>

Yep, hence why NATO countries are supporting Ukraine. They see the threat that Russia poses. It's good that helping Ukraine is aligned from both the strategic defense and moral points of view.
"De Facto" literally means not in accordance to law, but effectively the same.  Nearly every single NATO member is providing military assistance to Ukraine.  The effective difference between the aid they are retrieving and full NATO membership could be debatable since NATO doesn't require member nations to send ground forces or control airspace or even declare war with the invading nation. >


NATO doesn't require member nations to send ground forces or control airspace or even declare war with the invading nation.

What good is Article 5, then, if all member nations can decline to declare war? >

If article 5 is invoked all of the members of NATO will come to the attacked country’s defense with such action that they deem necessary. That have to contribute in one way or another but they are not all required to or expected to fully mobilize their militaries and send them to war because there are NATO members whose militaries are irrelevant.  Like… if NATO went to war with Russia a country like Croatia really has nothing meaningful to contribute militarily so they would find other ways to contribute. >

Okay, what's stopping the U.S. from sending "Thoughts and Prayers"? >

If somehow the U.S. congress and president justified to themselves that 'thoughts and prayers' were deemed 'necessary', then maybe.  Article 5 does say that member nations should act in sufficient capacity as if they were themselves attacked. >

In a capacity as if my own country were attacked would mean boots on the ground and planes in the sky. I can't imagine it would be much different for any nation. >

I would hope so, but the treaty allows a lot of wiggle room.   I guess it's better to allow a bit of slack than to break the treaty altogether? >

He said it just to troll Putin.  For the lulz! >

I mean, yeah, they're doing our dirty work, field testing the new toys. >

They haven’t tested anything much. Everything we’ve given is super old. Javelins are old. M777s are old. HIMARS are old. The only relatively new thing is the switchblade suicide drones. >

You forgot the air defense systems that have never been used in combat:
- Starstreak
- NASAMS
- IRIS-T >

They've all proven effective too, from what I've read. >

Sorry, no. But we really really want you to win. Russia’s invasion is an obscenity - horrific, unnecessary, unjustified, an affront to the modern world, society and people everywhere. >

Unfortunately, despite what a lot of western commentators/Reddit is saying, UKR is in a bit of a dire situation. Unless they get some serious firepower…last month, it’s going to be a pretty rough couple of months for them. >

They are definitely in a dire situation. They have a massive invasion on their country, infrastructure is being destroyed like crazy, millions of people have had to leave (and many were forced), the ones there have to survive with minimal services, often no electricity, gas, etc. - in winter... and there are many instances of torture, mass killings of civilians. The list goes on and on. >

Membership with NATO would mean the west would officially declare war on Russia and they’d be challenged on multiple fronts. 
I wish they were in NATO though. This slow meat grinder war does nobody (but Putin) any good. >

It actually only requires the other members assist in whatever manner they deem reasonable and are able, this can be anything from humanitarian aid to full blown declaration of war. Funny enough the EU has stronger military defense terms than NATO does. >


It actually only requires the other members assist in whatever manner they deem reasonable and are able, this can be anything from humanitarian aid to full blown declaration of war.

What's stopping every nation, then, from sending "Thoughts and Prayers"? >

Nothing >

Holy shit! >

In a way, one could argue Ukraine is protecting NATO instead of NATO protecting Ukraine….