The strategic interests of the US stay the same. All of this is posturing which will only improve the alliance which the US leads. Carrot or stick, this president or that president, certain things don’t change. All that changes is the implementation.
John Bolton, Vladimir Putin, Emmanuel Macron, Friedrich Merz, Wesley Clark, and Justin Trudeau seem to be unanimous in their assessment that the things you are saying "don't change" just changed. Of course they could be wrong, or lying, but they certainly aren't acting in concert.
Look what’s happened: the Europeans are now unanimous on the idea that European rearmament is necessary for survival, and have a political environment that allows them to sell that idea to their electorates. Electorates that historically have been opposed to spending on military over healthcare and social programs.
And once that rearmament happens, or is underway to an extent that it’s irreversible, what is the US going to do?
They’ll simply resume the same leadership position they always held, but now over a greatly reinforced alliance. And the Europeans will say, thank goodness the US is back. Aren’t we all safer now.
> They’ll simply resume the same leadership position they always held, but now over a greatly reinforced alliance.
As a practical matter, if things deteriorate to the point that the office of NATO Supreme Allied Commander Europe stops being held by the commander of US European Command - it looks like things might be trending in that direction now that NATO countries are holding meetings without the US and intelligence sharing is starting to break down, never mind whatever the US means when it talks about "withdrawing" from Europe - Humpy Dumpty is broken. Whatever organization the US might join again in the future, or even somehow attempt to "lead," will be fundamentally different than what has gone before.
You seem to be assuming that the US will automatically do the things that are in its strategic interest, as if it were not only a conscious being but a skilled strategist, even as you point out how the internal political dynamics of European countries do not result in such an outcome. I don't think the future is so predictable, and particularly not with that model.
I agree that what I predict is speculative, as predictions usually are, but I think this is the most likely outcome.
It’s interesting the point you make about political dynamics - elections mainly, and indeed that is a core part of my thesis: American democracy does not cause meaningful changes to the long term strategic direction of the country. Some things are decided by elections, but these things are not.
All highly speculative, yet we will see how it plays out in time.
They weren't; that's Lofgren’s thesis in a
https://billmoyers.com/2014/02/21/anatomy-of-the-deep-state/. But you may be aware that upending that order was a major part of the bullshitter's electoral platform, because the same institutions that maintained that long-term strategic direction were opposed to his candidacy. We will see if they are able to regain control from him, but the prospects don't look good so far.
