Yes? It says "will assist" and "such action as it deems necessary". That doesn't obligate them to provide a military response. What makes you believe otherwise?

Because no member wants to be seen as unreliable, risking their own security in the future, so everyone will in practice assist in any way they can.

Or they might calculate WWIII isn't worth it? Imagine Russia attacks Latvia. Would the US really risk getting into direct conflict with Russia over it?

Would the US really risk its name and face ignoring their biggest and most powerful military alliance? Honour and keeping your word are very important in geopolitics, especially among countries that have been allied for almost a century, and you won't remain the top dog very long if you avoid your duties at the first difficulty.

So yes, if Russia attacks Latvia, you better believe the US is gonna send everything they have against Russia. That's the whole point of NATO.

I'm pro NATO, but I don't think the support of the US is guaranteed. The US has always been an unreliable partner: it depends on who's in power.

If the republican war hawks or moderate Democrats are in power they would support Latvia, but libertarians and far leftists would say "it's not our problem".

There are no libertarians or far left politicians in the Oval Office, now or in the near future.

I cannot speak to how the US would behave in 50 years, but being true to its word it is mandatory for the US to project itself as the "world leader". The day the Oval Office is able to ignore its allies, it is the day the US is no longer a global leader.

That's simply the cost to pay to be seen as the leader of the free world. The fact that some US politicians openly want to go down the route of reneging its allies speaks volumes about how long the US empire will last.

Is Trump a libertarian or a far leftist? Because he's currently the cause of these discussions -- he's the one that people have the most doubts would agree to defending Latvia.

He's neither. He's a big State conservative populist that cozies up to the far-right cretins as they represent what a lot of the silent, dissatisfied majority thinks.

Would you really go to war over another country at the risk of you and your country getting nuked?

Yes.. ? Russia already and continuously threatening other countries, the US included

Can you convince the US population of that so that they'd be willing to risk their lives in a nuclear war?

The risk is not getting involved. NATO is first and foremost a deterrent, destroying the credibility of that deterrent would destroy the rationale for NATO.

To say nothing of the fact that it'd just be an invite to Russia to invade more countries.

The seeds of WWII were sown by the appeasement of Hitler, which merely emboldened him.

If the US didn't then NATO is effectively toothless, if the US did then Russia would be destroyed. I'm sure lots of officials in Moscow have spent a lot of time thinking about it.

> if the US did then Russia would be destroyed

So would a lot of the US. I'm not sure Americans would want to die over this.

Yes.

Capitalist US would never let such a big market go east without a fight.