Ukraine is being beaten exactly because it is not a NATO member, but actively considered to become one.
That's a very bold claim to make. What is that based on?
Or you're going to honor the border I guess? Are they free to bomb civilians as long as it launches from their side? Even the best planes will get shot down if you give the other side enough chances, is nato going to allow that? Anyway where even is the border at 50k feet? How many conflicts have started because a pilot accidentally entered another country's airspace? Or at least that the other country claimed they had.
>How many conflicts have started because a pilot accidentally entered another country's airspace? Or at least that the other country claimed they had.
Exactly 0.
Are you sure there were no consequences?
The same logic that works against the West has also been working against Putin: "what are you going to do about it; escalate into WW3?"
And then NATO would have to respond when cruise missiles started flying into some of their member states.
The US finally said no to the specific plan, and put forth the general rationale for the more general no when it did so.
(OTOH, the tolerance for acts that might be seen as provocation by Russia among NATO countries—at least those on the Eastern flank—is going up rapidly, with Estonia and Lithuania calling for a NATO-enforces No Fly Zone, and Poland hold-my-beering them and calling for a NATO peacekeeping force in Ukraine.)
/1 Of the declared $800mil Anti armor launchers account for ~$400mil, then the other $400mil pays for some small arms, personal armor, ammo and 100 drones? Its pure mil complex walfare program.
It's not so much that putin doesn't have the balls to escalate into WW3, it's that supplying weapons isn't considered very escalatory (for all sides involved), so putin is more likely to let it slide rather than escalate himself. It's not something that can universally extended (eg. to no fly zone or boots on the ground).
It wasn't seen as too likely to effect the conflict, but as the conflict drags out it becomes a greater irritant. Russia is recently openly threatening to attack “supply lines” of those arms if they continue; since anything in Ukraine is already clearly subject to attack this at least implicitly is a threat to potentially attack convoys and logistics points outside of Ukraine.
Putin's expansion into Crimea and Ukraine reminds me very much of Hitler's expansion into Austria and Czechoslovakia. Its my firm belief that we're at the "Peace in our time" phase, just before WWIII, and it would be better to nip it in the bud and take action now, rather than 2 years from now, when Putin has had more time to prepare, and he attempts to invade a country that we are obligated by treaty to defend.
Russia is not the USSR of old or Germany in the 30s. It's not a great economic power with an independent industrial base. Right now, Putin is throwing in all the conventional forces he can spare, but Ukraine – a smaller and poorer country - has managed to stop the attack with some material support from the West.
Meanwhile, the rest of the world has not been idle. Europe is increasing military spending significantly. Unprecedented sanctions are in place, and their purpose is to destroy Russian economy and cut their access to many key technologies. If the sanctions remain in place, a large part of the Russian losses in Ukraine will be permanent.
Only after WW2 the allies decided to remember the Holocaust existed, and justice still played a second fiddle to interests.