What Are NATO’s Red Lines in Ukraine?

Throughout the war, Vladimir Putin has frequently told the West not to cross numerous “red lines”, only to move that line back after NATO inevitably crossed it.

For instance, supplying Western armor like the Bradley infantry fighting vehicle and the Abrams main battle tank were once red lines that NATO crossed.

Russia’s response? Nothing more than grumblings on state-sponsored television.

The Kremlin’s red lines — never clearly articulated — appear less stringent than some in the West evidently believe.

And yet, fearful of the Russian response, the U.S. still hasn’t supplied Ukraine with long-range missiles like the 200-mile range Army Tactical Missile System, known as ATACMS, which would allow them to strike Russian targets anywhere in occupied Ukraine.

The UK, perhaps bolder than the U.S. in this instance, recently sent the long-range Storm Shadow missile to Ukraine, and guess what Russia did: nothing.

In reality, NATO could probably deploy U.S. troops to Ukrainian soil and implement a no-fly-zone, both Russian red lines, and Russia likely wouldn’t, or perhaps more accurately, couldn’t do anything about it.

Which brings me to a question: What would Russia have to do that would be so egregious that NATO would feel compelled to get involved?

What are NATO’s red lines?