[Goose]

I think in those scenarios, NATO would probably destroy whatever site or plane launched the missiles, if any make it through NATO missile defenses that is.

As far as I am aware, nobody in NATO has anything that can shoot down any of the missiles used by the S-400 system.

I don't think NATO would heed any threat like that.

It wouldn't be "NATO". It would be the individual countries that would need to act. Russia has in fact shot down US aircraft that were not in Russian airspace before. Nobody said "boo", including the US. I can pretty much guarantee you that if Russia shot down a C-17 over Poland that was carrying arms destined for Ukraine (after stating that they would do exactly that), several NATO countries would basically say we asked for it and they don't much care. Shooting down an airplane carrying arms to your enemy doesn't rise to the definition of "attack" in many peoples view. The US wouldn't dare try to invoke Article 5 because they know they wouldn't get enough support, which indeed would make NATO look ineffective. The US could then strike the Russian missile site that launched the missiles. That is US attacking Russia, which we have gone out of our way to avoid in the Ukraine war. We have tolerated such actions by Russia in the past. I don't know what happens here, but it is pretty clear there are no good choices.

Similarly, threatening to strike a Polish city if any more aid comes through Poland creates an interesting political problem. If you are the Polish government, what do you tell your people? Do you say "We have to risk this for our brothers in Ukraine.", and if you do say that, can you sell it? If Russia then does strike a Polish city, does Poland invoke article 5 and request a general war against Russia? Again, the "you asked for it" votes will be a problem. On top of that, if Poland just stops allowing the US to help Ukraine through their territory, there won't be any more attacks on their cities. If there is a general war, there will be. What does the Polish government do?

The problem is that article 5 was designed to deter (and if necessary defeat) a general attack by the USSR on any NATO state. It was always assumed that was the only scenario. The idea that a NATO state might actually do something aggressive to provoke retaliation by the USSR was never contemplated. NATO also has no real plan to fight a limited war, where the object isn't to crush Russia. It was always assumed that if a war started, it was to the death.

While all of us undoubtedly feel Russia's aggression against Ukraine is immoral and must be stopped, we haven't yet had to risk a war to do so. Invoking article 5 will start a general war. Ukraine is not part of NATO. There are many Europeans who realize that the war will be fought in Europe (unless it goes full on nuclear), so their homes will be at risk, not ours. If they chose not to fight, Russia isn't going to blow up their cities (right now anyway). If they do chose to fight, Russia will certainly attempt to do so. NATO was designed to combat an immediate existential threat. That isn't the case at the moment, so probably several (most?) NATO states will not fight. Arguably, Biden agrees with this choice since he has refused to involve the US directly. It isn't as simple as it appears IMHO.

[Goose]

I think in those scenarios, NATO would probably destroy whatever site or plane launched the missiles, if any make it through NATO missile defenses that is.

As far as I am aware, nobody in NATO has anything that can shoot down any of the missiles used by the S-400 system.

I don't think NATO would heed any threat like that.

It wouldn't be "NATO". It would be the individual countries that would need to act. Russia has in fact shot down US aircraft that were not in Russian airspace before. Nobody said "boo", including the US. I can pretty much guarantee you that if Russia shot down a C-17 over Poland that was carrying arms destined for Ukraine (after stating that they would do exactly that), several NATO countries would basically say we asked for it and they don't much care. Shooting down an airplane carrying arms to your enemy doesn't rise to the definition of "attack" in many peoples view. The US wouldn't dare try to invoke Article 5 because they know they wouldn't get enough support, which indeed would make NATO look ineffective. The US could then strike the Russian missile site that launched the missiles. That is US attacking Russia, which we have gone out of our way to avoid in the Ukraine war. We have tolerated such actions by Russia in the past. I don't know what happens here, but it is pretty clear there are no good choices.

Similarly, threatening to strike a Polish city if any more aid comes through Poland creates an interesting political problem. If you are the Polish government, what do you tell your people? Do you say "We have to risk this for our brothers in Ukraine.", and if you do say that, can you sell it? If Russia then does strike a Polish city, does Poland invoke article 5 and request a general war against Russia? Again, the "you asked for it" votes will be a problem. On top of that, if Poland just stops allowing the US to help Ukraine through their territory, there won't be any more attacks on their cities. If there is a general war, there will be. What does the Polish government do?

The problem is that article 5 was designed to deter (and if necessary defeat) a general attack by the USSR on any NATO state. It was always assumed that was the only scenario. The idea that a NATO state might actually do something aggressive to provoke retaliation by the USSR was never contemplated. NATO also has no real plan to fight a limited war, where the object isn't to crush Russia. It was always assumed that if a war started, it was to the death.

While all of us undoubtedly feel Russia's aggression against Ukraine is immoral and must be stopped, we haven't yet had to risk a war to do so. Invoking article 5 will start a general war. Ukraine is not part of NATO. There are many Europeans who realize that the war will be fought in Europe (unless it goes full on nuclear), so their homes will be at risk, not ours. If they chose not to fight, Russia isn't going to blow up their cities (right now anyway). If they do chose to fight, Russia will certainly attempt to do so. NATO was designed to combat an immediate existential threat. That isn't the case at the moment, so probably several (most?) NATO states will not fight. Arguably, Biden agrees with this choice since he has refused to involve the US directly. It isn't as simple as it appears IMHO.