Blinken hints at lifting UKR restrictions on strikes in RUS

I don't. Did you know that the primary bomber Russia uses is the Bear? And did you know that the Bear is a propeller aircraft? Slow, easy to spot, easy to shoot down. The F14, in the 1970s, was purpose built to carry the extremely heavy Phoenix missile, which could destroy the Bear in a single shot. 50 years later, a single cruise missile could do the job. And we have WAY more of them, than they have Bears.

You could put one on a smaller plane, but Russia doesn't have a lot of them that can carry a nuclear weapon, and none of them are stealth (except the Felon, and their are only six).

So I guess they could launch one of their nuclear missiles, but they are designed for long range attack, and need to gain extremely high altitude to be effective, which means they'd have to launch from deep in Siberia, which would be easy to detect, and I'll bet patriot batteries are already deployed for that eventuality.

You could fire a tactical nuke (very small yield) from artillery, but supply lines into Ukraine have been decimated, and I doubt Russia would risk losing any nukes to Ukrainian guerilla attacks or drone strikes.

So how are they going to do it? And would they hit their own land in Kursk?

No. Ukraine invading Kursk was the red line. It was crossed, and Russia did NOTHING.

Freon

Sure, there's always that risk, but it boils down to the same two variables it always has.

How do you respond to a bully.

And do the Russians love their children too.

If Russia was a religious nation, like those in the Middle East, I'd fully expect them to blow themselves up, if it meant blowing up their enemies. But they're not.

Which means, in the end, preservation of Russia is still their paramount objective, and they KNOW the rest of the world will not tolerate a nuclear reaction unless the entire country is at risk. And that's not happening.

This war is about pride. It's about Putin wanting Russia to be great and powerful, and he BADLY miscalculated, so now it's a question of how to extract themselves from this mess with the least amount of losing face.

There is NOTHING to be gained by escalation.

Freon

What evidence is there that Russia will attack NATO?

Why would Poland be a target? I think people just use that example to play off the worn out WW2 analogy.

What would be the strategic reason to invade Poland? They don't have any resources that Russia wants. And Russia has Kaliningrad Oblast. And Poland's membership in Nato affects neither of those; unlike Ukraine.

Also, if you look at Russia's interventions or threats of intervention - Kazakhstan, Georgia, Moldova, Ukraine - there is a common justification: large Russian minorities. Even better if those minorities start separatist movements: Crimea, Donbas, Transnistria. None of which Poland has.
That they wouldn't fare well. Pretty sure that's Russia's read too which is why they didn't do anything about Serbia (not to mention their struggles in Chechnya at the time).

Some good reading on this issue presenting a slightly different take:

Empires of Eurasia: How Imperial Legacies Shape International Security by Jeffrey Mankoff

Near Abroad: Putin, the West, and the Contest Over Ukraine and the Caucasus by Gerard Toal

Dugin is known as “Putin’s brain.” Certainly not Zhuravlyov.

Oh yea you're right. 

Interesting. What alternative escalatory measure might they employ? Chemical? Biological?

Freon

So you think giving Ukraine long range missiles to fire into Russia is a limited war?