>2. NATO agreements are fair or ridiculous depending on the outcome one expects. If a member is attacked, that is a declaration of war on ALL members. Consider

>2. NATO agreements are fair or ridiculous depending on the outcome one expects. If a member is attacked, that is a declaration of war on ALL members. Consider a rogue state/leader member picking war with a nuclear power and escalating to the point of no return. What then? Everyone talks about Article 5, but you can't forget about Article 1: >The Parties undertake, as set forth in the Charter of the United Nations, to settle any international dispute in which they may be involved by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security and justice are not endangered, and to refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force in any manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations. A state in violation of Article 1 might not be granted Article 5 protections. The situation in Ukraine currently is that Russia violated the Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances by fomenting a rebellion in Crimea in 2014: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum_on_Security_Assurances#Annexation_of_Crimea_by_Russia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum_on_Securit... Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov basically admitted violating the Memorandum when he lied about its content: >In February 2016, Sergey Lavrov claimed, "Russia never violated Budapest memorandum. It contained only one obligation, not to attack Ukraine with nukes." https://twitter.com/RussianEmbassy/status/692321689254830080 https://twitter.com/RussianEmbassy/status/692321689254830080 Of course this is not consistent with the actual text: >The Russian Federation, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the United States of America reaffirm their commitment to Ukraine, in accordance with the principles of the Final Act of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe, to respect the independence and sovereignty and the existing borders of Ukraine Now if Russia wanted to argue that admitting Ukraine into NATO would violate the BMSA, they might have a decent argument... if, that is, they hadn't flagrantly ignored it and denied that it even says anything about independence in the first place.