On aberrations – Stephen Wertheim being interviewed by Bernhard Zand in Der Spiegel:

‘Wertheim: In the 1970s – after the United States had suffered a certain national humiliation as a result of the war in Vietnam – Americans wanted to come to terms with themselves and feel good about their country's role in the world again. Both parties were looking for an answer to the question of how this could be achieved. Jimmy Carter's response was his quest for a foreign policy based on human rights – an idealistic approach, animated by idealistic appeals to the values of liberal democracy. However, this approach then largely collapsed.
DER SPIEGEL: Because, among other developments, the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan at the end of 1979.
Wertheim: Yes, there was a resurgence of Cold War tensions. Carter's successor Ronald Reagan gave a different response, centered on the idea of "peace through strength" – a formula that President-elect Donald Trump is now also using. But both Carter and Reagan made heavy use of moralistic language in response to the perceived failure of realpolitik. Trump, by contrast, is now saying: We have tried idealistic crusades that amounted to nothing. Let's be harder nosed and pursue a foreign policy that benefits America. So Trump rejects the sanctimonious moralism that came from Democrats and from neo-conservative Republicans.’

(…)

‘DER SPIEGEL: Trump, in other words, used this bleak global situation to reinforce his domestic message. Do you consider Trump – as many in Europe do – to be an isolationist? Wertheim: Trump has never been an isolationist. That view has been wrong from the beginning. I would even go so far as to say that there are really no isolationists at all in the U.S. I can’t think of anyone in Congress who wants the United States to play no role in world affairs. Trump is not going to retreat from competition with China and is more likely to intensify it. Nor do I expect him to pull many U.S. forces out of the Middle East, either; he talks about this much less now than he did during his first term. But with respect to Europe, it is true that he has made noise about the United States potentially not coming to the defense of NATO allies if they are attacked. Trump wants to end the war in Ukraine, and it is more important to him that this happens quickly than ending the war on specific terms which would be desirable for Ukraine.’

(…)

‘DER SPIEGEL: Would you advise Europeans to boost defense spending as quickly as possible? Wertheim: They should face up to a reality that has nothing to do with the election results: The United States is ill-equipped today to be the leading military provider for Europe. Should there be an attack on NATO territory, the U.S. may well be unable or unwilling to come to the defense of that territory. It is long overdue for Europe to take the lead in defending itself. That would also be true if Kamala Harris had won the election. Of course, Trump's election now increases the time pressure. But I don't think Trump is going to willy nilly withdraw from NATO or pull all – or even most – troops out of Europe.’

(…)

‘DER SPIEGEL: And the other option? Wertheim: The other option would be to find some clever way to compensate for our opponents' advances in conventional military power. That leads to the idea of escalating to the use of nuclear weapons as a means of deterrence. I think that gambit would be misguided and would not be a terribly credible threat. Even if Trump could convince America's adversaries to think that he would be crazy enough to use a nuclear weapon first, deterrence has to work in the long term, and I doubt his successors would have the same view. So this approach should not be adopted. But it shows that the dilemma in which we find ourselves is so serious that it even leads to considering whether we should threaten to use nuclear weapons first in certain scenarios.’

(…)

‘I can't tell you what historians will one day write about Trump's second term. But I think I can tell you what they won’t say — that Trump's ascent to the presidency was an aberration from what America truly is.’

Read the interview here.

Trump is not an aberration from what America truly is.

Let’s start with that. Then we can get rid of a whole bunch of nonsense, often self-defeating nonsense.

Also, there are no true isolationists in the US. Meaning, nobody in the empire is wlling to end the empire.

I restate my position, given the alternatives I prefer the American empire.

Also, regardless of Trump Europe should organize its own defense.

Russia is bogged down in Ukraine and not a serious threat.

The remaining question: who or what is the threat?

As my former literary agent used to say: to be continued.