[kbart]

Exactly. I do live in a country bordering Russia and we have been occupied by it twice during the last two hundred years. NATO is seen as the only way to keep our independence. Look and Georgia and Ukraine know -- both these countries started in a similar position as we after the breakup of USSR, the key difference was that they haven't joined NATO and/or EU.

[prebrov]

In the 150 years before WW II ended there has hardly been 20 years of peace in Europe in one stretch.

Domestic European squabble developed into bloodiest conflicts the world had seen, more than once, never mind whole continents in submission and despair up until the 50s. Yet it is Russia that poses perpetual imminent threat.

Very unfortunately for territories bordering Russia, they are a, indeed, a buffer zone and get mowed down and/or change hands every time shit hits the fan. Equally so, in fact, by Russia and by the Western (“Proper”) Europe.

[gsnedders]

> Look and Georgia and Ukraine know -- both these countries started in a similar position as we after the breakup of USSR, the key difference was that they haven't joined NATO and/or EU.

Semi-seriously: Ukraine at least had a treaty securing its borders by the US, UK, and Russia. If the US and UK aren't willing to act on that treaty, what makes one think they'd act on a NATO Article V invocation by them if they were NATO members?

[kbart]

Because not invoking NATO Article V would immediately render the whole alliance useless (as this article is the whole point of NATO) and I'm sure no member of it would risk that. Russia pulling a similar trick as in Ukraine on any NATO member without serious consequences would be an achievement comparable to the victory of the Cold War.

[Spooky23]

Attacking that commitment is likely a big part of why we have the political situation that we have in the US today.