I doubt nations like Finland, Poland etc. have the proper logistics to send even brigade size expeditionary fighting forces to Ukraine to fight. That is the problem, the main enabler of NATO logistics was the US. Without the US support, the ability of NATO/EU to project brigade size forces into a non NATO country like Ukraine is very limited. This requires logistics that require expeditionary force capability and besides the US only UK and France have anything capable of doing this and both the UK and France are very limited. Even sending NATO airpower into a non NATO country to fight would be difficult. The USAF wouldn't have a problem doing this, they have the kit and capability to send airwings anywhere in the world and stand-up and entire airbase from scratch. The US could secure a patch of ground with the 82nd airborne and have within a week a forward deployed airbase up and operating complete with a Burger King. However a country like Finland or Denmark just don't have the capability to deploy a airwing like that without US support into a non NATO country. NATO countries have common logistics and operations so for example a country like Denmark could forward deploy a airwing to Poland if necessary fairly easily because Denmark logistic people and Polish logistics people are trained to do things the NATO way. This is a huge benefit of NATO, a common way of doing things which helps countries militaries fight together with NATO.
Despite all the rhetoric, Ukraine has manpower. What they lack is trained soldiers with weapons and training. The EU is supporting Ukraine by training Ukrainian forces inside of their countries. The only other possibility would be sending in EU technicians to help and support NATO Hardware like F-16's but it seems like Ukraine is quickly coming up to speed on those issues to.
View attachment 124387