> The Ukrainians are still willing to fight for their own soil so your point is illogical and irrelevant.
This thread is about bringing Ukraine and Georgia into NATO, which means we would be obligated to fight on the ground to defend those countries. I don't know what you're arguing against, but it seems you didn't read the thread.
Strictly speaking, it obligates the US (like any other NATO member), in the event of an attack on any other member, to “individually and in concert with the other [NATO members], such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.”
It’s quite plausible the US could do that without deciding to “fight on the ground”.
As for Georgia, they are a sovereign state and can make their own decisions. If they want to join and meet the criteria then let them join. How is Georgia any different from Finland in that regard?
A policy of aggressive containment keeps us safer by wasting Russian resources. When we surround them with hostile powers they have to spend more on defending their homeland and have less for building nuclear weapons or launching invasions. Keep them poor.
And anyway you haven't even proposed a viable alternative. There's no point in negotiating with Putin: he doesn't negotiate in good faith. Even if we gave him huge concessions now he would just come back and demand more in a few years. Nor are we in a position to be able to offer the type of concessions that Russia seems to want. Ukrainian territory and Georgian sovereign freedom of action aren't ours to give away. The citizens of those countries will have to decide for themselves.
Basically there's isn't a difference, Finland shouldn't be in NATO either. Americans have no business defending Finland of all places. Georgia is even less of a concern, it might as well be on the moon for all the national interest we have in Georgia.
> When we surround them with hostile powers they have to spend more on defending their homeland and have less for building nuclear weapons or launching invasions.
Right, the cornered dog theory. Maybe he'll bark himself to sleep before he bites you.
> And anyway you haven't even proposed a viable alternative.
The alternative is that countries negotiate with regional powers and try to maintain friendly relations. The US is not world policeman and we can't afford to play one on TV, because it invites situations like the Ukrainian one.
A very shortsighted view. Norway, Sweden and Finland are currently setting up a joint air force command so that in case of war, they could deliver a fatal blow to the Russian Northern Fleet at Murmansk. The Northern Fleet operates in the Atlantic and is the largest threat to shipping between North America and Europe. They represent the U-boats of the 21st century. Americans get incredible value from closer cooperation with Finland and Sweden.
> The alternative is that countries negotiate with regional powers and try to maintain friendly relations.
And what if it doesn't work out and instead a fascist regime first rolls over the entire Europe again and then starts to threaten rest of the world?
You are not proposing anything new.[1] This line of thought had wide support between the two world wars. The current system of international organizations and alliances is a "lesson learned" from that period.