That wasn't due to lack of US force projection though - it was due to the Cold War realities of whether or not to escalate a conflict with another nuclear-armed country.
(Plus the influence of Russian money in US politics; it's much cheaper to bribe the US not to fight back!)
Not that I particularly disagree with your statement, but my point was more that if Ukraine itself had a more effective military force, this wouldn't have been something Russia could have done in the first place. Military strength matters. For us, and for everyone else.
I don't understand. That happened when US military might was at an all time high. We are talking about fears about future weakness here. Why do you think an even larger lead (compared to the next few countries taken together) than the US already had (and still has at this point) would have made a difference? Additional question, do you think the US would have/should have sent troops to Ukraine?
I think Ukraine has found out just how effective relying on good faith alone gets you with regards to the Budapest Memorandum, and I think that is an important lesson for anyone interested in the political structure of world power.
(Plus the influence of Russian money in US politics; it's much cheaper to bribe the US not to fight back!)