On NATO...

I got a text from F Ryan saying he was not happy with the direction Mr. Carlin was going in a discussion on NATO.  I'd like to hear more on this.

If I'm not mistaken (and I may very well be), there was a Common Sense episode where he discussed the crisis in the Ukraine earlier this year.  Russia "invades" the Crimea, Kiev is in meltdown mode, protesters are being shot in the streets... it was very dramatic and painful to watch.  Carlin's comments were that Ukraine was... literally... about six months from joining NATO.  It wasn't until an election scandal derailed the process that the membership in NATO fell through.  He was asking:  What if Ukraine was a NATO member?

Would the US have committed troops and arms to the effort as its NATO membership required?  To treat the attack on the Crimea as an attack on the US itself?  Would it have been right to do so?  Is there a purpose to expanding NATO now that the Soviet Union is gone?  Russia is not the USSR, but it is still a major global power and still maintains a "sphere of influence" every bit as vital to herself as ours is to us.  Most of the former Warsaw Pact nations are now in NATO (at least the biggest are), as are several of the former Soviet republics... but to what end?  If Russia's next "grab" is for one or more of the Baltic states... will we commit 100% of our military and fiscal power to stop them?  Will any other NATO member?  If the answer is "No" then what is the purpose of the alliance?  What is the reason to expand if adherence to the treaty isn't a priority?

More importantly, would the American people support such measures?  Would they willingly support troops in places like Poland, Ukraine, Latvia or Slovakia?  If the answer, again, is "No" then what good is NATO?