I am not a native English speaker and may have badly expressed myself. I am not urging the "west" or "allieds" to intervene nor i am condemning them for not to. But if they were serious about stopping Putin, they would have sent troops weeks before the invasion. When Joseph Biden went everyday on television to warn that the invasion was imminent and that usa will not send troops but instead establish more economic sanctions, it was pretty clear to me that they already had accepted to abandon Ukraine to Russia.
They can send equipment because if equipment is lost it's no big deal.
If you send NATO troops and they are killed then all out war between NATO and Russia is inevitable and that could easily be world ending.
Essentially sending troops to Ukraine has a very poor risk/reward. If it works and Russia is discouraged from attacking then great, everyone goes home. If it doesn't work then it's WW3.
I don't understand. You're not urging the "west" or "allies" to intervene, but you want them to have sent troops to fight russian troops? In what world isn't that "intervening"?
My understanding of the comment in question is: "Sanctions are not an effective deterrent; if the West truly wanted to put a stop to this they should have sent troops because that's the only thing that Russia would listen to."
Debatable as to the truth of that sentiment, perhaps. And obviously ... NATO and Russia being at war would be incredibly disastrous. But, I do think it's possible to hold that sentiment in good faith - I feel something similar. I desperately do not want to be in a "hot" war with Russia, but at the same time I recognize that sanctions are ineffective.
The lesson here, perhaps, is that the options range from "bad" to "worse." :(
