What protects, for example, the Baltic countries is not the threat that the US might take initiative to drop a nuclear bomb on Russia, no it is the vast conventional capabilities of the US.
Just supplying a relatively small amount of weapons to Ukraine is enough to destroy most of the Russian army.
The geographic situation largely explains why the Baltic States support the NATO membership of Sweden and Finland so strongly, and why Russia is opposed to it. With Sweden and Finland in NATO, the Baltic Sea will become NATO's internal sea. NATO would likely have naval and air superiority over it, which would keep supply lines open and give them a chance to defend the Baltic States with conventional weapons.
None of which NATO countries has offered to use in Ukraine.
I think logistics by railway would be problematic if NATO allies launched a few thousand cruise missiles.
>NATO does not need nuclear deterrence again Russia's conventional weapons
NATO has more than enough capabilities to destroy Russia's conventional weaponry, but as Russia has nuclear weapons, NATO must also have them to keep parity.
Getting rid of nuclear weapons is impossible. Genie's out of the bottle.
