So then how come hasn't Article 5 been activated yet? Does that mean that said Article 5 is not even worth the piece of paper it has been written on?

Your first comments suggests it isn't happening ("which nato countries")

Now, predictably upon being told that it happens you pivot to NATO is useless.

Which is it: a set of attacks so obscure no reasonable person would be aware, or a horrendous onslaught where Article 5 should have been invoked and a mass retaliation begun?

NATO countries historically didn't invoke Article 5 even for terrorist attacks killing their own citizens. It takes a certain level before it makes sense to invoke, normally something beyond the capacity of that country to handle.

I was trying to follow my respondents' reasoning, as in, if Russia had indeed attacked NATO countries, which they said it had indeed happen, then how come NATO, being a defensive alliance first and foremost, didn't do anything about it?

In other words, and following Eastern-European logic (which, trust me, helps in cases like this one, I'm from Eastern Europe myself), had Russia really attacked any NATO countries you and me both wouldn't be in here having this conversation over the internet.

> if Russia had indeed attacked NATO countries, which they said it had indeed happen, then how come NATO, being a defensive alliance first and foremost, didn't do anything about it?

This was already answered but to be clear: ”doing something” and ”invoking article 5” is like the difference between saying ”asshole” in traffic vs rallying your friends to murder the driver’s family.

One could argue NATO countries should respond stronger to hybrid and clandestine warfare. Right now, we see a lot of ”angry letters”. But, it’s not clear eye for an eye is a strategically sound response, partly because it legitimizes the methods, and partly because it escalates tensions towards a war that nobody wants. Israel for instance takes an entirely different stance, basically retaliating with maximum force to deter the enemy (similar to punching the ”school bully” so hard, just once, that he stops). I don’t claim to be a diplomatic expert, but it’s worth noting that Israel is currently engaged in several major wars and conflicts, and tensions have grown.

Thankfully they don’t think it’s worth invoking article 5 over that. It’s not an automatism obviously, we’re talking about WW3 here. Would you rather be “technically” right here?

> Thankfully they don’t think it’s worth invoking article 5 over that

Is there a threshold anywhere in the NATO treaty that I'm unaware of?

If there wasn't, wouldn't we had WW3 already?

You're arguing with a Romanian russia sympathizer, it is pretty much pointless.

> NATO countries historically didn't invoke Article 5 even for terrorist attacks killing their own citizens

The only time Article 5 has been invoked was when terrorists attacked America in 9/11.

And a lot of non-NATO countries offered support too, including Ukraine. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Participants_in_Operation_Endu...

Article 5 over a couple of munitions depots?

Because that would still be a disproportionate response and make NATO the aggressor, playing right into Russian hands.

The Russian military is already being destroyed in Ukraine (and even in Russia). The proportionate response is to give Ukraine everything they need to destroy Russia in a war that Russia chose to start. A war that they opened with a surprise invasion, no less. They are unambiguously the aggressor in their war in Ukraine and they should be defeated there, and we should give Ukraine everything they need to do that.

NATO attacking Russia would definitely not be playing into Russia's hands. Very bad for Russia, very costly for NATO, long war would make the voters unhappy, and India and China would feel rightly threatened.

Russian and Ukrainian militaries are being destroyed, but it also matters how fast they are being rebuilt. As mentioned above, Russia and Ukraine are debugging all their outdated military doctrines. The survivors will have a lot of hard-won experience.

> The survivors will have a lot of hard-won experience.

the west would not want russia to be that survivor.

What I meant was any direct NATO aggression against Russia would validate Russia's current "victimhood" narrative, and provide after the fact justification for their invasion of Ukraine in the first place.

They are very intentionally doing things that would not justify a full military retaliation by NATO.

Aside from political reasons stated in other answers: Since Article 5 doesn't apply. article 5 states: "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 [...]" Thist deliberately talks about "armed" attack. Cyber attacks and related aren't covered.

https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/official_texts_17120.htm

Article 5 is an option. Not a game mechanic.

> Article 5 is an option. Not a game mechanic.

Tell that to the very pro-Western political leaders here in Eastern Europe, they won't take that well at all.

There's no need to respond with force. Russia will lose in the long-term due to sanctions as long as Republicans don't cock everything up even more by making deals with Russians and slowing down trade in the global west. Russians are wasting money and gear in Ukraine and becoming weaker. It's just a matter of time before China starts making claims on land they lost to the Soviets. Russians will lose this war the same way they lost the cold war; by cutting themselves off from the maritime economy.

China will never allow Russia to lose. They know they are next on the list. It seems more that the west in its decline will become less and less relevant. The west needs to understand that they are no longer the only dominant player.