Article 5

"The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.

Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall immediately be reported to the Security Council. Such measures shall be terminated when the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security."

Ok, all other members "assisted" Finland "as they deem necessary". No one sent armed forces, to prevent provoking friend Vlad or else... And why even bother, there is no fighting in Finland, Ruzzian force is standing guarding the city and is digging in. Why provoke Putin then if no one is getting hurt. Instead they are all collectively pressuring and blackmailing Finland to not counterattack.

Invasion was successful because they successfully moved their armies into Ukraine and they are still there. Invasion would fail if they didn't manage to do that.

Rational people still, in 2026, operate under a notion that Putin has some definitive target. Well, he does not, the invasion IS a target. The process is a target. So while the war goes on, the whole operation is a success to him personally.

Same with hypothetical NATO invasion. It's target won't be neither victory over the alliance, nor any gains in territory or cities. The point would be to create a permanent ongoing invasion(s) inside NATO member's borders and sustain it.

I think Biden, the UK and others in Feb 2022 should have said to Putin that if he invades the air forces of those countries would take out the invading troops which probably would have resulted in it not happening at all, or maybe being repelled.

As it is it's kind of a mess with many dead on both sides.

They plus NATO have played a part in restraining Russia from doing its expanding thing since WW2.

It's still #1 in nukes and close to the top in belligerence.

It's absolutely true that almost all of NATO was not doing their part and should have been. It's good that they're starting to. But the U.S. enjoyed and benefitted greatly from that command of soft power. The U.S. has now transitioned to being a transactional hegemon, which leads to the divestment of that power. This is dangerous for us all because Americans will either have to accept their lesser position in the world, or will double down on using violence and aggression to maintain their status. The latter is almost exclusively what we've been enduring over the past years.

That may be true, but in the history of NATO how many countries have invoked Article 5, and which countries answered that call?

Well, then it's time for the USA to pack it up from all bases in Europe and go back home, if it isn't a partnership there's no need to be loitering around for this long, no?

> At some point a partnership isn't a partnership if people don't participate.

Similarly, at some point people should wonder what else might come out of a partnership aside from raw spending dollars and whether there is value there, instead of simply parroting stupid domestic bumper stickers as if they have value or add insight.

Disagree.

It may be politically incorrect to call "The Borderlands" "The Ukraine," but it's grammatically correct.

The paradox is that the Russian nuclear threat is ignored.

No point in deploying them in advance. Finland has proper winters and with the freezing/thawing cycle, the mines would end up god knows where. I myself once discovered an unexploded WWII aerial bomb that popped up out of nowhere one spring on a field that was in constant farming use.