The threat of 7.6 billion killed is not going anywhere, nevermind the actions taken by NATO or any other involved. Even world peace won't eliminate the technology and knowledge from existing and being available.
I understand NATO's position: they're esentially a deffensive alliance, their red lines are intact, and actually going to war (particularly against another superpower with nukes at their disposal) is an extremely costly decission (economically, geopolitically, in lives, in internal politics, etc). But I think their messaging has been inconsistent so far and that they removed too soon from the discussion any option of being military involved.
Even in a non-civilian-rescuing situation and if we consider pure geopolitical egoism, you could argue that A) a big enemy of NATO's worldview and mere existence has revealed itself, B) it has also revealed to be too weak for challenging NATO, at least for the moment, C) it has foolishly exposed itself and seem to be there for the taking, D) There's an option to gain the gratitude of an important ally that has proven itself worthy in the battlefield and happens to have a lot of oil, gas and cereal, and E) there's an option to stop and intervene this weak enemy to eventually becoming a vassal, provider state to the Big, strong future enemy a little more to the east. But yeah, that would also mean that you have to actually go to war and put your own civilians at risk. Which I think is the real red line here.