I've no argument against your analysis other than to say that it's logical conclusion seems an inevitable result of the human condition.

The bargain is simple to evaluate. As a species we can either accept totalitarian rule as the price of maintaining a somewhat peaceful existence. Or we can nuke 90% of ourselves into oblivion, start over and hope that the DNA shift is more aligned with peaceful coexistence.

I recently saw a photo of Ukrainian newlyweds standing together weapons in hand. Ostensibly, they wanted to marry quickly so they could achieve that goal before standing together and defending their desire to not live under the Russian flag. They will probably die and, if so, their children will never be born into this world.

Since Hiroshima and Nagasaki, we have all lived under the existential threat of swift analyzation. I learned a long time ago that anyone can become a bully if they accumulate enough power and fear. Placating bullies only reinforces their behaviour and the only way to stop the cycle is to cause them enough pain to stop their behaviour.

Putin may believe that he and Mother Russia have been bullied enough. The newlyweds may feel the same. But it's one thing for a bully to demean and berate you. It's another when they punch you in the eye and take your lunch money.

Would Putin have invaded if Ukraine still had nuclear weapons? Would he have done it if Ukraine were a NATO member?

Would he have fought back if Ukraine invaded Russia? I think so.

The point is this, as long as there is an unequal division of scarce resources in the world, there will be power brokers competing to unfairly stack the deck. Scarcity breeds accumulation of power, unequal power breeds bullies and bullies breed conflict.

Until we live in a world where everyone has more than they want or think they need, wars will be fought. It's humanities Achille's heel.