> War is not an extension of "diplomacy by other means".
FWIW: War is defined by Clausewitz as the continuation of politics by other means, not of diplomacy. (It's probably the most famous theory of warfare, by the preeminent theorist.)
Clausewitz wasn't normalizing war, but explaining it: it's politics using violent means. If you don't understand the fundemental political nature of warfare then you will make major mistakes and many more will die and suffer. Those mistakes still happen: You can see that the US in Afghanistan lacked a clear vision and strategy for a political outcome. In those countries you see the results of defeating an enemy militarily and not politically. Russia, even if they 'win' militarily, will have a very big political problem in Ukraine.
FWIW: War is defined by Clausewitz as the continuation of politics by other means, not of diplomacy. (It's probably the most famous theory of warfare, by the preeminent theorist.)
Clausewitz wasn't normalizing war, but explaining it: it's politics using violent means. If you don't understand the fundemental political nature of warfare then you will make major mistakes and many more will die and suffer. Those mistakes still happen: You can see that the US in Afghanistan lacked a clear vision and strategy for a political outcome. In those countries you see the results of defeating an enemy militarily and not politically. Russia, even if they 'win' militarily, will have a very big political problem in Ukraine.