if you've said you're not going to use it.
Or, worse, you've threatened to use it but when pushed refused to.
"If you do this, Assad, it's a red line and there'll be hell to pay." A couple of weeks later, "Thanks, Volodya, for saving my bacon and coming up with a nice way to keep me from having to be nasty."
"Okay, Putin, we are *not* going to tolerate a frozen conflict in the Donbas." Three years later, there's a frozen conflict, almost. I say "almost" because the LNR and DNR are still busy sending large quantities of artillery shells and bullets that they can't locally produce and can't legally import from anywhere over the "borders" to kill and maim those in un-occupied Ukraine.
It's what the West has done in Abkhazia (twice), with S. Ossetia, in Transdnistria, in Crimea. It's what we did in Syria and with Aleppo. We jaw-jaw because that's always better than war-war, apparently, and any direct action might, just might lead to war.
At this point it's a pattern, with strong precedents that you can rely on. If you're committed to the idea there's no military option, then you've written off your military. If the other side thinks there's a military option, we can sleep soundly that we've made the country safe for hawk chickens--those who speak boldly and proudly before going off to sit on the eggs they've laid and wait for them to hatch.
= new reply since forum marked as read
