That's part of it. Because the West usually does these things for purely self-interest, but likes to play the "world police" card to justify things, then gets frustrated when people say "well, if you're the world police, why are you not stopping the genocide in Rwanda?" and the West shrugs, but the answer is generally obvious, "because there's no benefit we can glean from it".
I guess that's why we now get the piecemeal support for Ukraine. No real intervention, but we've got to do something, but not too much, but not too little either.
Not sure what you're trying to say here. Surely getting your own military personal involved is not entirely nothing? Also, launching missiles from NATO airspace does not have to be the next step.
Two things that sound to me like obvious next steps is sending NATO air defense with NATO personel into Ukraine to provide better cover from Russian missiles. And after that, a no-fly zone. Actual combat support is probably too much to ask.
