I disagree that it worked well during the Cold War, numerous declassified archives suggest a different picture of continuous escalation and bringing the world on the brink of total annihilation. The main reason it did not happen was a presence of people who were willing to de-escalate the peril by all means at key moments, including sacrificing their military ranks, political stances, and sometimes integrity of borders of their own countries. Borders have been moving and they will be moving in the future, a long-term strategy should be to never let politicians stake the humankind for the sake of the current polygons configuration on a world map.
I am guessing you are not in one of those "polygons" close to Putin on the map, so that is why you are so willing to sacrifice others for your well being.
Did not work out that great for the appeasers in WW2 in the end.
> so that is why you are so willing to sacrifice others for your well being.
are you really suggesting that threatening Putin with NATO nukes servers your wellbeing better than giving him a part of East Ukraine for a time being? Are you suggesting that your government won't be capable of negotiating a peaceful gradual transition of the region back to Ukraine in the post-Putin era? Such cases were possible in the past, if you read history. But it required skilled statesmanship and diplomacy instead of quick emotional reactions to intimidate and retaliate.
We know Putin by now. What you are proposing did not work since he's in power. He kept escalating. MAD worked on dictators just like him before. Actual power is the only language his ilk understands.
Or in 10 year you'll see the entire Europe in his hands while the rest of the world is being carved between him and Xi.
