NATO is involved by both weapons and money. These are main things that let a war go on. Ukraine's role is a limited and minor one: providing manpower. (NATO also provides some manpower, BTW).

‘[weapons and money] these are the main things that let a war go.’ - your reply is not serious. Your reply did not include manpower as the main thing in war.

Manpower is no longer the main thing in war since invention of swords and shields. Money and weapons are crucial.

> Manpower is no longer the main thing in war since invention of swords and shields.

Must be true by how much “meat” Soviets and Chinese threw on their occupiers.

The fact that Russia's leadership has the same kind of borderline delusional take on Ukraine and its army is, ironically, a significant reason why Russia's army has been so hilariously bad on the battlefield against Ukrainians, considering the hugely lopsided advantage in resources. I'm all for it, keep it up!

Moreover, NATO is justified to do whatever it takes to keep Russia from auctioning its stockpile. That means protecting it from internal collapse, not winning too decisively, even benefitting Putin when necessary. With START falling apart, Russia lost a tool that was buying some time.