Using the rescue of Kuwait as an example, the US does have a route to use its military against Russia in the Ukraine.
Kuwait was not a NATO member, so we understand that US was not bound by a military alliance treaty in order to attack Iraq so as to liberate Kuwait. The liberation was quite publicly staged in advance as nations and NATO rallied for the liberation
exercise.
Public support for liberation of Kuwait was just about as much as the public support concerning rescuing the Ukraine from Russian domination.
In this case, US can only give lip service concerning action to liberate Ukraine.
US Congress has power to order the military to move into the Ukraine, but they have no will to commit any manpower known as "boots on the ground", or otherwise known as a Declaration of War so as to authorize such activity.
Nuclear exchange is not necessary if we understand the use of nuclear weapons as the true war crime which will not be tolerated under any circumstances.
Congress could vote advancing ar Powers Act while also restricting any use of nuclear weapons unless the enemy uses the weapon first.
USA is virtually already at war with Russia, so why not come out of the closet and risk also the true costs of war, US deaths? The US soldiers who have volunteered are willing to fight Russians in the Ukraine, risking deat but gaining victory. Right?
Putin will not use nukes because he like US will not use first, but thinks US has no chance in conventional on the ground without using air power.
And that is the status!
But it takes balls which US Congress does not have , as we know it would bring back draft.
You see, US is already at war with Russia. Congress just hasn't voted that way yet, but they would be obligated to not vote no, and that is the rub. Biden doesn't really want a war, but he is now in one, so there it is.
Current status: It is easier for US to provide the 14 billion than to declare war and commit manpower to a very bloody conventional war.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)