Yeah, again, I broadly agree. But that's because we're caught in a long, narrowing funnel of options that has been created by previous inaction. I'm not advocating for war, nuclear or otherwise, I'm all about the peace and love. I'm just frustrated that it's taken getting to the brink of a large-scale war before there's been any substantive action.

Let's presume that Putin wouldn't have unleashed nuclear war 20 years ago if he'd faced sanctions for his actions in Chechnya. Just as he hasn't today. Do you think we'd still be in this situation? Maybe, but I suspect not. I suspect that if countries had to factor in severe economic pain for military action, they'd take less military action.

The first listed aim in the charter of the UN is:

To maintain international peace and security, and to that end: to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace.

Putin has been a threat to various countries' peace since, what? 1999? And all that time, his nuclear capability has been getting stronger. Bullies are masters at spotting empty threats. And the UN, and the League of Nations before it, have been little more than that.