I truly hope you're right! I'm doubtful, but I do hope so.

stop spreading Russian disinformation

WTF? I sincerely don't understand why you're so averse to what I'm saying. I'm not anti-NATO by any means — I'm only stating a fact that I thought would be very cut and dry.

https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_110496.htm

With the invocation of Article 5, Allies can provide any form of assistance they deem necessary to respond to a situation. This is an individual obligation on each Ally and each Ally is responsible for determining what it deems necessary in the particular circumstances.

This assistance is taken forward in concert with other Allies.** It is not necessarily military** and depends on the material resources of each country. It is therefore left to the judgment of each individual member country to determine how it will contribute. Each country will consult with the other members, bearing in mind that the ultimate aim is to “to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area”.

At the drafting of Article 5 in the late 1940s, there was consensus on the principle of mutual assistance, but fundamental disagreement on the modalities of implementing this commitment. The European participants wanted to ensure that the United States would automatically come to their assistance should one of the signatories come under attack; the United States did not want to make such a pledge and obtained that this be reflected in the wording of Article 5.

Afghanistan would be a good example. This explains it in better detail than I could, especially since I've been forbidden from discussing international treaties: https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/five-myths-about-nato-and-afghanistan

You perhaps missed the second part of my reply about the post-9/11 response. If I understand what you've been trying to say here, you're implying that all NATO members must participate after Article 5 is invoked, which is not the case.

… and was Article 5 triggered any of those times?

No, which is my point. Allow myself to quote... myself:

Well, we can also look at precedent. Article 5 was applied only once in NATO’s history, despite multiple other occasions where NATO could have done so.

As for your other line of thought:

in the scope of the treaty (which, yes, must actually be triggered), a response from all member states is mandatory.

This is also demonstrably incorrect. If we look at the single time Article 5 was triggered, 9/11, the response was not all-in. The largest-scale combined effort I think was patrols in the Mediterranean.

You’re the one that says we should turn to precedent, and said there have been multiple occasions NATO could have triggered Article 5 but wasn’t. When were these other times? You made the statement, now provide evidence.

I'm sure I'm missing some, but:

• Soviet blockade of Berlin
• Argentine attack on the Falklands
• Iraqi attacks on Turkey
• Syrian attacks on Turkey
• Russian missile landing in Poland last year

Wew, it's rare for leaders to directly call out China like this, but I like it!

Ah yes, the "I'm not racist, but..." demographic.

You tell me, you're the one who says Article 5 is a guarantee. It has been used only once (9/11)

Well, we can also look at precedent. Article 5 was applied only once in NATO's history, despite multiple other occasions where NATO could have done so. I do think that a deliberate Russian attack on a NATO member would trigger a response, but history shows it clearly isn't mandatory.

This is true, but it still makes some kind of action necessary, even if it’s not necessarily direct military action.

"such action as it deems necessary" could be no action at all.

People here will downvote the most objectively factual statements... I've stopped wondering what goes through their head.