ukraine will not be in . As even Article V has been reduced to talking .
As Article 5 has yet to be really tested, no one is quite sure what will happen once invoked.
The text of the article does not say that NATO members are obligated to respond militarily, although that is one possibility. I believe it only asks for some sort of collective response.
Presumably this is supposed to give maximum clarity as to one's national policy and leave little room for backstabbing and whatnot, as which predated the First World War. ex. "Frace is in NATO; we in the UK aren't throwing them to the wolves to save our own skin."
If that's "talk", well, that's certainly one opinion.
As for the video posted, it makes a big point about how Eastern Europeans see (and did see) incursions by Moscow into territories which proclaimed their independence from it, to justify their ascension in to NATO out of one of fear. While I'm very sure that's true, I doubt very much that that's how Russians see things and probably view the Chechen Wars
et al as little more than police actions which don't constitute wars
per se.
I'd have to look at figures and dates, but I'd be curious to know if the
rate of NATO expansion actually slowed down in the two decades before the invasion of Ukraine. As the last member to join NATO before then was Macedonia (2020). At that point, was Russia truly concerned about being attacked? Was Macedonia really some last straw?