OPINION: It's hard to remain a comfortable pacifist when images of warmly-dressed bodies lie twisted in the streets of Bucha.

Democracies have developed an aversion to war. Iraq made us war-weary. We too easily disengage from conflicts now, as we ended up looking away from Afghanistan, in the sincere view that wars are wrong. We don't want our sons and daughters going to war.

The fear that stops democracies from sending more weapons to Ukraine, and setting up a no-fly zone to shoot down Russian planes before they bomb maternity hospitals and homes, is also a threat of World War III.

Putin has threatened to use battlefield nuclear or chemical weapons. But the risk is less than it appears, according to military analysts at Foreign Policy.

The Russia army is weaker than we thought. Unlike Hitler in the 1940s, Putin is alone. Belarus, North Korea, Eritrea, and Syria are the only countries supporting Russia. Good luck waging a world war with that coalition of the crazy. China is not providing military support.

There are greater risks if we don't do more. The opposite of military intervention isn't peace. We didn't want to escalate in Syria either. 400,000 people were murdered. Millions were displaced, arriving in Europe as refugees.

 READ MORE

• UN assembly suspends Russia from top human rights body
• Nato chief says Finland, Sweden welcome to apply to join
• We may not have enough weapons to send to Ukraine
• Hypersonic missiles could pose greater threats than other weapons, and not because of their speed

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy told The Economist this week, '’Number one, we need planes, then tanks (number two, but it's also number one), and then armoured vehicles.'’

New Zealand can't offer those. We don't really have them. But we have heard through leaks that Defence Minister Peeni Henare wants to send our Javelin anti-tank missiles. It would be a token gesture, but the right one. His colleagues said no.

Nato and the US will only intervene militarily if Russia launches a chemical or nuclear weapon.

Zelenskyy's reaction to that was short and simple. '’We are not guinea pigs to be experimented on.'’

The point of nuclear weapons is supposed to be to deter the use of nuclear weapons, not to use them. It's true that no country that has nuclear weapons has faced an existential threat like the invasion of Ukraine.

There have been border fights between Pakistan and India – both nuclear countries. But those conflicts were probably limited by the risk of nuclear escalation.

The unintended consequence of standing on the sidelines following Putin's threat to use nuclear weapons is that the world has become more dangerous, not less.

Failing to intervene is making the world more dangerous, not less.

Let me explain.

Putin has used the threat of a nuclear weapon attack to get Nato to behave in the way he wants it to: '’stand back and don't you dare think of a no-fly zone’'.

In a twist on the '’mutually assured destruction’' deterrent, Putin is showing that he can use the threat of nuclear weapons as an effective way of coercing his adversaries to do what he wants.

His tactic is dangerous and can't be allowed to stand. Let him do this, and we say Putin can commit war crimes, bomb maternity hospitals, execute civilians, and even destroy whole cities and the people in them. As long as he has a nuclear weapon, we won't enter the war.

The consequences for bad behaviour are suddenly not so bad.

It invites him to invade and kill again. Before Ukraine there were Chechnya, Georgia and Syria, so we know he will not stop.

Let him get away with this and we are telling small countries they better get a nuclear weapon if they don't want to be invaded. Every thug will learn that nuclear weapons are good for keeping Nato out of your conflict, and then useful for getting your way in a war.

The alternative is downright dangerous.

Failing to intervene is making the world more dangerous, not less.

We're risking a re-run of the 19th century's opportunistic wars - now with nuclear weapons - where you attack your neighbour before they attack you because no-one will come to your defence. So get in first.

The war in Ukraine is a war to defend the principle that no country can use its military to change territorial borders. No country should get away with threatening to use a nuclear weapon when we try to stop them.

These norms of behaviour between countries only exist because we fight for them.

I hope it's not true that New Zealand is more focused on our role after the war than during it. Some have suggested we could be planning to offer ourselves as a ’’neutral’’ mediator between the EU and Russia after the war. Send helmets, a bit of aid, ineffectual sanctions, offend no-one. But even Switzerland doesn't want to be neutral in this fight.

We need a more muscular response. Double our humanitarian aid, and send money to President Zelenskyy to buy those planes and tanks.

The alternative is downright dangerous.