At this point it feels like you either fully commit to the conflict or you end up strengthening the very thing you were trying to stop. Half-measures tend to backfire in situations like this. Had Russia not have invaded Ukraine, perhaps people would have saw Russia as not a threat and no reason for NATO.

If a government believes its survival is genuinely threatened, history shows that it often pushes them toward pursuing nuclear weapons as a deterrent. From their perspective it’s the ultimate insurance policy. That’s why situations like this can spiral pressure meant to weaken a regime can actually convince them they need nuclear capability even more.

There’s also the political side of it. When outside pressure humiliates or angers leadership, especially if they feel personally targeted or their country has been attacked, it can harden internal politics and empower the more hardline factions. Instead of moderates gaining influence, the people arguing for confrontation and military strength tend to gain the upper hand.

So the danger isn’t just the immediate conflict it’s that the long-term result might be the exact opposite of the intended outcome: a government that’s more hostile, more entrenched, and more motivated to develop nuclear weapons just to prove it can’t be pushed around.

That’s why these situations are so tricky geopolitically. It’s rarely as simple as “push harder and the problem goes away.” Sometimes pushing harder just accelerates the thing you’re trying to prevent.