Is there a trigger for actual military intervention ?

If there is such a trigger, it is certainly not being publicized.

No doubt there is some sort of trigger, but we won't know about it until it is pulled.

Or do we sit on our hands while wearing blue and yellow?

It is getting harder and harder watching such a brave people, with a wonderful national character be annihilated.

Preferably something that wouldn't trigger Putin's use of nuclear weapons on Europe and the start of WWIII?

I do not have the knowledge or credentials to make a plan.
But I pray that someone who does will take some action.

There has to be something between doing nothing and nuclear war.

Edit to add: FDR gave immediate assistance to Great Britain before we entered the war. Something along those lines perhaps.

I am not smart enough to come up with specifics.

The devil is always in the details.

military & nuclear weapons strategy ???? What?? I'm always quite impressed when someone of that stature has the time to post on DU. Lol

Seriously ...agree with you 100%. It's in the bleeding heart liberal makeup to care deeply and want leaders to move heaven and earth to protect human beings.

We just can't put boots on the ground because, you know, that would be an escalation between nuclear armed powers and nobody wants to see the world turned to glass.

NATO involvement is a treaty trigger. And that's a limited involvement, not an out and out military powers action. Sanctions and sales/lend-lease activity are pretty much all the US administration can do at this point in time.
Otherwise, Congress has to approve any troop or active US military resources to Ukraine.

On edit - NATO will not get involved unless a NATO country is attacked. That's a given. And Ukraine can't ask to join NATO in the middle of a conflict.

Haele

…

The decision was much easier with Sarajevo. Right now Putin is holding the world hostage.
I lived though the The Cuban Missile Crisis. This situation is beginning to have a similar feeling
only with a lot more actual deaths and no one with whom to negotiate. Putin is taunting us
by continuing to up level the violence and death. He is feeling empowered by his threats and his
actions. The situation will only grow more dangerous by the day.

that we won't get involved on the ground. So yes, it seems absolutely incredible but only explanation is that we can't do anything else. I know that's not popular here. But it doesn't mean it can't make some of us feel bad.

We could easily shut down the airspace over Ukraine.

The Russians have long-range missiles capable of taking out aircraft, even at high altitude. So if our planes attack their missile installations in response, we now have US forces in direct combat against Russian forces. Then what? Article 5 of NATO? Nukes? I doubt that our military and intelligence experts haven't thought of these things.

ECM, for example. If the Russians were to fire on our aircraft, then we have other possibilities too... precision long range munitions, HARMs, etc.

Don't get me wrong... I'm not suggesting an unannounced and dramatic intervention. Give the Russians lots of opportunities to reconsider their conduct and to seek cessation of hostilities. They have as much to lose in a major escalation as we do. So long as we are acting like we are the only ones at risk, the Russians have an advantage.

If it ever got to it yet we could. Our ( NATO and the US) capabilities are unmatched in that regard.

Of course they( not the US alone, NATO) have thought of it and probably have plans ready for execution in case it's needed.

The question is what triggers it. We shall see if there is a point at which there is an emergency meeting and a decision is made to intervene . Of course that would not happen unless there is a massive slaughter of civilians and we are sure Putin won't resort to nukes.

The more obvious trigger is if Putin presses on into a NATO country.

If you are going to advocate for World War III, at least own it.

...

Biden has a number of factors to consider, I'm sure. And many that we are unaware of.

I feel pretty certain that there IS a line that Russia could cross in the conduct of this war that could potentially trigger U.S. and /or NATO intervention.

So why the promises of no intervention under any circumstances? It makes no sense. It's good enough to say that there are no plans to intervene right now that but Russia's conduct or other conditions on the ground could change that.

Make the Russians at least question how far they will go.

to level a city. Do we stand there and say too bad that does not trigger article 5, bomb away with nucs?

This is the extent to which "we" can get involved. Not as military forces of states or governments, but as individuals.

In South African getting in plane to join Ukrainian forces. Too small?

They just don't make the news. Another possibility is how they coordinate (or don't) with the Ukrainian forces. Or they may be involved in missions that are best kept off the radar.

consequence, it's a major nuclear power. Sanctions and a diplomatic approach is what we have to work with.

Sadly, there are going to be mass killings, and cities will be leveled, and the only things we can do is give them weapons, intelligence, and other forms of support, while taking care of their millions of refugees. And any kind of sanctions that we can come up with to inflict as much pain and cost as possible.

If direct combat begins between the US and Russia, that could trigger WWIII, and more death and suffering than we can even begin to imagine.

Another gray area I wonder about is around NATO's Article 5 response is Russian cyberattacks and their impacts beyond Ukraine.

If the Russians suddenly decide to shut down all the power in Ukraine, chances are that may shut down the power in eastern Poland, where American and other NATO troops are currently located.

These days, does a cyber-attack constitute an attack on NATO?