Thanks for a somewhat-clearer statement of your views.
I disagree that Putin could have been appeased.

I agree about Merkel, and I revere Willy Brandt. I find it interesting that Putin waited until Merkel was out of power before launching his anschluss; if anyone could have made a difference, it is she. Macron made a good-faith attempt, but he was clearly getting the run-around, it is crystal clear that Putin wasn't interested in negotiating anything; his non-negotiable demands were clearly complete bullshit, designed to be unacceptable.

You can tell me all day that Russia is historically justified in having an irrational fear of invasion; it remains true that any such fear is irrational. Nobody in Europe (nor, I daresay, in the US) is interested in putting troops on Russian soil. Do you really believe the contrary?

Still. Until a week ago, your position was respectable enough. But once Russian troops entered Ukraine, it became clear that this whole charade had been, from the beginning, about taking back control of Ukraine, because what was fundamentally unacceptable for Putin (and non-negotiable for the European actors) was that Ukraine should be a liberal democracy, rather than a Russian vassal state. He has made it clear that he believes that redefining borders would be historically legitimate and desirable.

It follows, in my view, that 100% of the responsibility for this entirely optional war is on Putin.

It seems that you believe the contrary. Can you outline the concessions that the other parties (Biden, the EU, individual countries, NATO ?) should have made, starting in December (no, not going back decades, please, we're talking about the current crisis) in order to avert war?

I don't really believe that you defend the idea of war to change borders. But perhaps you do?

_{It is rightly acknowledged that people of faith have no monopoly of virtue - Queen Elizabeth II}