This is the reason why it's crazy to suggest that the US and Europe ever wanted to go to war with Russia. Even now, when Putin gave them ample reasons to go to war, still no one will do it. And they said before that they will not impose a no-fly zone, and they repeat the same every time Zelensky asks for a no-fly zone. No one will ever risk going to war with a nuclear superpower, no matter how much Putin insists that they're 'surrounding' Russia, whatever that means. (Sure, there will be countries around Russia. There have always been countries around Russia. It's hard to dig a moat around a whole country.)
Putin, on the other hand, whatever his true intentions are, at least sounds very trigger-happy when it comes to nuclear weapons. (And he also has biological and chemical weapons.) He at least insinuates that it's worth risking the annihilation of the human race over Ukraine. No other country behaves like this.
So it seems to me that Putin is the one mostly at fault here, and I suspect he'd be the one to first push the button, the reason being that his conventional military forces would be quickly disposed of by the combined forces of NATO, so he'd be left with no other choice, except of course losing the war (that he started).
The real issue here is not Ukraine. It's clear the West decided to let Putin have it, rather than risk the whole human race, which is very reasonable. The real problem is: what if Putin keeps going? What if he attacks Moldova next? At what point do we go to war, and almost certainly into a nuclear war? Our best hope, I believe, in that terrible scenario, is for Russian people to march to Kremlin, or someone close to him to assassinate him like Lindsey Graham called for. I see no other reasonable way out, IF he keeps going.
You have summed it up perfectly. Although I also try to understand Putin's paranoia based on the antecedents of the US. No one will sleep well knowing fully well that there are enemies holding missiles, artilleries et al, by his windows. Nevertheless, his utterances and behavior cannot be excused.
I hope a permanent solution is found soon. Actually, I think the entire world needs to be nuclearly disarmed. Another weapon should serve as deterrence.
What about your "no first deployment" idea? Is there a chance anything like that could come about?
The problem is, realistically, the countries most in need of nuclear weapons are the ones that would be easily defeated if they didn't have the nukes. Russia, for instance, will 'easily' lose a conventional war - so why would it ever give up its nuclear arsenal? Same with North Korea. And even then, there's biological weapons, chemical weapons... We're fixated on nuclear, but I don't know if biological weapons aren't as big a problem that we just choose not to talk about, maybe because of lack of clear information about what's currently possible.