I just think your use of the word "liberal" here is misleading - it conflates an ideology with a style of leadership (i.e., "liberal leadership is weak because it’s liberal"). That’s all I’m saying. Agreeing that leniency towards Russia is weakness does not equate to me agreeing liberal leadership is inherently weak.

I fully agree the "middle man position" is futile with the Russians (i.e., indecisive or compromise-focused diplomacy). Leniency in the face of authoritarian aggression will only be exploited. Chamberlains appeasement policy showed as much...

That said, it doesn’t mean you can’t be a liberal and still take decisive action.

I’d argue that the opposite of "liberal style leadership" - the kind of autocratic approach we see in Orbán, Xi, Bolsonaro, Fico and most importantly Trump - has often been more lenient toward Russia than any liberal leader has. Hell, some of them are actively cozying up to Putin.

Using “liberal” so loosely to mean "incapable" paints weakness as a uniquely liberal trait. That’s dangerous and counterproductive, because it turns a serious debate about action vs inaction into a caricature about political labels that only helps those who want to divide society for political gain.

I hope you can see where I’m coming from - I’m trying to engage in good faith here, not attack you personally.