[Goose]

Goose, there will be no nuclear confrontation. As soon as that fantasy is let go of, there are a lot more possibilities and winning becomes much more likely.

There absolutely would be a Nuclear "confrontation". Whether that would lead to nuclear war is another question, but the discussion would be had, on both sides.

But even if there were a nuclear war started because NATO country forces were on the ground in Ukraine, I welcome dying on that hill, and I think many others do too.

OK, if you so chose. However, I believe the vast majority of the population doesn't agree that hill is worth dying on to allow e.g. Polish troops to "augment" Ukrainian forces. The benefit isn't worth the cost. One might argue Russia would be crazy to use a tactical nuclear weapon in response, but IMO the Russian government has demonstrated it often does things that most regard as "crazy". There may be situations where such a risk is unavoidable, but "backstopping" Ukrainian troops emphatically isn't one of those.

[Goose]

Goose, there will be no nuclear confrontation. As soon as that fantasy is let go of, there are a lot more possibilities and winning becomes much more likely.

There absolutely would be a Nuclear "confrontation". Whether that would lead to nuclear war is another question, but the discussion would be had, on both sides.

But even if there were a nuclear war started because NATO country forces were on the ground in Ukraine, I welcome dying on that hill, and I think many others do too.

OK, if you so chose. However, I believe the vast majority of the population doesn't agree that hill is worth dying on to allow e.g. Polish troops to "augment" Ukrainian forces. The benefit isn't worth the cost. One might argue Russia would be crazy to use a tactical nuclear weapon in response, but IMO the Russian government has demonstrated it often does things that most regard as "crazy". There may be situations where such a risk is unavoidable, but "backstopping" Ukrainian troops emphatically isn't one of those.