Bet on it. We have been shown to be week and unwilling to hold up our agreements. We had an agreement to protect Ukraine in order for them to disarm. We didn't hold up our treaty. What makes NATO any more of a viable treaty than the one we had with Ukraine?
As far as I was concerned I thought every former Soviet satellite country should have been hustled into NATO as quickly as possible following the Soviet collapse in 1989. We dithered for three decades and the Bear decided they wanted their empire back. They will more than likely achieve the their goals. They have no compunction about mass slaughter.
U.S. reneged on agreement not to move NATO eastward. That was the condition of Soviet retreat from Eeast Germany.
During one security conference in Europe Ruskies asked why NATO insists on putting it's bases close to Russian borders. And U.S. general quipped - and why you put your borders close to our bases? It was a joke, but not funny one. It gave Ruskies an insight into mentality of the U.S./NATOs top rank.
It's seems that after losing Cold War Ruskies adopted Western spirit and the West adopted Soviet spirit.
Ruskies have no intention to invade NATO countries but in case NATO attacks them they will use nuclear weapons without hesitation. Because "they put Russian borders too close to NATO bases" Only fool does not see this.
Think of NATO rapid deployment force several brigades strong to fight Russia. What it can do except to bait the bear?
It seems that fools are bent on starting nuclear war. Perhaps that's a part of larger scheme of things smart people could not figure out.