A good example of the writers and thinkers I had never heard of until listening to a Sam Harris podcast is Timothy Snyder, commenting on the Ukraine war (Podcast # 301).
I am in no position to challenge Snyder's historical expertise, even if I wanted to. But I feel free to question an apparent inconsistency in his comments about risk of nuclear conflict. Snyder very reasonably points out that nuclear armed powers have been involved in some of the many wars sicnce 1945 - including being losers on occasion - without nuclear weapons being used. He suggests they are unlikely to be used in Ukraine. Yet, earlier in the conversation with Harris, Snyder had said that ideas circulating among Putin and his circle resemble fascism. Snyder's own definition of fascism included the idea that it is not rationality that is the basis of politics, but will and imagination.
It would appear that if Putin and the Russian leadership believe that, and also - again part of Snyder's defintion of fascism - that political interaction is a matter of strength and not rules, then we cannot assume they will react rationally to losing the Ukraine war; that is, accept they have lost. Especially if they have the 'Death before Dishonour' attitude, they might instead lash out with at least battlefield nuclear weapons (Russia has 1,900 of those).
Nato leaders are (rightly) not specifying what 'serious consequences' of nuclear escalation would be. But if Putin's beliefs really do resemble fascism we might indeed face them.