So NATO is not willing (therefore not able) to engage actively militarily against him being a nuclear power.
Nice that you have pointed all these things out, but you haven't really done anything except provide circumstantial evidence behind your assertion. Were you in the room when the statements of intent were being written? Yes, the nuclear issue is definitely a consideration when tackling a nuclear power, but that doesn't mean NATO is acting in those other scenarios simply because these countries are not nuclear powers - there were outside mitigating factors.
As for things like the Falklands War, what has NATO got to do with it simply because the UK is in NATO? This is the point I made earlier, NATO states do not have to be beholden to NATO, they can act independently of NATO. NATO had NOTHING to do with the UK response to the Argentine invasion of the islands, in fact, I don't even see the connection, to be frank.
Firstly, you are deliberately muddying the waters by considering all actions carried out by NATO member states as being NATO ordered, which clearly they are not. Secondly, the nuclear issue obviously informs how NATO will act, but it is not (take note, others) the
only driver behind NATO's actions in the past and present, certainly not in this case when the Sec Gen (again, how many times do I have to point this out?!) stated that NATO was not going to provoke a full scale war in Europe.
Obviously the nuclear issue is big and changes the dynamic (I've said this before...) and NATO is right to be cautious regarding Putin's threats of using nuclear weapons in-theatre. What NATO fears right now is a possible incursion into NATO space that would result in war in Europe. Those Baltic State NATO members are probably feeling quite vulnerable right now.
