@AliceStollmeyer @anneapplebaum This might be the first time that I must politely disagree with @anneapplebaum. Pacifism in itself isn't the problem here, but the absolutist version of it advocating for total surrender.
I'm a (peacetime) pacifist who believes (believed?) not only in credible *deterrence* in military terms but also in holistic *avoidance*. 
I have advocated against empowering dictatorships through business, normalization and appeasement (without credible actions towards democracy and human rights) since the 1989 Tiananmen massacre. First over the bonkers and near instantaneous rehabilitation of the CCP-ruled China out of sheer greed, and in the 2000's the revisionist putin regime which noted how the CCP got away with murder without consequences because *business and greed dictated policy in democracies*.
Our democracies had a pacifist way forward after the Cold War: Support developing democracies with trade and aid while targeting repressive regimes with punitive tariffs (yes the could be used for good!) and technology embargoes.
Instead of a strong global alliance of democracies we now have military-expansionist and revanchist China and Russia using all their wealth, power and guile to subvert those still-struggling democracies to the dark side. And not only that, they're trying to disrupt and fragment our once-powerful developed democracies as well! (Hello russian influence on the trump regime!)
The era of potential pacifist deterrence ended in February 2022 and we're *still funding* those hostile regimes. 
(Anne's piece was posted on the fundamentally anti-democratic substack site so I steered clear
)