Just because someone does something instead of fighting a war doesn’t make whatever they actually did do right. They could also do neither thing. Especially if the alternative to war turns out to not actually achieve the goal the war would have achieved, leaving them in the same position of deciding whether to do a bad thing or not, after having already done another different bad thing.
Your own logic can be applied in the reverse to argue for nonviolent diplomatic alternatives to war (like this) being a good thing even if they are not perfectly good or the best option.
Just because someone does something instead of fighting a war doesn’t make whatever they actually did do right. They could also do neither thing. Especially if the alternative to war turns out to not actually achieve the goal the war would have achieved, leaving them in the same position of deciding whether to do a bad thing or not, after having already done another different bad thing.
Your own logic can be applied in the reverse to argue for nonviolent diplomatic alternatives to war (like this) being a good thing even if they are not perfectly good or the best option.