@Alexandra2001
People say a non-NATO stance is up to Ukraine. I think it's up to NATO - Ukraine is free to request to join; it should have been ruled-out on the basis that it would destabilise Europe.
I actually believe the opposite: Prof Caitlin Talmadge has spoken about the Stability-Instability Paradox:
"The notion that mutual vulnerability ("MAD") at the strategic nuclear level can actually make conflict more likely at lower rungs of the escalation ladder. Deterrence theorists associated with the Nuclear Revolution often dismiss this idea, arguing that nuclear stalemate means both sides will avoid crises and conflicts out of the fear they could escalate. The result should be peace, stability, and less military competition. Yet Putin’s behavior suggests that revisionist actors are not so inhibited and may instead use their strategic nuclear forces as a shield behind which they can pursue conventional aggression, knowing their nuclear threats may deter outside intervention."
I think that these crippling sanctions, supplying arms, allowing jets to take off from NATO countries have proven that NATO itself is in fact willing to go far. Russia's forces are overstretched already, and if the latest American reports are to be believed, then some units have sabotaged vehicles rather than fight; there's also a report that marines mutinied on a ship rather than deploy.
Analysts who had previously war-gamed a Russia-NATO conflict in the baltics came to the conclusion that Russia could mobilise long before NATO, but that ultimately the conflict would be unwinnable for them.
The performance of his military here has done nothing to bolster their standing. Even if/when Ukraine does fall, they're likely to face a long insurgency which will bog them down for years; their economy is tanking; they're facing a demographic crisis with low birth rates (same as the west in that regard).
Surely they can't believe that having failed to quickly subdue Ukraine, they could sustain a war on multiple fronts against NATO.