[Goose]

At its core, NATO is a defensive alliance against a capricious, nuclear-armed entity.  No NATO country has actually been invaded at this point, and Ukraine is not a NATO member.  Let's not get too crazy about what individual nations should or shouldn't have done earlier, as satisfying it would have been to see a concerted response that didn't go nuclear.

Agree. NATO nations are only going to do what they believe is in their own best interests at the time. This does include keeping NATO as at least a credible deterrent to the capricious nuclear power next door. NATO members have to at least keep up appearances. So far, the only Article 5 invocation was by the US in Afghanistan. The responses were, to say the least, a bit underwhelming, partly because of lack of capability and partly because nobody really believed the US needed any help.

The old "base" NATO members didn't really think through the admission of all the ex-Warsaw Pact members. Countries like e.g. France realize their safety in Europe is tied to the freedom of Germany, but are much more ambivalent about e.g. Bulgaria. That is just a fact and it is a problem for NATO. NATO has on paper committed to "defend" lots of countries that many of the more "significant" NATO nations really don't care about and even more importantly do not have domestic political support to defend. They will "die for Berlin" and probably will "die for Warsaw".  Budapest, not so much. The Baltics insist on hosting NATO ground forces as "hostage" units to ensure that if they are attacked NATO will already have "skin in the game". They are fully aware that a "so sorry, too hard to do" response to an Article 5 invocation is definitely a real possibility from at least some of their NATO partners. Historically, they have been promised help that in the event never arrived.

Ukraine was regarded by essentially everyone as the Baltics on steroids. The degree of difficulty is large and the probability of having to respond to an Article 5 was considered too high. The political will in the "key" NATO nations was just not there. On this board it is often treated as a given that Ukraine will end up in NATO. It isn't. Consider the resistance even in the US to spending more money on Ukraine. Imagine the resistance to going to war in Ukraine. That would be a non-starter IMO. NATO has already expanded into areas that its actual ability and will to defend is legitimately questioned. Ukraine membership will stretch this credibility even further. Is it "good" for them and is it "good" for NATO? IMO, it is not unless the NATO nations "mean it" and their commitment is credible. As of now, those conditions do not exist.

[Goose]

At its core, NATO is a defensive alliance against a capricious, nuclear-armed entity.  No NATO country has actually been invaded at this point, and Ukraine is not a NATO member.  Let's not get too crazy about what individual nations should or shouldn't have done earlier, as satisfying it would have been to see a concerted response that didn't go nuclear.

Agree. NATO nations are only going to do what they believe is in their own best interests at the time. This does include keeping NATO as at least a credible deterrent to the capricious nuclear power next door. NATO members have to at least keep up appearances. So far, the only Article 5 invocation was by the US in Afghanistan. The responses were, to say the least, a bit underwhelming, partly because of lack of capability and partly because nobody really believed the US needed any help.

The old "base" NATO members didn't really think through the admission of all the ex-Warsaw Pact members. Countries like e.g. France realize their safety in Europe is tied to the freedom of Germany, but are much more ambivalent about e.g. Bulgaria. That is just a fact and it is a problem for NATO. NATO has on paper committed to "defend" lots of countries that many of the more "significant" NATO nations really don't care about and even more importantly do not have domestic political support to defend. They will "die for Berlin" and probably will "die for Warsaw".  Budapest, not so much. The Baltics insist on hosting NATO ground forces as "hostage" units to ensure that if they are attacked NATO will already have "skin in the game". They are fully aware that a "so sorry, too hard to do" response to an Article 5 invocation is definitely a real possibility from at least some of their NATO partners. Historically, they have been promised help that in the event never arrived.

Ukraine was regarded by essentially everyone as the Baltics on steroids. The degree of difficulty is large and the probability of having to respond to an Article 5 was considered too high. The political will in the "key" NATO nations was just not there. On this board it is often treated as a given that Ukraine will end up in NATO. It isn't. Consider the resistance even in the US to spending more money on Ukraine. Imagine the resistance to going to war in Ukraine. That would be a non-starter IMO. NATO has already expanded into areas that its actual ability and will to defend is legitimately questioned. Ukraine membership will stretch this credibility even further. Is it "good" for them and is it "good" for NATO? IMO, it is not unless the NATO nations "mean it" and their commitment is credible. As of now, those conditions do not exist.