[twixfel]

Haven’t you inverted it rather flagrantly? In this scenario it is Russia that attached the Czech Republic.

> Wars are never waged as responses to attacks or insults, they are waged when the rulers have determined that they will be profitable

It is a meaningless truism that nations don’t start wars they don’t think they can or will win. No need to dress that up as any sort of profound insight.

[carlosjobim]

Nations don't start wars, rulers do. The rulers can still profit while the nation loses. That's the standard outcome of war, the nation will suffer greatly and lose immense amounts of human life and destruction, whether winning or losing the war. Even a nation who only wages war overseas looses much more than they gain, because of productivity that has to go to the war effort. It is only ever the rulers that have anything to gain from war. And of course those who enjoy war and battle for itself.

> In this scenario it is Russia that attached the Czech Republic.

It is the ruler(s) of Russia that has done that.

[lupusreal]

Winning the war isn't enough if you suffer greatly to win it and get little if anything to actually show for your victory. "Profit" is necessary.

In this case, the cost of ignoring Russia's attacks is far less than the cost of winning a war against Russia. If this relationship flips, then we might get war.

[jopsen]

Also, why would you risk a kinetic response, when it's so far proven perfectly safe to donate equipment to Ukraine?