If an individual country intervenes directly in a war, it doesn't trigger article 5, since they are the ones declaring the war. If, let's say, Germany does so, it may find itself in a war with Russia and may have to fight it without the support of the rest of Nato.
Now, if Russia escalates a conflict and tries to occupy Germany directly, or especially if they use nukes, that could be seen as grounds for invoking article 5, even if Germany initiated the hostilities. But simply fighting a war over a neighbour such as Ukraine or Finland may not be seen as enough qualification.
Consdier 9/11 and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq (second war). After 9/11, article 5 was invoked, and the USA was receiving support from most of Nato when invading Afghanistan based on that. On the other hand, when they invaded Iraq, that was not seen as covered by Article 5, so only the closest allies joined.
Of course, Germany, a country with 2x the GDP of Russia and a huge manufacturing sector _could_ have chosen to have a military powerful enough to resist Russian aggression even with most of Nato staying out of the fight, but until now, it seems that Germans have been more afraid of future German aggression than future Russian aggression. This may have changed, though.
At this time, Russia is bleeding enough in Ukraine that they probably don't want to add a front against Finland. If they fail in Ukraine, they may stay discouraged for a long time. However, if Putin does achieve his goals in Ukraine, he may want repeat his strategy over countries like Finland or Moldova, or even try to intimidate the Baltics or Poland.
If Germany (and other Central or Northern European Nato countries) restore their militaries to about cold war levels, that will change these equations significantly. Suddenly a limited conventional war against just a few neighbours may become a much greater risk, or even unwinnable for Russia.
Until then, I'm afraid that it actually IS a concern for investors that Finland is not a Nato member
Now, if Russia escalates a conflict and tries to occupy Germany directly, or especially if they use nukes, that could be seen as grounds for invoking article 5, even if Germany initiated the hostilities. But simply fighting a war over a neighbour such as Ukraine or Finland may not be seen as enough qualification.
Consdier 9/11 and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq (second war). After 9/11, article 5 was invoked, and the USA was receiving support from most of Nato when invading Afghanistan based on that. On the other hand, when they invaded Iraq, that was not seen as covered by Article 5, so only the closest allies joined.
Of course, Germany, a country with 2x the GDP of Russia and a huge manufacturing sector _could_ have chosen to have a military powerful enough to resist Russian aggression even with most of Nato staying out of the fight, but until now, it seems that Germans have been more afraid of future German aggression than future Russian aggression. This may have changed, though.
At this time, Russia is bleeding enough in Ukraine that they probably don't want to add a front against Finland. If they fail in Ukraine, they may stay discouraged for a long time. However, if Putin does achieve his goals in Ukraine, he may want repeat his strategy over countries like Finland or Moldova, or even try to intimidate the Baltics or Poland.
If Germany (and other Central or Northern European Nato countries) restore their militaries to about cold war levels, that will change these equations significantly. Suddenly a limited conventional war against just a few neighbours may become a much greater risk, or even unwinnable for Russia.
Until then, I'm afraid that it actually IS a concern for investors that Finland is not a Nato member