[jmyeet]

> Your comment suggests the best outcome of any situation is the least violence.

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?

[nickspicer1993]

I think we can simply agree different values then, if the person had 6000 nuclear weapons not only would I still fight for my house, I would fight for your house. I did offer to go to Ukraine actually but they are not taking untrained civilians.

[jmyeet]

What we can agree on is you're overly susceptible to appeals to emotion ("what if your house was invaded?"), your analogies are bad and you have no conception of the consequences of what you're suggesting.

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.