If the United States increases munitions production to support Ukraine’s war effort, it will deploy cutting edge weapons such as Abrams tanks, Patriot missiles, and HIMARS launchers on the front lines. The question arises: can the United States, the United Kingdom, Germany, or Spain be considered truly at war when their intelligence systems help track enemy ships or when satellite imagery reveals troop movements? Where is the practical red line for action, and does a leader visiting Kiev in support of resistance and freedom count as part of the conflict, even if the aim is defensive against an unlawful invasion?
Diplomats and politicians privately and publicly insist that NATO is not at war, that the European Union is not at war, and that Spain is only sending defensive weapons. There is a strategic concern among nations to shield their societies from fatigue and to preserve public support for funding and weaponry sent to Ukraine. At the same time, leaders do not want to give Moscow an opening to escalate with more powerful weapons, possibly including tactical nuclear arms. But how far can this approach go before it becomes unsustainable?
International relations expert Nick Whitney from the European Council on Foreign Relations described the situation by saying the ultimate red line is avoiding direct confrontation between Western and Russian forces. He noted that NATO as an organization has been cautious about direct interference in Ukraine. Ramstein style coordination meetings, led by the United States, involved Western allies rather than NATO itself. The European Union, through mechanisms like the European Peace Fund and the EU Education Mission, has a broader official footprint.
definition of war
The narrative that NATO is fighting Russia on Ukrainian soil is most often a Kremlin framing. Vladimir Putin has justified the invasion with multiple explanations, sometimes contradictory. Officially, he described a special operation to shield self-proclaimed Donetsk and Lugansk from perceived threats after their annexation by Russia, while he also asserts that the conflict represents a broader struggle against Western efforts to undermine Russia. In his speeches he casts NATO as the armed wing of the West seeking to subdue Moscow.
Lithuanian Foreign Minister Gabrielius Landsbergis has stated that Russia is being defeated by Ukrainian forces, not by NATO, and emphasized that NATO has not launched a special operation against Russia.
The West insists it is not at war. As a Spanish newspaper copy notes, helping an ally is not the same as declaring hostilities. A Canadian intelligence and security expert from the Canadian Association notes that a formal state war implies a legal declaration. There are situations described as proxy wars where participants support one side without an official declaration of war.
Since the mid-twentieth century the practice of declaring war has declined. In the United States, only Congress can declare war under the Constitution, and there have been very few formal declarations since 1945. When the United States has pursued operations against terrorist organizations with UN backing, these actions were framed as special operations rather than full-scale wars, yet they sometimes resulted in deep military involvement and long-term commitments.
In the postwar era, with the United Nations and evolving international law, formal declarations of war have become rarer, shifting instead to coalitions, sanctions, and targeted military actions that blur the line between peace and conflict.
the story of the war
Analysts across major capitals have argued that the shipment of heavy tanks to Ukraine marked a turning point that pulled the West deeper into the conflict with Russia. Stories from the front describe tanks from Germany, Britain, and the United States becoming symbolically central to Ukraine’s defense. A leading British columnist framed the move as showing Western commitment to Ukraine’s independence and argued that Ukrainian forces themselves carry the weight of that struggle rather than serving only Western interests. The point was made that Western support is aimed at aiding Ukraine to resist invasion rather than pursuing a broader confrontation.
Early in the crisis, it was revealed that intelligence resources contributed to Ukrainian efforts to counter Russian maneuvers. The use of intelligence gathered by spies or satellites is often cited as a critical element of Ukraine’s resistance, even when public discussion avoids explicit confirmation. A Madrid conference among national defense experts observed that intelligence could be viewed as Ukraine’s strategic weapon in confronting Russia, though participants refrained from open admission about Western help in targeting. The conversation focused on objective outcomes and legal interpretations rather than sensational claims.