I haven't heard anyone bring up the old "Russia isn't a threat because we're too economically linked together" argument lately. Or the "Europe is too civilized to get into a war" one, either.
Not much too that. It is not different to Americans believing they cannot have a civil war, because Americans will not shoot Americans... even though they do every day.
In this instance, no option is off the table. While we all expected the rhetoric to be turned way up over this, it is unwise to think that there is not massive spill-over potential. If this does not end in Ukraine, the western world will have a very real and potentially unmanageable problem on its hands.
This is classic French symbolism. It needs to do something meaningful. There will be no use of nuclear weapons unless all-out war breaks out, and the real need is for more conventional weaponry.
No, it is responsible handling of valuable assets. Most nations deploy their nukes in harder to reach places —principally this means SSBNs/SLBMs— when the potential for regional conflict presents itself. The story is more why they would have waited so long to do so. I would assume there is some logistical or maintenance reason for this.
Assuming that in geopolitical leaders must, at various points, have to work with dictators, are you a saying they should work with those that don’t suit their agenda?
Personally I would not. But we do need to get better at sorting which is which. Just as an example, the next ten years will likely reveal identical issues to this war, but over in the Arabian Peninsula as the Saudis fade from relevance. We have spent decades arming them to the teeth in spite of all manner of human rights violations and their complete lack of respect for other nation's boundaries. It is fairly obvious how belligerent they are about to become as they watch their fortunes dry up, and yet we fall all over ourselves to support them.
Perhaps we are just not very good at this?