...In a nuclear war there is no winner. The first strike is guaranteed to be followed by a response (it could even not be a nuke, but certainly proportional and devastating)... and from there nobody knows...
Can we stop pretending that instead of protecting its members NATO countries signed up to start a nuclear Armageddon for any tactical nuclear blast in any country around the globe? I realize that that's what UA has been desperately asking for but literally no NATO general or leader of ANY NATO country agreed to anything close to that. That's not how article 5 works
RU nuke attack in UA != RU nuke attack on NATO
Edit: I'm not saying RU should nuke UA, and i'm against all nuke attacks, but distinction must be made ...
False, a response to a nuclear attack does not necessarily have to be nuclear, that has been stated over an over. It has been described as "devastating" but most likely conventional. The ICBMs are not the only nuclear option and the nuclear response is not only not the only option, it is not even the best to achieve a deterrent for tactical nukes from Russia. Do you know that the tactical nuke arsenal in US is barely 200 units, like 10 times less than RF's?