[ajross]

> Do I want an attack against Finland to be considered an attack against the US?

NATO is about deterrence, not really defense per se. NATO membership makes wars with Russia less likely, and provably so. So your answer is yes: the only way the modern global economy works is if all the players are guaranteed they won't get crushed and pillaged by rogue neighbors. A continuous land war in Europe is absolutely not safer for the USA than a decades-long cold war.

The "whims of some out of touch Russian dictator" are going to be dangerous no matter what we do. We can't control Putin and we aren't able to effect regime change in a nuclear state. The only decision left to us is how best to control it.

[freehorse]

When NATO was bombing Afganistan, was it also deterrence?

NATO is neither defense nor deterrence, it is about asserting US dominance over the rest of the world.

[ajross]

NATO's action vis a vis Russia is clearly deterrent, and the core purpose of the alliance is quite clearly deterrance. That the same command structures have been used to coordinate non-Russia-related actions (Yugoslavia too) isn't relevant to the point you're responding to.

You can deploy all the anti-imperialist hyperbole you want, but the "reason" for having a mutual defense treaty among quite-clearly-non-dominated nations like Germany or the UK is pretty obviously defense.