Ukraine is progressively aligning itself with conditions reminiscent of Article 5, involving not just NATO members but also the broader Ramstein coalition and G7 nations. This shift indicates a diminishing of self-imposed limits aimed at preventing escalation with Russia, prompted by the Kremlin's aggressive actions and the external backing it receives from allies like North Korea, Iran, and China. As the West recognizes that losing in Ukraine is not an option, direct participation and support for Ukraine by its allies will likely increase, starting with the easing of restrictions on supplying specific types of weaponry and potentially employing Western arms against Russian targets. However, this transition is expected to unfold gradually and methodically.

Since the onset of Russia's aggression, the West has sought to bolster Ukraine, particularly given its resolve to resist Putin's regime. However, a crucial stipulation has been to prevent any escalation of the conflict, including direct NATO involvement or drawing member states into confrontation, especially to avert nuclear tensions. This is particularly pertinent as Putin and his associates invoke nuclear threats and propaganda, suggesting that limited nuclear strikes could be acceptable and non-escalatory.

This cautious approach raises significant questions about the thin line between defense and aggression, the extent to which one should engage in warfare, and when one might be deemed an aggressor, even if on a limited scale. The distinction between defensive and offensive maneuvers, as well as the boundary between one's own territory and enemy land, is often blurred. To effectively defend, it is necessary to disrupt supply chains and capabilities that originate beyond national borders where threats arise. Likewise, offensive actions can be countered by targeting logistics and transportation networks within adversary territory.

A nation cannot remain passive until attacked or allow foreign forces to enter its land without response. The concept of preemptive action was also debated during Clinton's Missile Defense era, which revived Reagan's Star Wars initiative that ultimately overwhelmed the Soviet Union in the arms race, contributing to the fall of the Eastern Bloc. This is why NATO's recent strategic framework from Madrid and the final declaration from the Vilnius summit assert that no allied territory will be permitted to fall to adversaries. This conclusion is informed by experiences in Ukraine, where reclaiming territory within internationally recognized borders has proven complex and costly.

Consequently, the United States, NATO, and the West as a whole have opted to steadily enhance their involvement and the sophistication of the weaponry supplied, in direct response to Russia's actions. Proportionality in warfare, alongside adherence to international law and the rules-based global order, serves as both a legal standard and a legitimacy factor. Above all, it establishes a moral imperative for engagement aimed at preserving global peace. This explains the incremental delivery of Javelin anti-tank systems, Stinger portable anti-aircraft missiles, tanks, aircraft, and long-range strike capabilities such as HIMARS, ATACMS, and Storm Shadow missiles. Gradually, restrictions have been lifted, and necessary measures adapted to empower Ukraine in its self-defense, including operations against Russian territory.

To prevent unchecked escalation or providing justifications for nuclear warfare in Ukraine, or even more critically, giving Russia grounds to attack NATO allies, a measured response has been essential and has been implemented progressively. Russia asserts a right to defend its nationals globally and to protect its spheres of influence based on its own doctrines. This rationale underpins the incremental and cautious approach, even amidst significant Ukrainian military casualties, destruction of vital civilian infrastructure, and occupied Ukrainian land. The first years of the conflict were characterized by restraint, a prudent strategy that remains in place. However, as Russia's actions have intensified, crossing established boundaries, each new development has led to the removal of prior constraints, culminating in the use of weapons against Russian targets.

The turning point was marked by a new front opening in Kharkiv, northeastern Ukraine, along with the temptation to extend the frontline into new regions beyond those formally annexed by Russia. Additionally, China's supply of technological equipment to bolster the Russian military-industrial complex has been pivotal. Putin's ambitious agenda in recent elections, which includes reclaiming formally annexed territories and establishing a buffer zone extending beyond the range of Ukrainian artillery, has inevitably led to the authorization of strikes on Russian territory.

French President Emmanuel Macron and German Chancellor Olaf Scholz acknowledged this step on May 28 in Meseberg, permitting attacks on missile sites targeting Ukrainian forces and territory. In contrast, U.S. President Joe Biden displayed more caution. Initial signals emerged on May 29 when the White House spokesperson stated that existing policies remained unchanged. This developed into a statement by Secretary of State Antony Blinken in Moldova on May 30, hinting at a flexible approach and the necessity of adaptation as the conflict evolves. Ultimately, on June 1, U.S. officials announced the conditional approval for the use of weapons in this context.

The current constraints imposed by both Germany and the United States include targeting missile launch platforms aimed at Ukraine, engaging aircraft that have launched missiles from Russian soil, and striking military installations and bases on Russian territory adjacent to Ukraine. Although the rules remain somewhat ambiguous, the principle of credible deterrence has yet to be fully realized. Nevertheless, the clear communications indicate support and the potential for increased Western assistance, possibly extending to direct involvement.

We are presently operating under maximum caution. Typically, the provision or sale of arms to a nation does not entail accountability for their utilization. While this scenario involves a nation at war, it is recognized under international law and the UN Charter that this is a case of military aggression against Ukraine, which has the right to defend itself. Assisting a state in self-defense does not carry the same implications as supplying arms in an internal conflict, such as in Sudan. In various other contexts like Libya, Syria, the Central African Republic, Mali, and Niger, Russia has shown no hesitation in engaging in conflicts.

In essence, all democratic nations aligned with the Western ethos recognize the need to uphold the rules-based world order, contrasting sharply with Russia's approach that prioritizes brute force in international relations. Their primary objective is to illustrate that warfare in the 21st century yields only detrimental consequences. Should Russia emerge victorious in Ukraine with no repercussions, it would set a dangerous precedent for the normalization of war as a tool in foreign policy, leading to its frequent application in various regions, a scenario that must be avoided.

Ukraine has secured NATO's commitment for membership since the Bucharest summit in 2008. Moreover, it is anticipated that Ukraine will join directly without the need for the Membership Action Plan (MAP) stage. Discussions are underway at the allied level about a "bridge" to accession at the forthcoming Washington summit, which could mean an invitation for Ukraine to join NATO, with formal effects realized post-conflict. This aligns with the G7's recent decision to bolster Ukraine's defense, advocate for bilateral security agreements, and commit to supporting Ukraine against any future aggressors following the current war's conclusion. While this arrangement is not ideal, nor does it equate to Article 5 or full membership status, it represents a significant advancement toward that goal. Skeptics might question when or if the war will conclude and what state Ukraine will be in at that time.

By permitting strikes on military objectives within Russia, under specified conditions, Western nations reinforce their dedication to Ukraine's triumph and convey to Russia that support will persist until it ceases its occupation and warfare in Ukraine. This sentiment was echoed in President Macron's remarks regarding potential troop deployments to Ukraine—an assurance, a warning, and a facet of credible deterrence, further emphasized by the presence of French, Estonian, and other foreign trainers already on Ukrainian soil, underscoring the gravity of the situation.

What lies ahead? The removal of restrictions on attacking military targets on Russian soil, and subsequently, logistics targets supporting military operations with Western arms. Ukrainian drones have already penetrated 1,800 kilometers into Russian territory, targeting refineries, ammunition depots, logistics centers, and military bases, including airfields used for bombing Ukraine. Additionally, various nations' troops may be deployed on the ground in Ukraine based on bilateral agreements. Eventually, a no-fly zone could be established, creating an air exclusion area over Western Ukraine and civilian regions, protected by NATO forces or from NATO territory. Ultimately, if these developments do not lead to resolution, the deployment of troops on the ground in Ukraine may become essential to prevent the conflict from encroaching upon allied territories.