We didn’t use to call it war, so you’re wrong about that.

We used the term “intervention” to describe limited military action. Countries throughout history have conducted interventions as opposed to full-scale war.

Russia’s assault on Ukraine isn’t an intervention and is instead a war and we know this because of the size and scale of the operation but also the intentions of the operation, which, are to take over the entire country of Ukraine.

If Lybian forces were on the verge of committing war crimes and killing thousands, then "intervention" would be an appropriate word to describe what the Western powers did. They "intervened" to prevent an imminent atrocity, if you believe them.

And I am inclined to believe them, not because of what Western governments have said, but because the whole Arab Spring played out in real time on social media.

I agree that what happened to Gaddafi himself was horrific. It would have been a much better thing if he had been arrested and brought before a tribunal. But he was killed by Libyans, who were angry about the Libyans that Gaddafi himself had killed. The contribution that Western Governments made to those events was to stop the killing of thousands of people who opposed the regime. Arguing against intervention is arguing in favor of what would have happened without intervention—which is, effectively, what we have seen in Syria.

Now, was Volodymyr Zelenskyy on the verge of murdering tens of thousands? Were Ukranian forces gathered, ready to rain artillery shells down on a major Ukrainian city? If not, I don't think it would be appropriate to describe the Russian invasion as an "intervention". What would Putin have been "intervening" in? Ukranian self-determination?