Allowing countries to invade another is what is disastrous for peace. Policies that make such actions extremely costly reinforce the peace-incentive. This is standard game theory: reward cooperation, punish exploitation.
Well, I guess this kind of trivialization of the situation is the culprit in the elite's delusional thinking. Of cause, invading other countries is not "ok", and by the same logic and the same intensity of moral force, it is not "ok" to engage in policies that one knows very well will provoke others to "invade" (use force in any other way).
Hence, I do consider such "game theory" ideas impotent and not a valid starting point for formulating policies that will cost young people their lives if one misreads situation (or is not committed to use force). One has to be serious to the utmost here.
So back to my question, is there any rational, strategic justification for this? What is the goal? What is intended/presumed reaction of RU to this? How is this leading to peace (or which block of peaceful future resolution does this build upon?)
The idea is to isolate Russia enough that they consider peace better than their continued rape of Ukraine and Ukrainians, on this front, any pressure that can be exerted with save Ukraine and Ukrainian lives and is a commendable action.
Russia remains solely responsible for their actions in Ukraine, _no_ one else made that decision.
Hence, I do consider such "game theory" ideas impotent and not a valid starting point for formulating policies that will cost young people their lives if one misreads situation (or is not committed to use force). One has to be serious to the utmost here.
So back to my question, is there any rational, strategic justification for this? What is the goal? What is intended/presumed reaction of RU to this? How is this leading to peace (or which block of peaceful future resolution does this build upon?)