The moral of this era seems to be: no one attacks a country with nuclear weapons.

France has nukes, so this isn’t going to be Hitler 2.0 with Putin posing by the Arc de Triumph.

There are several ex-Soviet countries that are NATO members, so that’ll be the real hot spot if it gets there as the US et. al. will be required to act militarily in their defense (in theory).

In other words, the moral of the story is that every single country that value their independence should scramble to build a nuclear arsenal asap.

If so, expect Korea, Japan, Taiwan, Turkey, Poland, Hungary, Saudi-Arabia, Iran, Iraq, Egypt and so on to test nukes within the next 10 years.

That’s been the moral of the story since 1945.

Or, to be charitable, since India and Pakistan both tested nuclear weapons and nothing happened.

> There are several ex-Soviet countries that are NATO members, so that’ll be the real hot spot

Which is why the Ukraine should have been accepted into NATO (and preferably the EU too) in 2015 or so.

Agreed - if Ukraine is part of NATO then there are Nato missiles there, there is mutually assured destruction in invading.

> The moral of this era seems to be: no one attacks a country with nuclear weapons.

Though, now that the invasion has started (again),

Doesn't even make sense for Putin strategically because the alliance will get consolidated by this. On the other hand there are just few diplomatic tools. They were all used up more or less.

> the alliance will get consolidated by this.

the alliance is already pretty consolidated. I think putin sees a NATO ukraine as more dangerous imho - esp. if ukraine becomes more and more democratic.

The invasion would be successful if the west does not deploy troops and intervene. I say the west has already failed, and this sets a precedent to which china would follow.

And if the west waits for too long, the military edge that the west has would diminish. Unfortunately, the public is reluctant to commit to war, because in the minds of those who are used to peace, diplomatic solutions seems to be the only cost they're willing to pay.

The West has failed at what, though? All wars are tragedies, but nobody promised they were going to protect Ukraine in the first place, and it’s a long standing international precedent that two countries can go to war without everyone on the planet sending troops.

That was the whole point behind ukraine giving up their nukes- they thought they got guarantees of security, but merely got assurances.

Ukraine got a raw deal, there's no doubt about that, but they didn't and don't think that it was ever a mutual defense pact. A lot of us have skewed perceptions, because a lot of us live in countries that have never in our lifetimes been invaded, but the general expectation on the international stage is that countries can fight wars without friendly third parties sending in their own troops.

It is out of respect to those that have to fight the wars that those that are not on the front lines should do everything to prevent it from breaking out in the first place.

I agree that there are difficulties in developing arms in peace times, war can be a driver of innovation. But it is not the only one and there are preferable alternatives, even if arms suppliers see that differently out of egoistic ambitions.

A civilian population rejecting involvement in arms manufacture is preferable to one that calls for a war.