Apologies, the post rate in here is ridiculous and I’ve probably missed more than one reply.
If we chose to intervene directly and not just by supplying weapons, then Russia has already escalated the conflict beyond it’s current level, it’s not just on a whim because we fancied blowing some **** up ourselves one day.
None of this takes place on Russian soil, so this is still purely in self defence of Ukraine due to the invasion. If they start losing forces, which they will, and fast, the idea they’d instantly resort to nukes is laughable - it would open them up to instant reprisals on a similar level and no-one is going to be that stupid. Putin talks a strong game but he doesn’t have the balls to back it up, and I honestly don’t believe much of his military would actually follow through with the orders.
If I’m proven wrong, you can enjoy knowing this fact from your beach villa in Argentina…
I'd disagree with some of that, in particular the nukes, that there is a risk of nukes being used certainly isn't laughable (it might be unlikely but the risk is there and it's serious enough that it's shaped policy), it's the reason why NATO certainly didn't want to get involved with a no-fly zone and has been cautious about the delivery of (modern, Western) tanks (not happened until now), longer range weapons (that's steadily increased) and fast jets (still limited to Soviet stuff and with maybe only a few transferred by Poland under the cover of supplying spare parts).
The most likely of the nuke scenarios is the use of a tactical nuke in Ukraine, that has prompted serious concerns within NATO to the point where the US has spoken to Russia directly about it and outlined consequences, they've not published those consequences as generally it's considered escalatory in the West to even posture about nukes, not something Putin and chums seem concerned about.
Trump is also aware that the "n word" shouldn't be used, at least he's not doubt been briefed about it multiple times thus this rather bizarre speech:
The former president said there are "two n-words," that shouldn't "be mentioned," in reference to the threat of nuclear conflict.
www.newsweek.com
The issue with Trump is the uncertainty aspect, he does blunder into stuff and can be less predictable, especially if challenged, he's got a big ego too so something like invading Ukraine further is a bigger risk under his Presidency. Essentially I think the risk of this invasion occurring would have been lower under Trump but the risks of it escalating or going much worse than it has now would have been higher had it occurred.
Under Trump, if it had occurred, you could have had all sorts of scenarios from say: Trump can't keep his ego in line and matches Russian threats with off-the-cuff threats of his own and we end up in a dangerous standoff with Russia/possible WW3... or Trump wants to end the thing sooner, Trump can do a deal, Trump forces Ukraine to do a deal giving up land, it's the best deal Trump's sooo good at deals... or even perhaps an American first approach, Trump follows state department/pentagon advice and proceeds exactly as Biden does initially then gets bored and says he's looking after America, he's given Ukraine some aide but they're on their own now and that... they should do a deal and he's there to help with a great deal, sadly in the latter case he'd perhaps have German and possibly French support for that given their initial positon and the time it took for them to come round to the current approach of the UK, US, Poland and the Baltics etc..
