[Goose]

If NATO must to "all it can," and "all it can" is defined to mean "everything that is politically feasible," then NATO will almost always, by definition, be doing "all it can."  The problem you're identifying -- delays in getting the alliance on board -- is inherent in broad collective action.  There almost always will be some members wanting to do more and other members dragging their heels.

True, but the delays in reaching consensus are not the ones I am referring to here. For example, the NASAMS was delayed by 3 or 4 months after the decision was made to give them to Ukraine. I at first thought they were just going to load up the two at Andrews and ship them to Ukraine. Why not? Maybe there were reasons but FWIW I don't see how they could be good ones. Were they broken? If so, that is another problem. When that didn't happen, I assumed we were sending them some of the ones the Norwegians have in storage. Nope. It appears we actually purpose built them. We may have diverted ones that were already being built, but in any case did they put the contractors on double shifts to get them out early? Doubt it. No indication of that. Heck, they took MONTHS negotiating the contract!  If it was our troops and citizens out there getting killed, would we have made such a pathetic effort? Similar situation with the German aid. There were considerable delays. The delay with the IRIS-T SLM was kind of understandable, as this was a first of type, but the other things, particularly the Gepards, was very hard to understand. It seems NATO is treating the situation as "Business as Usual", which IMO it definitely should not be.

Maybe the alternative is for some portion of the alliance to form a subgroup that is willing to do more, and then do that, quickly.  The question is whether such a plan would alienate the hesitant members to an extent that the plan ends up hurting the war effort.  I could imagine ATACMS coming at the cost of losing a sanctions regime and/or losing Finland/Sweden accession, and those sacrifices might not be worth the tradeoff.

Totally agree there are/may be disagreements among the NATO members and that some of these disagreements are fundamental enough that they can't be rushed or ignored. That said, NATO has had 9 months to look at this war and discuss contingency plans for many scenarios. If that hasn't been happening, 1) NATO is stupid, and 2) it is probable the NATO response to some scenarios will be belated due to the necessary discussions. One of the main questions that has come into vogue (like the last 10 years or so) in the US military is "How does this end?" Presumably NATO has asked themselves that question. Presumably NATO realizes that Ukraine is going to run out of aircraft in the near future. If the answer is "NATO isn't going to do anything to supply aircraft to Ukraine", it is difficult to see how Ukraine can possibly win this war. If, OTOH NATO has a planned response, what is the advantage of delaying it's implementation?

[Goose]

If NATO must to "all it can," and "all it can" is defined to mean "everything that is politically feasible," then NATO will almost always, by definition, be doing "all it can."  The problem you're identifying -- delays in getting the alliance on board -- is inherent in broad collective action.  There almost always will be some members wanting to do more and other members dragging their heels.

True, but the delays in reaching consensus are not the ones I am referring to here. For example, the NASAMS was delayed by 3 or 4 months after the decision was made to give them to Ukraine. I at first thought they were just going to load up the two at Andrews and ship them to Ukraine. Why not? Maybe there were reasons but FWIW I don't see how they could be good ones. Were they broken? If so, that is another problem. When that didn't happen, I assumed we were sending them some of the ones the Norwegians have in storage. Nope. It appears we actually purpose built them. We may have diverted ones that were already being built, but in any case did they put the contractors on double shifts to get them out early? Doubt it. No indication of that. Heck, they took MONTHS negotiating the contract!  If it was our troops and citizens out there getting killed, would we have made such a pathetic effort? Similar situation with the German aid. There were considerable delays. The delay with the IRIS-T SLM was kind of understandable, as this was a first of type, but the other things, particularly the Gepards, was very hard to understand. It seems NATO is treating the situation as "Business as Usual", which IMO it definitely should not be.

Maybe the alternative is for some portion of the alliance to form a subgroup that is willing to do more, and then do that, quickly.  The question is whether such a plan would alienate the hesitant members to an extent that the plan ends up hurting the war effort.  I could imagine ATACMS coming at the cost of losing a sanctions regime and/or losing Finland/Sweden accession, and those sacrifices might not be worth the tradeoff.

Totally agree there are/may be disagreements among the NATO members and that some of these disagreements are fundamental enough that they can't be rushed or ignored. That said, NATO has had 9 months to look at this war and discuss contingency plans for many scenarios. If that hasn't been happening, 1) NATO is stupid, and 2) it is probable the NATO response to some scenarios will be belated due to the necessary discussions. One of the main questions that has come into vogue (like the last 10 years or so) in the US military is "How does this end?" Presumably NATO has asked themselves that question. Presumably NATO realizes that Ukraine is going to run out of aircraft in the near future. If the answer is "NATO isn't going to do anything to supply aircraft to Ukraine", it is difficult to see how Ukraine can possibly win this war. If, OTOH NATO has a planned response, what is the advantage of delaying it's implementation?