They are under an obligation to decide what they want to do collectively. If they decide that it was an aggression, then they are under obligation to provide support. It can be exact same"support" that Europe is already providing to Ukraine. That’s too say not much of it
The Article 5 wording is vague. It states that an attack against one member “shall be considered an attack against them all.” What is quoted less often is that each member state only has an obligation to take “such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force.”
They are under an obligation to decide what they want to do collectively. If they decide that it was an aggression, then they are under obligation to provide support. It can be exact same"support" that Europe is already providing to Ukraine. That’s too say not much of it
You’re thinking of article 4.
The Article 5 wording is vague. It states that an attack against one member “shall be considered an attack against them all.” What is quoted less often is that each member state only has an obligation to take “such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force.”
https://cepa.org/article/willfully-vague-why-natos-article-5-is-so-misunderstood/