...
We all agree that Albania, Hungary, Iceland etc... don't really have any say in NATO right?
They have a limited say, but an attack on any member is an attack on all. If that is not honoured, NATO would cease to exist. US and other members would take a"proportional response" as it is the standard in diplomacy and war. The choice of means and targets could vary - but certainly the nuclear response is not the first choice to respond to a non-nuclear aggression.
I meant for NATO to attack Russia, we all know it'll be only one country making that call. After bombing of Yugoslavia NATO cannot technically be called a "defensive" pact. If US declares war on Russia it'll do it under NATO no-fly zone, NATO intervention etc... Russia will have 30 nations declaring war on it and start attacking its air force. And people are willing to bet their lives that Russia won't use it's nuke arsenal under such circumstances? US used nukes on Japan for much dumber reasons.
...
Biden has already enough trouble with his popularity and chances of re-election to do that. He needs something he can sell as a successful peace and there is no way he can do so giving away Ukraine. Also, that would be a huge strategic error for the future and US analysts know that it would leave a less safe - thus more expensive - world behind.
US is the biggest unknown. Not a fan of Trump but with upcoming food shortages and gas prices, it's just too easy for a populist to win, Biden's ratings are already down and we're at the top of the hype. Think Biden is a lost cause, and that's an additional headache for EU. Consequences of their decision with Russia will be long term and painful, where any promises of support from US can flip in 2 years. Anyone seriously think that Trump will keep EU as a priority vs making America great once again, especially when China will be overtaking US?
...
Best case, well that depends for who? There are always competing interests but some ideas from top of my head:
-Russia: Ukraine surrendering (4 weeks ago or second best now), and Russia getting it back under it's sphere of influence
-US: Maximize chance of collapsing Russia by maximizing its pain via a proxy up to the last Ukrainian standing
-EU: This thing just going away ASAP, receiving natural resources to keep its heavy industries from collapsing and its population fed and warm during next winter
-Ukraine: Majority of populations just want to live "better" and don't really care about politics. Ukraine was the poorest country in EU and its GDP per capita was almost 4x lower than Russia. So financially, average Ukrainian would most likely be better off, under Russia. Freedom loving part of population are better off not coming back and staying in EU countries. Pretty much just like Cuba.
-China: Costly, long, drawn out conflict requiring huge investments from US with another
Marshall Plan for Europe.
...
I think that it is very clear which side I am on: best case for Europe and Ukraine. US & China are only getting stronger with this and Putin's Tzardom, insofar as most of their population seem to be quite apathic about how they are governed, is not of my concern other than their ability to cause problems to others.
Certainly, not a war with WMD would fit a desirable solution to any party, which is the point of my post.
Again, I think that my position on this is very clear, but if I have to make it even more clear: a solution that causes a low number of civilian casualties, something the parties can live with given the damage inflicted to both sides, something that can be politically accepted for the relevant stakeholders, and, above all, a solution that does not encourage or that makes economically unfeasible any further conflict in the future.
On regards to your comments on EU, of course, ideally Europe wants this gone ASAP. While short term Germany chose to interlink with Russia, I think their leaders have gotten the message quite clear and the strategic exposure to Russia, while unchangeable short term, can and will be changed during the next five years. You cannot feed the bear no mater how nice he looks when asleep.
On your comment on Ukraine, people all over the world want to progress and "live better" in the ample sense. They know that this is not happening if they are part of the Tzardom. Also, people tend to like feeling free, even if freedom is never perfect something that, again, does not happen under a despotic foreign power's direct control.
Trades happen because they're beneficial for both parties, have you considered that maybe those cheap(er) natural resources what helped Germany become/stay where they are now? Do you think it can continue to stay competitive in global economy with it's high labor costs and now with natural resources say costing 20% more over China? Really doubt that their margins are that high. Germany already had to support economies of Greece, Portugal, Cyprus... pretty sure they didn't care and were fine with UA as it was pre 2014, and thinking WTF are you doing when US decided to hand out those freedom cookies. Don't see a good way out for them, oil/gas is a commodity, so it doesn't really matter how you shuffle it around the globe, all you're doing is making distribution less efficient. Freedom LNG from US would be at 20% premium and still won't cover their needs. Now on April 1st EU will have to start buying rubles to pay for gas while somehow trying to save face. One thing Russia has going for it is that after hitting the bottom it's hard to fall any lower, but EU still has a lot at risk and stuck between a rock and a hard place. These events can be a footnote in global history where (outside of UA) in 10yrs most won't remember it or it can end it.