Footage from security cameras showed the moment armed men seized Simferopol’s Parliament building in Ukraine’s Crimea region.
https://www.nytimes.com/video/world/europe/100000002742154/cctv-shows-crimean-parliament-takeover.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capture_of_the_Crimean_Parliament
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medal_%22For_the_Return_of_Crimea%22

@neomac, long tedious invasion at first masquerading as uprising. Known playbook, seen before.

When one tries to follow those events more tightly from Euromaidan (which seemed very much an attempted "coup" but by the pro-Russian Ukrainian President Yanukovich), Nuland's call (which, in the context, one can take to be nothing more than a diplomatic pressure within the frame of Yanukovich's proposed solution to the crisis [1] more than evidence for a staged "coup" by the US, indeed even Russian diplomats and European diplomats were there trying to diplomatically work out the Euromaidan crisis and which was ended only by parliamentary decision and wide consensus, also from Yanukovich's own party) and the imperialist Russian Nazis (all afferent to Russian oligarchs) which staged an insurrection in Donbas by their own explicit admission, one can see how much of the Russian propaganda which infiltrated the Western anti-Ukrainian propaganda about coups and Ukrainian nazis is actually an "accusation in a mirror" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accusation_in_a_mirror).
What I think remains more murky though is the actual role of the Russian oligarchs with their militia and imperialist ideology in starting the war. Maybe, at the least in the earliest phases, they had a greater initiative and also support from Putin's entourage (like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vladislav_Surkov), than from Putin himself. That also means internal political dynamics (which Putin most certainly nurtured but which he didn't fully control or used for plausible deniability) may have very much concurred, if not prevailed, in driving Putin into war with Ukraine.

[1] https://www.aa.com.tr/en/politics/ukrainian-opposition-turns-down-yanukovych-s-proposal/187670

Russia is rebuilding capacity to destabilize European countries, new UK report warns
^{— Danica Kirka · AP · Feb 20, 2024}

The Threat from Russia's Unconventional Warfare Beyond Ukraine, 2022-24 (pdf)
^{— Jack Watling, Oleksandr V Danylyuk, Nick Reynolds · RUSI · Feb 2024}

Well, the Kremlin organizing and sending operatives (destabilizing insurging propagandizing staging arming shooting), employing extremists (including locals), invading (shooting bombing all over), land grabbing (annexing intimidating referendum'ing (foretold?)) ... can pass for a variety of neo-colonialism. (← steps fairly well-documented, including in this thread, not ad hoc story-telling)

The former parts (destabilizing etc) need not lead to the latter parts (assimilation) though.

It doesn't look good for the Ukrainians. Russians are slowly getting the initiative.

Although Ukraine likely isn't going to collapse. But likely this conflict will end like the Korean War. Technically it won't end, just like the Korean war.

You know, I think there's this attitude that people have forgotten Ukraine or don't want to hear about it, so you have to instill something to get the focus of the people in Western Europe.

Russia does what it does. It's an Empire and does things Empires do. When it reaches objectives that Putin can say were the original objectives, then it can declare it has won a great victory. And Putin can die happy that he has made it to history as one of those Great leaders of Russia.

"Russia-Ukraine War: Moscow paid billions in gold bullions to Iran for Shahed drones, leaked documents reveal"
https://www.firstpost.com/world/russia-ukraine-war-moscow-paid-billions-in-gold-bullions-to-iran-for-shahed-drones-leaked-documents-reveal-13704242.html

Navalny team says Russia threatened his mother with ultimatum to avoid burial at Arctic prison
^{— CBS (+ AFP) · Feb 23, 2024}

Would the authorities (also) be scared of an independent medical examination? Seems ehh...appropriate, given the circumstances.

Meanwhile in Belarus:

Ukrainian children are taught to love Russia: special camps, "Lyube" songs, meetings with the military (investigation)
^{— Maxim Savchuk, Andriy Shauliuga · Radio Svoboda (RFE/RL) · Feb 22, 2024}


I moved the following snippet over here, where it's more on topic:

but expansion of NATO has deteriorated relations with Russia several times and therefore deteriorated our safety in Europe — Benkei

More generally, I don't see how anyone can call an expansion of any military alliance as defensive. Expansion is by definition offensive. — Benkei

Sure, maybe that's an aspect of sorts, yet it was never about NATO specifically. It's about the Kremlin's vision of Russia, at least the current authoritarian leadership, and that losing control of Ukraine or parts thereof would be contrary to that.

We (the EU) need our own defensive alliance and leave the US and create a fourth power. — Benkei

Yep :up: if Europe can get its act together (I intentionally expanded "the EU" to "Europe"). Do you think Europe can create + maintain an effective defense? Hopefully so. (I don't just mean some "blue eyed" part of Europe, or Western Europe, I mean those wishing to be part thereof that can meet a set of requirements.) Yet that, all by itself, could be argued the same way by the Kremlin: "Can't have such a strong (capable) defen...err..threat on our doorstep. Offensive!" Authoritarians don't require much discussion debate bureaucracy agreement back-and-forth etc, things we've seen in North America, Europe, and elsewhere. The Kremlin, in its aggressive posturing, would further argue Ukraine wanting to join a European defense as being a "dire existential threat", "critical security offense", whatever. Again, it was never about NATO in particular, but about a grand vision of Russia's "destiny", that Ukraine has been forced into, evidently with little concern for Ukrainians or their aspirations.

Lots of talk at the UN, New York ...

Ukraine accuses Russia of 'colonial conquest' at feisty UN session
^{— Bernd von Jutrczenka · dpa international · Feb 23, 2024}

Russia's aim is to destroy Ukraine and they are quite outspoken about it. The only reason for this war has been and remains Russia's denial of Ukraine's right to exist and its continued colonial conquest. — Dmytro Kuleba (Ukraine)

The reality is there are no temporarily occupied territories of Ukraine. — Vasily Nebenzya (Russia)

We reiterate our demand to Russia to stop its war of aggression against Ukraine and to ensure the full, immediate and unconditional withdrawal of all Russian forces and military equipment from the territory of Ukraine within its internationally recognized borders. — joint statement (≈ 50/193 UN)

The Independent International Commission of Inquiry on Ukraine reported civilians and prisoners tortured, and more than two hundred cases of sexual violence, mostly at the hands of the Russian Federation forces. All perpetrators must be held to account. Many Ukrainians are experiencing the living nightmare of losing their children. — António Guterres (UN)

President Putin has proved again and again that to him, human lives count for nothing – neither abroad nor at home, where he now doesn't even shy away from arresting Russian children for laying down flowers to mourn the death of Alexei Navalny. — Annalena Baerbock (Germany)

This is not a man seeking compromise. Rather, this is a neo-imperialist bully who believes might is right. We must recognize the cost of giving up. Putin has said there will be no peace until Russia's goals are achieved. — David Cameron (UK)

At least there is some talk, not just Russian North Korean Iranian Belarusian bombs falling on Ukraine. What people want others to hear is communicated. Not that it'll lead anywhere for now.

War can be attractive to some, like money for family (or a promise anyway), ... There are some similarities between reported stories:

Deal ‘with the devil’: Meet the Cubans who’ve joined Russia’s war on Ukraine
^{— Eva Hartog · POLITICO · Sep 25, 2023}
Putin speeds up a citizenship path for foreigners who enlist in the Russian military
^{— Dasha Litvinova · AP · Jan 4, 2024}
Russia has recruited as many as 15,000 Nepalis to fight its war. Many returned traumatized. Some never came back
^{— Sugam Pokharel, Matthew Chance, Mihir Melwani, Nishant Khanal · CNN · Feb 11, 2024}
Delhi approaches Moscow for early discharge of Indian ‘army helpers’
^{— Vijaita Singh · The Hindu · Feb 24, 2024}

Unlikely that death as cannon fodder will benefit family here though. Anyway, same old story.

We (the EU) need our own defensive alliance and leave the US and create a fourth power. — Benkei

Why?

Yep :up: if Europe can get its act together (I intentionally expanded "the EU" to "Europe"). — jorndoe

What's the logic of breaking up the Atlantic relations, which is the primary objective for Russia? Russia is far more powerful than any European country, so this would benefit them very much.

And what do you have in mind when saying that Europe getting it's act together? There's no nuclear parity between Russia's nearly 6000 nuclear weapons compared to France's 300 deployed nuclear weapons. You think the people in Brussels would want (or have the ability) to suddenly start a large nuclear weapons program? I'm not sure how much @Benkei want's his tax dollars to go to pay for a new nuclear weapons procurement program.

Besides, when the US starts one of it's hopeless not well thought wars, there's no automatic mechanism that NATO members have to follow the US into the next epic American quagmire.

We have already seen this before and we are seeing this today. Biden has just gotten in his "whack-the-Houthi" war only his trusty sidekick, the UK, to assist with few Typhoons from Cyprus to join in. France hasn't. NATO hasn't. And when it comes to the crazy war against Shiia militias of Iraq, even the UK isn't there so Biden has to go alone there.

And even if another NATO member is attacked (or a member asks for help), then it's still to up to the member state just how to assist (perhaps send blankets, humanitarian aid and a "We're with you!" card).

Trump bitching about the US leaving NATO might do enough for Europe to get it's act together. And Trump has been more successful in that than Obama was.

I'm all in favor of the EU and Europe NOT taking the role of the US and going on elsewhere in the World with military adventures. To assist Ukraine is enough and has a rather clear mission. Supporting a country that has been invaded by a larger country that wants to annex large territories from it is enough reasons for me.

Getting tangled into conflicts around the World isn't a good solution for the EU. If a member state wants to do it, they can if the need to.

Why? — ssu

Because US politics doesn't align with EU interests and they are warmongering reptiles. If we stay in NATO sooner or later we will be pulled into a war which isn't anything else but the death throes of the end of an empire.

And what do you have in mind when saying that Europe getting it's act together? There's no nuclear parity between Russia's nearly 6000 nuclear weapons compared to France's 300 deployed nuclear weapons. You think the people in Brussels would want (or have the ability) to suddenly start a large nuclear weapons program? I'm not sure how much Benkei want's his tax dollars to go to pay for a new nuclear weapons procurement program. — ssu

We only need enough to deter. Take out population centres and infrastructure and command.



We have enough.

Because US politics doesn't align with EU interests and they are warmongering reptiles. If we stay in NATO sooner or later we will be pulled into a war which isn't anything else but the death throes of the end of an empire. — Benkei

If we're not careful it's even worse - we'll be the ones sacrificed on the altar of American hegemony, since the US fears that Russia and Europe will become the laughing third once it becomes engaged in a security competition with China. To prevent that, the US endeavors to draw Russia and the EU into conflict with each other, which is why it intentionally undermined the key to stability in eastern Europe - a neutral Ukraine - and subsequently did everything in its power to prevent a peaceful and diplomatic solution.

More generally, I don't see how anyone can call an expansion of any military alliance as defensive. Expansion is by definition offensive. It is the "trust our blue eyes" we're really a defensive organisation that everyone in the West sincerely believes because it's our guys claiming it - until it isn't. — Benkei

And thus by that note, abandon defense, especially sufficiently strong ones? Nah.

We only need enough to deter. — Benkei

It's not just nuclear deterrence. But Europe should get its act together, NATO or not. I don't think you can dismiss a large, authoritarian land-grabber with a hand-wave.

the death throes of the end of an empire — Benkei

Maybe? Prophecy aside, that's certainly what the Kremlin would have (everyone think). By the way, acting on what seems like overall "European interests" isn't so straightforward. For that matter, it's quite easy to find anti-EU sentiments within the EU, and some defer to NATO for defense.

what do you have in mind when saying that Europe getting it's act together? — ssu

Cooperation for starters. I wouldn't vote against NATO, though. It's fine, for now anyway.

Supporting a country that has been invaded by a larger country that wants to annex large territories from it is enough reasons for me. — ssu

And quite a few have found reasons. (Not that this thread is particularly representative.)

Let's try some...humor...of sorts:

Maybe? Prophecy aside, that's certainly what the Kremlin would have (everyone think). By the way, acting on what seems like overall "European interests" isn't so straightforward. For that matter, it's quite easy to find anti-EU sentiments within the EU, and some defer to NATO for defense. — jorndoe

Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya are already 3 wars the Dutch were pulled into where we shouldn't have been. That only happens because we are in NATO and the USA is portrayed as an ally, except of course or isn't when it's the agressor.

Because US politics doesn't align with EU interests and they are warmongering reptiles. — Benkei

No. They are not. You cannot reproduce with reptiles being a human. But with Americans you can. :wink:

If we stay in NATO sooner or later we will be pulled into a war which isn't anything else but the death throes of the end of an empire. — Benkei

NATO has shown it again and again that there is no automation for this. Remember Freedom Fries?



Hence it's the Americans that will voluntarily leave and thus force Europe to think about itself.

Secondly, the vast majority of Americans are blissfully unaware just what kind of a crown jewel NATO still is. Just look at your country or Belgium next door. Both countries have totally morphed their armed forces to operate as part of NATO, not alone. This shows just how deep the integration and the acceptance of NATO has gone. Then you can see how simply both CENTO and SEATO simply collapsed. The member countries simply didn't share much anything in common, hence no integration. All those 'pivot-people' arguing that the US has to pivot to face China seem not to notice just how little teamwork there is between US allies.

Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya are already 3 wars the Dutch were pulled into where we shouldn't have been. That only happens because we are in NATO and the USA is portrayed as an ally, except of course or isn't when it's the agressor. — Benkei

And you could have not participated, just like I think you didn't participate in the Iraqi invasion of 2003. And yes, face then the wrath of the Americans, just like the French with "Freedom Fries".

If there's one thing clear that you don't get brownie points on sucking up to the US. The administration won't care a shit about what you did with the last administration and how loyal ally you have been. The UK hasn't gotten any special treatment even if it has been the most loyal ally. Israel get's it, but that's because of the Israeli lobby in domestic US politics.

And you should then ask yourself, IF the EU would go all alone here, why would it not get to situations like in Libya by itself then?

The US will be forced to pivot sooner or later.

When that happens, NATO and American influence in Europe will be used to send Europe into chaos, the seeds for which have already been sown when the US sought to change Ukraine's neutral status which was the key to stability between Europe and Russia.

What is happening is that the US fears that Russia and/or Europe will become the laughing thirds when the US is sucked into a large-scale conflict in the Pacific. Provoking war between these two is the way it intends to stop that from happening.

People here are simply misunderstanding the US' central strategic challenge, which is to keep the Eurasian continent divided (as described by Mackinder, Wolfowitz, Brzezinski, etc.) in times of peace, and in utter chaos in times of war. (and also to stop any regional powers to arise in the Western Hemisphere, but that's another topic).

There is no other way for the US to protect its hegemony due to its limited population and relative inability to intervene on the Eurasian continent. (thousands of miles of ocean works both ways)

Finland made a critically short-sighted error when it jumped on the NATO bandwagon right as US power is waning. Not only is the US in no position to actually protect Finland in the case of a conflict, but Finland is actually ensuring it is first in line to suffer the consequences when the US pulls the plug on Europe with the intention of disabling it as a rival for the foreseeable future.

Europe is heading for absolute strategic disaster.

The situation is way worse than people realize, since they have been lulled to sleep over the last decades, foolishly believing that the Americans are our 'friends' when in fact they represent as much of a strategic threat as Russia or China.


Also, on the topic of the UK getting special treatment - it certainly does.

It is part of the Anglosphere and the Five-Eyes intelligence pact which is essentially the part of the US sphere of influence that the US actually cares about, because all nations within the Anglosphere share the US central strategic challenge, since they're all island nations.

This is why the UK should not be part of a functional European security structure either.

Note that it was the US and the UK who blocked the Istanbul agreements. Given what I just told you about the strategic challenges of island nations, it is no wonder why specifically it was these two nations who sought to block peace.

And thus by that note, abandon defense, especially sufficiently strong ones? Nah. — jorndoe

Who said that? I'm saying that the view most people have of NATO as a purely defensive organisation is false just because its charter says "help when I'm under attack". And really, if you read everything they do, their expansion into space is direct aggression and breaches other international treaties. Any military alliance increases capability and therefore is aggressive towards any country not in the alliance. It's like developing a bishop from the back rank to cover a diagonal. It constricts the possible moves of your opponent and that happens irrespective of their strategy or intent.

This was understood when Clinton started it. All new post hoc rationalising due to the Krim and recent Ukraine war not withstanding. Opposition to NATO Expansion

Then there's their expansion into space as an "operational domain". Which just raises a shit ton of questions while simultaneously opening up space for every other country to start militarising space.

Does jamming, dazzling, or damaging a satellite amount to a use of force prohibited under Article 2(4) of the United Nations Charter and customary international law? If so, when? Is it lawful to declare and operate “space exclusion zones,” despite the fact that States are prohibited from claiming sovereignty in space under Article II of the Outer Space Treaty? During an international armed conflict, does a belligerent State have right to capture and detain astronauts when they are also members of enemy armed forces, despite the fact that States are obliged to rescue and return them as “envoys of mankind” under Article V of the Outer Space Treaty? — Woomera project

And what actions in space would warrant an article 5 intervention under the NATO treaty?

And let's be clear; it was NATO first who openly declared space an operational domain thereby introducing the pretend notion that this can be done legally. (And of course we aren't stupid enough to think countries didn't develop space military capability secretly but declaring a crime legal so you can continue to do it, isn't exactly moral).

I forgot Serbia (a war of aggression when you read, for instance, Indian or Brazilian news at the time). The point being that NATO has shown itself to be leveraged to pursue aggressive wars. That countries can "opt out" is no excuse. You cannot say "it's just a defensive alliance" and then leverage the integration of NATO to attack other countries and maintain NATO is a defensive alliance. It simply isn't because it would've been irrelevant at the end of the Cold War.

In addition, I think in a sense NATO (or actually the US) is too powerful and therefore can get away with military aggression. The EU wouldn't be but it could be powerful enough with sufficient nuclear deterrence to really be just a defensive organisation.

Nuclear deterrence doesn’t work anymore. Because Russia is just carrying on with conventional war regardless. We know Putin is not scarred by nuclear threats, because he casually made them himself when beginning the invasion of Ukraine.

That doesn't make sense to me. Ukraine has no nukes and nobody that would be willing to use nukes on its behalf. So Ukraine had no such deterrence.

Europe doesn't have a very good track record defending itself without outside (i.e., U.S.) help. Best to have a strong NATO around.

When he made those casual threats it wasn’t directed at Ukraine, it was directed at NATO. Look at it this way, say Russia invaded Poland next. If NATO then made a nuclear threat, do you think Putin would pull his troops out? I doubt it.

Finland made a critically short-sighted error when it jumped on the NATO bandwagon right as US power is waning. Not only is the US in no position to actually protect Finland in the case of a conflict, but Finland is actually ensuring it is first in line to suffer the consequences when the US pulls the plug on Europe with the intention of disabling it as a rival for the foreseeable future. — Tzeentch

I've put the question to many Finns:

"Ok, imagine tensions rise, whatever it is, and Russia nukes Finland (military bases and so on) as a precautionary measure.

"Do you actually believe the US is going to nuke Russia in response?"

Answer: blank stare.

Turns out that people simultaneously believe that Russia won't nuke them because they'd be nuked by the United States in turn as well as the United States won't actually nuke Russia in turn because, true, there's no reason for the United States to do that and risk its own cities getting nuked.

Now, I'm not saying this is super high probability, hopefully tensions don't ever escalate that far, but it is higher probability than Russia nuking Finland when it's not in Nato and likewise higher probability than being attacked by Russia conventionally to steal our trees or something.

I have not encountered a single counter-argument to the likelihood of joining NATO simply increasing tensions in itself (making some nuke play more likely) and the most likely outcome of a nuclear exchange is Finland (and I think likely only Finland) getting nuked.

Because once Russia nukes Finland to demonstrate it's serious about whatever the tension is about, and then the US does not nuke Russia in response, the argument is over.

Hopefully it doesn't happen, but I can see zero situation, as you note, where the US actually protects Finland in any concrete way.

Russia demonstrating it can nuke a NATO member without causing a strategic exchange, because that's not rational for the US to do, is far more likely than Russia nuking a neutral country.

I can certainly see a President Trump hitting Russian troop concentrations with a tactical nuke if Russia nukes Finland.

Ok, let's run with that.

The US strikes some targets in the middle of nowhere, neither side wants to escalate further, then the argument ends.

Is this a good outcome for Finland?

Ok, let's run with that.

The US strikes some targets in the middle of nowhere, neither side wants to escalate further, then the argument ends.

Is this a good outcome for Finland? — boethius

There's no scenario where that would happen. If Russia builds up forces in preparation for an invasion of Finland, NATO would counter-escalate and there's no way conventional Russian forces can take on NATO. Nor would Russia be crazy enough to nuke NATO troops.

Afghanistan — Benkei

And now the Afghans have been left in the hands of a barbaric theocractic cult. How unfortunate.



You wrote "generally [...]" which applies to an emerging European defense force that's sufficiently strong just the same. Such "a fourth power" will border the world's largest country in a few places. For that matter, it would be naïve to think they won't launch whatever (aggressive) campaigns to influence counter propagandize ... to assert power. They wouldn't suddenly start focusing on creating a democracy, because "look, friendly neighbors, kumbaya". (2024Feb21, 2024Feb23)

:point: A question: why do Moldovans get nervous and jittery when there's talk of Putin? — Feb 5, 2024

The present Europe isn't sufficiently strong. (Germany and Hungary might argue, France and Slovakia might argue, Croatia and Serbia are arguing (2024Feb25, 2024Feb26), ..., meanwhile in Moscow...) Europe should get its act together, NATO or not, though at least NATO is there for now. Has come up before, more than once, maybe you missed it... "Can't have such a strong (capable) defen...err..threat on our doorstep. Offensive!"

Furthermore, "generally [...] - until it isn't" applies to defense (which is what NATO is, and what such a future European defense force presumably would be). Sure, defense can turn to offense, defensive organizations might launch offensives (I've yet to see anyone accurately predict the future in detail). Yet, by this logic (by implication), defense ought then be abandoned. (Docility? "Peacemongering"? Spinelessness?)

Implicitly placing trust in the Kremlin and blanket distrust in NATO is plain out of whack. You can ask the good folks of the Baltics if it isn't clear enough to you (might compare with the Moldovans by the way). Let's not have more Belaruses emerging, please.

It wasn't specifically about NATO anyway. It was about the Kremlin losing control of Ukraine. (2024Feb12, 2024Feb23) Again, to what end?

^{↑ with the embedded links you can see there's not much new here}

Another example of tiptoeing around Russia:

Scholz Reiterates No Taurus Delivery To Avoid Ukraine War Involvement
^{— dpa via RFE/RL · Feb 26, 2024}

Although (vaguely)...

Macron refuses to rule out putting troops on ground in Ukraine in call to galvanise Europe
^{— Patrick Wintour · The Guardian · Feb 27, 2024}

Orlov isn't so vague:

Rights campaigner calls Russia 'fascist' in court
^{— Lucy Papachristou, Gabrielle Tetrault-Farber, Mark Trevelyan, Philippa Fletcher · Reuters · Feb 27, 2024}

Macron's sort-of-suggestion doesn't seem likely though, at least not at the moment.

The present Europe isn't sufficiently strong. — jorndoe

I agree; it is something to aspire to.

From the moment Putin threatened NATO with nuclear weapons (was it the first day of the Ukraine war, I think). It sent a shiver up the spine of the EU. They will be building up their forces and perhaps forming an EU army asap.

After all, following WW2 I thought the idea was that Germany wouldn’t have a strong military, but the U.S. and U.K. would maintain a strong presence to hold the Ruski’s at bay. That time has passed now and it’s time for Germany, or should I say the EU to rearm.

There's no scenario where that would happen. If Russia builds up forces in preparation for an invasion of Finland, NATO would counter-escalate and there's no way conventional Russian forces can take on NATO. Nor would Russia be crazy enough to nuke NATO troops. — RogueAI

There definitely is a scenario where that would happen.

Precisely because, as you say, Russia cannot fight a conventional war against all of NATO, its only recourse is nuclear weapons; which the Russians have said on many occasion exactly that.

Geopolitical tensions are already pretty high, they can go much, much higher.

In the event of a new crisis, Finland is the "front line" of hostilities breaking out between Russian and NATO.

The only reason that doesn't seem at all likely now is because there is the war in Ukraine, so Russian military focus is there, but that will be resolved at some point, and in any build up of tensions with NATO after the war is over, the Russian military focus will be on the giant border with Finland.

Now that there is a giant NATO-Russian border (with some strategic depth on the NATO side), tensions can far more easily go hot; shells being exchange, "they started it" sort of things.

Let's say NATO brings into Finland enough forces to legitimately threaten an invasion of Russia and conventional victory over Russia.

The US wants Russia to comply with whatever it's demanding, and it's a push come to shove moment and the US escalates build-up in Finland.

If a full scale conventional war breaks out, Russia maybe looking at real defeat and destruction of most of its airforce. It's somewhat speculative how effective F-35 and other high-tech platforms are (as well as all the AI drones that will exist shortly). But if even if your "guess" is that the high-tech end of US forces aren't so effective, you can't know for sure. The US is far away and this will be a fight right on Russia's border and on Russia territory with deep missile penetration possible hitting all sorts of targets.

The stakes are much higher for Russia than the US in this sort of situation, which motivates the US to push because it has less to lose.

So, freaked out by the potential for conventional loss, especially of air assets (that could happen very rapidly), the situation can be that the US bets Russia is bluffing about whatever the crisis is about and Russia then bets the US is bluffing about nuclear retaliation.

That both sides think the other is bluffing is how things then go to the next step of escalation.

For, it's not actually rational for the US to risk its own cities in nuclear escalation simply to protect or avenge Finland.

So, Russia launches a dozen or so nukes to "eliminate the threat".

What's the rational response from the US?

Ok, maybe hit some outposts in the middle of nowhere to "show strength" but also calibrated to not escalate further and instead it's already agreed over the hotline a deal to deescalate.

Either no nuclear retaliation or then limited retaliation to have a "ok, we both did some nuky-nuke, time to calm down" is the rational course of action, and therefore the most likely course of action.

Which is why you have things like "madman theory" in nuclear war analysis, precisely because the rational decision is to not escalate to a full nuclear exchange, your opponent can count on that if they think you're rational; therefore, the rational policy is to make your opponent think you're irrational.

During the cold-war, the ideological war was the plausible basis of a madman strategy. Strong ideological motivations can make people insane for all practical purposes. We no longer have that ideological war that would justify nuking everything rather than let the commies win, so the Russia could reasonably bet that nuking Finland would not cause further nuclear escalation while eliminating the conventional threat.

People like to assume, as you do, that hitting NATO troops somehow would be met with a full nuclear exchange, but why? There's zero reason. If the response is limited, neither meant to escalate further conventionally nor nuclearly, then it's just a cost of doing business. If the response is to escalate further towards a full nuclear exchange ... well why would the US do that just because Finland?

No reason.