[scotty79]

> This scenario wouldn't trigger Article 5.

Really? Does it have to be unprovoked attack? And what exactly means unprovoked? Does having a peace mission in some neighbouring country and defending yourself there counts as provocation? Who decides that? And do you think that the definition that would be most geopolitically convenient at that moment wouldn't be chosen?

[qsort]

> Who decides that? And do you think that the definition that would be most geopolitically convenient at that moment wouldn't be chosen?

Oh absolutely it would.

The Charter is just a lot of verbiage around two promises: NATO members will defend each other, and NATO won't wage aggressive war.

If you are so inclined you can also doubt Article 5 itself: are we really going to unleash the apocalypse over Latvia? Wouldn't we be tempted to bend the rules in that case as well?

The point is whether you believe those promises to be credible. IMHO history implies they largely are, but that's something reasonable people can disagree on.

[dragonwriter]

> NATO members will defend each other, and NATO won't wage aggressive war.

Article 4 is also important, and more actual NATO interventions have been triggered by Article 4 consultations than Article 5 direct mutual defense.

NATO is a regional security organization with a mutual defense commitment, not a pure defensive alliance.