and see how things unfold. We may yet be blundering our way into a thermonuclear war, or maybe we aren't. Time will be the judge of it. Everybody who perceives a line that shouldn't be crossed is engaging in some form of appeasement, so using that term as a cudgel is short-sighted; the same accusation could easily be made against you. Why don't you support [measure which you think would go too far]? Appeasement, right? That's probably not how you'd characterize your own position, but unless you're the most hawkish voice in the room that accusation can certainly be leveled against you just as you level it against those people.
Without being able to see the full web of possible outcomes, what does it even mean to be demonstrably wrong? Take my position, that the Biden administration is generally doing a good job of managing NATO support and involvement. Well objectively, the war has not ended yet. Maybe somewhere in the web of possible realities, the war has already ended in Ukraine's favor because Biden behaved differently. Has Biden's handling of the war then been demonstrably wrong because the war is demonstrably still ongoing? Do you see the problem? Counterfactuals cannot be objectively judged. Neither the alternate reality with more appeasement, nor the one with less. The basis for my support of Biden's handling of the war is simply this: thus-far there is no nuclear war, and I subjectively judge the present and near-future risk of nuclear war to be low. The passage of time will reveal the truth about the decisions made in our timeline, but even that won't reveal the outcomes of counterfactual realities. Those are closed to us, we can only speculate about what could have been. How then can speculation about a counterfactual reality be demonstrably wrong?