NATO members don't have any obligation to defend or even really aid an attacked member. The article 5 is ridiculously vague. I think sacrificing the member state to avoid nuclear war is what would happen. It won't be any different than with Ukraine.

> NATO members don't have any obligation to defend or even really aid an attacked member.

"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"

Every country has an obligation to defend itself when attacked. Article 5 makes an attack on any member an attack on all of them.

Short of going "fuck y'all this agreement means nothing to us" every member country has to defend against the attack as if it were on their own soil.

I never considered this before, but it looks like GP is right. The specific phrasing doesn't say "parties need to go to war when one is attacked". As a Romanian, it is kinda worrying that it's not straightforward.

Ukraine is not in NATO. Sacrificing three member states won't happen because everyone knows if that is allowed they will be taken one by one

NATO is doing everything it can to avoid war now but i'm pretty sure everyone is preparing to react in case member is attacked

Don't spread propaganda. If a Russian boot steps across a NATO member's border NATO will attack, there's not a single doubt, especially with what is going on in Ukraine because obviously Putin has lost his mind and is trying to recreate the USSR.

How do you figure? Unless you mean member states would just ignore their agreements, treating an attack on one as an attack on all is pretty strong?