I think Americans have answered this question despite the attempt to package it first in patriotism with Bush and later in liberalism with Obama and Biden. The American empire was created despite the wishes of the American people. The fact that Trump was elected is an exhibit that the American elites have also come to this view. The Ukrainian war failure and the technological ascent of China have spooked them and now it is time for retrenchment to the core. The distant provinces will be abandoned. The dream of a unipolar world is over.
Globalization is indeed over. We once protected the seas and free trade, but as we've seen with Europe and Canada's remarks within the past weeks, America is no longer an ally and taken a strong isolationist standpoint while punishing other nations for? Well honestly I don't know. It's a damn shame.
Benjamin, your analysis is sharp, but the framing falls into a false binary: either the U.S. acts as "World Police" or retreats into isolationism. That ignores the real issue, which is that power vacuums don’t stay empty. When the U.S. steps back, it’s not peace that follows, but strategic opportunism from actors far more sophisticated than Russia’s blunt disinformation campaigns.
Look at Erdoğan’s Turkey. It has played both sides in Syria, deployed mercenaries in Libya, and turned NATO into a bargaining chip while cutting deals with Moscow and Washington. Or Qatar, which funds destabilizing movements under the guise of philanthropy while shaping global narratives through Al Jazeera. These states don’t just fill gaps left by U.S. disengagement; they exploit them with a level of finesse that makes Russian maskirovka look like amateur hour.
The real question isn’t whether the U.S. should intervene everywhere or pull back entirely. It’s how to prevent adversaries from filling the space with their own agendas. That requires deterrence, economic pressure, and coalition-building, not just an all-or-nothing approach.
Absolutely correct. However, with any US foreign pressure whether that be controlling the seas and tradeways or even economic sanctions, we will still appear—to many—as meddling or back up to our Team America days (whether true or not). Given that many think in that line of thought, I went with a more binary conclusion I left up to the reader, despite the objective realities. It is likely another analysis on what America SHOULD focus on to prevent power vacuums that are filled by dictators or countries with malicious intent. However, as it stands, I think the current administration is running a million miles an hour toward isolationism, so perhaps the real question is forecasting who plans to step into those power vacuums, right?
I think Americans have answered this question despite the attempt to package it first in patriotism with Bush and later in liberalism with Obama and Biden. The American empire was created despite the wishes of the American people. The fact that Trump was elected is an exhibit that the American elites have also come to this view. The Ukrainian war failure and the technological ascent of China have spooked them and now it is time for retrenchment to the core. The distant provinces will be abandoned. The dream of a unipolar world is over.
Globalization is indeed over. We once protected the seas and free trade, but as we've seen with Europe and Canada's remarks within the past weeks, America is no longer an ally and taken a strong isolationist standpoint while punishing other nations for? Well honestly I don't know. It's a damn shame.
Benjamin, your analysis is sharp, but the framing falls into a false binary: either the U.S. acts as "World Police" or retreats into isolationism. That ignores the real issue, which is that power vacuums don’t stay empty. When the U.S. steps back, it’s not peace that follows, but strategic opportunism from actors far more sophisticated than Russia’s blunt disinformation campaigns.
Look at Erdoğan’s Turkey. It has played both sides in Syria, deployed mercenaries in Libya, and turned NATO into a bargaining chip while cutting deals with Moscow and Washington. Or Qatar, which funds destabilizing movements under the guise of philanthropy while shaping global narratives through Al Jazeera. These states don’t just fill gaps left by U.S. disengagement; they exploit them with a level of finesse that makes Russian maskirovka look like amateur hour.
The real question isn’t whether the U.S. should intervene everywhere or pull back entirely. It’s how to prevent adversaries from filling the space with their own agendas. That requires deterrence, economic pressure, and coalition-building, not just an all-or-nothing approach.
Anyway, I need my morning coffee ☕
Absolutely correct. However, with any US foreign pressure whether that be controlling the seas and tradeways or even economic sanctions, we will still appear—to many—as meddling or back up to our Team America days (whether true or not). Given that many think in that line of thought, I went with a more binary conclusion I left up to the reader, despite the objective realities. It is likely another analysis on what America SHOULD focus on to prevent power vacuums that are filled by dictators or countries with malicious intent. However, as it stands, I think the current administration is running a million miles an hour toward isolationism, so perhaps the real question is forecasting who plans to step into those power vacuums, right?
What a pile of American exceptionalist crap.
This exemplifies why America has become the least trusted and most hated nation on earth.