I kind of agree, but there must be a red line. Otherwise ... well the diplomacy and sanctions approach proved rather problematic historically:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anschluss

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Munich_Agreement

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoney_War (or "Sitzkrieg")

And, most ridiculous of all:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_betrayal#Beginning_of_...

There is a point where war is unavoidable, and the problem with fights between 2 parties is simple: if one party believes it is in a fight ... you're in a fight. It does not matter what the other party thinks.

If Putin believes we're at war with Russia, we are at war with Russia and we will need to fight. Fight a little or a lot? Today we could fight a little. Tomorrow we will have to fight a lot.

Our red line is NATO, same as it always was. And will Russia have greater or lesser capability to wage war in a year or two, with their economy ruined by sanctions? Dependence on international trade today is far greater than anyone could have dreamed in the 1930s, and it's dangerous to try to force historical analogies that simply don't hold up under scrutiny.

I agree with Gary Kasparov on that. Would you be willing to deal with a nuke close by for Estonia? For Finland?

I think not. If Putin agrees, we may well find out.