[Goose]

Yes, it is all insane and the scary part is that Putin, showing suicidal tendencies more regularly now, has access to 000's of tactical (short-range) nukes capable of disastrous, if not outright catastrophic, devastation of NATO cities and ports. The likelihood he uses them is probably around 10-15% right now. With every bad day he has, the number grows. My hope is that the heavy-breathers in the Kremlin are coup-plotting as I write this. But as far as this side of the Atlantic, I want to see signs that we are prepping for more than more rounds of Biden's barks. I stand with Jim Geraghty (National Review):

I have no idea whatsoever the probability that Putin intends to use battlefield nuclear weapons. I think nobody knows. It has been NATOs standing posture for years that the response to nuclear weapons of any type is unlimited. If Putin is at all sane, that should be enough. However, there is reason to doubt he believes NATO would respond. At this point, more threats do nothing. I think Mr. Geraghty thinks stamping one's foot harder (Biden's barks) and making threats actually matter. They may to the American public, but they don't to Russia. What Russia worries about is what the US/NATO can do and their willingness to do it. Right now, Ukraine is holding their own with the help we are giving them. Russia is destroying a lot of the cities piecemeal, but so far not in a way that Ukraine can't handle. The questions that need answering are 1) How will NATO respond if Ukraine starts to lose the war? and 2) How long will Russia keep fighting if they can't break Ukrainian resistance?
I am pretty sure that we know the answer to the first. The US/NATO will do nothing significant beyond what they have been doing. The will to do more just isn't there. Russia knows this, so to assert otherwise just isn't credible. Maybe (but probably not) the Poles would give it a go if others were on board, but nobody else will. If in fact the US or NATO intends to give weapons such as MLRS to Ukraine if things get worse, they should do so immediately. Holding back just reduces the effectiveness of an action they probably will need to take anyway. Betting things won't get worse is a bad plan.
In fairness, it is also a real tough nut to crack. Ukraine is too far away and too hard to supply for the US/NATO to commit forces there unless we intend to invade Russia. A "limited" war there just isn't possible. Russia will attack the LOC and that is Europe. They have to. The US/NATO has a better military that what Russia has shown. The way to beat it is to deny it the logistics that will enable it. Russia is not the Taliban or ISIS. They can do that. Nukes are not required, but are optional.
The second question is the unknown. Russia's military has not performed well, for may reasons. At what point does it just become clear that they can't win and need to pull back? I don't have much of a clue. Hopefully somebody in the US intelligence community has a pretty good idea, but even that depends a lot on psychology of Putin and of his generals. Yes, it would be nice if Putin met with an accident, but failing that Russia could muddle on for months. Can Ukraine do the same? Can Ukraine ever generate enough combat power to produce more than a stalemate? If not, this war could last years.

[Goose]

Yes, it is all insane and the scary part is that Putin, showing suicidal tendencies more regularly now, has access to 000's of tactical (short-range) nukes capable of disastrous, if not outright catastrophic, devastation of NATO cities and ports. The likelihood he uses them is probably around 10-15% right now. With every bad day he has, the number grows. My hope is that the heavy-breathers in the Kremlin are coup-plotting as I write this. But as far as this side of the Atlantic, I want to see signs that we are prepping for more than more rounds of Biden's barks. I stand with Jim Geraghty (National Review):

I have no idea whatsoever the probability that Putin intends to use battlefield nuclear weapons. I think nobody knows. It has been NATOs standing posture for years that the response to nuclear weapons of any type is unlimited. If Putin is at all sane, that should be enough. However, there is reason to doubt he believes NATO would respond. At this point, more threats do nothing. I think Mr. Geraghty thinks stamping one's foot harder (Biden's barks) and making threats actually matter. They may to the American public, but they don't to Russia. What Russia worries about is what the US/NATO can do and their willingness to do it. Right now, Ukraine is holding their own with the help we are giving them. Russia is destroying a lot of the cities piecemeal, but so far not in a way that Ukraine can't handle. The questions that need answering are 1) How will NATO respond if Ukraine starts to lose the war? and 2) How long will Russia keep fighting if they can't break Ukrainian resistance?
I am pretty sure that we know the answer to the first. The US/NATO will do nothing significant beyond what they have been doing. The will to do more just isn't there. Russia knows this, so to assert otherwise just isn't credible. Maybe (but probably not) the Poles would give it a go if others were on board, but nobody else will. If in fact the US or NATO intends to give weapons such as MLRS to Ukraine if things get worse, they should do so immediately. Holding back just reduces the effectiveness of an action they probably will need to take anyway. Betting things won't get worse is a bad plan.
In fairness, it is also a real tough nut to crack. Ukraine is too far away and too hard to supply for the US/NATO to commit forces there unless we intend to invade Russia. A "limited" war there just isn't possible. Russia will attack the LOC and that is Europe. They have to. The US/NATO has a better military that what Russia has shown. The way to beat it is to deny it the logistics that will enable it. Russia is not the Taliban or ISIS. They can do that. Nukes are not required, but are optional.
The second question is the unknown. Russia's military has not performed well, for may reasons. At what point does it just become clear that they can't win and need to pull back? I don't have much of a clue. Hopefully somebody in the US intelligence community has a pretty good idea, but even that depends a lot on psychology of Putin and of his generals. Yes, it would be nice if Putin met with an accident, but failing that Russia could muddle on for months. Can Ukraine do the same? Can Ukraine ever generate enough combat power to produce more than a stalemate? If not, this war could last years.