I've been saying this is a real likelihood for a while. The missiles into Russian territory thing was just another step on the escalation latter. Russia's muted response of only hitting Ukraine has emboldened them to take the next step which is to guess that if they pour troops into Ukraine Russia won't attack them and will begrudgingly freeze the conflict like Korea along a DMZ.

This will allow the west to avoid a humiliating loss, for NATO to avoid a loss of face and credibility and for western leadership to tell their people all the aid, the economic damages they suffered as a result of sanctions was for something. The west wants this at all costs and I believe will do it without hesitation as they believe and perhaps rightly so that Russia won't dare attack them and will not use nuclear weapons which is the only thing they actually fear.

The only way I can see to prevent this kind of escalation is Russia acting now to hit the west in some way in direct retaliation for their green-lighting use of ATACMs and similar missiles deep into Russia and doing so in a way that dissuades the west and gives Russia real credibility that they may say nuke the west if they pull this. Hitting Ukraine with a new weapon is meaningless. The west is convinced increasingly of the fact that Russia will not dare attack them directly so all the new weapons in the world do not scare them because they've so far been right in that they can escalate and Russia will only bite back with sharp words but no actions beyond Ukraine itself. They're also convinced and they are right that Russia's production capacity for this new weapon and their stocks are limited.

Frankly speaking I see three via options if this happens:

1. Russia pulling a full mobilization and hurting its economy to wage total war on NATO using conventional means
2. Use nuclear weapons along the front to remove them.
3. Russia accepts the stalemate and conflict freeze. They remove Ukraine from within their internationally recognized borders and militarize the front with a DMZ but take what is in effect a loss and the west takes a win.

Caveats for 1 are of course this would be domestically unpopular. The death count for Russia would go up dramatically. If Russia continues the war using conventional means after NATO pours troops in to try and freeze it the dangers of being locked into inescapable cycle of escalation to full nuclear war rise dramatically.

Caveats for 2 are it would probably give the west the impetus to use their own nuclear weapons within Ukraine on the east and Russian forces and think they can play by those rules. This would also obviously hurt any chances of having peace in Ukraine as the people in a country (outside the east anyways who probably wouldn't care if the Bandarite regime to the west gets hit) aren't going to have favorable feelings or be able to easily reconcile with a country that uses nuclear weapons inside it.

Caveats for 3 should be obvious to the implications of a multi-polar world, the fear will be back that not obeying the west means military action which results in devastation, no longer will they look a paper tiger. It will also set the stage for another war in the future. The west will re-arm, re-nazify Ukraine, likely bring it into NATO and use it to pummel and attack Russia with much better weapons and better trained troops in 5-15 years. This is why IMO it's unacceptable for Russia and a loss in every way that matters.

Contrasting 1 to 2. One big humiliation for NATO, their troops being obliterated may be enough to break the cycle of escalation and lack of fear on the part of the west and save millions of lives. Then again it may not. I just think deterrence and credibility of action on Russia's part are lacking in the minds of western planners and that needs to be fixed and it would be best if this is done before the only option left to do that is using nuclear weapons.

Russia's hesitancy to take a stronger line out of fear of the west escalating has played right into their hands all along. It's what allowed Ukraine to become as much of a problem as it was by the time the SMO was launched. So their fear of escalation from the west, their hesitancy in rebuking them more directly and strongly in actions because of fear of escalation has led to inevitable escalation due to the west's feeling that Russia is all bluff and will choose to back down as they have time and again.

I hope either this is wrong or that Russia takes strong action now to hit the west. Since Biden is leaving office and doesn't want Trump to end the Ukraine conflict they have two months left so I suspect this plan will be put into force by early January at the absolute latest. The US itself won't be involved in the occupation so Trump can't draw down or resolve it, instead the other NATO pawns like Poland, Germany, etc will be the forces involved and Trump will have no ability to give them a stand-down order or to order them to leave. Thus Trump will be locked into either supporting them and possibly making some money via shake-downs or walking away and leaving Russia with a frozen conflict and the failure to achieve their goals which in this case we can count as a loss for the multi-polar world order.

Saving this for my future debates with libs when this eventually comes to pass