The downside to diplomacy is that if it's ineffective, by the time you get to other means, it can be too late because the victim is already dead.
And the fact that Russia made very little effort to justify its invasion to other countries (internal agitprop is very different, by the way!) tells you all you need to know about the effectiveness of diplomacy that is not backed by real and credible threat of force in this case.
> The downside to diplomacy is that if it's ineffective
There are no other means when dealing with a nuclear superpower. Diplomacy is precisely necessary because the US is never going to get into direct conflict with Russia either directly or through NATO. Not for Ukraine. The US is happy to dangle the carrot and throw some token "lethal aid" across the border but that's it. Sanctions will never work. They never have, not in forcing regime change or capitulation. So what other options are there?
> by the time you get to other means, it can be too late because the victim is already dead.
There are no other means and we've been talking about the Russian military "exercises" for literal months. How much time do you need? Since there aren't any other options what are you losing?
> And the fact that Russia made very little effort to justify its invasion to other countries
Russia has almost certainly sought and gained China's asurances of staying out of it. In the Security Council vote 3 nations abstained: China, India and the UAE. In fact Putin visited China during the Olympics. In hindsight it seems that Ukraine was a discussion point and may well have been the reason for the trip.
All of these pro-Western Imperialist drones (often Americans) who want to "be tough on Russia" are just virtue signaling or parroting someone who is. They like to throw around words like "appeasement" and don't offer any solutions of how to deal with a nuclear superpower that we will never fight a direct war with.
Military force is not a binary. Just as Russia had a choice of going to the de facto borders of LDNR, to their claimed borders, or for Ukraine as a whole - and did the latter. But for effective response, sticking to pre-war borders would suffice - and would not be enough to trigger a nuclear response from Russia.
What you call "diplomacy" seems to be a double-speak for appeasement. Your claim, in essence, is that with nukes in the picture, appeasement is the only option left. To that my question is: where do you plan to stop? If the West continues to back down in the face of direct military confrontation, because it might escalate into nuclear, but Russia doesn't harbor the same sentiments, it will take a while before it might cross your personal red line. But by that time, you might find that others aren't willing to fight for you, just as you weren't willing to fight for them.
And the fact that Russia made very little effort to justify its invasion to other countries (internal agitprop is very different, by the way!) tells you all you need to know about the effectiveness of diplomacy that is not backed by real and credible threat of force in this case.