No, it has already increased, but not due to Sweden and Finland joining. the increase was a direct response to Russia invading Ukraine.

https://www.uso.org/stories/3518-one-year-later-how-the-uso-...

https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_136388.htm

https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-...

But in same time European allies has also increased their NATO soldiers.

Yes, I am asking: all else equal, would more NATO members reduce the number of US soldiers deployed.

There is no all else equal here. If your new member is the Democratic Republic of Congo the number would go up considerably. With Sweden/Finland it might very well go down since the border is far more defensible. But the US has a global footprint and those troops in Europe are nearer to potential conflicts in the middle east and northern Afrika, so it might make logistical sense to park them there anyway.

IMO it's still not certain NATO will hold together if Putin decides to attack the Baltic states or Poland. Many NATO countries will have sizeable factions of their electorate saying to not get involved.

The fact that Ukraine hasn't been easy for him makes it less likely that Putin will attempt that, but it's clearly been on his mind.

Yep, Putin will absolutely try to grab new land whenever he thinks he can get away with it, no matter how many young Russian men die in the process. To him it's just a game to fulfill his fantasies of being a great conquering czar, and for that reason credibility of NATO's article 5 is vital.

Even the good relations between EU and Russia pre-2014 were just theater on Russia's part. Here in Finland during those years shady Russian businessmen kept buying properties that made no financial sense, but were located close to critical infrastructure or military locations. They have never acted in good faith.

> shady Russian businessmen kept buying properties that made no financial sense, but were located close to critical infrastructure or military locations.

AFAICT this topic has been mostly avoided by the Finnish media. I guess everyone just kinda trusts that the government is on top of the situation.

> IMO it's still not certain NATO will hold together if Putin decides to attack the Baltic states or Poland.

There is a reason forces of core NATO states farther from the Eastern flank are deployed to Poland and the Baltic states; it is practically impossible for Russia to attack them without attacking the forces of core NATO states, not just in a "legally, under Article 5, we must treat this as an attack" way, but in a "Russian troops are killing troops of those states" way.

I think Putin would not invade Poland, it's just as strong or even stronger than Ukraine, with less corruption, better economy and defense treaties.

Baltics have always been the biggest risk. They are very small population-wise and can be "easily" cut off (Suwalki gap). But the addition of Sweden and Finland to the alliance will significantly improve the defense posture (airfields, maritime logistics).

I think if he is successful in Ukraine, Transnistra/Moldowa are the logical next step. Then he most likely would use his stooges like Orban and radicalized Russian minorities to create problems and wait for an opportunity.