LordsFire
Internet Wizard
None of those nations need to do so; the economy of the USA alone, is about fifteen times the size of Russia's.The problem is that the population of most NATO countries is not nearly dedicated enough to the war for that to be feasible, so it is irrelevant. Barring a large change in circumstances, no NATO country of military-industrial significance is going to enter a war economy footing to help Ukraine.
Let's take a hypothetical. US/NATO/allied states shift their economies to a five percent wartime footing.
Taking data from here: List of countries by GDP (nominal) - Wikipedia
This would mean that just counting allied economic clout in the top ten nations, which is seven out of those ten, you end up with economically outmassing the Russian war-fighting budget by about 30%, and that's before you even account what Ukraine itself has.
The direct figures are 2,314,752 million US$ for 5% of the 'big seven' in the West vs 1,862,470 million US$ for Russia. Do you understand how crushing the economic disparity is?
If you add in what Ukraine has, and contributions from the many smaller NATO states, you're going to end up with something like a war material advantage for Ukraine of 50% overall.
And again, I need to stress here, this is using five percent of their potentially useful resources for this purpose.
In order to give Ukraine enough material to win the war, the West doesn't need to half-ass it.
They don't even need to quarter-ass it.
They just have to be consistent about drunkenly throwing their empty glass over their shoulder to hit Russia with. Proportionately, that will be enough to bury the Russian armed forces in shards of glass.
Arguments can be made that the West hasn't actually been doing that much, but any reasonable take on the situation will show that the West is moving more in that direction. F-16's are in the pipeline to arrive this year, new shell plants are being spun up, the first load of Abrams arrived, and the types of advanced munitions that have been passed on to Ukraine have been steadily increased over the war, HIMARS, Stormshadow, DPICM, ATACMs, etc.
On top of all this, the competence in battlefield use of resources means that attrition has heavily favored Ukraine over the course of the war, both in things like ammunition expenditures, and in losses inflicted and suffered. Combine all of that, and things look steadily bleaker for the Russians as the war wears on.
The only possible victory scenario for the Russians, is complete withdrawal of western/NATO support for Ukraine. This is extremely unlikely, because the eastern European states at least understand bloody well the price they'll pay if Russia wins, and can move on to further targets.
The most likely win scenario for Ukraine, is a sharp and drastic increase in western support giving them the material edge to sharply push Russia back. This isn't terribly likely, but one or two major elections could cause this.
The most likely-bloodiest scenario for a war stretching on for a very long time, is gradual waning of western support for Ukraine. Dropping enough that they can't win, but enough so that they can keep the Russians from do so.
Probably the most likely scenario of all, is that political back and forth and how long it takes to bring factories online, means that there continues to be a gradual increase in aid to Ukraine, Russia's coldwar stockpiles continue to deplete, and after another 3-5 years of attritional warfare, the Ukrainians break the Russian forces, and force them back across the border. I do not put much confidence in this 'most likely' scenario.
All kinds of political things can completely change the shape and face of the war, anything from Trump getting back into office and passing the Ukrainians tactical nuclear weapons, to Putin slipping in his shower and breaking his neck. It's still anyone's game out there.