"Valid" as in feasible? No. The war was started to keep Ukraine out of NATO, and Ukraine wasn't fully backed by NATO in the war because it isn't willing to go to war with Russia just for Ukraine.

[–] tomatolung@lemmy.world 6 points 8 hours ago (1 children)

I'm not an expert, but have read a decent amount on this. Others may have more and better info.

With that said, even if an Article 5 invocation won't bring the US into your fight, it provides a hefty infrastructure of value to countries in it. From basing, to logistics, to intelligence, to aid, it is valuable. Now the politics of it are complicated and the US can hinder some of that value, but it still means that in Europe if Russia provides an Article 5 reason, other countries in NATO can choose to help in various forms. That's not nothing. It's also faster and less arduous then negotiating individual defense treaties with neighbors and others.

So yes, overall probably still worth it. Even if just as an entree into other alliances.

[–] Quill7513@slrpnk.net 5 points 8 hours ago (1 children)

i think the thread starter question is more about if nato is even about to continue existing

[–] Skyrmir@lemmy.world 0 points 5 hours ago (1 children)

From what I'm seeing out of Germany, NATO isn't going anywhere. The US might not be a continuing part of it.

Also there's still an off chance China might play a part in Ukraine. They have Putin by the short and curlies, and could offer a better deal than the US for mineral rights. It might hinge on if Trump pisses off Xi with this trade war crap, or gets in the way of him taking Taiwan.

[–] Grapho@lemmy.ml 1 points 34 minutes ago* (last edited 33 minutes ago)

Sure, in the way The Spiders From Mars didn't go anywhere after Bowie fucked off.

[–] ultranaut@lemmy.world -1 points 8 hours ago

Until the Russian government gives up on imperial conquest of other nations, yes.