[Goose]

NATO obviously is not going to do “all it can,” as that would include nuclear weapons.  This has been a balancing act from Day 1. Some people think the scale should tip towards more weapons, more training, and more funding. Few think NATO should blow Russia off the map.

Yes, the definition of "can" must include external political constraints. I would say NATO can't use nuclear weapons because the NATO countries that have them simply would not agree to do so.

There are however lots of things that are politically possible inside NATO and militarily possible to execute. Unfortunately, NATO (and it's member states) often decide to do/supply something and then take months to do so. At best, this allows more Ukrainians to die before the action takes effect. At worst, the delay allows Russia to develop and execute countermeasures that defeat the purpose of the activity. There are other actions NATO could take but are holding back on in the (vain IMHO) hope that restraint on the part of NATO will be matched by restraint by Russia. Given the course of the war, if it continues NATO will eventually have to provide Ukraine with tanks and fighter aircraft to replace Ukrainian losses that otherwise cannot be made good. Why delay that inevitability? It gives Russia grounds to believe that NATO will in fact NOT do so, making instead an eventual Russian victory inevitable.

Given the ongoing attacks on Ukrainian power (and thereby railway) structures, NATO will have to find a way to deter Russia from continuing that course. Supplying ATACMS to Ukraine could be used to at least attempt that. If Russia says no to a deal, then do it. Many other similar things are possible.

[Goose]

NATO obviously is not going to do “all it can,” as that would include nuclear weapons.  This has been a balancing act from Day 1. Some people think the scale should tip towards more weapons, more training, and more funding. Few think NATO should blow Russia off the map.

Yes, the definition of "can" must include external political constraints. I would say NATO can't use nuclear weapons because the NATO countries that have them simply would not agree to do so.

There are however lots of things that are politically possible inside NATO and militarily possible to execute. Unfortunately, NATO (and it's member states) often decide to do/supply something and then take months to do so. At best, this allows more Ukrainians to die before the action takes effect. At worst, the delay allows Russia to develop and execute countermeasures that defeat the purpose of the activity. There are other actions NATO could take but are holding back on in the (vain IMHO) hope that restraint on the part of NATO will be matched by restraint by Russia. Given the course of the war, if it continues NATO will eventually have to provide Ukraine with tanks and fighter aircraft to replace Ukrainian losses that otherwise cannot be made good. Why delay that inevitability? It gives Russia grounds to believe that NATO will in fact NOT do so, making instead an eventual Russian victory inevitable.

Given the ongoing attacks on Ukrainian power (and thereby railway) structures, NATO will have to find a way to deter Russia from continuing that course. Supplying ATACMS to Ukraine could be used to at least attempt that. If Russia says no to a deal, then do it. Many other similar things are possible.