I think, also, that faced with a similar situation with a NATO member as the target, the whole process would be different. NATO isn't going to wait for an invasion before responding, IMO. Pretty quickly after there is an obvious build-up of military equipment at the border with Latvia, I expect NATO would start matching it tank-for-tank. Might as well make it clear that even without nuclear weapons it's going to be a bloody fight.

NATO activated the NATO Response Force for the first time in Alliance history. That's around 40,000 troops moved into forward deployment positions.

https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/topics_49755.htm

> I expect NATO would start matching it tank-for-tank

I think you're being very optimistic here. Before the invasion, there were so many people in saying Putin was just bluffing. Certain US media, US political party. Ukraine tried downplay the risk. Even Germany had to get their arm twisted to do sanctions after it happened.

I think this take is exactly what needs to be considered.

We draw a line, it's NATO. Russia steps right up to the line by attacking Ukraine, and NATO does nothing. Is he going to believe that the line is still there? Why not test it?

In my mind it's perfectly plausible that NATO squirms out if Latvia is attacked. Then the line is "core NATO" or something like that.

At the very least if he doesn't test article 5, he can take every country that isn't in NATO, and each time the question grows about whether NATO is actually a thing.

> Why not test it?

Be our guest. Test it.

It doesn’t start with “and then Russia attacked Latvia”. They are not the Fire Nation. They need time to line up their logistics which will give time for NATO to detect their moves and amass troops in Latvia. Heck they were only lining up to attack a non-NATO country (Ukraine) and NATO sent extra troops to Latvia.

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/us-nato-military-moves-send-...

> Why not test it?

Because it's not a thing where you say "let's test this out today." It takes months or years to get to this point. I'm hoping NATO would respond to a build-up on the Latvian border with a build-up of their own. Making it clear that there is no easy win.

There's no reason to just sit there and wait for the tanks to roll across the line.

> If Latvia is attacked and the NATO doesn’t fight for them NATO stops being a thing immediately.

That's what he might be betting on. To be fair, a series of decisions[0] by the West over the last decades might have led him to believe the West may not have the stomach for war with Russia, especially when it comes to defending new NATO members.

[0]

- Invasion of Georgia in 2008: no meaningful response to Russia

- Obama's "red lines" in Syria

- Annexation of Crimea in 2014: no meaningful response to Russia

- Invasion of Eastern Ukraine in 2014: ditto

- Invasion of the rest of Ukraine (under way): response limited to sanctions for Russia and supplies for the Ukrainians