Once you attack a NATO member you are almost automatically at war with all the members of the alliance and you'll probably have to face already present nato troops as soon as the war starts.
Depends how defending looks. I can see some drone strikes, some bombing runs, but the danger of it escalating to a nuclear war is would be high.
I just don’t believe Americans would accept turning their cities to glass to save Lithuania.
Now I understand, pretending they would, makes the deterrent work. But I hope nobody tries to call the bluff on that one.
Actually, that's not the right question, because Europe by itself doesn't have the military strength to escalate. So it'll be down to American politicians and American voters.
American here. Yes. Fuck with us. Please.
Biden is our president right now and his temperament does seem to be less than what is required.
> As recently as last year, the US had an anti-NATO President.
There's a lot fucked up about NATO and its post Soviet history, including our recent president. However, it was largely neglected and America was bearing the brunt of its cost and few of its benefits. Seeking to make it more equitable and discouraging Russian energy dependence is not the same as being "antiNATO".
Russia is invading Ukraine because Putin knows that the consequences of invasion will be small relative to his perceived benefits. NATO/"The West" will not risk a larger confrontation over Ukraine.
Unfortunately, I think that same conclusion extends to the smaller NATO countries. Will the rest of NATO really risk a nuclear war if Russia decides to invade one of Latvia/Lithuania/Montenegro/Estonia? As recently as last year, the US had an anti-NATO President. This could happen again in the near future. If it does, Putin will be emboldened to continue expanding Russia's sphere of influence.