[alienicecream]

> How is Georgia any different from Finland in that regard?

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.

[mopsi]

> Americans have no business defending Finland of all places.

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.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/America_First_Committee