> The NATO message was clear & consistent that they will intervene in case of an attack on a member - there's 0 reason to believe otherwise.
Unfortunately that's not true.
The previous US president (who still has significant backing with US Congress and Senate) said this when asked about Article 5:
> I want to keep NATO but I want them to pay. I don’t want to be taken advantage of… We’re protecting countries that most of the people in this room have never even heard of and we end up in world war three… Give me a break[1]
And he later refused speeches that included a commitment to article 5:
> The crucial nuance is that Trump did not say that NATO’s original mission of countering Russian power in Europe is no longer obsolete. Indeed, he has never acknowledged this. The closest he has come is a general statement of strong support with caveats attached for burden sharing and counterterrorism. Trump’s failure to endorse Article 5 is not an oversight. Members of his cabinet have unsuccessfully tried to insert this language into his remarks, including at his meeting with Stoltenberg.[1]
Now eventually, Trump did endorse Article 5[2], but that kind of reluctance would have been very well noted in Moscow.
> Keep in mind that Putin's mythos was blown to pieces, there's no way he can (politically, if not physically) survive this.
After 9 days of war you think there is no way he can survive? Are you not familiar with the origins of Putin's Chechen War?
Claiming that Putin is done because a war he is winning is unpopular in the West is naive. It's certainly possible he is in trouble, but there is a long, long way to go before he falls.
[1] https://www.brookings.edu/blog/order-from-chaos/2017/05/17/t...
[2] https://edition.cnn.com/2017/06/09/politics/trump-commits-to...
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Chechen_War#Bombings_in...