the NATO treaty requires an attack for a response in kind, but you probably know that. Or maybe you don't?
Like... the attack of Yugoslavia against a nato member? Or the attack of Libya against a nato member? Wait a minute, perhaps you can show us when art. 5 was invoked in those cases?
Or even... Afghanistan! Did Afghanistan attack any nato member? Did America present evidence to the taliban, showing osama's implication in 9/11? There's no such evidence to this day!
Perhaps NATO has some restraint vs. the failure running the Kremlin?
On the contrary, nato is a very aggressive terrorist organization that ONLY ATTACKED OTHER COUNTRIES WITHOUT PROVOCATION and at least one of its members is permanently at war with some country, illegally invading and attacking it.
Nato is powerless against Russia otherwise they'd have attacked it long ago. Instead they're pushing for these proxy conflicts(by fooling/bribing poor and stupid regimes), knowing that others will have to suffer the losses.
Russia has shown way too much restraint and tolerated too much aggressive and criminal crap from the us/nato. And not just Russia, but rather most of the world has been too tolerant of America's criminal and warmongering behavior!
Russia could do a lot of stuff in Ukraine hat it hasn't done so far:
- destroy energy infrastructure
- destroy telecommunications infrastructure
- destroy all rails that go to adversary countries
- establish a no-man's-land zone, say 20 km from the border in the west/south(expel all the population, ban any kind of movement through those borders, monitor the area with drones)
- impose the death penalty for any non-ukrainian/russian/belarussian caught in ukraine(except perhaps for a few authorized journalists)
- target the moronic leadership in kiev
