When not to nuance

 [Yes, I know you don't use nuance as a verb in that way. Apparently it is only passive.] 

On the one hand, there are things that seem clear-cut and are really not. We need a more nuanced view of them.  On the other hand, you can take something relatively simple and then over-think it, or try to weasel yourself into a position where you are upside down from where you should really be. The prime minister of Finland said that the solution to the Ukraine war was for Russia to withdraw. It's not a nuanced position, but it is the terse and correct one. Once you try to say, "but NATO expansion," "but Russia's sphere of influence," then you are losing focus.  

Everyone has something about which they will not take a nuanced position, and rightly so. There are also conundrums that nobody has figured out, and taking a cut-and-dried approach to those will also fail. The trick is knowing the difference. For me, nuance can either enrich our understanding, but allowing us to consider more factors, or it can cloud the issue that is really not that difficult to understand.  

You know when the issue is being clouded [remember that nuance come from a French word meaning cloud] when the verbiage starts piling up, when it gets more difficult to understand the points being made. Ideally, then, nuance should be used only to clarify, to make things easier to understand, not to muddy the waters. It should bring to light things that are essential, not minor things or mere clutter.