[presumeaway]

His comment can only be read as "advocating warfare and violence as a solution to nation-state conflicts" if the reader injects it.

If we can add a layer of conflict-resolution between open diplomacy and global thermonuclear war, there's something to be said for the fact that it may provide additional margin before greater escalation occurs.

That's not advocating for war/or violence, that's just responsible conflict-resolution.

It'd be just as fallacious as my saying anyone opposed to cyber warfare must prefer that we cut to the chase and nuke the globe.

You can oppose cyber warfare but also prefer it to something you oppose even more.