Ukraine
This is a bit far for me. Definitely take the gloves off of Ukraine regarding where they can strike with US/NATO-provided weapons. But, NATO ground troops??
Asking this question not to provoke, but to better understand where you are coming from in your post: if you had a son/daughter/grandchild who would be one of those infantry mobilized to go fight on the front lines in Ukraine, would you still hold the same opinion?
I thought about this for a while today. My answer is yes. Hell, as a male of fighting age, I would volunteer myself (though I only have medical experience, no physical training at all).
I am of the opinion that NATO should make a stand now rather than later. Either Russia is defeated in Ukraine, or NATO will be dragged into a wider war once Georgia/Moldova/Lithuania are next for Putin.
In historical parallels, it almost seems like we're inching toward 1938 all over again. Could Hitler have been stopped if the Allies took his occupation of Austria seriously? The Czechs? Sudentenland? If he were confronted before the German army even crossed into France? If North Korean troops are the difference between Ukraine being overrun or Ukraine living to fight another day, something must be done.
10,000 more cannon fodder doesn't move the needle entirely in that direction. But 25,000? 50,000? 100,000? Where do we put the red line? If Kim is emboldened in Ukraine, what does he attempt next?
So many questions and so much uncertainty. But there has to come a point where rhetoric and deterrence is given the teeth needed to mean something (without resorting to nukes). Hopefully people far smarter than me have the balls to stand up when we hit that point.